Periodic Review Report

For the Commission on Higher Education

Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges

Presented by:

Howard University

2400 Sixth Street NW

Washington, DC 20059

June 1, 2015

Chief Executive Officer: Wayne A.I. Frederick

Date of Decennial Evaluation Team’s Visit:

November 3-6, 2009

2

Table of Contents

Certification Statement……………………………………………………………….....i

List of Appendices............................................................................................................3

Section I: Executive Summary…………………………………………………………...5

Section II: Response to 2009 Self Study Recommendations…………………………….9 Theme 1- Academic Offerings……………………………………………....9

Theme 2 – Enrollment Management & Student Support Services…………13

Theme 3 – Faculty…………………………………………………………..17

Theme 4 – University Leadership…………………………………………..18

Theme 5 – Research: Special Emphasis……………………………….........22

Section III: Major Challenges and Opportunities………………………………….........25

Section IV: Enrollment Trends and Projections………………………………………...31

Section V: Assessment Processes and Plans…................................................................33

Section VI: Linked Institutional Planning and Budget………………………………….40

3

APPENDICES

Appendix A – HU Faculty/Student Headcount by School/College

Appendix B-HU 2015 Periodic Review Report Committee Roster

Appendix C - HU 2009 Self-Study Report

Appendix D - HU 2009 Self-Study Recommendations

Appendix E - HU Academic Renewal Implementation-PCAR Chart 05.2015

Appendix F - HU HUGE 21 for 21 Report

Appendix G - HU Strategies for Exam Passage Rates

Appendix H - HU Data Enrollment by School/College Fall 2010-Fall 2017

Appendix I - HU Faculty Development Committee Report 06.2014

Appendix J - HU Faculty Workload Policy

Appendix K - HU Indirect Cost Recovery Expenditures

Appendix L - HU Research Facilities Enhancement

Appendix M - HU Enrollment Trends Data Statistics

Appendix N - HU Enrollment Data School-College FTE AY 2014-2015

Appendix O - HU Tuition Rates AY 2015-2016

Appendix P - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2009

Appendix Q - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2010

Appendix R - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2011

Appendix S - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2012

Appendix T - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2013

Appendix U - HU IPEDS Enrollment Data-2014

Appendix V - HU Assessment Activities

4

Appendix W - OIAE General Education Report Quantitative Reasoning Spring 2014

Appendix X - OIAE General Education Report Written Communication Spring 2014

Appendix Y - OIAE Counseling Services Case Study-2011

Appendix Z - HU Presidential State of the University Address 10.2014

5

SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview of Howard University

Founded in 1867, Howard University is a federally chartered, private university offering a

full array of undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs. The Carnegie Foundation

for the Advancement of Teaching classifies Howard University as an RU/H (high research

activity) institution. The University’s main campus is located in Washington, DC, within

five miles of the United States Capitol and consists of more than 57 buildings on more than

89 acres of land. The University also maintains a 22-acre West Campus in upper Northwest

Washington, which houses the Law School; a 22-acre campus in Northeast Washington,

home to the Divinity School; and a 108-acre Beltsville, Maryland research campus, which

houses a major atmospheric science research facility. The 450 licensed-bed university

hospital (Howard University Hospital) provides services for a significant segment of

the Washington, DC metropolitan community, in addition to providing a clinical setting for

training physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers.

Howard University enrolls approximately 10,260 students from 48 states, the District of

Columbia, and 70 countries. The University consists of 13 schools and colleges: College

of Arts and Sciences; College of Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Sciences;

School of Education; School of Social Work; School of Business; School of

Communications; College of Medicine; College of Dentistry; College of Pharmacy;

College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences; the Graduate School; School of Divinity;

and the School of Law. Undergraduates comprise an estimated 67 percent of the total

enrollment. Six schools (Arts and Sciences, Business, Communications, Education,

Engineering, Architecture and Computer Science; and Nursing and Allied Health) house

undergraduate and some graduate programs. Graduate and professional degree programs

are hosted by the Schools of Divinity, Education, Law, Social Work, the Graduate

School, and the Colleges of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. Appendix A shows the

number of students and faculty affiliated with each school.

The governance of Howard University is vested in its Board of Trustees. The Board is

responsible for controlling and directing the affairs, property, and interests of the

University and may exercise all powers and authorities conferred upon the University by

its Act of Incorporation and as otherwise permitted by law. Currently, Howard has 30

trustees, including three alumni trustees, two faculty trustees, and two student trustees.

President Wayne A.I. Frederick leads the institution. Dr. Frederick has held a number of

leadership positions at the University including: associate dean, deputy provost for health

sciences and provost. He was appointed interim president in October 2013 and was named

as the 17th president in July 2014 following a national search. The president emphasized

the following vision priorities in his inauguration address on March 6, 2015:

Building a culture of academic excellence and rigor

Engaging in scholarship and research grounded in solving contemporary problems

Revitalizing the manner in which higher education institutions meet the needs of

both students and the world today

6

Infusing service into the University culture

Increasing the philanthropic efforts of the University community

Preparation of the 2015 Periodic Review Report

A task force was established to assess and respond to all recommendations that were

articulated in the 2009 Self-Study. Comprised of twenty-nine faculty and staff (Appendix B), the task force consisted of nine teams each charged with specific tasks to ensure

completion of the Periodic Review Report (PRR) in conformance with the Middle States

Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) requirements. For more than a year, the teams

met regularly to prepare the PRR. To effectively and accurately respond to all

recommendations and sections of the PRR, data and feedback were requested from key

departments, colleges, schools, and support units. In addition, the Office of Institutional

Assessment and Evaluation, the Center for Academic Excellence, the Office of the Provost

and Chief Academic Officer, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of

the President all provided reports, proposals, and feedback to facilitate completion of the

PRR. The PRR was posted on a secured website (in draft form) for review by the University

community on May 23, 2015 with a comment period through May 29, 2015.

The Periodic Review Report (PRR) consists of six sections which outline the actions of the

University in addressing the outcomes of the University’s Self-Study and the standards put

forth by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Section II reports on the

institutional recommendations that have resulted from the Self-Study and identifies

objectives for planning and instituting changes that support those recommendations.

Section III reviews the most pressing challenges facing the University and outlines where

improvements have been achieved and proposes opportunities for ensuring greater future

success of the University, its students and faculty. Section IV focuses on enrollment trends

and projections, discussing their alignment with goals relating to graduation rates, program

offerings and projected revenue. Section V further examines student learning and

institutional effectiveness. Section VI describes the relationship between the University’s

budgetary process and its planning. It emphasizes efforts to maintain a transparent budget

review process. The section also explains communication efforts and plans to diversify the

University’s business model.

Through the 2015 Periodic Review Report (PRR) Howard University provides information

to the faculty, students and staff of Howard University and the Middle States Commission

on Higher Education (MSCHE) about developments at the University since its

accreditation was affirmed in 2009. This mid-point review report has been constructed to

provide a tool and analytical overview of where the University stands and how it has

progressed in the five years since its last MSCHE visit. The report utilizes data, analyses,

and assessment materials that were collected over the course of the past five years.

7

Summary of Major Institutional Changes and Developments Since 2009

During the last five years, the University made significant progress on the ambitious

renewal initiative launched in 2009 and initiatives have already been implemented. The

construction of new campus housing, an interdisciplinary research center, and a simulation

center in the Health Sciences are examples that provide evidence of the University’s

commitment to its renewal agenda.

The stabilization of senior level leadership and the creation of transparency in decision-

making are major priorities for the University. To date, seasoned administrators have been

appointed to guide the following portfolios: Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel,

Chief Operating Officer, Chief Information Officer, Vice President for Human Resources

and Organizational Effectiveness and Vice President for External Affairs. Since the 2009

Self-Study, new permanent deans have been named for the School of Communications,

School of Law, the Graduate School, the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Social

Work, and the College of Medicine. The search for the Provost and Chief Academic Officer

has been completed and three finalists have been identified for presidential review.

Searches have been completed for the deanships of the College of Dentistry and the College

of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences. The national search is underway for the dean of the

College of Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences. Communications from the

University’s president and executive officers through newsletters and via e-mail, as well

as the establishment of a university policy website ensure that the University community

remains informed about university policies and important financial and human resources

information.

Building undergraduate programs that enable graduates to compete in the twenty-first

century requires cohesiveness between the programs and their outcomes. In Spring 2011,

a University-wide committee focused on improving the general education program and

setting core competencies that all graduates would achieve. These recommendations, found

in a report titled “Howard University General Education (HUGE) 21 for 21”, will help link

learning outcomes to degree requirements for undergraduate students. In an effort to

enhance its academic offerings, the University has added new undergraduate and graduate

program options in international studies to support growing interests in major issues abroad

and broaden the University’s international footprint.

Howard is committed to cultivating a faculty that performs at a level as high as or higher

than its peers and believes that the success of students is grounded in the ranks of the

professoriate. A faculty development has been established in the Office of the Provost to

invest in and improve the quality of faculty life and professional development.

Support for research includes maintaining a more robust internal structure that includes

transparency through a cost recovery program, competitive equipment grants, and an

internal grant program that also provides grants to those areas not typically eligible for

significant grant and research funding. Further improvements have been the reorganization

of the Office of Sponsored Programs and the Grant and Contract Accountability Office into

one office, Research Administrative Services (RAS). Through process improvements,

8

increased accountability, staff training and competency upgrades, the University is more

supportive of faculty members engaged in sponsored research.

As is the case with most higher education institutions, efforts to grow university revenue

have proven to be an area of challenge for Howard University. Although the University

has encountered difficult financial circumstances since the 2009 Self-Study, Howard is

approaching increasing its revenue streams by: optimizing the value of its considerable real

estate holdings; increasing research dollars; and boosting fundraising. The University’s

leadership is confident that with effective planning and strategic campaign initiatives it is

possible realize significant additional funding from these sources.

Although securing its financial stability is a top priority, the University’s continuing efforts

to sustain academic excellence are intended to ensure that the institution remains

competitive among national and international academic institutions. The Office of

Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) promotes a culture of assessment

throughout the campus, which helps to anchor the University’s commitment to sustaining

an optimal academic environment for its students, faculty and staff. Assessment data are

being used to improve overall student experience and institutional effectiveness. The

University has widened the scope of its vision in improving the student experience and

addressing retention and recruitment across all schools and colleges. Development of a

university-wide Center for Academic Excellence promotes a balanced approach through

gathering information about students’ experiences, increasing counseling and advising, and

developing plans to guide performance. Faculty can increase their information skills

through training in library navigation skills. A new website and a grant-based financial aid

program have both been designed to enhance access to a Howard education.

9

SECTION II

RESPONSE TO SELF STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2009 Howard University Self-Study (Appendix C) resulted in 55 institutional

recommendations related to the 14 MSCHE standards as well as a research special

emphasis component of the self-study. A complete list of the recommendations with the

correlated MSCHE standards is included in Appendix D. To orient the report, the

responses to the recommendations are organized by the following themes: 1) Academic

Offerings; 2) Enrollment Management and Student Support Services; 3) Faculty; 4)

University Leadership; and 5) Research: Special Emphasis. The recommendations related

to assessment and student learning are discussed in Section V, and recommendations

related to planning and resource allocation are addressed in Section VI.

Theme 1: Academic Offerings

A total of ten recommendations associated with academic offerings are related to the

mission, academic renewal, general education, and external examination passage rates.

(Recommendations: 1-1, 1-2, 11-1, 11-2, 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 13-1, 13-3)

Mission

Recommendations from the 2009 Self-Study related to Howard University’s mission

focused on the following proposals: institutionalization of a policy to review the mission

on a five–year cycle; continued recruitment and retention of highly qualified students and

faculty; continuation of the commitment to recruit students with high potential; expansion

of the University’s international character; and continuation of the commitment to expand

research and graduate and professional education.

Generally the mission statement is reviewed by a committee of university stakeholders

prior to each decennial accreditation process. To respond to the recommendation

concerning the establishment of a regular time period for reviewing and revising the

University’s mission, a policy and mechanism for revision of the mission is under review

by the president.

As a culturally diverse, comprehensive, research intensive and Historically Black

University (HBCU), Howard University continues to recruit and retain highly qualified

students and faculty to further the institution’s mission. Consistent with the

recommendation to expand its international character and bolster its commitment to

research and graduate education, the University has made considerable progress in

strengthening its research apparatus and enhancement of graduate studies.

The expansion of the University’s international footprint, consistent with mission, is on

track with oversight from an Assistant Provost for International Affairs. The University

has added a new interdisciplinary major in the College of Arts and Sciences that offers an

international studies option at the undergraduate level. In recognition of an increased

10

interest in international studies at Howard University and the broader national and

international communities, and in acknowledgment of Howard University's commitment

to increasing the number of African Americans embarking on careers in the Department of

State or related agencies, the Graduate School has established the Graduate Certificate in

International Studies. The program is centered around a "grand themes" model, in which a

number of major issues in international studies are explored, including global environment,

HIV/AIDS, gender and development, globalization, the war on terrorism, democracy and

human rights at home and abroad, the role of religion in society, humanitarianism, race and

ethnicity, information technology, food and water, health, education, family,

poverty/socioeconomic status, and war and peace. As one of the culminating activities,

students in the program intern at various embassies and receive a graduate certificate at the

end of the program.

Faculty, students and staff have forged a number of new global partnerships and research

initiatives abroad as well as expanded international service learning activities. To support

these initiatives, the University’s Global Business Steering Committee has developed new

policies as well as a business and legal infrastructure to guide its international initiatives.

More details on recruitment and retention efforts are provided in the section entitled,

“Theme 2: Enrollment Management and Student Support Services.”

Academic Renewal

The Presidential Commission on Academic Renewal (PCAR) was appointed by President

Sidney Ribeau in October 2009 to review the University’s undergraduate, graduate, and

professional academic programs and make recommendations for adjustments to support

the University’s academic renewal initiative. The commission completed its work and

submitted its findings and recommendations to the president in the Fall of 2010. President

Ribeau submitted 39 recommendations for program developments and changes for

approval by the Board of Trustees at its January 2011 meeting. The board subsequently

approved those recommendations for implementation. Appendix E provides a dashboard,

which tracks the status of the progress of the implementation of each recommendation.

As part of an ongoing effort to streamline, modify and augment offerings reflective of the

changing higher education environment, the University has made substantive changes to

its offerings. Student admissions were discontinued for 25-degree programs with the goal

reducing the total number of degree programs offered. Undergraduates who were enrolled

in discontinued programs must complete their studies by August of 2015. Master’s students

were required to complete their degrees by August of 2014. Doctoral students must finish

their degree requirements by August of 2018. As of the Fall 2014 semester, approximately

90 students were still enrolled in discontinued majors, and they are tracking toward

completing their programs by the dates noted above. When those dates arrive, the

discontinued programs will be formally closed.

During the past two academic years, schools and colleges, working with faculty and

university committees, have developed proposals to implement the programmatic changes

to establish and/or transform twenty-one degree programs.

11

Consistent with the recommendation offered during the self-study, the academic renewal

initiative also encouraged new knowledge development through interdisciplinary

collaborations. The new interdisciplinary research building, completed in Spring 2015, is

designed to be the cornerstone of the University’s robust research agenda and to enhance

research collaborations among the engineering, science, mathematics, health sciences as

well as social science faculties.

General Education

In response to the recommendations outlined in the 2009 Self-Study and affirmed by the

Presidential Commission on Academic Renewal, the University conducted an extensive

programmatic review of the general education curriculum required in its six undergraduate

schools and colleges with a goal of developing a set of core competencies that all

undergraduates are expected to achieve. The need for reform has been underscored by the

Board of Trustees’ June 2012 decision to mandate that all undergraduate degree-granting

programs require no more than 120 credit hours.

In Spring 2011 a University-wide committee under the direction of the Associate Provost

began working on improvements to general education. The committee, which included

faculty, students and assessment staff, focused on identifying desired learning outcomes

for all Howard University graduates. The general education program will be flexible

enough to implement across schools and colleges, with a University-wide focus, and have

ownership at the program level.

Twenty-one core competencies were proposed within a specific framework for reforming

general education at Howard. The framework includes: (1) the adoption of specific learning

outcomes associated with core competencies by all undergraduate schools and colleges;

(2) systematic, ongoing, and annual assessment of the general education program and of

the assessment process itself; (3) adoption of a University-wide model for general

education that would include a common first-year experience and a capstone learning

experience; (4) incorporation of co-curricular and/or extra-curricular learning experiences

in achieving general education learning outcomes; (5) establishment of a Center for

Academic Excellence to coordinate academic support programs and services; (6)

establishment of a formal administrative infrastructure to coordinate and support general

education; and (7) provision of adequate fiscal, technological, and human resources to plan

implement, assess, and sustain the new general education experience.

These recommendations for Howard University General Education (HUGE) are part of a

draft report by the committee titled “HUGE 21 for 21,” (Appendix F) which was

completed in January 2013. The report focused considerable attention on the relationship

of student learning outcomes to the mainstay of academic programs, the three credit-hour

course. By providing an overarching framework and a roadmap to common goals, the

report helps individual programs to link learning outcomes to degree requirements.

The implementation of the HUGE recommendations is underway. The faculty of each

12

undergraduate school and college is meeting separately to discuss, assess, and approve the

recommendations. Once the general framework has been approved, the faculties in the

respective schools and colleges will map the competencies and learning outcomes to

courses and co-curricular and extra-curricular activities that will fulfill the graduation

requirements of each program. The Office of the Provost has required schools and colleges

to develop assessment instruments and practices at the program and departmental levels

for assessing and evaluating their updated general education program.

External Examinations Passage Rates

At the school and college levels, the University has taken a number of steps to improve

professional licensure examination passage rates of graduates. Appendix G provides

examples of strategies have been initiated to achieve this goal. To address curricular

reform, student support and faculty development and entrance requirements schools and

colleges are using additional interventions.

Curriculum Reform and Faculty Development. Faculty in the School of Education have

aligned or embedded testing area competencies into course content and are providing

students with access to test preparation materials and tutorials for writing and math under

the Center for Academic Excellence. Additionally, the Teacher Education Advisory

Council (TEAC) meets monthly to provide recommendations in content areas needed.

While in Dentistry, an advanced Prosthodontics course was developed (Fall 2014) to ensure

that curriculum was sufficient, cohesive, aligned, and integrated according to accreditation

expectations and external examination requirements.

Entrance Requirements. The College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences has developed

several initiatives to enhance passage rates among students. The revision of admissions

standards and academic requirements and the offering of practice/pre-examinations for

students before graduation will help to achieve that institutional goal. Similarly, the

College of Pharmacy has implemented more rigorous admissions requirement by

requesting higher incoming GPA and PCAT Scores.

Technology. Schools have introduced new technology to support these efforts as well. The

ExamSoft® software provides pharmacy students with faster feedback on exam

performance so that they can seek additional academic support as well as testing

preparation. The College of Dentistry’s adoption of One45, a sophisticated software

platform, has improved student performance tracking and faculty are actively involved in

forums with students. Similarly, the School of Communications offers a mandatory Praxis

Preparation Course to students in their final year of study to ensure that all graduates pass

the Praxis and also offers testing of exam preparation skills.

Infrastructure Enhancement. The College of Medicine has implemented effective new

strategies that will continue to enhance student learning and USMLE passage rates. The

recent opening of The Simulation Center, a $5 million virtual medical training center,

available to all disciplines in the Health Sciences, provides students with risk-free, hands-

on hospital experience using cutting-edge technology.

13

Theme 2: Enrollment Management and Student Support Services

This section provides responses to recommendations related to student admissions and

retention, student support services, library resources, and distance learning.

(Recommendations: 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 13-2, 13-4)

Student Admissions and Retention

At the time of the self-study the University committee identified the need to: 1) further

develop and implement a structured approach to student retention and recruitment through

enhanced monitoring of the student experience across all schools and colleges; 2) develop

a university-wide strategy with supporting budgetary and infrastructure priorities to

support the mix of undergraduate to graduate/professional students; 3) enhance access by

increasing need-based aid; 4) website enhancement tailored for prospective students.

The University established the Office of Undergraduate Studies, which includes the Center

for Academic Excellence (CAE) in fall 2014. The university-wide CAE is designed to

provide comprehensive and specialized academic advising and academic support services

that promote undergraduate retention, academic excellence as well as enhanced monitoring

of the student experience across all schools and colleges. CAE programs include retention

counseling for undergraduates tailored for select groups including conditionally admitted

students as well as Academic Support Services, which target Mathematics, English, and

Writing Support.

In the Center for Academic Excellence, Success Counselors assist students in assessing

their academic progress and developing plans to guide performance. Student Success

Counselors are trained and work collaboratively with assigned schools/colleges’

professional advisers and faculty. They utilize an integrated Student Retention System to

monitor and track student academic performance. These student counselors employ

targeted, high impact approaches for improving retention such as: ongoing communication;

systemized review of academic performance; intrusive counseling techniques; and

development of individual academic success plans. As part of the Office of Undergraduate

Studies (OUS), the Center coordinates with Student Affairs, and schools/colleges “wrap-

around” services that support consistent academic progress. The student counselors

employ an “Early Alert” system that facilitates strategic intervention by faculty, academic

support and student services to ensure that comprehensive retention support is being

provided. The CAE is positioned as focal point of student success at Howard University in

support of its mission. At the school and college level, the University has also bolstered its

emphasis on academic advising.

There was discussion at the time of the Self-Study regarding modifications to the

enrollment targets including the ratio of undergraduate to graduate/professional students.

Following the review of a presidentially appointed team to review the composition of the

University’s enrollment, it was determined that undergraduate and graduate/professional

14

composition would remain unchanged. The Office of Enrollment Management projects

that the enrollment ratio for undergraduate/graduate enrollment will remain at a 70 percent

/ 30 percent ratio for the foreseeable future based on historical and current enrollment data

which suggest that the demand for the University’s undergraduate programs remains very

high. Data on the enrollment in each school and college are illustrated in Appendix H.

Consistent with the University’s mission to provide a Howard education to students of high

potential and promise regardless of their ability to pay, the University remains committed

to ensuring that it remains accessible and affordable. To that end, the Howard University

Need-Based Grant program was established in fall 2009, and the Graduation and Retention

Access to Continued Excellence (GRACE) Grant was inaugurated in fall 2014. In response

to the residual impact from the recession, the continued economic pressures to access

credit, and higher unemployment levels, these two programs serve as both recruitment and

retention tools for high-need undergraduate students. The GRACE grant program provides

an incentive for students to continue their successful progress and leverages institutional

resources to align with our retention and on-time graduation goals. Effective Fall 2014, the

University began paying 100% of the remaining tuition and mandatory fee charges for full-

time sophomore through senior students who receive the maximum Federal Pell Grant,

have a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher, and are on-track for graduation as determined by

their school/college. The University is developing metrics to monitor and evaluate the

success of this program. More than 210 students were awarded over $2 million in fall 2014

from the GRACE Grant program. Institutional policies and funding for graduate remission

and associated stipends have been updated to reflect a more flexible remission awarding

policy and higher graduate assistantship stipends.

Phase one of the new website1 was launched on January 22, 2015 to better provide current

and easily accessible information for prospective and continuing students. The

development of the new Website, particularly focused on the end-users, includes extensive

testing and evaluation with various stakeholder groups to ensure its efficiency upon

completion. The new site also serves as a marketing and branding portal for the University

informed, by stakeholder research as well as aligned with strategic planning and

institutional direction. Coupled with the virtual visit to campus, the Office of Admission

has opened a Welcome Center in the Administration Building to facilitate tours and visitor

experience.

1 Howard University Website: http://www2.howard.edu

15

Student Support Services

There is a firm institutional commitment and ongoing effort to enhance the quality of

student services. Over the last five years, Howard has made notable strides beginning with

the Students First Campaign (SFC) launched in January 2009. The program was designed

to enrich the University’s student-centered learning environment, to improve the quality of

services delivered to students, to enhance the University Counseling Service and to

cultivate a culture where the student is valued as one of the University’s greatest resources.

The SFC was an important component of the university-wide renewal initiative and

contributed to the improvement of student communications with the creation of a Facebook

group that sends messages alerting and updating students to increase the speed of student

access to needed information, establish accountability for providing information correctly

the first time, and improving customer-friendliness. As of fall 2012 the University launched

a social media campaign using Facebook and Twitter, which continues to serve as an

effective communication tool with students. The Students First Campaign also resulted in

the establishment of an off-campus housing website that provides external links for

students seeking housing. The site features specific “how to” information along with

cautions and resources for effective housing selection. While the formal campaign has

concluded, the earnest effort to expand its impact has continued under the leadership of the

Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, adopting the tagline — Student Affairs,

Where Students Come First. This has been widely adopted by auxiliary areas within

Student Affairs including residence life, counseling and other campus services including

dining, parking, shuttle services and financial aid.

The University has improved its career counseling capability through its Center for Career

Education, Development and Research (CEDAR) which is now a part of the Office of

Undergraduate Studies. Career knowledge, preparation, and opportunity is a critical

component of the retention and student success formula. By integrating academic support

with preparation for career success, students are more aware of the connection between

their academic success and their career choices. While CEDAR offers a range of services

(career counseling, career fairs, interviewing seminars, etc.), Bison CareerLink is a

comprehensive online tool that that helps students to simultaneously build a career

transcript that complements their academic transcript. All students are registered for their

free Bison CareerLink during new student orientation. Once registered, staff can monitor

their utilization of CEDAR services.

Library Resources

In 2011, the University commissioned an extensive assessment of library services and

appointed a new director to lead a wide-reaching renewal initiative. As discussed briefly

in Theme 1, the Howard University Library (HUL) and the Center for Excellence in

Teaching and Assessment (CETLA) have developed and implemented appropriate and

effective integration of training in information skills through collaborative library-faculty

programs. In conjunction with CETLA, the HUL conducts several on-going workshops

geared towards enhancing the faculty’s information skills. The workshops include an

extensive summer program as well as follow-up tutorial programs that are available in the

16

fall and spring semesters by request. To augment HUL’s resources Howard University

joined the Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) in 2012. The affiliation with

WRLC has increased the number of books available to Howard University community

from the 2.5 million volumes held by HUL to more than 11 million titles held currently by

consortium members. The HUL also added key personnel. In Spring 2013, a “First Year

Experience” Librarian was hired to target freshmen specifically addressing increasing

retention rates. Additionally, a communications specialist was hired to position and

promote library services.

Distance Learning

Currently, the University offers six online certificate and degree programs including: a

post-baccalaureate degree from the College of Pharmacy; Bachelor of Science degree in

Clinical Laboratory Science; a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree; an executive Master

of Business Administration degree; a paralegal studies certificate; and, an online course to

support the Ready-to-Teach program in the School of Education.

Howard will continue its commitment and mobilization of resources to develop

asynchronous program offerings through three initiatives under the direction of the

Provost: HU-LEARN, HU-TEACH and HU-ONLINE, to invest in course development,

faculty training, and administrative capacity to scale up online course offerings. Consistent

with the Self-Study committee’s recommendation to bolster administrative support for

distance education, HU-LEARN was established in July 2013 as an administrative unit

under the Office of the Provost with a faculty director. The creation of this unit directly

addresses the need to centralize and provide a single point of contact for student services

including registration, financial aid and graduation. Howard Online manages online degree

and certificate programs for off-campus students with support from a strategic partner. The

HU-LEARN advisory board is comprised of eighteen faculty members. HU-LEARN is

comprised of HU-Teach and Howard-Online (HU-OL). HU-Teach fosters the development

of the online courses that can be included in future online programs offered by HU-

ONLINE. It incentivizes faculty to accelerate their conversion of on-campus courses from

face-to-face to a blended and 100% online formats. Blended courses deliver at least 30%

of their content via the Internet. Online courses for on-campus students will be converted

to formats more suitable for off-campus students.

Although comparatively few Howard students are participating in distance learning, the

investment in faculty development for online course delivery is yielding some encouraging

returns. In August 2014, the first cohort of faculty (23) completed the conversion of their

on-campus courses to blended courses for a Spring 2015 delivery. In summer of 2014,

Howard continued the 50-state licensing/registration requirements for its fully online

degree programs (Executive MBA, PharmD, BSN, BSCLS, Paralegal Studies).

17

Theme 3: Faculty

This section provides responses to the five recommendations related to faculty, faculty

development, the Faculty Handbook, and the Faculty Workload Policy.

(Recommendations: 4-2, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4)

Faculty

In an effort to retain talented faculty and to be competitive with peer research universities

and upon the recommendation of the President, the Howard University Board of Trustees

approved a six percent (6%) increase to the budget for faculty salaries. Each dean was

allocated a 6% pool and was responsible for the allotment to eligible full time faculty with

oversight from the Provost. Recognizing existing gaps in compensation among peer

institutions, the University’s leadership has framed the most recent increase as a down

payment on a progressive but sustained effort to bring salaries to in line with peers as well

as boost faculty morale.

Faculty Development

A University-wide Faculty Development Committee (FDC) was established in August

2013 by then Provost Wayne A. I. Frederick to refine and enhance the structure of the

University’s faculty development program. The committee’s charge was to “create new

mechanisms and share successful models for faculty development including: expanding

the new faculty orientation; strengthening writing for publication and external grants;

creating development opportunities for academic administrators including chairs; and

augmenting mentorship for junior faculty.

Membership in the FDC includes a diverse group of faculty from various departments

across the University. The Committee agreed on a two-fold vision of faculty development

including: (a) maximizing the coherence of the faculty members’ individual career goals

with the vision of the university in the 21st century and (b) maximizing the potential and

capacity of the faculty both individually and collectively.

To gather data to guide its work, the FDC conducted two studies. The Environmental Scan

documented the occurrence and perceived value of faculty development activities across

the campus from the perspective of the schools/colleges’ administrators. Data gathered

from the Environmental Scan survey represented a 100% response rate from the Deans or

their designee. The Needs Assessment Study surveyed the faculty to ascertain their

perceptions regarding faculty development at the University, including gaps, needs, and

strengths. Data from this study included responses from 362 faculty members, representing

a 35% response rate, which was above the average generally found in surveys of Howard

University faculty. The Faculty Development Committee used the results of these studies

to propose recommendations to the administration.

Grounded in the belief that the academic success of our students links directly to excellence

within the ranks of the professoriate, Howard has made a multi-year commitment to invest

in and improve the quality of faculty life. The University is establishing a faculty

18

developing program in the Office of the Provost, which responds to recommendations

from the June 2014 Faculty Development Committee (FDC) report (Appendix I). Implementation of a comprehensive faculty development program is in progress. The

faculty program will serve as the administrative hub with a focus on activities and programs

designed to foster mentorship, career development and professional satisfaction. The initial

plans also include formation of a Faculty Writing Academy and a Department Chair

Leadership Program. To continue the advancing faculty development initiatives, in

September 2014, the University President announced the creation of Faculty Development

Initiative. The development of the program is underway in conjunction with the Center for

Teaching Learning and Assessment (CETLA).

Faculty Handbook

A representative faculty committee has drafted a revised version of the 1993 Faculty

Handbook. The Board of Trustees was scheduled to consider the revised handbook in

September 2014; however, the action was tabled by the President upon the

recommendation of the Faculty Senate Council because of a critical development related

to the unionization of adjunct faculty. In 2014, the National Labor Relations Board

approved the unionization of adjunct faculty by the Service Employees International Union

(SEIU). After the Faculty Senate Council reviewed the implications related to the

unionization of adjunct faculty, particularly the impact on tenured and tenure-track faculty,

the Council voted to request that the President delay presenting the current version of the

proposed revised Faculty Handbook to the Board of Trustees. The University is reviewing

and clarifying the role of adjunct faculty in the revised handbook prior to entering into

negotiations with SEIU. The faculty and administration’s concerns will be shared with the

Handbook Committee for incorporation in the subsequent iteration of the Handbook.

Faculty Workload Policy

In the HU 2009 Self-Study, faculty expressed the need for the Faculty Workload Policy

(FWP) in Appendix J to be reviewed to address the perception of the majority of faculty

who believe the implementation of the FWP is not fair. To diligently address all areas of

concern regarding our institution’s faculty, President Frederick has agreed to revisit the

FWP to ensure that the policy continues to support University-wide fairness.

Theme 4: University Leadership, Policies and Integrity

This section provides responses to nine recommendations related to senior level

stabilization, transparency in decision-making, the board of trustees, and policies and

integrity. (Recommendations: 4-1, 4-3, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 6-1, 6-3)

Senior Level Stabilization

On July 21, 2014, the Board of Trustees named Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., MBA, as the

17th President of Howard University. Dr. Frederick served as Provost and Chief Academic

Officer from June 2012 until he was appointed Interim President upon the retirement of

President Sidney A. Ribeau in October 2013. Dr. Ribeau served from 2008-2013.

19

The University has had two models of academic leadership structure. The bifurcated model

included a Provost and Chief Academic Officer as well as a Senior Vice President for

Health Sciences. These two senior administrators reported directly to the President with

responsibility for schools and colleges in the natural and social sciences as well as the

humanities and the health sciences, respectively. The most recent engagement of the

campus community around this structure was during the implementation of renewal

initiatives (2009-2012). As part of administrative renewal, the University returned to a

single academic leader model in 2012 following input and communication with the key

campus stakeholders. As part of a national search, the most recent posting for the Provost

and Chief Academic Officer position underscored the dual responsibilities for academic

and clinical affairs under the single leader model.

The University established an Executive Search Office to facilitate efficient and effective

recruitment for senior administrative positions. The following key searches are underway:

Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Vice President for Development, and deanships of

Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and Allied Health, and Engineering, Architecture and

Computer Sciences. At the time of the 2009 Self-Study, several deans were approaching

retirement after significant years of service. An intentional effort is underway to attract and

promote new leaders at the administrative and decanal levels.

Leadership for Howard University Hospital has been stabilized. In October 2014, the

University entered a management service agreement with Paladin Healthcare, a private

equity healthcare turnaround firm to jointly manage Howard University Hospital to

effectively and efficiently deliver health services. Howard University remains the operator

of the Hospital. This is a step toward management and financial stabilization of Howard

University Hospital, which has a substantial impact on University resources.

Transparency in Decision-Making

At the time of the 2009 site visit, there were discussions about meaningful engagement and

shared governance with the faculty. The observations noted the need for the administration

to enhance the transparency of the University’s decision-making processes. The evaluation

team also suggested that the Faculty Senate expand “shared governance with the aim of

increasing the degree to which the Senate’s voice more broadly represents the sentiments

of the faculty.”

The senior administration has built on early successes including the formation of the

Budget Advisory Committee where representative campus stakeholders actively

participate in planning, budgeting and resource allocation. There has been frequent

communication with the campus community as well as representative groups for students,

faculty, staff and alumni regarding institutional changes and decision-making. The

administration has augmented the internal communication structure including additional

staff in University Communications, enhancement to What’s New @ Howard, a weekly

newsletter to the community, a monthly newsletter from the President, BisonBeat as well

as routine memorandums regarding policy changes and other changes.

20

Regarding the Faculty Senate’s inclusiveness, its leadership reports greater intentionality

to obtain the views of the faculty more broadly. Evidence to support this effort was obtained

from the current Faculty Senate Chair along with a past Chair, former Vice-Chairs, a

former Secretary of the Senate and the Editors of the Faculty Senate Communicator, and

other faculty members. The Council is the governing body of the Faculty Senate. There are

a number of mechanisms for the leaders to obtain the faculty’s views both directly and

indirectly. Faculty can communicate indirectly through the elected Faculty

Representatives and the 12 at-large members of the Council. The Faculty Senate conducts

three core annual events, which includes two meetings of the full Faculty Senate and the

Annual Faculty Retreat. All full-time faculty members are given notice and encouraged to

actively participate in these governance activities via email and University-wide email

apparatus. In addition, Faculty may contribute articles to The Senate Communicator, which

is the official publication of the Faculty Senate.

A common governance concern expressed by Senate leaders, past and present, is the overall

lack of faculty participation in the Faculty Senate either directly or indirectly through the

college representative. Most notable is the lack of participation by faculty in Senate

meetings and the Annual Faculty Retreat. The leaders repeatedly emphasized that inactive

Faculty involvement severely limits the Faculty Senate’s ability to know or understand the

sentiments of the faculty.

Board of Trustees

Since June 2009, several trustees who were serving either extended terms, or terms that

had reached their maximum number, retired from the Board. Over the same period, several

trustees were recruited and are currently serving on the Board. Of the 23 members currently

serving as General Trustees in FY 2014-2015, 14 have been elected to the Board since the

2009 Self-Study. The Board of Trustees Bylaws are posted on the University’s website2.

Amendments made since 2009 are designed to increase opportunities for shared

governance by ensuring greater transparency, efficiency and effectiveness regarding how

the Board operates and creating more mechanisms for measuring accountability. For

example, under the new bylaws, the president has been charged with developing, initiating,

participating in and approving fundraising efforts for the benefit of the University; the

Academic Excellence Committee has been tasked with the responsibility of establishing

standards, reviewing and recommending policies and procedures designed to enhance all

stages of the academic experience from recruitment to graduation; and the Finance

Committee is now required to monitor and recommend the University’s operating and

capital budgets, oversee and monitor the acquisition, use and disposition of non-real

property assets of the University and establish and periodically review the University’s

investment policies, guidelines, performance and effectiveness. Each one of these

amendments is designed to improve accountability and ensure that all facets of the

University are continually working together.

Policies and Integrity

2Board of Trustees Bylaws: http://www.howard.edu/secretary/documents/AmendedBylawsJanuary242015_FINAL.pdf

21

To respond to the recommendation to emphasize integrity as a core component for all

orientations of new faculty, staff and students, the University has established a more

consistent, effective and accurate means of communicating its standards of integrity.

Institutional policies and procedures have been made fully available to all members of the

community. All official policies have been placed and maintained in a central location on

the University’s website at http://www.howard.edu/secretary/policy/3. The University

Policy Office (UPO) was established under the Office of the Secretary in October 2010.

The University Policy Office (UPO) is responsible for managing a coordinated, enterprise-

wide policy management process. The UPO facilitates effective decision-making,

promotes effective control over business process and flow, and prevents institutional

exposure through a transparent, uniform and inclusive policy management process.

The Office of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer ensures compliance with a New

Faculty Orientation Program held annually on or about August 15th. The daylong

onboarding program (8:30am-5: 30pm) begins with an introduction to Howard University

by way of overview of the Mission, Vision, and Values. The Faculty Handbook (1993) and

the Faculty Workload Policy (2000) are reviewed and distributed along with the annual

Student Handbook and Special Student Services material. Information about employee

benefits is presented, as is the University’s legal and ethical commitment to diversity and

inclusion as detailed in the paragraph below. Hour-long sessions are held on interpersonal

violence prevention, campus public safety and security, Title IX as well as academic

priorities. Despite the design differences in orientation for new faculty compared to other

employees, institutional expectations related to policies and procedures as a matter of

emphasis are covered in both orientation processes. The Howard University Office of

Institutional Assessment and Evaluation is responsible for monitoring the New Faculty

Orientation Program.

Consistency of transmission of the University’s policies and procedures in the workplace

has been perhaps, best been reflected in the Office of Human Resources, Department of

Recruitment’s onboarding process for new hires. All initial hires at Howard University

participate in a daylong orientation seminar (8:30 am - 4:15pm) on or before their

scheduled report date. In addition to receiving benefits and systems information, new

employees receive the following documents accompanied by detailed explanation of the

content and time for questions: New Hire Workforce Engagement (version 2.0, 2014) that

includes the Howard University Hiring Policy, 2014; Howard University Policy and

Procedure on Equal Opportunity in Employment and Education Programs and Activities,

1999; Howard University Policy Against Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 2013;

Personnel Guidelines and Statement of Current Benefits, 1999; and Confidentiality

Agreement, 2013. This more robust program of communication extends to the

announcement of helpful information on employee benefits and retirement information to

the University community. The Office of Human Resources conducts a periodic review of

its practices for compliance and integrity.

3 Howard University Office of the Secretary-Policy Office: http://www.howard.edu/secretary/policy/

22

New students are introduced to Howard University’s institutional expectations, policies

and procedures relating to academic and personal integrity through the New Student

Orientation Program. The new student orientation is considered the start of the accepted

student’s matriculation at Howard and is designed to address the most vital issues and

concerns of new undergraduate students. Graduate and professional students are similarly

oriented to University policies, practices and expectations through their respective school

or college. The Graduate School’s orientation also includes sessions on Financial Aid,

Rules and Regulations, the Expository Writing Examination, and the Responsible Conduct

of Research workshop, required of all enrolled graduate students before entering candidacy

for master’s and doctoral degrees.

The new and transfer student orientation officially takes place over nine days from

residence hall move-in to a culminating day of community service. In addition to an

introduction to campus life, students are required to attend sessions that address Howard

University’s Title IX Policy on Prohibited Sexual Harassment and Gender-Based

Discrimination in Education Programs and Activities (2011); the Student Code of Conduct;

Safety in the University; and Interpersonal Relationships. Other mandatory sessions

address health and wellness; the services of the University Counseling Center; and the

service provided by the Student Health Center.

Theme 5: Special Emphasis: Research

Five recommendations related to research emerged from the 2009 self-study. The

recommendations include: 1) increased internal support for new faculty startups in the

natural sciences and interdisciplinary work; 2) increased internal support for undergraduate

research, graduate student stipends, and postdoctoral appointments; 3) reorganization of

research administration functions; 4) improvement of customer service functions within

the Office of Sponsored Programs; and 5) provision of resources for the enhancement of

the infrastructure to support research. (Recommendations: RSE-1, RSE-2, RSE-3, RSE-4,

RSE-5)

Increased Support for Faculty Researchers

Indirect cost recovery. The indirect cost recovery program was reformed in October 2012

and took effect on July 1, 2013. Under this revised program, the allocation of indirect cost

recovery now allows recovery by principal investigators, academic departments/chairs, and

schools and colleges/deans for externally funded projects that charge the full on-campus

organized research Facilities and Administrative Rate (F&A Rate) (49%, now 51% of

modified direct costs). The allocations are up to 7.5% for PIs, up to 5% for the department,

and up to 7.5% for the deans. The amounts are available on a rolling basis, i.e., as grant

funds are expended; the indirect costs associated with those expenditures are made

available in separate accounts for each of the three categories of recipients. The

transparency of the program and its actual implementation with the creation of current

indirect cost accounts for the three actors has improved inter-college relations. To date, a

23

total of $1,016,516 has been allocated for the Indirect Cost Recovery Program. (See Appendix K)

Internal Grant Funding. The University is committed to a well-rounded program of

scholarly and creative activity, including those areas that are not typically eligible for

significant grant and research funding. Two internal grant programs have proven to be very

helpful in this regard: a summer grant program for junior faculty, and a small equipment

grant program. In a review of the internal grant awards for summer research for junior

faculty for the four-year period 2011-2014, the vast majority of funding was provided to

faculty projects in departments that generally are not eligible for significant grant and

research funding, including Economics, Journalism, Social Work, Education, Sociology,

Law, and Divinity. A total of 70 awards were made to such faculty, value of $850,000; 7

awards were made to faculty in departments where external grant funding is more

available, a value of $90,000. Individual awards ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 each.

Equipment grants. In 2011, the University established an internal competitive program for

equipment grants. Fourteen grants were awarded, ranging from $3,999 to $10,000 each.

Seven of the grants were to faculty in units that generally are not eligible for significant

external funding, including Art, Anthropology, Psychology, and Leisure Studies. These

seven grants accounted for 49% of the total dollar value of the $111,215 awarded that year.

Howard University Graduate School Research Magazine. A key aspect of support for

faculty research is the dissemination through various university organs the depth and

breadth of groundbreaking research underway across disciplines and specializations. The

Howard University Graduate School Research Magazine (hugsresearch.org) is an online

tool to showcase faculty research through interviews and news stories via a global medium.

Additionally, alumni and current student research are highlighted.

Support for Student Research

Support for Undergraduate Research. In addition to the facility investments, the University

has increased its internal structural support for undergraduate research by establishing more

extensive research days, first in the schools and colleges and more recently as a university-

wide activity. For the spring 2015, the University expanded from the annual “Research

Day” to a “Research Week.” http://www2.howard.edu/research-week4.

Support for Graduate Students. The University has increased the value of graduate

assistantships to remain competitive and account for continued increases in the local cost

of living. However, the aggregate value of student awards has remained flat and has

actually declined in some areas. The University’s postdoctoral positions are all funded

through sponsored programs.

4 Howard University Research Week 2015: http://www2.howard.edu/research-week

24

Reorganization of Research Administration

Since the last report, there have been significant initiatives to improve research

administration. Some of the improvements have been reorganization, process

improvements and transparency, increased accountability, staff training and competency

upgrade. The Office of Sponsored Programs and the Grant and Contract Accountability

Office were reorganized into one office, Research Administrative Services (RAS).

Although each unit ultimately reports to separate cabinet officers (Provost, and Chief

Financial Officer), Research Administrative Services has developed a reorganized

structure that provides a seamless approach to ensure pre-and post-award support

availability under one office. The reorganization, in addition, co-locates staff required for

activities for pre- and post-award in one location to create team synergy and continuity of

operations. The realignment enables a team approach to portfolio management that

includes pre-and post- award expertise necessary all phases of grant and contract

administration. The resources of OSP have remained flat. In general, PIs report that the

turnaround time for support from OSP has steadily improved over the last several years as

a result of internal reorganization of the office.

Research Facilities

Over the past five years, the University has carried out a sustained effort to upgrade its

research facilities using both its internally generated cash and funds raised from public

bonds. These repair and rehabilitation efforts, combined with the new Interdisciplinary

Research Building (IRB), reflect the commitment of the University to provide advanced

levels of support for research. The overall cost of these improvements has been more than

$97 million. The new Interdisciplinary Research Building, financed primarily through a

bond issue has amounted to a cost of more than $44 million. It is due to open with a

Certificate of Occupancy during 2015. It will house a range of wet labs and other

research projects based on an internally competitive process. Appendix L includes

descriptions of various enhancements to existing research facilities.

25

SECTION III

MAJOR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CHALLENGES

1. Stabilizing Howard University Hospital

Howard University Hospital (HUH), a leading academic medical center, has a compelling

medical education mission to serve the underserved. However, achieving this mission is a

costly endeavor that is further compounded by a number of recently enacted legislative,

regulatory and reimbursement mandates.

Like scores of urban hospitals around the country, HUH is a vital safety net for uninsured

and underinsured patients. The payer mix includes more than 80 percent from federal

and/or state providers (e.g. Medicaid, Medicare). For the fiscal year ending June 2014, the

Hospital’s operating loss was $51 million, which has placed tremendous pressure on its

fiscal position. The University’s financial rating was downgraded in large part due to the

losses at the hospital resulting from lower than expected patient services revenue

(specifically declining admissions volumes and weakening payer mix). The University has

taken a series of deliberate steps over the past 18 months to enhance HUH’s operational

efficiency, achieve fiscal viability, advance its medical education mission, and continue to

provide vital access to care for the thousands of District of Columbia residents who depend

upon HUH and whom HUH is privileged to serve. As of June 1, 2015, the hospital is

EBIDA positive and contributing back financially to the University, a dramatic change

attributable to the management and operations changes of the last 18 months.

A recent report by The Chronicle of Higher Education examining the period of 2009 to

2013 (arguably the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression) showed 141

downgrades versus 33 upgrades at colleges and universities across the United States. While

we are mindful of the downgrade from A- to the investment-grade BBB+ rating, we are

encouraged by S&P’s outlook revision from negative to stable for Howard's bonds.

In October 2014, the University signed a Management Service Agreement (MSA) with

Paladin Healthcare, a firm with a proven track record of successfully reengineering

operations at urban hospitals to produce value added outcomes. Under the MSA, Howard

University will continue to be the licensed operator of HUH. A large-scale restructuring

has been initiated at the hospital, including the installation of new leadership, the

implementation of new operational processes and thoughtfully executed reductions in

force. The University continues to actively pursue a long-term solution for the hospital,

including a partnership or joint venture.

26

2. Revenue Pressures

Howard has three primary revenue streams – clinical services, the federal appropriation

and tuition. All three revenue streams are experiencing some degree of pressure. However,

year-to-date the University is experiencing favorable improvements, but there is some

degree of volatility. The trajectory for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 is also positive.

The finance and operations leadership have mapped a number of contingencies to mitigate

adverse impact on operations. Concurrently, the University is pursuing a number of key

initiatives to diversify its revenue streams. See the “Opportunities” section (pages 28-29)

for an overview of those plans.

Clinical Services Revenue. Howard University Hospital (HUH) operates 241 of 450

licensed beds in a competitive hospital environment, which has experienced fluctuating

patient volumes and changes in reimbursement formulas for admissions versus observation

cases under the Affordable Care Act. The leadership team at HUH has taken a number of

steps to address operational efficiency including measurable improvements in

documentation, which has made a difference in monthly admission totals and the revenue.

To date, revenue is on target and expenses are at or below budget. As part of its ongoing

restructuring efforts, HUH has implemented a measured plan to reduce and realign its

workforce to meet the evolving needs of the hospital. HUH will continue to seek ways to

eliminate non-essential costs while maintaining the highest quality standards.

Level-funding of the Federal Appropriation. Over recent years, higher education,

universally, has faced funding cuts or level-funding. Howard is one of two, non-military,

federally chartered universities that receive a direct appropriation of funds from the federal

government. This appropriation accounts for approximately 25 percent of the University's

operating budget. The University, specifically, has faced level-funding since FY 2005

through FY 2012, with marginal reductions ($238.8 million vs. $234.1 million,

respectively). With the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the University through

sequestration, along with most federal programs, had its appropriation cut by more than 5

percent. This reduced the University’s appropriation by approximately $12 million to

$221.8 million beginning in FY 2013. That reduction continued for FY 2014 and FY 2015.

Even as Congress seeks to alleviate the mandatory requirements that federal discretionary

spending be reduced each year over a 10-year period, it is likely the University's reduced

appropriation will be maintained for FY 2016 and into the foreseeable future.

Tuition Revenue. As part of the University’s mission-driven commitment to ensuring that

a Howard education is both accessible and affordable, Howard has carefully managed

tuition rates under the direction of the Tuition and Rates Advisory Committee (TRAC).

The University’s tuition is the fourth lowest regionally, including peers with in-state

tuition, and the third lowest among our designated peer institutions. The TRAC regularly

reviews and proposes tuition and fee rates to ensure the University’s ability to preserve its

financial standing, reinvest in academic programming, and enhance student services. Rates

are recommended for future years to provide students and their families with greater

opportunity to plan for financing their educational expenses.

27

It is important to note that 59 percent of Howard students are Pell-Grant Eligible which

demonstrates the University’s high need population. Of the Pell Grant eligible students, 27

percent have a zero Expected Family Contribution (EFC), demonstrating the highest

possible financial need. These zero EFC students have families whose average adjusted

gross income (AGI) is below $13,937, typically in households of one adult and three

dependent children. Growing difficulty with accessing credit has influenced greatly

students’ ability to pay. The University’s institutional data show a correlation between

performance and adjusted gross income. These numbers indicate that the ability of our

students to pay is severely diminished, which adversely impacts student account

receivables, retention and on-time graduation rates. (Steps that have been taken to address

the impact of EFC on retention and graduation rates are addressed in the section titled,

“Retention and Student Success”.)

Currently, the University invests approximately $90 million in institutional financial aid

for students. The data show that increases in aid are disproportionate based on required

increases to renewable scholarships. The University is adopting new approaches to tuition

modeling. It is leveraging financial aid resources to support students with high financial

need (as opposed to its historical model, which focused only on merit-based achievement).

The new tuition model is designed to: 1) enable students and their families to create sound

financial plans; 2) stabilize student loan indebtedness; 3) provide for savings in dollar

amount extended in renewable scholarships; 4) create incentives for on-time graduation

and 5) directly tie to enrollment strategy. The vision for a model financial aid program

includes full financial support for all students with a zero EFC, incentives (e.g., rebates for

on-time and early graduation) and tuition pricing for all eight semesters versus one year at

a time.

3. Retention and Student Success

Student retention and graduation rates are critical indicators of a university’s success.

Howard’s six-year graduation rate increased 17 percent between 1998 and 2011 from for

47 percent to 64 percent. Nationally, approximately 59 percent of all full-time, first-time

in college students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a four-year institution in fall

2006 completed the degree at that institution within six years. However, African-American

students at all institutions have a six-year graduation rate of 38.9 percent much lower than

Howard’s rate of 64 percent. The data are similar for four-year graduation rates. Howard’s

four-year graduation rate is 45.8 percent, which is more than twice the national average

rate of African American students of 20.8 percent.

While Howard University is making marked improvements in its graduation and retention

rates, it continues to take a number of systematic steps to significantly improve

performance on these key indicators. The University’s assessment data show that 75

percent of undergraduates persist into their senior year but less than 50 percent graduate in

four years. There are a number of complex factors directly affecting students’ success and

persistence. The most recent survey of students who did not return in Fall 2014 identified

finances as the leading factor, accounting for 36 percent. Nearly 10 percent cited personal

challenges as the reason for not returning; only 13 percent transferred. While the sample is

28

relatively small, it reflects a consistent pattern among students who face decreasing family

incomes and increasing living expenses.

In 2009, the University instituted its first need-based grant program to meet increasing

demand. This academic year, Howard inaugurated the Graduation & Retention Access for

Continued Excellence (GRACE) Grant. The GRACE grant program is designed to provide

access to the neediest sophomore through senior students by offering an incentive for on-

time graduation. For the academic year, 2014-2015, the University allocated approximately

40 percent of the projected gross tuition revenue for financial aid. This allocation is a 4

percent increase in aid expenditures designed to retain students who are in good academic

standing with demonstrated need. The University also launched the Bridging the Gap

Student Aid Campaign to raise $25 million in current-use and endowed scholarship and

fellowship assistance that will directly address the gaps in financial aid for deserving

Howard students.

To address retention, the Office of Undergraduate Studies identified barriers to retention

and developed an infrastructure to reduce impediments to student completion of their

degree programs. The Center for Academic Excellence (CAE) was launched in Fall 2014.

The CAE provides specialized academic counseling, tutoring, time management,

internship preparation, and a number of umbrella student support services. The University

has also secured PilotTM, a comprehensive academic advising software solution, and

Degree WorksTM, a degree audit and transfer articulation software solution. Both solutions

are linked to the University’s student database and facilitate integrated and targeted

academic support, persistence and retention efforts across undergraduate schools and

colleges. The solutions are accessible to students, advisors, faculty and underscore the

University’s commitment to improving its 4-year graduation rate.

OPPORTUNITIES

1. Diversifying Revenue Streams

The University has several opportunities to diversify revenue streams. The following key

areas of focus have been prioritized: optimizing the value of real estate holdings; increasing

research dollars; and boosting fundraising. Currently, Howard’s endowment continues to

grow—at nearly $600 million (following a 2007 low of $380 million). It ranks among the

top 200 college endowments according to data reported by The Chronicle of Higher

Education.

Developing Real Estate Assets. Howard’s real estate holdings include sizable and

marketable parcels in strategic locations across the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The administration has advanced a very aggressive assessment of the University’s asset

portfolio and is positioned to consider and employ multiple development models. Howard

is committed to ensuring that resources are aligned to realize value that supports the

University’s mission by reinvesting in the academic enterprise.

Increasing Sponsored Research. The University has set an ambitious goal to increase its

annual funded and sponsored research to $100 million. The Faculty Research Advisory

29

Council has identified the following foundational research areas: social justice; literacy,

policy and ethics; diversity; African diaspora; teaching and learning and

international/global perspectives. Additional steps have been taken to enhance research

productivity, including: i) new indirect cost sharing, ii) faculty start-up grants and iii) small

equipment grants.

In Spring 2015, construction of the new Interdisciplinary Research Building was

completed. The state-of-the-art facility is a cornerstone of the University’s academic

renewal initiative, and its prominent gateway location on the Georgia Avenue Corridor is

a public expression of Howard’s commitment to 21st century research. The new 81,000

square-foot mixed-use academic building supports and promotes interdisciplinary research

and educational collaboration. The new research facility houses several core laboratories

for research faculty, as well as discipline-based laboratories focused on the following

programmatic areas: nanotechnology/nanofabrication; natural products research; microbial

ecology, diversity and immunology; atmospheric and environmental sciences;

developmental biology/STEM cell; and drug development. The research building is

designed as an energy-efficient LEED certified facility, which will incorporate cutting-

edge technology and the latest educational, environmental and research standards. It also

includes wet and dry laboratories, instructional space, research support space, ground floor

retail, and centralized offices for faculty, students and academic staff.

Boosting Fundraising

As its 150th anniversary approaches in 2017, the University is preparing to launch a billion

dollar capital campaign. The administration and the Board of Trustees are working in

concert to lay the foundation for a successful capital campaign including extensive donor

prospect research. As in fiscal year 2014, contributions for FY 2015 are on track to exceed

the budgeted targets. This fiscal year, the Development Office has been charged with

increasing the number of gifts and donors, including alumni, as well as sharpening the

focus on corporations and foundations. The University also initiated a number of smaller

campaign efforts to foster a culture of philanthropy including “We Are Howard” and

“Howard Helping Howard” campaigns led by alumni and students, respectively.

Alumni are continually engaged through regular communication, regional receptions, and

new technology. In 2014, during Homecoming iPads were used to encourage immediate

giving. Other new initiatives include the use of social media to augment giving including

a President-led “Fundraising Fridays” via Facebook as well as inaugurating the annual

“#GivingTuesday” activity in December 2014 on Twitter. To date, online giving has

increased sharply by 30%. The enhancement of the newly launched Howard.edu website

is also designed to facilitate giving.

2. Investing In Infrastructure

Colleges and universities around the country have identified deferred maintenance as a

rapidly growing expense. Currently, Howard’s deferred maintenance estimate is

30

approximately $700 million. Immediate capital outlay as well as long-term incremental

allocations are needed to modernize facilities. The University’s facilities renewal plan was

closely linked to the academic renewal initiatives. In 2012, the District of Columbia Zoning

Commission approved Howard University’s Campus Master Plan. The Master Plan has

laid the groundwork to stimulate the revitalization of the campus and the surrounding

community through new residence halls, research, recreational and academic facilities. To

date, two new residence halls, a 570-seat dining facility, $5 million Health Sciences

Simulation Center and an 81,000 square foot Interdisciplinary Research Building have

been constructed. Additionally, the University has made significant investments in the

renovation of existing facilities including a number of core academic buildings (Downing

Hall [Engineering], the Numa Adams Building [Medicine] and Locke Hall [Arts and

Sciences]. As outlined in the 15-year master plan, the university must make significant

investments in its physical plant to address deferred maintenance as well as renovation and

new construction. These investments will be critical to ensure our competitive advantage

to attract and retain top faculty, students and clinicians.

3. Leadership and Administration

In July 2014 following a national search, the Board of Trustees unanimously appointed the

University’s 17th President, Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., MBA. Dr. Frederick served as

Interim President during the 2013-2014 academic year following the retirement of Dr.

Sidney A. Ribeau, chief executive at the time of the 2009 site visit. To date, seasoned

administrators have been appointed to guide the following portfolios: Chief Financial

Officer, General Counsel, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Information Officer, Vice

President for Human Resources and Organizational Effectiveness and Vice President for

External Affairs. Since the 2009 Self-Study, new permanent deans have been named for

the School of Communications, School of Law, the Graduate School, the College of Arts

and Sciences, the School of Social Work, and the College of Medicine. The search for the

Provost and Chief Academic Officer has been completed and three finalists have been

identified for presidential review. Searches have been completed for the deanships of the

College of Dentistry and the College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences. A national

search is underway for the dean of the College of Engineering, Architecture and Computer

Sciences. The Office of the President has established a Search Office tasked with managing

executive, decanal and other senior leadership searches.

4. New Degree Programs

To date the following new degree programs have been established: Ph.D. in Computer

Science; Ph.D. in Civil Engineering; Ph.D. in Media Studies and Mass Communications;

Dual M.Ed. in School Counseling and School Psychology; Accelerated MS in Speech

Language Pathology; B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies; Executive MBA; and a Paralegal

Studies Certificate program. It is anticipated that the demand for these new programs will

serve as a stimulus for enrollment in the schools and colleges in which they are housed.

31

SECTION IV

ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

ENROLLMENT TRENDS

The University experienced an enrollment decrease in fall 2012. Much of this enrollment

decrease may be attributed to adverse impacts of a struggling economy. The downward

trend in enrollment was reflected in many other peer institutions. However, the University,

unlike several of its peers, experienced an increase in Fall 2013 and is leveling off its

enrollment at 10,260. Appendix H provides enrollment headcount projection actuals for

fall 2010 through fall 2017.

The projected enrollment goal for the next three years is 10,250. This enrollment goal is

the result of 1) recognition of its high need population (over 59 percent of undergraduates

are Federal Pell Grant eligible), 2) decreased admission in some professional programs

(e.g. Law) in line with the national trend, and 3) stabilization of institution’s financial

budget via other revenue sources (e.g. real estate). Appendix M provides a more detailed

breakdown of the enrollment trends and projections by statistics year over year.

The University will devote increased attention to improving retention and graduation rates

over the next several years. Emphasis will be placed on retaining current students and

increased selectivity of incoming students using more outcomes data to inform admission

criteria by school/college and program. Appendix N provides the breakdown for the

projected and the desired First Time Enrollment by school and college for AY 2014 – 2015.

Review of course and program offerings is currently underway and will continue over the

next several years to better assess undergraduate student ability to graduate within four

years even with any necessary course remediation. The University is aware that there are

some programs whose course offerings (e.g. a major requirement only being offered once

per year) are not conducive to on-time graduation if a student is not able to register or

successfully complete a course. As noted previously, the University created the Office of

Undergraduate Studies effective spring 2014, to address several issues surrounding

retention and on-time graduation.

The Board of Trustees approved a tuition pricing strategy, effective for AY 2014-2015, to

align with retention and on-time graduation goals. This tuition pricing strategy permits

eligible students to enroll for a total of 40 credit hours (previously 36 credit hours) between

the Fall and Spring terms while being charged one flat rate for tuition. This strategy was

designed to create an incentive for on-time graduation. For AY 2015-2016, the Board of

Trustees did not increase the tuition rate for undergraduates, graduates and professional

programs (with the exception of Pharmacy) and approved the removal of excess tuition

rates for the Master of Business Administration, Divinity, Education, Pharmacy and Social

Work programs. Also approved by the Board of Trustees was the early or on-time

graduation incentive program for undergraduates beginning May 2016. This program will

32

provide a 50 percent rebate to undergraduates (who entered Howard University as a first-

time-in-college student) of any direct payments made on their last semester’s tuition.

Howard is committed to addressing the academic needs of our nation, in particular the

needs of the African American community and underserved populations. A large part of

this commitment includes ensuring that the cost of attendance is not a barrier to

undergraduate degree completion. Appendix O outlines the University’s tuition rates for

the 2015-2016 academic year.

The University’s budget assumptions are also aligned with the enrollment target of 10,250

with a steady prediction on undergraduate vs. graduate/professional school enrollment mix.

There are no current plans to move forward with a change in this make-up, given overall

market trends. To account for rising costs, the University is developing plans that would

diversify its revenue streams (e.g. real estate holdings, increased corporate partnerships,

grants). IPEDS enrollment data for 2009-2014 are included in Appendices P-U.

33

SECTION V

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTITUTIONAL

EFFECTIVENESS

Howard University’s approach to institutional assessment is based on the following

principles:

The University’s commitment to its mission

Ownership for assessment is shared and decentralized, coordinated by the Office

of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE)

Commitment to assessment of the entire enterprise, including: student learning;

quality of student life; and institutional effectiveness

Implementation of university-wide and unit-level assessment

These core principles guide the University towards planned outcomes, and inform

leadership when adjustments must be made to realign priorities to achieve optimal

effectiveness. Institution-wide and unit-level dashboards have been established to closely

monitor achievement of goals and objectives.

Assessment and evidence-based methodologies are foundational to planning and resource

allocation at Howard University. The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

(OIAE) serves in a conceptual and analytical role for University assessments. In addition,

several supporting committees and formal structures are designated to study and

recommend improvements to achieve campus-wide assessment.

Since the 2009 self-study, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE)

has continued to expand the variety of assessment activities within its portfolio as well as

collaborate with other Howard University academic and support units. OIAE has expanded

data collection on the general education student learning outcome, quantitative reasoning,

to include student performance on final examination questions in the mathematics courses

Calculus I and Applied Calculus. The collection of data in these courses will provide

feedback to undergraduate STEM-related programs on the status of student performance

for which these are initial or terminal mathematics courses (e.g., engineering and business,

respectively).

In addition to the locally-developed tests and surveys that are used to collect information

on student learning, the OIAE also administers nationally-developed standardized survey

instruments which allow for meaningful comparisons of Howard University’s results with

the results of institutions nationwide.

RESPONSES TO ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

(Recommendations: 6-2, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5)

The 2009 self-study process underscored the University’s history of and commitment to

assessing institutional effectiveness, including regular internal and external evaluations.

34

The University has reinvigorated the College/School Assessment Committee (CSAC) and

related Assessment Subcommittees across campus, with a particular focus on the area of

Student Affairs (SA) and the overall quality of campus life. Both the CSAC and the SA

assessment subcommittees are discussed in greater detail in the subsequent sections.

Additionally, members of the CSAC have played a leadership role during the annual

Summer Assessment Institute for faculty, which is co-sponsored with the Center for

Excellence in Teaching Learning and Assessment (CETLA).

Currently, assessment data are distributed regularly to key University stakeholders

including the Board, president, provost, cabinet, deans, and department chairs. In addition,

the OIAE publishes analyses of selected assessment data on its website5. Howard

University’s assessment process allows for the self-evaluation of its efficiency and

advancements in the 14 core standards outlined by the Middle States Commission on

Higher Education. Examples of the some of the University’s external and internal

assessment activities are outlined in Appendix V. These activities include the

implementation of strategies for examining the effectiveness of academic programs.

The Self-Study also included a recommendation to establish an Assessment Fellowship.

The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation accommodated an assessment

fellow during the period 2010-2014. The fellow’s research explored the effects of changing

one’s major on time-to-degree. The results, counter-intuitively, revealed that students who

changed their major were more likely to have less time to degree, on average, than those

who did not change their major during their matriculation.

ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Institutional planning goals have focused on (1) academic program renewal; (2) faculty

renewal, (3) administrative and staff renewal, (4) facilities renewal; and (5) Students First.

At the time of the 2009 Self-Study, the Academic Renewal initiative was underway. The

focus of this section directly addresses academic renewal (student learning) and Students

First (comprehensive improvement of services to students).

The work of the Presidential Commission on Academic Renewal followed the

implementation of Strategic Frameworks for Action I and II and built on the commitment

to establish a university-wide comprehensive program for assessing institutional

effectiveness and student learning. The preceding decennial Self-Study (1999) had three

major outcomes addressing assessment, namely, the opening of the Center for Excellence

in Teaching, Learning and Assessment (CETLA); the creation of the Office of Institutional

Assessment and Evaluation; as well as the creation of an internal funding mechanism to

promote faculty engagement in assessment and teaching effectiveness through the Fund

for Academic Excellence.

The Commission’s work was characterized by strong faculty leadership and supported by

a dedicated professional staff. Faculty Senate designees, the Howard University Student

Association, the Graduate Student Council, the Howard University Staff Organization, and

5Howard University: OIAE Assessment Data http://www.howard.edu/assessment/

35

alumni representatives actively participated in the Commission’s activities. The final

recommendations were taken from their coordinated reports. The procedures included

regular dissemination of academic renewal information and structured opportunities for

engagement with faculty, students, staff, and alumni.

General Education

The details of the general education reform are discussed in detail in Section II. This section

recaps the actions in the context of Howard’s assessment commitment. Also in the spring

of 2011, the University Studies Committee was appointed to develop core competencies

and learning standards for University undergraduate programs. In January 2013, the

committee released a draft report (Appendix F) which detailed 21 core competencies and

other expected general education outcomes. The competencies are in refinement and are

now being considered by the University’s deans for the second review prior to approval,

which is expected in the fall of 2015. In preparation for approval of the competencies, the

Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment (CETLA) has offered faculty workshops

on matching content, activities, and assessments with objectives. Curriculum mapping

software is being piloted in the Health Sciences colleges; and the Office of Institutional

Assessment and Evaluation is monitoring the implementation process to better facilitate

mapping of undergraduate curricula.

Standardized Credit Hour Requirements

Institutional assessment found unevenness in graduation, retention, and persistence rates

due to a lack of uniformity in credit hour requirements to complete degree programs.

Various programs required 127-145 hours for degree completion. In June 2012, the Board

of Trustees mandated that all undergraduate degree-granting programs require no more

than 120 credit hours.

Math and Writing Assessment

OIAE has led a general education assessment from 2009-2014 that focuses on the areas

of quantitative reasoning (Appendix W) and written communication (Appendix X). The

mathematics department has used assessment results and analyses conducted by OIAE

based on the final examination and senior comprehensive examination data to make

placement, instructional and classroom assessment decisions. Similarly, the Department of

English and OIAE collaborated to develop and test a writing rubric that is now used by

instructors, facilitating assessment at the course, program, and institutional levels. The

Office of Undergraduate Studies is working in tandem with OIAE to continue to assess

general education student outcomes, as well as the impact of newly established academic

support resources. A multi-year plan is in development to assess the 21 outcomes

periodically, using representative sampling techniques and on-line technology.

36

UNIT-LEVEL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

The College/School Assessment Committee (CSAC) consists of the assessment directors

or associate deans in the schools and colleges that have assessment responsibilities in

his/her portfolio. The OIAE director operates as an ex officio member of the committee and

oversees the preparation for all meetings of the CSAC. The conceptual framework for

OIAE’s engagement in assessment activities at the level of the schools and colleges is

guided by the principle of “self-regulation.” As such, it is required that each designated

member of the CSAC is primarily responsible for coordinating the program assessment

activities in his/her school or college and that these activities are aligned, from an

institutional perspective, with the mission and goals of Howard University. Additionally,

the OIAE provides ongoing educational and technical support to the schools and colleges,

as needed.

With the exception of the College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) and the Graduate School,

all of the University’s schools and colleges report to a discipline specific accrediting body.

These latter units must maintain rigorous standards and an externally granted accreditation

status. As a result, Howard has taken measurable steps to provide guidance, capacity

building, and engagement at the departmental and unit level for COAS and the Graduate

School.

To further foster a culture of assessment and evidence-based decision-making at the unit

level within the College of Arts and Sciences, during the spring 2015 semester, OIAE met

with representatives from half of the 22 departments to discuss their plans for assessing

student learning in the major disciplines and outlining a case study describing their use of

assessment results. The director of OIAE will meet with the remaining 11 departments in

fall 2015.

In the College of Dentistry, the assessment lead has used multivariate analyses to derive an

admissions formula that predicts retention and successful program completion. Another

example is the use of assessment data provided by OIAE to inform a decision to replace

the Department of Mathematics placement process with ALEKS (Assessment and

Learning in Knowledge Spaces). ALEKS is an Internet-based tutoring and assessment

program that includes content in mathematics, chemistry, introductory statistics, and

business. The goal is to obtain better placement of freshmen students in the general

education courses – College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, and Calculus I –

improve learning, and reduce attrition rates from these courses.

A particular focus has been lent to the assessment and renewal of the University’s physical

facilities and infrastructure, both inside and outside of the classroom. On four campuses,

Howard University has more than six and a half million square feet of space spread among

122 buildings. These facilities are aging and require renewal in order to support the

University’s standards of excellence for the learning environment, making this a matter of

grave strategic importance. In light of the University’s physical and fiscal limitations, a

coherent and flexible approach must emerge to address and assess unit-level planning

cross-functionally.

37

The University’s 2011 Central Campus Master Planning process produced a wealth of data

regarding unit-level space utilization. An estimated 220+ general-purpose classrooms and

80+ specialized instructional spaces were analyzed based on fall 2010 data. Spatial

inventories, building floor plans, staffing plans, enrollment management, curriculum,

interviews, focus groups, and course scheduling data were all assessed in efforts to achieve

a comprehensive and unit-level understanding of how effectively we use our existing space.

Space categorization was based on information from Postsecondary Education Facilities

Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM): 2006 Edition. Utilization for a variety of

space typologies was tabulated, and recommendations were made for each FICM category.

A major finding of this exercise was that the University has the capacity to support more

general-purpose classroom instruction than is currently scheduled by a substantial margin.

While an obvious cause for this excess instructional space is Howard’s historically higher

enrollment levels, a second cause was discovered to be the lack of “right-sized” classroom

environments aligned with enrollment management and course scheduling.

In response to these findings, the University is refining its assessment procedures by

collecting annual space utilization data in a phased approach towards a transparent, real-

time space management solution. Once a comprehensive image of space use has been

modeled, a centralized and cross-functional process will be used to set goals, form

strategies, and constantly assess progress towards Facilities Renewal.

ASSESSMENT OF CAMPUS QUALITY OF LIFE

Howard University understands the impact that campus quality of life has upon educational

outcomes and the qualities of excellence, leadership, and service. The University has taken

great strides since 2009 to renew and revitalize quality-of-life programs and facilities.

Numerous renovations have been conducted, and recent development has resulted in the

construction of two new residence halls totaling over 1,300 beds, a new 80,000 square foot

research facility, a large dining hall expansion, and plans for a new Wellness and

Recreation Center.

Several meetings of assessment subcommittees for Student Affairs (SA) were held since

2009. Existing assessment plans were reviewed, as well as goals and timelines set for

further activities regarding data collection, analyses and report development (i.e., case

studies). To secure the culture of assessment within these committees, the OIAE has

required that each case study (see example in Appendix Y) include descriptions of how

the assessment information has been used in decision-making. One major productive

outcome from these subcommittees was the provision of the CAS Professional Standards

for Higher Education (7th edition) to all Student Affairs unit directors and substantive

discussions on them. OIAE emphasized the importance of the section in their guidelines

on “Assessment and Evaluation.”

The 2011 Campus Master Planning process fostered a particularly rigorous culture of data

based assessment to arrive at planning recommendations for quality-of-life facilities. The

38

planning and assessment process employed strategic visioning, focus groups, competitive

context, participatory charrettes, and web-based surveys to derive student demand for

campus housing and recreation programs. Housing demand results indicated a significant

bed supply deficit, and demand for recreation activities far exceeded current capacity per

student. These critical market assessments enabled the University to make coherent

planning decisions regarding the development of quality-of-life assets, and shall be

continued on an annual basis.

Since the 2013-14 academic year, the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs has

sustained a viable assessment subcommittee and engaged OIAE on the development of a

Student Affairs (SA) Assessment Plan. SA unit directors have additionally been provided

with a very useful reference tool (book) by the VP’s office, titled “Building a Culture of

Evidence in Student Affairs: A Guide for Leaders and Practitioners” produced by the

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). The Office of

Student Affairs and OIAE are presently planning a Student Affairs Assessment Retreat.

Technical assistance with assessment plan refinement and/or implementation will continue

to be provided to individual units systematically by OIAE, based on their needs.

The Office of Student Life and Activities (OSLA) within the Division of Student Affairs

is a function of the VPSA. The office is responsible for enhancing the quality of life on

campus for domestic and international students at both the undergraduate and graduate

levels. One of OSLA’s goals is to encourage the longevity and wellness of our community

through educational programs that promote active, healthy lifestyles. Towards this end,

the student body was surveyed in 2010 for depth and breadth of participation and interest

in myriad activities.

SA also manages the Office of Residence Life, which has cultivated an assessment-based

culture in which administration surveys and consults the student body about specific needs

and relevant issues. In response to market-driven data, the University recently added more

than 1,300 new beds in an effort to increase the student-housing inventory that is proximate

to the academic core of the campus. These two new residence halls were designated for

freshman and sophomore students, and also contain classroom and administrative spaces

in efforts to cultivate living-learning communities.

SA also collaborates closely with public safety, transportation and policy, meals and

dining, and student health. Outcomes from recent assessments of student opinions have

provided impetus for change and modernization to student services. Examples include the

creation of the web-based Student Organization Resource Center and personal security

improvements to public safety through the implementation of the Guardian Service (for

those traveling home alone) and Alert-HU (a real time text alert system to inform students

of threats to public safety on or near campus).

As part of the 2011 Campus Master Plan, aggressive strategies to improve the University’s

transportation system were adopted through the generation of a Transportation Demand

Management (TDM) plan. This plan targets the reduction of single-occupant vehicular

39

trips to and from the campus using various strategies, tracked by an annual TDM survey

coordinated by the Office of Parking and Transportation and the OIAE.

40

SECTION VI

EVIDENCE LINKING INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING AND BUDGET

Howard University's budget is an important annual planning document that specifies the

spending plan and reflects the priorities, aspirations, fiscal realities, and planned activities

of the University. Howard University's budget process is designed to give every

constituency—faculty, staff, students and administrators—a chance to review, and

contribute to the University's plans and expenditures. Howard's budget is not separate from

its operating plan but is the financial dimension of that operating plan. The budget captures

the financial implications (revenues and expenses) of all operating activities expected in

the next fiscal year.

The process of allocating resources is directed by the President and executed by the cabinet

officers. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for taking the information gathered,

analyzing it and incorporating the results into the formal budget. The University’s

operating budget is both a planning resource and an operating tool. For planning purposes

the budget identifies how the University's limited resources will be allocated.

The University's budget is also an operating tool, and as such serves as the basis for

financial accountability. Once established, the budget guides the availability and use of

resources. The University follows a formal budgeting process, which is outlined below.

The process includes gathering information from over 80 accountability-operating units at

the University and the Hospital.

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS (2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4)

University Budget and Planning Process

The budget preparation is a collaborative and inclusive effort.

The budget framework is prepared and approved by the President.

Levels of expenditures and revenue augmentation are determined in order to

achieve the level of cash flow needed to exceed the cash needs of the University.

Budget spending and revenue targets and budget preparation templates are

distributed to all “Accountable Leaders” at the University.

Managers are responsible for presenting a headcount plan that justifies requested

positions and salaries.

The budget framework is reviewed with the Finance Committee of the Board of

Trustees for guidance prior to holding review meetings with “Accountability

Leaders”.

Review meetings are held by the CFO and central staff with each “Accountability

Leader” in April and early May.

The first draft is presented to the President for review and comment in mid-May.

Finance prepares a revised budget based upon feedback from the President's review

highlighting critical open issues and decision points

The Board of Trustees distributes the budget for review by the first week of June.

The budget is presented to the Board of Trustees for approval by the Executive

Committee at the June Board of Trustees meeting

41

In an effort to include the University community in the budget process, two committees

are convened to provide specific feedback to the President prior to the submission of the

budget to the Board of Trustees for approval.

The Tuition and Rates Advisory Committee’s (TRAC) purpose is to review and propose

tuition and fee rates that provide for the appropriate return to enable the University to

preserve its financial standing, reinvest in academic programming, and enhance student

services. Rates will also be recommended for future years to provide students and their

families with greater opportunity to plan for financing their educational expenses.

The TRAC committee develops recommendations that:

Move to close the gap between the University’s tuition rates and comparative

institutions, while;

Remaining sensitive to affordability challenges for our distinctive student

population, and;

Facilitate the enhancement of the University’s infrastructure and reduce reliance on

the federal appropriation.

In the interest of promoting greater transparency and assuring broad participation, the

University created the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to assist in developing the

University's operating budget. More importantly, it links academic and institutional

priorities and resource allocation. The BAC provides feedback to the President prior to

and during the budgeting process.

The BAC purpose is outlined below:

1. Multiple Years. Most significant activities have financial implications that span

several years. As such, budgets cannot be developed or reviewed looking at a single

year.

2. Diverse and Representative. Budget development must reflect the varied points of

view and be prepared to capture the wisdom of each member of the University

community and each constituency.

3. Education. Direct participants have to master budget fundamentals to be able to

effectively participate in the budget development process.

4. Operating Plan is the Driver. The budget must not be separate from the operating

plan - rather, it captures the financial components of the University's specific

operating plan.

5. Open Access. At the level of detail of information used by the BAC in its work and

deliberations, most of the information should be treated as public, and much should

be available to be shared with constituent groups and the campus as a whole when

presented with appropriate explanation.

6. Time Demands. The BAC must work at an appropriate level of granularity

(summarization) given the time constraints of faculty, staff, students and the

support people engaged in the Budget Process.

42

7. University Process. The Budget Process is not intended to and will not delve into

levels of detail in one area (e.g., a particular academic department or College)

where comparable levels of attention cannot be dedicated to others (e.g., every other

department or College).

8. Tradeoffs. For a given level of revenues, incremental activities/investments that

result in expenditures in one area must be offset by comparable reductions in others.

9. Recommendations, Not Decision. To serve its intended purpose the Budget Process

must produce serious, thoughtful recommendations to key University officials

including the President but recognize that the group does not have decisional

authority. The President with the approval of the Board of Trustees is the final

arbiter matter related to the budget.

10. Off-limits. While dealing at an appropriate level of detail and respecting certain

confidential information, the Budget Process should be conducted without any

areas being considered sacrosanct. Debt service, for example, could be reviewed

and comments offered, but in practice there is no way that debt service can be

avoided.

11. Fiscal Prudence. The BAC's recommendations must adhere to all financial

constraints mandated by the CFO for reasons of fiscal prudence, including the

provision of appropriate levels of reserves for contingencies.

Communications to University Community

The University’s President and cabinet officers provide ongoing communication through a

variety of platforms concerning the University's status and plans. This includes regular e-

blasts, the Web, newsletter and campus addresses (i.e. biannual State of the University

Address in fall and spring see Appendix Z).

The Human Resources Management Systems has made a concerted effort to improve both

the quality and frequency of communication to the campus community. Information about

employment policies and practices is maintained on the Office of Human Resources

webpage at http://www.hr.howard.edu/6. New policies and changes to existing policies are

posted on the above referenced webpage as well as on the University’s policy website at

www.howard.edu/policy. Notices of such changes are routinely emailed via University

Communications to the University email addresses of all employees. In some cases, notices

of new policies or changes in existing policies are sent via mail to the home addresses of

all employees. An archive of announcements concerning employment policies practices or

issues can be found at http://www.hr.howard.edu/announcements/ 7.

In an effort to provide greater transparency the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

6 HU Office of Human Resources: http://www.hr.howard.edu7

HU HR Archives and Announcements: http://www.hr.howard.edu/announcements/

43

publishes on the University website at http://www.howard.edu/financialservices/8, all

relevant financial information. This information includes the last 3 years of audited

financial statements for both the University and Hospital. The website also contains the

following financial reports:

• IRS Form 990

• The Operating and Capital Plan

• Bond Prospectus

• Bond Rating Agency Reports

• Treasurers Report (Internal)

In an effort to incentivize students to complete their studies early or on time, a 50% tuition

rebate on the direct payment(s) made by an on time or early graduate has been approved

by the Board of Trustees. This rebate would be applicable to direct payments (e.g.

cash/credit card, installment plan payments and private loan payments) made towards the

last semester’s tuition and made payable to the student on or after May graduation.

The University has initiated a 3-year $450 million capital improvement plan, which

involved the construction of several new buildings and major renovations. This renewal

culminated with the opening of the College Residence Halls and the new Interdisciplinary

Research Building. Bonds and a developer financed these projects respectively. These

two projects are the first major new construction projects on campus in over 15 years.

The University has taken a number of prudent steps, guided by a long-range financial plan,

to modify its business model that includes diversifying revenue streams, outsourcing non-

core functions and increasing operational efficiencies. An important revenue stream is

fundraising. The University administration and governing board have prioritized increasing

donations as a core source of revenue under the leadership of the vice president for

development. There are plans for a significant campaign in 2017 to coincide with the 150th

anniversary of the University’s founding.

The University is recruiting a Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations. The

Development and Alumni Relations office at Howard University targets giving. There has

been ongoing Fundraising and Development initiative-infrastructure, leadership and

strategic planning. With the pending retirement of the current Vice President for

Development and Alumni Relations, a search firm has begun the process to recruit and

identify candidates for the position.

There are measurable efforts underway to review the current structure of the department

and identify strategic changes that will enhance the University’s fundraising capacity. This

will include installing a new data base program that will increase the University’s capacity

to reach its alumni base and other potential donors with more tailored and consistent

solicitations. The goal of increasing donations to the University by $5 million was

surpassed. 2014 Charter Day donations exceeded $9 million. Outreach to alumni and

external constituencies have been ongoing and robust. Presidential visits with alumni

8HU Financial Services: http://www.howard.edu/financialservices/

44

chapters in Baltimore, North Carolina, Chicago, and California have resulted in enhanced

interaction with and contributions from alumni in these target areas.

In spring 2014, the new 1867 Campaign to encourage giving by younger alumni was

successfully launched via social media. Groundwork for the capital campaign is being

developed. The Bridging the Gap Student Aid Campaign, a $25 Million campaign, is

designed to bridge the gap between available financial aid and students’ ability to pay. The

main goal is to improve student retention, thus increasing graduation rates.

The Telecenter Phonathon Program is a student-staffed program. The Telecenter conducts

phonathons throughout the school year for each school and college. The students inform

alumni of the developments in their respective school, and solicit donations. The Class

Reunion Gift Campaign works by engaging classes celebrating 5 and 10 year reunions. The

Division leverages those occasions by conducting a friendly competition to show which

class provides the most support for their alma mater. All gifts made by class members are

counted towards the Class Reunion Gift Campaign totals. The Family Fund for Employee

Giving seeks to build a culture of giving amongst faculty and staff, facilitating

contributions to areas they would like to support via payroll deduction and outright gifts.

The Annual Fund Dean’s Appeals provide seasonal informational updates from the deans

of the schools and colleges, apprising their graduates of developments in their respective

schools and soliciting the support of their alumni. The Major Gifts fundraiser identifies

candidates for gifts of $25,000 and above; candidates are identified via research of high net

worth alumni, friends, corporations and organizations with affinity towards the University.

The Vice President for Development and Directors of Development build the necessary

relationships to secure and sustain these commitments.

Planned giving is accomplished through many generous alumni and friends who choose to

include Howard University in their estate planning. Bequest expectancies, charitable gift

annuities and charitable trusts are examples of the financial vehicles utilized by our

supporters to make a lasting contribution to the University. Howard University is a part of

the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) program, which enables federal employees to

contribute to charities of their choosing via payroll deductions.

The University’s real estate portfolio is attractive and well positioned to add additional

revenues to the University.

Large, contiguous parcels with favorable zoning

Strategic locations adjacent to University and other economic development focus

areas

Immediate marketability and alignment with real estate and capital market forces

Proactive real estate development will create value for the University, providing it with

more liquidity to address critical mission needs as well creating a revitalized community.

A seasoned real estate executive has been hired to execute the real estate strategy. The

executive is charged with aligning the University with strategic development consultants

well versed in Public-Private Partnerships. To fully realize value, multiple development

45

models will be leveraged including master development, joint ventures, ground leases and

ancillary corporate development that support the University mission.

SCHOOL/COLLEGE Total Full-Time Part-Time

Arts & Sciences 442 359 83

Business 69 52 17

CAR (Ac. Support Faculty) 9 9

Communications 78 46 32

Dentistry 82 66 16

Divinity 22 16 6

Education 48 33 15

Engineering/Arch/ & Comp Sci. 68 56 12

Law 59 33 26

Medicine 283 260 23

Nursing & Allied Health Sci. 96 55 41

Pharmacy 28 26 2

Social Work 45 15 30

Total 1329 1026 303

SCHOOL/COLLEGE Total

(Fall 2014)

Total

(Fall 2013)

Arts and Sciences 3,551 3,578

Business 1,113 1,127

Communications 1,007 1,037

Dentistry 349 357

Divinity 128 132

Education 267 278

Engineering/Arch/Comp Sci. 696 612

Graduate School 838 914

Law 405 423

Medicine 456 455

Nursing & Allied Health Sci. 845 826

Pharmacy 318 307

Social Work 234 195

Consortium 54 55

Exchange Program 4 1

Total 10,265 10,297

HU FACULTY HEADCOUNT BY SCHOOL/COLLEGE (2014 - 2015)

HU STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY COLLEGE/SCHOOL (2013 - 2014)

Appendix A

Howard University 2015 Periodic Review Report Committee Roster

Team Leaders:

Lorraine Fleming (Chair)

Omari Swinton, Department of Economics

Alice Bullock, Law School

Jill McGowan, Department of Mathematics

Mary Hill, Provost Office

Garnett Henley, Dentistry

Rodney Green, Department of Economics

Team 1: Planning, Resources, Institutional Improvement, Enrollment/Finance Data and Budgets

Omari Swinton (Lead), Department of Economics

Kimberly Freeman, Dept. of Human Development & Psychoeducational Studies

Andre Powell, VP-Academic Finance

Samuel Paschall, School of Business

Team 2: Ethics, Integrity, Governance, Leadership, and Administration Alice Bullock (Lead), Law School

Alton Pollard, School of Divinity

Carolyn Stroman, School of Communication

Almaz Zewde, Department of African Studies

Team 3: Mission & Goals, Faculty

Jill McGowan (Lead), Department of Mathematics

Melanie Carter, Provost Office

Helen Bond, Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Team 4: Learning Opportunities and Support of Student Experience Mary Hill (Lead), Provost Office

Derek Kindle, Director-Financial Aid

Yuvay Meyers, School of Business-Marketing

Eleanor King, Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Kevin Peterman, Student

Team 5: Institutional and Learning Assessment Garnett Henley (Lead), School of Dentistry

Veronica Thomas, Dept. of Human Development & Psychoeducational Studies

Altaf Husain, School of Social Work

Chris Hobson, Government Affairs

Team 6: Research and Special Emphasis

Rodney Green (Lead), Department of Economics

Claudia Marin, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Terri Adams-Fuller, Sociology and Anthropology

Staff Resource Team Regina Drake, Provost Office

Carol McKinnon, President’s Office

Gerunda Hughes, Institutional Assessment

Anita English, Office of Secretary

Dana Hector, Grants and Contracts

Appendix B

2009 Self-Study RepoRtto the Middle StateS aSSociation of collegeS and SchoolS

coMMiSSion on higher education

dr. Sidney a. ribeau, PreSident

SePteMber 2009

ii ❘ Howard University

Chapter

the impressive wrought iron gates, located at various entrances to Howard university, are widely regarded as treasures, symbolic of the history and ongoing legacy that defines the institution. designed by Albert Cassell and louis edwin fry, Sr., in the 1930s, the gates were intended, in fry’s words, to be the “trademark of Howard university” and to dominate each entrance with strength and grace. for decades, the gates have served as the literal and symbolic entryways to a vibrant learning community where students enter to prepare themselves and depart to serve the world.

2009 Self-Study RepoRtto the Middle StateS aSSociation of collegeS and SchoolS

coMMiSSion on higher education

Sidney a. ribeau, Ph.d., PreSident

SePteMber 2009

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ v

pReSident’S letteR

BoaRd of tRuSteeS ...........................................................................................vi

MeMBeRS of the univeRSity-Wide Self-Study teaM ............................. viii

aCKnoWledGMentS .......................................................................................... x

exeCutive SuMMaRy ........................................................................................xi

liSt of taBleS ..................................................................................................xix

liSt of fiGuReS ..................................................................................................xx

liSt of SuppoRtinG doCuMentS ..................................................................xxi

ChapteR 1: introduction ........................................................................................ 1

ChapteR 2: design and Methodology ...................................................................... 7

ChapteR 3: accomplishments Relative to the 1999/2004 MSChe Concerns ........... 11

ChapteR 4: Mission and Goals ............................................................................. 17

ChapteR 5: planning, Resource allocation and institutional Renewal ....................... 21

ChapteR 6: institutional Resources ....................................................................... 33

ChapteR 7: leadership and Governance ................................................................ 47

ChapteR 8: administration .................................................................................. 53

ChapteR 9: integrity ............................................................................................ 59

ChapteR 10: institutional assessment ................................................................... 65

ChapteR 11: Student admissions and Retention ..................................................... 81

ChapteR 12: Student Support Services .................................................................. 91

ChapteR 13: faculty .......................................................................................... 101

ChapteR 14: educational offerings .................................................................... 109

ChapteR 15: General education ......................................................................... 113

ChapteR 16: Related educational activities ......................................................... 119

ChapteR 17: assessment of Student learning...................................................... 127

ChapteR 18: Research ....................................................................................... 137

ChapteR 19: Conclusion .................................................................................... 153

Cd of Supporting documents located in inside Back Cover

Table of Contents

vi ❘ Howard University

Board of Trustees

MR. NNAMDI ANOZIEUndergraduate Student TrusteeCollege of Arts and Sciences

MS. KIRSTEN BOWDENGraduate Student TrusteeSchool of Law

PAUL A. COTTON, PH.D.Alumni TrusteeProgram DirectorHealth Behavior and Minority Health Division of Extramural ActivitiesNational Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)

MRS. ELIZABETH G. EARLYHealth Care Consultant

APRILLE J. ERICSSON, PH.D.Alumni TrusteeInstruments Manager & Aerospace EngineerNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

HAROLD P. FREEMAN, M.D.Founder and PresidentRalph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention

MR. EARL G. GRAVES, SR.Chairman and PublisherEarl G. Graves, Ltd.

MRS. DIANNE ATKINSON HUDSONTelevision Executive/Producer (Ret.)

MRS. MARIE C. JOHNSPresident (Ret.)Verizon Washington, DC

VERNON E. JORDAN, JR., ESQ.Senior CounselAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLPSenior Managing DirectorLazard Freres & Co.

WARNER LAWSON, JR., ESQ.Graduate Faculty TrusteeProfessorSchool of Law

CHARISSE R. LILLIE, ESQ.Vice President of Community Investment and Executive Vice President of the Comcast Foundation—Comcast Corporation

MR. ROBERT L. LUMPKINSChairmanThe Mosaic Company

ANITA STEARNS MAYO, ESQ.Alumni TrusteePillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP

CHARLES J. MCDONALD, M.D.Professor of Medical Science and ChairDepartment of DermatologyThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown FLORETTA DUKES MCKENZIE, PH.D.Chairwoman EmeritaFounder and ChairwomanThe McKenzie Group, Inc.

SIDNEY A. RIBEAU, PH.D.PresidentHoward University

MR. ADDISON BARRY RANDChairmanChief Executive OfficerAARP

RENEE HIGGINBOTHAM-BROOKS, ESQ.Vice ChairwomanChair and Chief Executive OfficerBlock Capital, Inc.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ vii

TRUSTEES EMERITI

THE HONORABLE FRANKIE M. FREEMAN

MR. JOHN E. JACOBChairman Emeritus

THE HONORABLE GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD

THE HONORABLE ARNE DUNCANU.S. Secretary of Education

PATRON EX-OFFICIO

MARTIN D. PAYSON, ESQ.

GENERAL COLIN L. POWELL, USA (RET)

MR. FRANK SAVAGEChairman Emeritus

STACEY J. MOBLEY, ESQ.Senior Vice President,Chief Administrative Officer &General Counsel (Ret.)DuPont

CORNELL LEVERETTE MOORE, ESQ.PartnerDorsey & Whitney LLP

MS. JESSYE NORMANConcert and Opera Singer

RICHARD D. PARSONS, ESQ.Chairman of the Board of Directors Citigroup

MR. GERALD D. PROTHROManaging DirectorIKT Investments

M. KASIM REED, ESQ.Partner, Holland & Knight, LLP and Georgia State Senator

RUTH J. SIMMONS, PH.D.PresidentBrown University

WAYMAN F. SMITH III, ESQ.Chairman EmeritusAttorney-at-LawThe Smith Partnership, P.C.

MR. JOHN A. THAINFormer Chairman & CEOMerrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

MR. GREGORY A. WHITEPartner and Managing DirectorThomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.

THE HONORABLE L. DOUGLAS WILDERFormer GovernorState of Virginia

MR. JOHN D. ZEGLISChairman and CEO (Ret.)AT&T Wireless

viii ❘ Howard University

Members of the University-Wide Self-Study Team

economics n vasant telang, office of the provost n veronica thomas, human development and psychoeducational Studies n Michael Wallace, institutional assessment and evaluation

SELF-STUDY WORK GROUPS

MISSION AND GOALS: horace dawson, Ralph Bunche international affairs Center (Chair) n Raymond archer, alumni Relations n daphne Bernard, pharmacy n levena de la Rosa, psychology n Chontrese doswell hayes, Graduate School n Shirley Jackson, occupational therapy n Charles Mcdonald, Board of trustees n Sylvia Mcdonald-Kaufman, divinity n William Roberts, howard university Student association n harold Scott, Ralph Bunche international affairs Center n eleanor traylor, english

PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL: William Spriggs, economics (Chair) n Soleman abu-Bader, Social Work n latrice foster, dentistry n lorenzo Gregory, architecture and engineering Services n lynne Kelly, finance, international Business and insurance n paul Musgrave, administrative Services n Karen Qawiyy, office of the Secretary n Mercedes tibbits, Modern languages and literatures n anthony Woodburne, howard university Student association

INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES: Beatrice adderley-Kelly, pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences (Chair) n antwan Clinton, howard university Bookstore n philip Gatti, pharmacology n patrick Jadin, architecture and design n victor Mcnaughton, architecture and engineering Services n takeisha presson, dentistry n Kamran tavakol, pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences n arthuree Wright, university libraries

LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE: Kurt Schmoke, School of law, (Chair) n Carolyn Broome, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology n alice Gresham Bullock, law n porsche Gordon, alumni Relations n alan halloway, howard university Bookstore n Courtney hudson, arts and Sciences n odessa Jackson, office of the General Counsel n Charles Mcdonald, Board of trustees n Michael newheart, divinity n Steve pierre, Medicine n tashon thomas, howard university Student association

ADMINISTRATION: Jacqueline Smith, Social Work (Chair) n toi Carter, office of the General Counsel n pauline hazel, office of the associate

CHAIRMAN: orlando l. taylor, dean of the Graduate School and professor (emeritus)

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: alvin thornton, interim provost and Chief academic officer (Chair) n donald Bell, vice president for presidential initiatives n florence Bonner, acting vice president for Research and Compliance n theodore Bremner, faculty Senate Chair n o. Jackson Cole, Senior advisor emeritus to the president n Sidney h. evans Jr., Senior vice president and Chief financial officer n Charles Gibbs, interim vice provost for Student affairs n artis hampshire-Cowan, Senior vice president and Secretary of the Board of trustees n Marie Johns, Board of trustees n Jerome Joseph, howard university Student association vice president n Brenda Joyner, president of howard university Staff organization n norma leftwich, General Counsel n Roberta Mcleod, president of howard university Staff organization n hassan Minor, Senior vice president for Strategic planning and external affairs n nicholas owen, howard university Student association president n Bryan Smart, howard university Student association n elizabeth Stroud, vice president for human Capital Management n Marcus Ware, howard university Student association president n donald Wilson, Senior vice president for health Sciences n Marian Wilson, Senior executive for academic operations

STEERING COMMITTEE: orlando l. taylor, dean of the Graduate School and professor (emeritus) (Chair) n Beatrice adderley-Kelly, pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences n Winston anderson, Biology n Carole Borggren, financial analysis and Budget n a. Wade Boykin, education n d. Kortright davis, divinity n horace dawson, Ralph Bunche international affairs n James donaldson, arts and Sciences n alfred fisher, office of Senior vice president for health Sciences n lorraine fleming, engineering, architecture and Computer Science n Rodney Green, economics n Barbara Griffin, office of the provost n Michael harris, administrative Services n Charlene hogan, pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences n Santina Merchant huff, arts and Sciences n Gerunda hughes, institutional assessment and evaluation n Marie Johns, Board of trustees n victoria Kirby, howard university Student association n Celia Maxwell, office of Senior vice president for health Sciences n George Middendorf iii, Biology n teresa Redd, Center for excellence, teaching, learning and assessment n Kurt Schmoke, law n Jacqueline Smith, Social Work n William Spriggs,

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ ix

vice president for administrative Services n Cynthia henderson, office of total Compensation n lorraine Kittrell, Campus police n thomas lawson, Center for academic Reinforcement n tamia McClain, School of Business n haile Mezghebe, College of Medicine n Maxine Williams, enrollment Management n darrion Woods, howard university Student association

INTEGRITY: d. Kortright davis, divinity (Chair) n Shea drake, Student Government association n linda Jones, office of the dean, arts and Sciences n Marlene Mahoney, louis Stokes health Sciences library n Kimberly Moffitt, Graduate School

INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT: lorraine fleming, engineering (Chair) n lila ammons, african american Studies n S. tyrone Barksdale, office of the provost n Gerald duncan, howard university Student association n Mohamed Mekkawi, university libraries n Mahmoud nasr, dentistry n Jacob ortiz, Community association n lenny patterson, Whut television n Jarvis Seegars, howard university Student association n debyii thomas, Journalism, Mass Communications and Media Studies n dawn Williams, education n loretta Woodruff, auxiliary enterprises

STUDENT ADMISSIONS AND RETENTION: Carole Borggren, office of financial analysis and Budget (Chair) n ura-Jean oyemade-Bailey, education n iverson Bell, engineering, architecture and Computer Sciences n eugene Cooper, office of financial analysis and Budget n alicia Criner, howard university Student association n linda Sanders-hawkins, office of admissions n Sterling lloyd, Medicine n Romaine peace, engineering, architecture and Computer Sciences n paul pressley, Graduate School n Margo Smith, auxiliary enterprises

STUDENT SUPPORT AND SERVICES: Celia Maxwell, office of Senior vice president for health Sciences (Chair) n linda akoth, Student life and activities n darcel Bryant, louis Stokes health Sciences library n tonya Guillory, Student life and activities n Konya hurt, information Systems and Services n lynnette Mundey, Student health Center n Shelly Mcdonald-pinkett, internal Medicine

FACULTY: a. Wade Boykin, psychology (Chair) n Sheik hassan, Medicine n Kimberly Jones, engineering n danielle parker-Mason, howard university Student association n Kay t. payne, Communication Sciences and disorders n lloyd Sloan, psychology; Jeanne toungara, history n Charles verharen, philosophy

EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS: Rodney Green, economics (Chair) n Moses Garuba, Systems and Computer Science n victor Gordeuk, Medicine

n thomas heinbockel, anatomy n Garnett henley, dentistry n John hughes, Whut n ivor livingston, Sociology and anthropology n Carol McKinnon, enrollment Management n anita nahal, Graduate School n dana Williams, english n Kamilah Woodson, education

GENERAL EDUCATION: Barbara Griffin, office of the provost (Chair) n Marjay d. anderson, Biology n Carolyn Byerly, Journalism, Mass Communications and Media Studies n Kitty l. ellison, english n Kimberly freeman, education n Quanice floyd, howard university Student association n Stephanie Johnson, laureate Scholar and undergraduate programs of excellence n anna McCorvey, engineering, architecture and Computer Sciences n anissa Ryan, pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences n Zindzi thompson, howard university Student association

RELATED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES: teresa Redd, Center for excellence for teaching, learning and assessment (Chair) n Roy Beasley, Continuing education n annette davis, educational advisory Center n Maria Gomes, Social Work n Rackham Goodlett, Center for academic Reinforcement n lawrence Joseph, founders library n aaron Stills, education n frances Stubbs, engineering, architecture and Computer Sciences n Clint Wilson ii, Journalism

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING: veronica thomas, human development and psychoeducational Studies (Chair) n Spencer Chenier, alumni Relations n Constance ellison, human development and psychoeducational Studies n Janine Jackson, human development and psychoeducational Studies n vernon Jones, information Systems and Services n Marguerite neita, Clinician laboratory Science n nichole newman, educational administration and policy n Sherry Scott, pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences

RESEARCH: Winston anderson, Biology (Chair) n folohan ayorinde, Chemistry n Charles Betsey, economics n Georgia dunston, Microbiology n Gary harris, engineering n Gregory Jenkins, arts and Sciences n earl Kudlick, dentistry n George littleton, physiology n Kelly Mack, office of undergraduate Research n James Mitchell, Chemical engineering

UNIVERSITY-WIDE SELF-STUDY OFFICE STAFF: Gareth McCartney, Web developer n Mary pitman, editor n lisa Rawlings, Writer/liaison n nicole Retland, administrative assistant n Ronyelle Bertrand Ricard, Coordinator n Marquitta Webb, assistant Coordinator/Writer/editor n lynda young, Special events Manager n peng yu, data analyst

x ❘ Howard University

Acknowledgments

the howard university 2009 Self-Study Report is the product of many dedicated individu-als working together as a team for two years to discuss, analyze, and examine the university’s mission, programs, resources, services, and facilities. While involving the entire university community, recognition must be given to the following:

n the 139 members of the Self-Study work groups for their efforts in conducting the study;

n the executive Committee and the Self-Study Steering Committee members for their dedication, intellectual debate, and meaningful discussions;

n the professional staff of the university’s Self-Study office for their attention to the day-to-day details involved in coordinating the overall Self-Study process;

n the staff of the office of the provost for their timely data gathering and general admin-istrative assistance;

n dr. Gwendolyn Bethea, Ms. Katherine McGraw, Ms. diane peoples, and the staff of the Graduate School for their assistance and support;

n dr. Gerunda hughes and the staff of the office of institutional assessment and evaluation for their assistance in the design, development, and administration of the Self-Study surveys;

n dr. o. Jackson Cole and dr. don Bell for their insightful and professional review of the final report;

n Mr. Rodney C. Williams, president/Creative director, Michele thomas, art director, Steve Madison, production director, patricia Kouttab and Rahsaan Williams, designers and the entire staff of RCW Communication design inc. for the graphic design, layout, photography, print production and printing (peake delancey printing) of the final report;

n dr. Judi Moore latta, interim executive director of Communications and Marketing, Ms. Kerry ann hamilton, Media Relations Manager, Ms. Raven padgett, Ms. Grace virtue, and Mr. Justin d. Knight, Staff photographer in the office of university Communications for their assistance in providing insight and professional dialogue regarding the message and images associated with the design of the Self-Study Report;

n Mr. Justin d. Knight, Mr. Ron Ceasar, and Ms. Kerry ann hamilton for their photo-graphs;

n dr. lorraine n. fleming for providing historical linkage to the 1999 Self-Study;n dr. orlando taylor for his comprehensive oversight of the entire Self-Study process; and

to n dr. alvin thornton, interim provost and Chief academic officer for his leadership,

vision and attention to detail.

Special thanks are extended to the howard family for its unequivocal support and encour-agement in assuring the successful completion of this 2009 Self-Study.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xi

Executive Summary

howard university, as one of the nation’s leading research universities, is dedicated to educating students from diverse back-grounds at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional level, with a particular focus on african-american students. Since its found-ing, howard has been open to men and women from all racial and ethnic groups. the university received its first accredita-tion from the Middle States association of Colleges and Schools in 1921, and thereaf-ter has had its accreditation reaffirmed by the association at every required interval.

howard is a unique university with a spe-cial mission that addresses national and international higher education needs that are important to the strategic interest of our nation. it is one of only two non-military col-leges or universities chartered by the united States Congress and the only research uni-versity in the nation with this status. howard was the nation’s only historically Black College or university (hBCu) to achieve Research i status under the old Carnegie Classification system and the only institu-tion within this group to be truly compre-hensive with respect to its array of under-graduate, graduate, and professional degree programs. howard’s unique mission focuses on academic excellence and preparing stu-dents for national and international leader-ship roles. howard prepares students to be highly qualified, socially aware, and ethical individuals. as a comprehensive research university with a diverse, predominantly african-american student body and faculty, howard contributes to the development of new knowledge that seeks to solve social and economic problems in the domestic and international arenas that particularly impact the african diaspora.

Since its last Self-Study in 1999, the university operated largely under the lead-ership of its 15th president, h. patrick Swygert (1995-2008). during this period, the university experienced several impor-tant developments that will undoubtedly

be a part of president Swygert’s legacy of enhanced academic standing, an upgraded university infrastructure, academic program streamlining, unprecedented fundraising, sustained federal support, and improved community partnerships.

Sidney a. Ribeau, ph.d., was appointed as the 16th president of howard university in the Spring of 2008 and assumed his posi-tion in august 2008. in his 2008 opening Convocation speech, and fall 2008 and Spring 2009 State of the university addresses, president Ribeau articulated an expanded and evolving vision that empha-sizes the following: reinforcing an envi-ronment of academic freedom; sharpening academic offerings and quality; increasing attention to graduate programs; develop-ing a more robust research agenda with increased productivity; expanding service to the nation and the world; improving the gender balance in enrollment, retention, and graduation; increasing internationaliza-tion of academic and research activity; and diversifying and strengthening academic, public, and private sector partnerships in the united States and abroad.

president Ribeau’s vision reinforces a commitment to attracting, retaining, and supporting stellar faculty, staff, and admin-istrators. an enhanced dedication to being a student-centered university was evi-denced by the launch of the Students First Initiative, which is designed to improve the student experience at howard. additionally, president Ribeau has expressed a strong commitment to assessment, evaluation, and accountability in advancing the university’s mission and promoting the development of its academic programs.

during the past two years, howard university has engaged in a decennial self-examination to assess the significant changes and continuing areas of concern since the last full reaffirmation of accreditation by the Middles States Commission on higher education (MSChe) in 1999. the find-

Howard is a unique university with a special mission that addresses national and international higher education needs that are important to the strategic interest of our nation.

xii ❘ Howard University

Executive Summary

ings from this examination provide a critical point-in-time assessment of ongoing system-atic efforts that have continually informed institutional decisions regarding programs, services, initiatives, and resource allocation.

the university selected the comprehensive model in the context of the 14 Middle States standards in Characteristics of Excellence as its approach to institutional Self-Study. the Self-Study examined all aspects of its pro-grams and services, governing and support-ing structures, resources, and educational outcomes in relation to the institution’s mission and goals. to supplement the 14 Standards, a section on Research was added to highlight the strategic importance that is assigned to the university’s research agenda. additionally, this Self-Study focused on top-ics and concerns that were addressed in the MSChe 2004 periodic Review Report.

fifteen work groups were chosen to col-lect and analyze data and formulate recom-mendations for each section of the Self-Study and submit a draft summary report. a broadly representative university Self-Study Steering Committee, consisting of the chairs of the 15 work groups, a member of the Board of trustees, and selected fac-ulty, staff, and students reviewed the work groups’ study designs, and ultimately their individual Self-Study reports. an executive Committee, chaired by the interim provost and Chief academic officer and consisting of the Self-Study Chair, university officers and key stakeholders, reviewed and vetted the Self-Study report prior to its transmis-sion to the university president.

The Self-Study Report, a compendium of the salient findings and key recommenda-tions from the university’s assessment pro-cess, includes 19 chapters: an introduction, methodology, accomplishments related to the 1999/2004 Middle States concerns (details are included in Chapter 3), and 15 chapters representing the 14 Standards, the additional Research emphasis section, and a conclusion. outlined below is a brief summary, organized by the Standards, of the Self-Study findings:

Standard 1: Mission and Goals

in view of the changing imperatives in higher education and in the national and

global climate, howard university recently revised its mission statement to reflect a complementary mix between teaching and research, with a focus on the expectation that research must be an integral part of undergraduate, graduate, and professional education requirements. the university’s mission statement was revised to enhance the ability of the university to compete in a changing social, technological and global society. Currently, the university achieves its mission through its focus on four overarch-ing goals, two of which are directly related to academic programs: strengthening aca-demic programs and services, and promoting excellence in teaching and research. Goals three and four are associated with increasing private support and enhancing national and community service. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapters 4 and 5.

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

the university’s mission has driven stra-tegic planning as is evident in Strategic Framework for Action (SFA) I and II (SFA I and II), which set the short- and long-term goals of the institution. the process of assigning resources (i.e., human, finan-cial, physical, and technical) to projects to ensure optimization has been driven in part by SFA I and II. despite the success of the university’s recently completed Capital Campaign, the university must raise addi-tional resources from private, alumni and public sources to support faculty, staff, technology and infrastructure to achieve its historic mission. the university, like all higher education institutions, is facing fiscal challenges. to address its fiscal challenges and ensure that allocation of resources are aligned with its strategic academic goals, the university has developed and implemented a three pronged strategy consisting of a new budget development process, a long-term tuition and fees strategy, and an academic renewal initiative that will review and stra-tegically align the university’s undergradu-ate, graduate and professional degree pro-grams with its mission and fiscal resources. Chapters 5 and 6 contain additional details regarding Standard 2.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xiii

Executive Summary

Standard 3: Institutional Resources

university resources are allocated to achieve university goals while meeting inter-nal and external auditing and federal over-sight requirements. during the past decade, and recently with increased concern from all segments, the university has given increased attention to the manner in which its resources are allocated and the level of involvement by faculty and other members of the university community. in the midst of the financial chal-lenges that howard and other institutions of higher learning face, the university contin-ues to support priority areas and is imple-menting short- and long-term strategies to respond to these challenges. the short-term strategy has included a university-wide fur-lough and salary and hiring freezes. among the long-term measures are a voluntary Separation and incentive Retirement pro-gram (vSiRp), which was completed on June 30, 2009, and an academic renewal initiative (academic program portfolio review and pro-gram prioritization), which will begin in the fall of 2009. technology has significantly

improved instructional capabilities, student learning, and staff productivity. although the university needs to make significant infra-structural improvements, it has made con-siderable improvements in its physical infra-structure. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 6.

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

legal authority for final decision-making at howard university is vested in its Board of trustees and the president as delegated by the Board. the university’s governance pro-cess, as established by its Charter, By-laws, policies, and regulations, provides oppor-tunities for appropriate input into decision-making by faculty, staff, and students.

the university has a shared governance structure, with appropriate roles for fac-ulty, students, and staff outlined in govern-ing handbooks, constitutions, and By-laws. issues concerning the extent to which shared governance exists at the university have been raised and have been the sub-ject of much discussion. president Ribeau

xiv ❘ Howard University

Executive Summary

has embraced the concept of a shared gov-ernance approach. in the first year of his presidency, he instituted policies and prac-tices that increased the transparency of the university’s decision-making process and provided increased opportunities for faculty, student, and staff involvement. increased meetings with the leadership of the faculty Senate and the howard university Student and Staff associations have facilitated their involvement in decision-making. there is general agreement that the university’s Faculty Handbook, which was last changed in 1993, needs to be revised. as referenced above, the university implemented a new budget development process to improve constituent involvement in its decision-mak-ing process. leadership involvement across the campus was also enhanced as a result of the Students First Initiative that focused on improved decision-making regarding the delivery of services to students and the university community. as noted above, the university is launching an academic Renewal initiative, which will include broad participation across the university, to make recommendations to the president about future academic priorities. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapters 7 and 8 of the Self-Study.

Standard 5: Administrationthe university is governed under a char-

ter from the u.S. Congress by a Board of trustees that delegates the management of the university to the president and several university officers. Supporting the president and university officers are school and college academic deans, and program directors, and managers. university officers are recruited and hired using national searches, published vacancy notices, and formal search commit-tee interviews. in recent years, the university has implemented a number of administrative changes designed to address operational chal-lenges and improve administrative efficiency. details regarding this Standard are provided in Chapters 7 and 8.

Standard 6: Integrityhoward university affirms that the main

purpose of an institution of higher education is the discovery of new knowledge through

scholarly teaching, research, and service to the community. in pursuit of knowledge, faculty and students must engage in schol-arly activities with the highest level of integ-rity. howard adheres to its various policies, rules, and regulations that assure that its internal and external relationships are char-acterized by integrity. the university com-plies with its policies concerning integrity in relationships within the university and all related entities, business units, subsidiaries and affiliated organizations. details regard-ing this Standard are found in Chapter 9.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

in 1921, howard conducted its first uni-versity-wide Self-Study to support its initial application for Middle States accreditation. the university was fully accredited by the MSChe and has received university-wide reaffirmation of its accreditation by MSChe since its initial accreditation. in addition to the university’s MSChe accreditation, 30 bodies currently accredit 60 academic pro-grams at the university. School-specific assessments are conducted on a periodic basis, typically for disciplinary accreditation. an added important assessment dimension results from annual institutional reviews by the u.S. department of education.

Since its 1999 Self-Study, howard has increased substantially its institution-wide commitment to, and engagement in assess-ment activities, as reflected in its contin-ued incorporation of assessment across all university functions. the creation of the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) in 2008 is an indicator of the university’s growing commitment to the assessment enterprise. the oiae has developed a short and long-term strategic assessment initiative and is aggressively implementing it in collaboration with all academic and administrative segments of the university. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 10.

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention

at the core of howard university’s mission is effective student recruitment, admission,

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xv

Executive Summary

and retention at the undergraduate, gradu-ate, and professional levels. in Standard 8, the Self-Study examined the university’s central and school/college enrollment man-agement functions. the goal of this section is to assess whether the university is recruit-ing, admitting, and retaining students whose interests, goals, and abilities are aligned with howard’s mission. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 11.

Standard 9: Student Support Services

Within the scope of its mission, the university provides various student services that are designed to support successful stu-dent matriculation and personal and career development. these activities include resi-dential, recreational, academic, healthcare (including mental healthcare), spiritual and social support services. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 12.

Standard 10: Facultyhoward’s faculty members perform a vari-

ety of functions within and on behalf of the university as they strive to fulfill the university’s mission. While these functions coalesce around the core responsibilities of teaching, research, service and professional development, the level at which these tasks are accomplished and the quality of the faculty hinge on key contextual considerations. these key contextual consider-ations include the faculty voice in governance, faculty perceptions of their professional quality of life at howard, how well faculty believe they impact the lives of their students, the finan-cial benefits that they accrue, the facilities and physical environment in which they work, and the technology that is available for their sup-port. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 13.

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

the university’s academic programs, many of which are over 100 years old, emanate from howard’s mission of being a comprehensive research university. the university is also confronted with the task of responding to evolving societal needs and preparing students for leadership and

service in an ever changing nation and global community. howard addresses these challenges by providing a high quality aca-demic experience of great breadth and depth across its five colleges (arts and Sciences; dentistry; engineering, architecture, and Computer Sciences; Medicine; and pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences) and seven schools (Business, Communications, divinity, education, Graduate, law, and Social Work). howard’s colleges and schools have a strong tradition of academic excellence, offering under-graduate degrees in 80 disciplines, master’s degrees in 63 disciplines, ph.d. degrees in 29 disciplines, other doctorates in four areas, first professional degree in five disci-plines, and professional certification in five areas. in addition, the university offers five dual degree programs.

over the past 10 years, 51 academic pro-grams have been accredited. one program has not been reviewed, one program closed, and one program is seeking first-time accredita-tion. Between 2008 and 2009, there were 29 programs in 8 schools/colleges undergoing self-studies and external reviews for reac-creditation. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 14.

Standard 12: General Education

General education at howard is designed so that undergraduate students can acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in essential skills: (1) oral and written com-munication, (2) scientific and quantitative reasoning, (3) critical analysis and reason-ing, and (4) technological competency. a Core Curriculum to advance the goals of the General education requirements has been instituted within all undergraduate Schools and Colleges, and an aggressive strategy for assessing its outcomes is currently under-way. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 15.

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

the university offers a number of related educational opportunities, which complement academic coursework, expand educational

xvi ❘ Howard University

Executive Summary

offerings, and enhance student learning. these include internships, honors programs, co-op programs, fieldwork, on-line instruc-tion, integrated technology, and certificate programs, all of which adhere to academic and professional standards, and support the university’s mission. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 16.

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

at the university, student learning is a fun-damental and critical institutional outcome. all units at the university, directly or indi-rectly, function to support student learning. a comprehensive, coordinated approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes reflects the complexity required to capture the multifaceted processes. the articulation of expected student learning outcomes has emerged from the university’s mission and goals. Student learning outcomes assess-ment at howard is mission-driven, student-centered, broadly defined, collaborative, and results-oriented.

the assessment of Student learning chapter summarizes learning outcomes assessment since the 1999 reaffirmation of accreditation by the MSChe. in particular, this chapter provides updates on outcomes assessments related to university support systems, plans, activities, and measures. data emerging from student learning (direct and indirect) assessments measures are high-lighted. additionally, case examples from various units are reported and recommenda-tions are offered for strengthening the col-lection and use of student learning assess-ment data. details regarding this Standard are found in Chapter 17.

Special Emphasis: Researchin recent years, howard university

was classified as a Research i university, and subsequently as a doctoral-Research university-extensive by the Carnegie Classification of institutions of higher education based largely on the extensive-ness of its ph.d. programs and extramu-rally funded research activity. in the current Carnegie classification system, howard is categorized as a Research/high Research activity university. howard joins 103

Ru/h private and public universities with this designation.

in Chapter 18, the Self-Study describes examples of major research activities at the university, changes in the organizational structure to advance research administra-tion and compliance, and strategies initiated to increase the level of extramural fund-ing for research, while reducing the barri-ers in infrastructure and facilities that limit research activity.

Conclusionthe 2009 Self-Study Report of howard

university has affirmed that like many other institutions throughout the united States, howard faces a number of contemporary challenges, which include:

n increased expectations and requirements to provide more documentation on stu-dent learning and institutional effective-ness through ongoing assessment, and to use more effectively these assess-ments systematically to guide program improvement.

n increased competition from traditionally White institutions (tWis) and hBCus for the best and brightest of african-american students—howard’s core con-stituency—at the undergraduate, gradu-ate, and professional student levels.

n Graying of the professoriate, which requires the development of succes-sion plans for the faculty—and the university’s leadership—to attract new individuals to sustain institutional core values and legacy, while bringing new ideas and perspectives to meet chang-ing times and student needs.

n increasing tuition rates to keep pace with the cost of education, while simul-taneously increasing need-based finan-cial aid to meet the requirements of talented students who are otherwise compromised in their ability to enroll and remain at the university.

n evolving priorities in research funding at the national level, maintaining rel-evance, while increasing academic and scholarly activities; thereby requiring a possible realignment of research and academic priorities in order to increase extramural support and indirect cost recovery.

Executive Summary

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xvii

this Self-Study has provided the univer-sity with an opportunity to reflect upon and explore ways in which its mission can be more fully realized. each chapter that dis-cusses a Standard in this 2009 Self-Study Report offers recommendations. the fol-lowing represent major recommendations that are promulgated in this Report:

n Review and assess the impact of plan-ning, resource allocation, and institu-tional renewal initiatives on a periodic basis.

n align the university’s resources and budget with academic priorities result-ing from program reviews and portfolio assessments.

n establish a dedicated recruitment and retention fund to attract and retain additional nationally recognized schol-ars; improve the support for and retain the strongest current faculty; and pro-mote the development and retention of the university’s young and promising faculty.

n appoint a body of faculty, students, and staff to review the current Board-approved university-wide core compe-tencies and to recommend strategies to schools and colleges for revising, updating and assessing curriculum to implement the competencies.

n appoint a university-wide task force to craft a more coherent set of learning outcomes for all howard undergradu-ates and a methodology for assessment.

n Revise the university’s Faculty Handbook to reflect greater compatibility with cur-rent policies and practices, as well as trends governing faculty roles and respon-sibilities at research universities.

this 2009 Self-Study Report provides important background information which is critical in understanding our current efforts to elevate the research agenda at the university which will provide a cruci-ble for a robust intellectual and academic environment. additionally, the Self-Study delineates the multifaceted approach the university has taken to sustain its histori-cal legacy and mission to meet the needs of african american students and communi-ties, while also positioning itself as a leader among the nation’s research universities. it also challenges the institution to continue to

foster academic excellence within an envi-ronment that encourages and demands aca-demic freedom and dialogue.

the Report outlines current shortcom-ings at the university and what is cur-rently being done to remedy issues such as the imbalance in its student popula-tion between men and women, by work-ing harder to identify, encourage and once enrolled, support young Black men in their efforts to succeed and graduate. the Report also includes information regard-ing the university’s plan to enhance its capacity to address disparities that exist within society, particularly in medicine, law, and education and in any other aspect of the human endeavor, where one seg-ment of the community is lesser served than another.

While pointing out shortcomings and set-ting directions, the Self-Study has revealed that howard is in compliance with the Characteristics of Excellence as defined by the Middle States association of Schools and Colleges and is eligible, therefore, for its accreditation to be reaffirmed. further, the Self-Study has revealed that the university has made considerable progress in addressing the issues raised in the 1999 MSChe reaffirmation of accreditation and the concerns raised in the 2004 periodic Review Report (pRR). at the same time, the university faces significant challenges, many of which are associated with rising costs in the midst of the current domestic and global economic downturn, which have affected virtually all aspects of its opera-tions, including faculty/staff salaries, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the academic/research infrastructure. despite this situation, the university is poised and working actively to aggressively pursue its aspiration to climb systematically into the top echelon of research universities in the united States.

this Self-Study has provided a candid look at the progress that the university has made over the past ten years, where the institution stands today, and more importantly, where new journeys and pathways can and will lead in the future. it has also provided major findings for enhancing institutional and educational effectiveness.

Executive Summary

Certification Statement: Compliance with MSCHE Requirements of Affiliation and

Federal Title IV Requirements (Effective March 1, 2009)

An institution seeking initial accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation must affirm that it meets or continues to meet established MSCHE requirements of affiliation and federal requirements relating to Title IV program participation by completing this certification statement.

The signed statement should be attached to the executive summary of the institution’s self-study report.

If it is not possible to certify compliance with all requirements of affiliation and federal Title IV requirements, the institution must attach specific details in a separate memorandum.

Howard University is seeking: (Name of Institution)

(Check one): Initial Accreditation X Reaffirmation of Accreditation

The undersigned hereby certify that the institution meets all established requirements of affiliation of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and federal requirements relating to Title IV program participation, and that it has complied with the MSCHE policy, “Related Entities.”

Exceptions are noted in the attached memorandum (Check if applicable)

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msche.org

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xix

List of Tables

4.1 average SatC and aCt Scores, hS-Gpa, and top 10% hS Class for enrolled howard university first-time-in-College (ftiC) Students, fall 2000-2007 ................................ 195.1 Comparison of Restricted vs. unrestricted Gift types ................................................................. 255.2 howard university approved and projected tuition Rates for ay 2009-2013 .............................. 276.1 Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2008 ........................................................................ 366.2 technology infrastructure upgrades.......................................................................................... 396.3 Student, faculty, Senior administrator and Staff perceptions of the university’s facilities ............ 4110.1 overall areas of Greatest need: howard university Students and normative Sample from private Colleges ................................................................................................... 6910.2 perceived Student need for assistance in personal and academic areas ..................................... 6910.3 Students interaction of their experiences with Student Support Services ..................................... 7010.4 parent Ratings of “Quality of information” ................................................................................ 7110.5 parent Ratings of “Responsiveness of personnel” ....................................................................... 7110.6 availability, Quality, and adequacy of “physical facilities” at the university ............................... 7210.7 Quality and adequacy of “technology” at the university ........................................................... 7310.8 overall Satisfaction with university Systems: undergraduate Graduating Students .................... 7410.9 overall Satisfaction with university Systems: Graduate/professional Graduating Students ........... 7410.10 a description of institutional assessment for the ay 2008-2009 ................................................ 7611.1 Retention and Graduation Rates for undergraduate School/Colleges: Cohort years 1996 – 2008 ......................................................................................................... 8411.2 total Student aid disbursed, by type, academic year 2006-2007 ............................................... 8611.3 Staff evaluations of offices of enrollment Management ............................................................ 9012.1 Students’ Responses to items Related to financial assistance ..................................................... 9713.1 Summary of Selected Student Responses to faculty instruction ................................................ 10413.2 howard university faculty authors and Student Co-author, 1999−2009 .....................................10516.1 number of freshmen Scoring Below the english 002 Cut-Score Compared to CaR-verbal enrollment ........................................................................................................12017.1 department of english posttest assessments Results in english 002 and english 003: fall 2005 and Spring 2006 .....................................................................................12917.2 average Cumulative Grade point average (Gpa) by School/College, level, and Gender: Spring 2008 ..................................................................................................................13017.3 Students’ perceptions of the learning environment at howard university: Spring 2008 .............13217.4 placement Reports of howard university Graduating Seniors: Class of 2007 .............................13218.1 total funds awarded by School/College for fy 2003-2008 .......................................................13818.2 total funds awarded by Sponsor type for fy 2003-2008 ..........................................................13918.3 examples of Research Centers ...................................................................................................14618.4 participants in the Seminars, Workshops, and Certification program ...........................................14818.5 peer and aspirational peer universities ......................................................................................14918.6 federally financed R&d expenditures at universities and Colleges, Ranked by expenditures fy1999-2007 ......................................................................................15018.7 impediments to the Conduct of Sponsored programs ..............................................................15118.8 faculty Reasons for not applying for Research awards .........................................................151

Chapter page

xx ❘ Howard University

List of Figures

5.1 Capital Campaign Contributions by Size ..................................................................246.1 fy 2008 Revenue by Source ($Millions) ..................................................................336.2 federal appropriation 2000-2009 (Millions) .............................................................346.3 total operating Budget ($Millions) and aGR, fy 1999-2009 ...................................35 6.4 operating Revenues and expenses, fy 2004-2008 ...................................................356.5 operating expenses ($Millions), fy 2008 ................................................................366.6 endowment Market value .......................................................................................378.1 organizational Chart ...............................................................................................5411.1 total enrollment, ay 1998-2008 .............................................................................8211.2 Graduate enrollment, ay 1998-2008 .......................................................................8211.3 undergraduate enrollment, ay 1998-2008 ...............................................................8311.4 application for undergraduate admission and Matriculation, ay 2002-2008 ............................................................................8311.5 average SatC Scores of ftiC applicants, ay 2002-2008 ........................................8411.6 freshman Retention Rate vs. non-local peers, ay 2004-2007 ..................................8511.7 freshman Retention Rate vs. local peers, ay 2004-2007 ..........................................8511.8 Graduate School ph.d. Recipients time-to-degree, ay 2005-2009 ............................8611.9 ph.d. Graduate Rate year-to-degree, Cohorts fall 1999-fall 2005 .............................8711.10 Masters Graduate Rate year-to-degree, Cohorts fall 1999-fall 2007 ..........................8711.11 undergraduate tuition Rate increases howard and national averages ........................8811.12 average percentage of tuition and fees increase for howard university and institution types for ay 2007-2008 ........................................... 8812.1 library expenditure at howard peer university Research libraries, 2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................9312.2 Quality of on-Campus Residential facilities ............................................................9513.1 faculty (ft & pt) by Rank and Gender, fall 2008..................................................10113.2 faculty (ft & pt) by School/College, 2008 ...........................................................10213.3 faculty distribution by ethnicity, fall 2008 ............................................................10216.1 Grade distribution for CaR-Math vs. non-CaR Students in College algebra i ..................................................................................................12017.1 School of Business Structure for the assessment of Student learning ......................12818.1 number of proposals Submitted and awarded, fy 1999-2008 .................................13818.2 total amounts of funds Received during fy 2003-2009 ........................................13818.3 total award amount from nih and nSf, fy 1999-2008 ........................................140

Chapter page

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ xxi

List of Supporting Documents2006 Senior Leadership Development and Succession Assessment Report 2007 Faculty Research Survey Summary 2008 Enrollment Management Strategic Plan 2008 Howard University Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP) Results2008 Self-Study Survey Instruments 2009 Graduate and Professional Graduating Students’ Exit Survey Report 2009 Undergraduate Graduating Students’ Exit Survey Report AAMC Honors Howard’s Donald E. Wilson with Its Highest Award Academic Affairs Strategic Planning and Budgeting Updates, 2007 Alternative Spring Break Summary Assessment Measures Utilized in the University’s Academic Programs Bingham, Howard Launch Diversity Fellowship: Partnership with School of Law Board of Trustees 2009-2010 Membership List Case Study – A Review of Operating Procedures to Increase Effectiveness of Student ServicesCase Study - Evaluations of Counseling Center Services Case Study: Biology Department Review leads to Facilities Renovation and Improvement in Academic

ProgramsCase Study: Improvements in Passage Rates: United States Medical Licensure ExaminationsCase Study: Predicting Successful Matriculation through Basic Sciences Case Study: Using Survey Results to Improve the Curriculum Certificate Programs at Howard University and Peer Institutions College of Engineering, Architecture and Computer Science (EACS) Mission, Goals, Objectives, and

Expected Student Outcomes in Relation to University’s MissionCollege of Medicine Accreditation Report Comparison of DL vs. On-Site Enrollment, AY 2003-2004 to AY 2006-2007 Credit Certificates Awarded at Howard University, 1997-2007 Directory of HBCU DL Programs Engineers Without Borders – HU Improve Lives in Kenya, Brazil Enrollment in CAR, Fall 2005-Spring 2008 Example of a Course Syllabus from the Health Sciences Example of a Course Syllabus from the Humanities Example of a Course Syllabus from the Natural Sciences Example of a Course Syllabus from the Social Sciences FACTS 2009 – Howard University Faculty Handbook, 1993 Faculty Senate Constitution, 2000 Faculty Senate Letter to Middle States Commission, April 2008 Faculty Workload Policy, 2000 Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 Sample of Results for the Senior Comprehensive Examinations for

Departments in the College of Arts and Sciences - Pass/Fail Scores Fall 2008 Sample of Results for the Senior Undergraduate Comprehensive Examinations for Departments

in the College of Arts and Sciences General Education Grid: Fulfillment of Competencies Graduate Bulletin Graduate Certificate in College and University Faculty Preparation Graduate Certificate in Computer Security Graduate Certificate in International Studies Graduate Certificate in Women’s Studies Graduate School Thesis and Dissertation Manual, 2008 Howard Students from Across Nation Spend Spring Break Helping Needy in New Orleans and PanamaHoward University 2009-2010 Student Handbook Howard University Academic Code of Student Conduct, 1987 Howard University and AAAA Announce Partnership to Increase Inclusion in Advertising Howard University By-laws of the Board of Trustees, 2007 Howard University Certificate Programs by School/College Howard University Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy, 1998

xxii ❘ Howard University

Supporting Documents

Howard University Dental School Dean Receives Presidential Citation from Nation’s Leading Dental Education Association

Howard University Employee Financial, Personal and Private Information Confidentiality Agreement, 2008

Howard University Fall 2009 Student Reference Manual Howard University Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request to the Department of EducationHoward University FY 2009 Internal Audit Plan Howard University Guiding Principles for Assessment, 2001 Howard University Junior Named Truman Scholar Howard University Libraries Strategic Plan for the Main Library Group Howard University On-line Courses, August 2005-January 2008 Howard University Policy Against Sexual Harassment and Gender-Based Discrimination in Education

Programs and Activities, 1999Howard University Policy and Procedure on Equal Opportunity in Employment and Education Programs

and Activities, 1999Howard University Signs MOU with Botswana to Establish University Howard University Staff Organization By-laws, 2004 Howard University Student Code of Conduct, 2000 Howard University Student Performance by Level for On-line Courses, January 2003- August 2007Howard University to Receive $70.6 Million from Pace Howard University’s Distance Education Vendors Howard University’s WHUR 96.3 FM “A Helping Hand” Radiothon HU 101: Parent Survey of Selected SQL Units Library Advisory Committee Report, 2008 Library Assessment Plan Number and Types of DL Programs at Howard and Its Peer Institutions Outcome Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Report, July 2009 Personnel Guideline and Statement of Current Benefits, 1999 President Ribeau’s Letter to Member of the Howard University Community, December 3, 2008Referencing Rubrics Report on the Infusion of Information Technology Supporting Academic Instruction and Student Life at

Howard University, January, 2005Richard D. Parsons Appointed First Holder Gwendolyn S. and Colbert I. King Chair in Public PolicyRole of HBCUs as Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients School of Law Accreditation Report School of Pharmacy and CVS/pharmacy Open New Practice Laboratory Scores of Kids Get Free Care at “Give Kids a Smile Day” Services 2009 - Howard University Spring 2009 Assessment of General Education Outcomes in Quantitative ReasoningSpring 2009 Assessment of General Education Outcomes in Written CommunicationStrategic Framework for Action I Strategic Framework for Action II Strategic Framework for Action II Status Report Strategic Plan for the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation Students First Campaign Students First Campaign Summary Report Summary of First-Time-in-College Undergraduate Recruitment and Enrollment Activities (February 2008) Summary of the National Conference on Undergraduate Research Summary of the Rangel Program Supply Chain Management (SCM) Program Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys Technical Report for the 2009 Howard University College Students’ Needs Assessment SurveyThe Campaign for Howard The Web Opportunities Analysis for Howard University Report Three Howard Seniors Awarded Fulbright Scholarships Top Producers of African-American Master’s Degrees, Including On-line DegreesUndergraduate Bulletin Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Research Course

Introduction1

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 1

Introduction1

Institutional Overview

howard university as one of the nation’s leading research universities is dedicated to educating students from diverse back-grounds at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional level, with a particular focus on african-american students, as well as those of all other racial and ethnic groups from the united States and around the world. the university received its first accredita-tion from the Middle States association of Colleges and Schools in 1921 and has had its accreditation reaffirmed by the association at every required interval thereafter.

howard is a unique university with a special mission that addresses the higher education needs of the nation and the world. it is one of only two non-military colleges or universi-ties chartered by the united States Congress and the only research university in the nation with this status. howard is the nation’s only historically Black College or university (hBCu) to have achieved Research i status under the old Carnegie Classification system and the only institution within this group to be truly comprehensive with respect to its array of undergraduate, graduate, and pro-fessional degree programs. it has produced Rhodes Scholars, two in the last decade, as well as truman, fulbright, Marshall, and presidential Scholars. Since its founding, howard has been open to men and women from all racial and ethnic groups.

among the hBCus at the undergraduate level, howard is a leader in many academic areas, especially research and training proj-ects involving the science, technology, engi-neering, and mathematics (SteM) disci-plines. according to recent statistics from the national Science foundation, howard produces more african-american under-graduates in the science and engineering fields who later obtain the ph.d. degree than any college or university in the united States. at the graduate and professional degree levels, howard maintains its uniqueness.

it currently awards more on-campus ph.d. degrees to african americans in science and engineering, as well as in several of the humanities and social science fields, than any other research university in the united States. Many of these howard scholars are members of the nation’s professoriate. in many critical professional fields, most nota-bly medicine, dentistry, and law, howard continues to be, despite the elimination of traditional barriers of segregation and overt discrimination, among the nation’s larg-est producers of african-american degree recipients. at the same time, these gradu-ate and professional degree programs attract both significant numbers of international students from around the world, and students from all the major racial/ethnic groups in the united States. it is safe to say, therefore, that without howard university, the nation would experience significant barriers to its goal of achieving full participation by all citizens—particularly african americans—in higher education and, thereby, would experience a significant diminution in the diversity of its intellectual and professional workforce that fuels the innovation, creativity and ser-vice that keeps america competitive on the global scale.

the confluence of these factors and oth-ers makes it very difficult, if not impos-sible, to use traditional definitions to cat-egorize howard within the constellation of american research universities. it is both an important hBCu undergraduate desti-nation, especially for african americans, while at the same time it competes with the full spectrum of the nation’s public and private research universities for extramu-ral research dollars and for academically talented african americans and students from all other racial/ethnic groups and from around the nation and world.

howard’s unique mission focuses on aca-demic excellence and preparing students for leadership roles and service in the national and global communities. in addition, howard

…Howard produces more African American undergraduates in the science and engineering fields who later obtain the Ph.D. degree than any college or university in the United States.

2 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 1

prepares students to be highly qualified, socially aware, and ethical individuals. as a comprehensive research university with a diverse, predominantly african-american student body and faculty, howard contributes to the development of new knowledge that seeks to solve social and economic problems in the domestic and international arenas that particularly impact the african diaspora. for example, its students and faculty are actively engaged in research dealing with such diverse topics as the treatment of cancer and hiv/aidS; sickle-cell anemia; the genomic identification and tracking of racial dispari-ties in various diseases; free press journalism programs around the world; global climate change; business and community develop-ment in minority communities; urban edu-cation reforms; and nanofabrication and the synthesis of nanomaterials.

in an effort to promote excellence in teach-ing and research, the university has devel-oped collaborations and established strong professional peer interactions and academic linkages with other leading universities and colleges domestically and internationally. in this regard, howard has also formed many educational partnerships with universities in europe, asia, africa, and South america in keeping with its mission to groom 21st-century students who will serve humankind as citizens of the world through their profes-sional and personal pursuits. additionally, the university has established partnerships through Memoranda of agreement with many governmental agencies.

howard has an impressive number of dis-tinguished alumni which include a nobel laureate, pulitzer prize winners, u.S. gover-nors, mayors of large u.S. cities, international opera stars, a former u.S. Supreme Court Justice, u.S. Cabinet members, presidents of numerous disciplinary societies, foreign heads of state, members of Congress, state and local elected officials, and hundreds of distinguished academicians and research-ers in numerous disciplines throughout the nation and the world.

the university library system, typifying howard’s commitment to research, contains more than two million volumes and is a mem-ber of the association of Research libraries. among the system’s many resources are the state-of-the-art, louis Stokes health

Science library and the law library, both of which opened in 2001. in addition, the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, one of the world’s largest and most comprehen-sive research collections dedicated to docu-menting the history and culture of people of african descent throughout the world, is a unique university asset.

the university has an array of media outlets that address the educational, social, economic, and informational needs of the academic and wider communities. its radio station, WhuR-fM, and television sta-tion, Whut-tv, a pBS affiliate, serve the Washington metropolitan area and beyond. each provides training laboratories that assist in preparing students for professional broadcasting and other careers.

Location and Characteristicsthe university’s main campus is located

in Washington, dC, within five miles of the united States Capitol and consists of more than 57 buildings on more than 89 acres of land. it also maintains a 22-acre West Campus in upper northwest Washington, which houses the law School; a 22-acre cam-pus in northeast Washington, home to the divinity School; and a 108-acre Beltsville, Maryland research campus, which houses a major atmospheric science research facil-ity. the 248 licensed-bed university hospi-tal (howard university hospital) provides services for a significant segment of the Washington, dC metropolitan community, in addition to providing a clinical setting for training physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers.

the university’s mission and goals are achieved through a diverse faculty, which for fall 2008 consisted of 1,064 full- and 456 part-time faculty and approximately 3,869 full- and part-time staff. among the faculty, 86% have earned the highest degree in their discipline.

howard’s total enrollment for ay 2008-2009 was 11,227: 8,638 full- and 2,589 part-time students from virtually every state in the union, the district of Columbia, and 67 countries. of the total, 33% were graduate and professional students. in its 12 colleges and schools, the university offers a full array of undergraduate degrees in 80 dis-

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 3

Introduction

ciplines, master’s degrees in 63 disciplines, ph.d. degrees in 29 disciplines, other doc-torates in 4 areas, 1st professional degree in 5 disciplines, and professional certifications in 5 areas. in addition, the university offers 5 dual degrees.

Since its founding in 1867 by Major General oliver otis howard, a Civil War hero and Commissioner of the freedmen’s Bureau, howard has awarded more than 100,000 degrees and certificates in the professions, the arts, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. in the 2008 graduating class, the university conferred 2,324 degrees, including 924 graduate and professional degrees.

Institutional Aspirations While there is great debate within the aca-

demic community as to the validity of rank-ings of universities by various popular pub-lications, howard, nonetheless, generally competes favorably compared to the nation’s major research universities. under the old Carnegie classification system for universi-ties, howard was classified as a Research i university. under the current Carnegie clas-sification system, revised in 2005, howard is classified in the top overall category for research universities with medical schools, specifically Comprehensive doctoral with Medical/veterinary Schools, alongside 78 of the nation’s leading research universities. in this 2005 Carnegie classification, howard was listed in the second research grouping among research universities, high Research activity. further, in the 2009 U.S. News and World Report rankings, the university ranked 102 out of 240 universities that achieved “national universities Rankings” stature. this same publication ranked howard 36th among the top 50 “Best value” national Research universities when both quality and cost factors were considered.

Within this context, howard, under president Sidney a. Ribeau’s leadership, will seek to build upon the solid reputation it has garnered among the nation’s research uni-versities to advance to an even higher level. thus, the university will seek to advance to Carnegie’s highest research activity cat-egory, very high Research activity.

the current Middle States Commission

on higher education (MSChe) Self-Study examination has established informal bench-marks for comparing howard’s systems, operations, and policies against a small set of research universities of comparable size with medical and engineering schools. the choice of these institutions resulted from a review process that involved input from many university stakeholders, i.e., deans, administrators, students, staff, and members of the Middle States Steering and executive Committees.

from this process, more than 30 institu-tions were recommended for consideration. the following ten prominent national uni-versities were finally selected as peer/aspi-rant institutions for benchmarking purposes for selected aspects of the current Self-Study: Case Western Reserve university, emory university, George Washington university, Georgetown university, temple university, tulane university, the university of Maryland College park, vanderbilt university, and Washington university in St. louis. While howard university will con-solidate and significantly expand its standing among the nation’s leading research universi-ties, it remains mindful of the fact that it also must continue to compete with many liberal arts and master’s-focused institutions for the nation’s best african-american undergradu-ate students. in particular, howard competes with the nation’s leading hBCus for talented african-american undergraduate students.

Important Recent Developments The Swygert Legacy

Since the last Self-Study in 1999, the university has operated largely under the leadership of its 15th president, h. patrick Swygert (1995-2008). during this period, the university experienced several impor-tant developments that will undoubtedly be a part of president Swygert’s legacy of enhanced academic standing, upgraded uni-versity infrastructure, academic program streamlining, unprecedented fundraising, and improved community partnerships.

Specifically, under president Swygert’s leadership, the Strategic Framework for Action I, and the Strategic Framework for Action II were developed and a significant

4 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 1

number of the goals mentioned in these stra-tegic plans were implemented, which were responsible for guiding many of the recent academic, research, and student support enhancements at the university. to undergird these plans, a successful Capital Campaign was launched in 2004 that exceeded its goal of $250 million. other major accomplishments during the Swygert presidency included increased financial support for undergradu-ate and graduate students, increased oppor-tunities for students interested in interna-tional affairs, several capital improvements, upgraded technological infrastructure, and new learning and research laboratories in the natural sciences.

to broaden its research mission, a new building (howard university Research Building i or huRB1) was created in 2005. new research centers were estab-lished, including the national Center for atmospheric Sciences (nCaS), funded by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa), and the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC), funded by the national institutes of health (nih). to enhance teaching and learning and the assessment thereof, with a strong emphasis on faculty development, the university cre-ated a Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla) in 2003. the university also opened a new office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) in 2008. the oiae coordinates university-wide assessment of student learning and institutional effective-ness and provides a mechanism for com-municating data derived from such assess-ments to academic units as well as offices responsible for university planning and budgeting.

The Ribeau Vision

Sidney a. Ribeau, ph.d. was appointed as the 16th president of howard university in the Spring of 2008 and began leadership of the institution in august 2008. in the 2008 opening Convocation, fall 2008 State of the university, and Spring 2009 State of the university addresses, president Ribeau articulated an expanded and evolving vision for howard that emphasizes the following:

n Maintaining the commitment to an envi-ronment of academic freedom;

n sharpening academic offerings and quality;

n increasing attention to graduate pro-grams;

n developing a more robust research agenda and increased productivity;

n expanding service to the nation and the world;

n improving the gender balance in enroll-ment, retention, and graduation

n increasing internationalization of aca-demic and research activity; and

n diversifying and strengthening aca-demic, public, and private sector partner-ships in the united States and abroad.

the vision reinforces a commitment to attracting, retaining, and supporting stel-lar faculty, staff, and administrators. an enhanced dedication to being a student-cen-tered university is evidenced by the launch of the Students First Campaign, which is designed to improve the student experience at howard. additionally, president Ribeau has expressed a strong commitment to assessment, evaluation, and accountability in advancing the university’s mission and promoting development of its academic programs.

president Ribeau’s vision promotes the aforementioned aspiration of advancing howard university to be included as one of the nation’s top 50 leading research univer-sities as defined by the indicators promul-gated by such bodies as the association of american universities and the national Research Council. to accomplish this goal, the president has outlined an agenda that embraces increased interdisciplinary study, new models of teaching and learning, and streamlined academic offerings. the refo-cusing and realignment of academic offer-ings, with a focus on the SteM disciplines, is a cornerstone of this strategic vision and will require identifying niche academic areas and aligning the university’s budget-ary allocations and priorities to pursue these goals. to this end, the university is currently involved in a transparent process of engag-ing the faculty, the academic leadership, a select commission consisting of internal and external members, and the academic excellence Committee of the Board of trustees in these efforts. also characteristic of this effort is the creation of a new bud-

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 5

Introduction

get process that includes the formation of a university-wide budget committee (Budget advisory Committee—BaC) headed by the provost and Chief academic officer. BaC is charged with the responsibility of review-ing all aspects of the university’s budget and making recommendations to the president on capital and expenditure priorities and measures of accountability.

About the 2009 Self-Study this current Self-Study was shaped by

the comprehensive model as defined by the Middle States Commission on higher education’s Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report. Because the university was in a period of transition that involved the appointment of a new president, the compre-hensive model was the most appropriate. the comprehensive model approach enabled the university to evaluate and assess the effec-tiveness of the policies and practices that undergird its systems and operations. the approach was particularly beneficial to the university and its new leadership during a period of transition.

in addition to the 14 Standards articu-lated under the MSChe Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, the

university conducted a thorough and focused look at its research enterprise as an impor-tant aspect of the Self-Study. Specifically, howard sought to examine its infrastructure for supporting extramurally funded research; the reward system for faculty to conduct research and obtain grants and contracts that fund research; the allocation of funds to sup-port faculty and student research; and the extent to which research is an integral part of the academic experience for undergradu-ate, graduate, and professional students. Because of howard’s Carnegie classification and its aspirations as described above, it was a propitious time for the university to con-duct a thorough and extensive assessment of its research enterprise.

the Self-Study was conducted also within the context of concerns identified by the MSChe in the 1999 site visit report. these concerns included the need to revisit the university’s mission; to formulate a com-prehensive program to evaluate institutional effectiveness and student learning; to develop a better balance between full deliberation on policy issues and timely adoption and imple-mentation of policy; to expand and deepen its research program; and to continue taking steps to assure future financial security.

further, the Self-Study process was

6 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 1

mindful of the MSChe response to the university’s 2004 periodic Review Report. Specifically, it addressed the need to assess the alignment and integration of its under-graduate, graduate, and professional aca-demic programs to meet its traditional mis-sion of providing high quality academic programs, while reorganizing its academic priorities to become a major research uni-versity. it also concentrated on the expec-tation that the university must implement its plans to establish a university-wide comprehensive program for assessing institutional effectiveness and student learning. Similarly, the current Self-Study sought to assess the extent to which the university’s infrastructure for research had been strengthened and barriers to faculty research productivity had been eliminated or mitigated. the university has addressed these concerns and others in a variety of ways including:

n the successful completion of the afore-mentioned Strategic Framework for Action I (SFAI) and the substantial completion of Strategic Framework for Action II (SFA II);

n the establishment of a cabinet level vice president for Research and Compliance;

n the opening of the Center for excellence in teaching, learning and assessment (Cetla);

n the creation of an office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae);

n the adoption of a university-wide core curriculum for undergraduate students; and

n the creation of an internal funding mechanism to promote faculty engage-ment in assessment and teaching effec-tiveness through the fund for academic excellence.

finally, this study was conducted within the context of national and global trends and realities that affect howard and all institutions of higher education. these trends and realities include the current domestic and global economic downturn that is occurring in the midst of rising costs and declining financial support for higher education from the public and pri-vate sectors. these downward trends have impacted endowments, operating budgets, the availability of scholarships, and the

ability of many students and their families to pay for a higher education. also con-sidered within this Self-Study were such realities as the increased competition from “for profit” and on-line universities, glo-balization of higher education, and more competition for african-american stu-dents and faculty from the full spectrum of american higher education. the emer-gence of the millennium student, rapid and costly technological advances, new approaches to teaching and learning, and assessment of core institutional planning and priorities also provided a critical con-text for this Self-Study.

as a result of the Self-Study process, the faculty, administrators, staff, and students committed significant amounts of time and energy to examine the university. Reports were prepared; data collected and analyzed; and recommendations advanced—all of which are used to reflect upon the progress of the institution and to inform its planning far into the future. in the sections of this summary status report that follow, major findings and recommendations regard-ing the 14 Standards for accreditation as described in the guidelines of MSChe Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, and resulting from a thorough and focused look at howard’s research enterprise, are described and summarized. finally, recommendations for howard’s future enhancement are made.

Design and Methodology2

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 7

Design and Methodology2

Self-Study Goals and Objectives

the Self-Study was designed to examine howard’s continued progress in meeting the Characteristics of Excellence standards as defined by the Middle States Commission on higher education (MSChe) and to docu-ment its eligibility to have its accreditation reaffirmed. the university’s governing board, administrative leadership, faculty, students, and university community will use the results to further advance the university’s mission as a national research university of the first rank that is competitive with its peer and aspira-tional institutions, and to achieve its stated goals and objectives.

in addition to the reaffirmation of accredi-tation, the ultimate goal of this Self-Study was to produce a living document that pro-vides a “snapshot” of the university for its relevant stakeholders to assist in defining and securing howard’s future within the context of its past and current standing.

Self-Study Leadership and Staff

the university president has provided overall leadership of the Self-Study process with significant support from the interim provost and Chief academic officer and the Senior vice president for health Sciences and their respective staffs. the Self-Study process began under the leadership of president h. patrick Swygert, who retired from the university on June 30, 2008, and has continued under the leadership of Sidney a. Ribeau, ph.d., the university’s new pres-ident who began his duties in august 2008. president Ribeau continued the Self-Study process with the existing protocol.

orlando l. taylor, ph.d., vice provost for Research and dean of the Graduate School, chaired the current Self-Study process from its inception. dr. taylor is a national leader in graduate education and within the disci-

pline of communication. he served as Chair of the MSChe university-wide Self-Study Committee in 1987–1989.

Steering and Executive Committees

Consistent with MSChe guidelines, a Steering Committee and an executive Committee provided critical input to the Self-Study process, including the review and approval of the final Self-Study Report submitted to the university president for approval and submission to MSChe.

the Steering Committee consisted of a broad range of individuals from the university community, specifically the chairs of the 15 Work Groups, as well as faculty, administra-tors, staff, and students nominated by various faculty, student, and staff stakeholder groups and units of the university. additionally, the Chair of the academic excellence Committee of the Board of trustees also served on the Steering Committee, assuring broad engagement of the Board of trustees in the Self-Study process.

the executive Committee, which was chaired by the interim provost and Chief academic officer, consisted of all members of the president’s cabinet in addition to rep-resentatives from the Student association, the faculty Senate, and the Staff association. the Committee was responsible for reviewing and providing input from senior level adminis-trators and student, faculty, and staff leaders into the Self-Study process. this executive Committee advised the president on the prog-ress of the Self-Study and made recommen-dations for presidential interventions when needed. it also advised the president on pos-sible implications of Self-Study findings for university planning and institutional renewal.

Work Groupsfifteen Work Groups were established to

conduct the work of the Self-Study—one

8 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 2

Work Group for each of the 14 standards of accreditation provided by MSChe and one additional Work Group on Research. the Research Work Group was formed, in part, because of issues raised by MSChe in 1999, and because of the university’s commitment to significantly raise its research productiv-ity and the extramural funds required to sup-port research.

to ensure that each Work Group repre-sented students, faculty, staff, and adminis-trators from across the university commu-nity, nominations were sought and received for Work Group membership from vari-ous stakeholders and leaders: the faculty Senate; the senior administrative officers of the university; the deans of the schools and colleges; the directors of academic sup-port units; the leadership of the university’s staff organization; and the leadership of the university’s student body. volunteers were also solicited throughout the university to submit their names and areas of interest for membership consideration.

from this pool of candidates, staffs from the office of the provost and the office of the vice provost for Research and dean of the Graduate School populated the work groups in accordance with stated interests, experiences, and expertise of the nominees and volunteers. all nominees and volunteers were subsequently selected and assigned to a Work Group, resulting in approximately 7–10 persons per Work Group.

each Work Group was required to estab-lish key study questions for consideration, to review existing data from various uni-versity sources on the subject area of its focus, to review assessment data generated by the office of institutional assessment and evaluation obtained specifically for the Self-Study, and to make recommendations to guide future institutional planning.

Board of Trustees Engagement

Because the Self-Study process was cen-tral to several interests and initiatives of the Board of trustees, e.g., the long Range financial planning Committee and the academic portfolio initiative, the Chair of the Board’s academic excellence Committee was designated to work directly with the

Self-Study process and to serve as a member of the Steering and executive Committees. other Board members, including the entire academic excellence Committee, were available for participation and engagement in the Self-Study process as required.

Self-Study Office Staffa staff was hired to provide administra-

tive and coordinating support for the devel-opment of the Self-Study. the staff consists of a coordinator, an administrative assistant, a data analyst, two technical writers, a Web designer, and a special events manager.

Other University Assessment and Accreditation Initiatives

Several other assessment and accreditation activities within howard’s schools, colleges, and departments were conducted concur-rently with this Self-Study process. these included an annual institutional review by the u.S. department of education and pro-fessional society accreditation efforts in the schools of law; Business; and education; and the Colleges of Medicine; engineering, architecture and Computer Science; and dentistry. Where appropriate, the MSChe Self-Study process considered and utilized the results from these rigorous assessment efforts. four other assessment related activi-ties are also being conducted concurrently with the MSChe Self-Study, each of which informed, as appropriate, the current exer-cise. these activities are outlined below.

n the academic excellence initiative—an initiative of the academic excellence Committee of the Board of trustees and the office of the provost designed to pro-vide assessments and recommendations required to align the departmental and programmatic offerings of the schools and colleges with strategic objectives and financial resources.

n the long Range financial planning Committee—a special committee of the Board of trustees charged with recommending a strategy for aligning the university’s budget with its mis-sion and goals, and with ascertaining evolving trends in higher education and the society at large that affect howard

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 9

Design and Methodology

university’s present and future status as a national research university with a predominantly african-american stu-dent body.

n presidential Select Commission on academic Renewal—a Commission appointed by the president to review and make recommendations for adjustments to the university’s academic programs.

n assessment of administrative processes initiative—an initiative designed to improve and optimize service delivery.

Self-Study Methodology the university selected the compre-

hensive model as defined in the MSChe guidelines, Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report, for its institutional Self-Study. this model examines all aspects of programs and services, governing and supporting structures, resources, and edu-cational outcomes in relation to howard’s mission and goals.

data for the study were collected from interviews with university administrators, student focus groups, annual reports of

schools/colleges and administrative units, accreditation reports of schools/colleges, periodic reports from schools/colleges and administrative units, assessment plans, and four Self-Study surveys.

four survey questionnaires were designed—one for each of the four stake-holder groups: howard university Self-Study 2008 Student Survey, howard university Self-Study 2008 faculty Survey, howard university Self-Study 2008 Senior administrator Survey, and howard university Self-Study 2008 Staff Survey. items in 15 topic areas were distributed to the four stakeholder groups. all question-naires consisted of both closed-ended and open-ended items. the items that eventu-ally appeared on the questionnaires came from four sources: (1) research questions in the howard university Self-Study design that were generated by the Working Groups; (2) items from the 1998 Self-Study questionnaires; (3) new items suggested by the Steering Committee members, and (4) new items suggested by the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (see Supporting document 2.1).

10 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 2

the surveys were made available to all students, faculty, senior and mid-level administrators, and staff. Rather than sam-pling each population, a census was con-ducted to assess perceptions of the pro-grams, resources, facilities, and services of the university. potential respondents were contacted via web-based and paper-based formats.

the student sample consisted of a total of 652 respondents—undergraduate (81%), graduate (15.3%), and profes-sional (3.7%) students. in addition, 73.2% of the student respondents were female and 26.8% were male. the faculty sample consisted of 150 respondents. the distri-bution across faculty ranks was: professor (32.7%), associate professor (36%), assistant professor (20%), lecturer (4.7%), and instructor (6.7%). in addi-tion, 55.3% of the faculty respondents were female and 44.7% were males. Most respondents in the senior and mid-level administrators’ category were directors with faculty positions or Chairpersons (40.3%), followed by deans or associate/assistant deans (25.45%). the remain-ing administrators were senior level rang-ing from senior vice president to associ-ate provost (34.25%). there were 50.7% males, 37.3% females, and 11.9% of the respondents did not report their gender. among the staff respondents, 35.9% held a

supervisory position, 68.1% were female, and 45.7% of them have been employed at howard university for more than 16 years (see Supporting document 2.2).

Communications with the University Community

the office of the university-Wide Self-Study implemented several measures to communicate with the howard community to ensure that the Self-Study process was interactive, transparent, and collaborative. through use of the howard university e-mail system, periodic updates on Self-Study activities, and milestones were pro-vided to the university community. a Web site was created specifically for the Self-Study. additionally, executive Committee, Steering Committee, and Work Group members had access to draft documents through a password-protected Web site, which provided these committees a forum to comment and share their work.

the Self-Study design, draft reports, and initial draft final report have been distributed to and vetted by the university Community via the Web site and in a series of town hall meetings. the final Self-Study document was discussed and subsequently approved by the Steering and executive Committees prior to sub-mission to president Ribeau for final review, approval, and transmission to the MSChe.

Supporting Documents2.1 2008 Self-Study Survey Instruments2.2 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard

University Self-Study Surveys

Accomplishments Relative to the 1999/2004 MSCHE Concerns3

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 11

3 Accomplishments Relative to the 1999/2004 MSCHE Concerns

Introduction

While it involved a comprehensive analysis of the university over the past two years, this Self-Study process also included a review of concerns identified by the MSChe in the 1999 site visit report. these concerns included the need to revisit the university’s mission; to formulate a comprehensive program to evaluate insti-tutional effectiveness and student learning; to develop a better balance between full deliberation on policy issues and timely adoption and implementation of policy; to expand and deepen its research program; and to continue taking steps to assure future financial security.

further, the Self-Study process was mindful of the MSChe response to the university’s 2004 periodic Review Report. Specifically, it addressed the need to assess the alignment and integration of its under-graduate, graduate, and professional aca-demic programs to meet its traditional mis-sion of providing high quality academic programs, while reorganizing its academic priorities to become a major research uni-versity. it focused also on the expectation that the university must implement its plans to establish a university-wide com-prehensive program for assessing institu-tional effectiveness and student learning. Similarly, the current Self-Study sought to assess the extent to which the university’s research infrastructure had been strength-ened and barriers to faculty research pro-ductivity eliminated or mitigated. as stated in Chapter one, the university has addressed these concerns and others in a variety of ways including:

n the successful completion of the afore-mentioned Strategic Framework for Action I (SFAI) and the substantial completion of Strategic Framework for Action II (SFA II);

n the establishment of a cabinet level vice president for Research and Compliance;

n the opening of the Center for excellence in teaching, learning and assessment (Cetla);

n the creation of an office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae);

n the adoption of a university-wide core curriculum for undergraduate students; and

n the creation of an internal funding mechanism to promote faculty engage-ment in assessment and teaching effec-tiveness through the fund for academic excellence.

accomplishments related to the five MSChe concerns that emerged following the 1999 reaccreditation process and the 2004 periodic Review Report are detailed as follows:

Concern #1: The University must closely review its mission in light of changing times, specifically the nature of the under-graduate student body sought and the mix between the undergraduate and graduate/professional studies.

the Self-Study Work Group on the university Mission was assigned the spe-cific task of reviewing the university’s mission and charged with the responsibil-ity for making recommendations for refine-ments for Board of trustees’ consideration. the Board received these recommendations and approved a refined Mission Statement at its June 2009 executive Committee meet-ing. the refined mission statement reaffirms howard’s mission as a research university and its commitment to pursuing students of exceptional quality and potential, as well as a commitment to research, globalization, and service. the Board approved revised Mission Statement states:

howard university, a culturally diverse, comprehensive, research intensive and historically Black private university, provides an edu-cational experience of exceptional quality at the undergraduate, gradu-

12 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 3

ate, and professional levels to stu-dents of high academic standing and potential, with particular empha-sis upon educational opportunities for Black students. Moreover, the university is dedicated to attract-ing and sustaining a cadre of fac-ulty who are, through their teaching, research and service, committed to the development of distinguished, historically aware, and compassion-ate graduates and to the discovery of solutions to human problems in the united States and throughout the world. With an abiding interest in both domestic and international affairs, the university is committed to continuing to produce leaders for america and the global community.

the issue of the university’s mix of undergraduate to graduate/professional students continues to be a subject of con-siderable attention at the university. the institution has reaffirmed its commitment to realigning its academic program priori-ties, enrollment management strategies, and supporting budgets in such a way as to bring its enrollment ratio of undergrad-uate students to graduate/professional students in line with that of many other private research universities, i.e., approxi-mately 40% undergraduate and 60% grad-uate/professional. a detailed portfolio assessment and academic program review process is underway at the university. the strategic goal of the program review effort is to adjust the university’s academic pro-grams and align them with its mission and strategic vision, goals and objec-tives. the recently developed provost-led Budget advisory Committee facilitates the alignment of fiscal resources with the university’s mission and strategic goals. a Board of trustees ad hoc Committee on long Range financial planning has already rendered a report which proposes strategies for realigning the university’s budget to meet the needs of its academic priorities and mission.

additionally, a university-wide effort is underway to address gender imbalance in the student body, with a particular focus on the declining presence of african-american males (currently only approximately 36% (fall 2008) of the student body).

a Select Commission on academic Renewal, chaired by the provost and Chief academic officer, will be appointed by the president by September, 2009. among its responsibilities will be a review of the orga-nization of the university’s academic struc-ture within the context of the university’s mission, academic priorities, and fiscal resources. in making such recommenda-tions to the president, the Commission will collect and consider such data as required to make thoughtful decisions. for a fuller dis-cussion of the responsibilities of the Select Commission and other initiatives that have been underway at the university to enhance the academic enterprise at the university, see Chapter 5—planning, Resource allocation and institutional Renewal.

Concern #2: The University must formu-late a comprehensive program to evaluate institutional effectiveness, including clear quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning.

Considerable attention and progress has been made since 1999 to address issues of assessment of institutional effectiveness and of student learning. these issues were the focus of Work Groups 7 and 14 in the cur-rent Self-Study. in general, the assessment work was greatly enhanced by the creation of a new office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae), currently housed in the office of the provost, and three uni-versity assessment committees: Committees on College/School assessment (CSaC), Student Quality of life (SQl), and the university Community experience (uCe). the oiae has developed a university-wide assessment and evaluation plan.

in addition, considerable attention to aca-demic assessments and assessment of student learning has taken place within the colleges required to seek disciplinary accreditation (e.g., law, medicine, dentistry, education, engineering, communication, business), as well as assessments conducted on a periodic basis by the Graduate School and the College of arts and Sciences. other accomplishments that have occurred in this area include:

n the university developed and imple-mented Strategic Framework for Action I and II:

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 13

Accomplishments Relative to the 1999/2004 MSCHE Concerns

n Center for excellence , teaching learning, and assessment (Cetla) and

n assessment and review of all graduate programs.

n the office of university Communication developed and administered a survey in 2004 to incorporate alumni into the uni-versity’s outcomes assessment initiative.

n the library System established an assessment plan.

n a task force was organized in 2001 to facilitate and galvanize the devel-opment and institutionalization of the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae).

n oaie has proposed development (with faculty input) of templates and a process for completing or updating an annual assessment.

n an assessment program for each aca-demic and non-academic unit has been designed and is being implemented.

n the College of arts and Sciences has developed a protocol for the sys-tematic review of its academic pro-grams that includes a student devel-opment assessment component and has resulted in the evaluation of the College’s 20 academic units.

n the oaie Committee arranged for in-service learning, modeling, and

coaching to help units assess their effectiveness in achieving institu-tional goals.

n the Graduate School conducted peri-odic reviews of each of its master’s and doctoral degree programs through self-studies and analyses. the exercise resulted in the “future of Graduate education at howard university” that rendered recommendations for future benchmarking and strategic planning for graduate programs.

Concern #3: The University should develop a better balance between full deliberation on policy issues and a timely adoption and implementation of policy.

Since the 1999 Self-Study, the university has taken a number of actions to assure that its policies, upon promulgation, are well communicated to the community and imple-mented in a timely manner. Specifically, the responsibilities of the former position of vice president for Governmental affairs have been expanded into a Senior vice president for Strategic planning, operations, external affairs & Chief technology officer. this university officer is responsible for assur-ing that policies related to external affairs, including those associated with the federal government, is linked to the institution’s

14 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 3

strategic planning process. additionally, that technology is used in the most effec-tive manner to communicate these and other policies effectively within the academic community.

Second, under president Ribeau’s lead-ership, a new position, vice president for presidential initiatives, was created to assure that policies and initiatives emanat-ing from the office of the president are effectively implemented in a timely man-ner and that the university’s resources are properly aligned to implement such poli-cies and initiatives.

finally, an executive assistant to the president has been appointed to assure coor-dination between the academic leadership of the university with academic support units and with the office of the president. these three individuals and their offices, working together as a team, provide an institutional infrastructure for assuring that policies have been promulgated by various sources within the university, including Board of trustees policies are carried out in an efficient and timely manner.

Concern #4: The University should expand and deepen its research program.

attention to the university’s extra-mural research enterprise has received major attention from the university since the 1999 Self-Study. in addition to creat-ing a cabinet level officer (vice president for Research and Compliance) to provide leadership and administrative support for the research enterprise, this Self-Study process included a special Work Group to examine issues related to research at the university.

in addition, several other important devel-opments in the research arena have occurred since the last reaffirmation of accreditation. they include:

n in 2006, the university engaged a con-sulting group to assist with the imple-mentation of the approved research organizational structure. the consult-ing group also assisted in the devel-opment and implementation of new policies and procedures for research administration.

n a 13-member faculty Research advi-sory Council was formed.

n a faculty-driven research think tank was established to address barri-ers to research at the university and to explore the feasibility of estab-lishing certain niche areas in which to prioritize research activity. the Science, technology, engineering, and Mathematics (SteM) disciplines gen-erally have received the greatest degree of support for research priority.

n a series of strategic meetings with fac-ulty members with large-scale spon-sored research projects was convened to review pre- and post-award admin-istrative practices that impede the effi-cient processing of research grants and contracts.

n all internal faculty research programs and funding streams have been consoli-dated to establish a new university-wide faculty research fund of approximately $4 million. this program provides seed funding for junior and senior faculty research in separate competitions, matching funds for selected extramural efforts, and funding for undergraduate and graduate student research activity. interdisciplinary research is encour-aged.

n a variable salary component was estab-lished to reward faculty for obtaining extramural awards.

n a faculty recognition program to show-case and honor faculty researchers was established.

n after a thorough review, the Graduate School recommended a new and more liberalized policy governing Graduate faculty membership eligibility.

as stated in Chapter 18—Research, the university has completely overhauled its research infrastructure in recent years culmi-nating in the appointment of a cabinet level officer to provide stewardship of research administration and compliance. Moreover, the university has instituted compensation models to increase the reward system for faculty actively engaged in extramurally-funded research activity. Most recently, a provost-led budget advisory committee rec-ommended and received presidential and Board approval to enrich the university’s budget for fy 2010, specifically to enhance the university’s research infrastructure.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 15

Accomplishments Relative to the 1999/2004 MSCHE Concerns

Concern #5: The University should con-tinue to take steps to assure future financial stability.

the Board of trustees has taken actions to assure the university’s future financial stability. Some of them have been taken in the wake of the current national economic downturn. other measures have been taken independently of this situation in an effort to assure fiscal prudency and to assure the financial health of the university.

the federal appropriation to the university over the past five years has averaged approximately $230 million per year. the university’s enrollment has remained rela-tively stable. tuition rates have risen mod-estly in recent years. efforts have now been made to bring tuition rates up to levels com-parable to other research universities without excluding students from its core constitu-ency. thus, tuition rates for the next three years will increase for undergraduates, grad-uate, and professional students. over time, tuition rates are expected to approach market value for the Washington metropolitan area, with the caveat that more need-based finan-cial aid will be made available to preserve and enhance student access.

in 2007, the university concluded a suc-cessful Capital Campaign which raised approximately $276 million. the value of howard’s endowment on June 30, 2007, when the Self-Study process was initiated, was $523.7 million. the university’s endow-ment now stands at less than $500 million due to the national economic situation.

a voluntary staff separation and retire-ment package was completed which will allow the university to overhaul its work-force in view of current costs and strategic objectives. likewise, a number of fiscal and human resource management controls have been put into place. new technology-based solutions, specifically the peopleSoft Suite, have been introduced to enhance fis-cal management.

other accomplishments that contrib-ute to the university’s financial stability include:

n establishment of a coordinated cam-pus-wide donor solicitation approach, a strengthened alumni database and revamped efforts related to donor relations and stewardship. as a conse-quence, the rate of alumni giving has increased steadily over the years.

16 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 3

n Continued exploration of ways to reduce operating costs, such as a com-prehensive review of the university’s employee benefits package to ensure efficiencies and enhance employee options, and the installation of more modern and efficient mechanical sys-tems in campus buildings.

n implementation of consistent and effective cost control measures has resulted in howard’s rate of increases for operating expenditures tracking lower than national averages.

n development of five-year fiscal pro-jections to facilitate long-term strate-gic planning and decision-making.

n funding allocations made follow-ing the blueprint laid out in Strategic Framework for Action I and II and several of the recommendations per-taining to repairs and maintenance (#29) and building renovations (#30) found in the 1999 Self-Study.

n Completed a number of the capi-tal projects identified in SFA I and

II, funded from a variety of sources. the two new state-of-art libraries for health Sciences and law were feder-ally funded. the howard university television network was also supported by federal funding. planning funds for the new interdisciplinary Science and engineering Center (iSe) and the Charter Middle School in Science and Mathematics, have also been provided through federal appropriations. the university’s charter school initiative is designed to model for the region and nation best practices in urban school education.

n developed and implemented a faculty performance salary program to encour-age more extramural research funding.

Strategies that were developed to continue the progress made and to evaluate its effec-tiveness in addressing the 1999 Self-Study Concerns as well as those of the 2004 periodic Review Report are addressed further in each chapter corresponding to a MSChe Standard in this 2009 Self-Study Report.

Mission and Goals4

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 17

Mission and Goals 4

MSCHE Standard 1The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher edu-cation and indicates who the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mis-sion and goals are developed and recognized by the institution with the participa-tion of its members and its governing body and are used to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Introductionthe university’s mission defines the char-

acter, scope, and values of the institution. the university’s goals are consistent with the aspira-tions and expectations of higher education and articulate how the institution aims to achieve the stated mission. this Standard addresses the university’s mission and goals in light of changing societal demands, institutional aspi-rations, and universal imperatives. the goals and objectives have been closely aligned with the university’s mission. the official mission statement is guided by the core principles of teaching, research, and service. the previous mission quoted below described the institu-tion’s central aim as approved and adopted in 1989 by the Board of trustees.

Mission Statementhoward university is a comprehen-sive, research-oriented, historically Black private university providing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high academic potential with particular emphasis upon the provision of educational opportunities to promising Black stu-dents. further, the university is dedi-cated to attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teaching and research, committed to the development of distinguished and compassionate graduates and to the quest for solutions to human and social problems in the united States and throughout the world.

howard university’s mission statement is readily accessible, widely publicized, and gen-

erally embraced by students, staff, faculty, and administrators. the mission is the foundation for institutional effectiveness and assessment. this mission has driven strategic planning, as is evident in howard’s Strategic Framework for Action I and II (SFA I and II), which set the short- and long-term goals of the institu-tion and established the criteria for assessing institutional effectiveness (see Chapter 5 for discussion on strategic planning). additionally, the mission guides all activities such as recruit-ment and admissions, marketing, curriculum proposals evaluation, and the creation of new majors or programs. in addition to the mission, the university vision statement, adopted in 1995, concisely states its purpose:

howard university is a comprehen-sive research university, unique and irreplaceable, defined by its core val-ues, the excellence of all its activities in instruction, research, and service, and by its enduring commitment to educating youth, african americans and other people of color in particu-lar, for leadership and service to our nation and the global community.

in 2007, the university’s Board and lead-ership reevaluated the mission statement to assess its continued relevance given changing societal demands and the dynamic environ-ment in which the university functions. after careful consideration and reflection, the Board reaffirmed the mission statement maintain-ing that it was still relevant and appropriate in view of the changing times. this sentiment is reflected in findings from recent attitudinal studies of the university’s primary stakehold-ers. Results from the 2008 Self-Study surveys

18 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 4

indicated that the vast majority of students (84%), faculty (77%), senior administrators (78%), and staff (78%) feel that this empha-sis accurately captures where the university wants to be and wishes to be perceived in the 21st century vision for the institution (see Supporting document 4.1).

however, in view of the changing impera-tives in higher education and in the national and global climate, the mission of the university was revisited in 2009. the review suggested that slight changes be incorporated in the current mission statement to place more emphasis on a complementary mix between teaching and research, with a focus on the expectation that research must be an integral part of the undergraduate, graduate, and pro-fessional education requirements at a research university such as howard. additionally, the review suggested that explicit mention could be made of a commitment to attracting, retaining, and sustaining a cadre of faculty who, through teaching and research, are com-mitted to the development of motivated and compassionate graduates and the quest for solutions to human and societal problems in the united States and throughout the world. another suggestion was that the mission reflects an adaptation to changing require-ments and opportunities in an increasingly technological and global society. drawing upon the insights and recommendations, the university made the following refinement to the Mission Statement, which was adopted by the Board of trustees in June 2009:

howard university, a culturally diverse, comprehensive, research intensive and historically Black pri-vate university, provides an educa-tional experience of exceptional qual-ity at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels to students of high academic standing and potential, with particular emphasis upon educational opportunities for Black students. Moreover, the university is dedicated to attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teach-ing, research and service, committed to the development of distinguished, historically aware, and compassion-ate graduates and to the discovery of solutions to human problems in the united States and throughout the world. With an abiding interest in both

domestic and international affairs, the university is committed to continuing to produce leaders for america and the global community.

Fulfilling the Mission the achievement of the university’s mission

is evidenced in many aspects of campus-wide activities. the following are samples of such activities as they relate to the various dimen-sions of the mission. Global racial disparities in educational access and opportunities highlight the critical need for howard to remain among the institutions taking the lead in providing educational opportunities to persons of color. as a historically Black university, howard is particularly committed to providing a quality education to students of african descent from throughout the world. While the university is sensitive to the issues of diversity and the real-ity of the international character of its student population, faculty, and staff, the university community decided to disregard any retreat from an emphasis on Black students, which would represent a shift in the university’s long-standing commitment.

the university has been successful in provid-ing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high academic potential with particular emphasis upon the provision of educational opportunities for promising black students. the results from the 2008 Self-Study surveys revealed that this emphasis is strongly supported by students (89%), faculty (85%), senior administrators (87%) and staff (86%) (see Supporting document 4.1).

according to the national Science foundation, howard is the largest producer of african-american undergraduate students who later get a ph.d. in science and engineer-ing fields (see Supporting document 4.2). additionally, howard ranks as the highest producer of african-american on-campus sci-ence and engineering doctoral degrees nation-ally, indicating outstanding performance in the graduate enterprise, a central university goal. increasing the graduate and professional stu-dent population continues to be a priority as the university has taken preliminary steps to align its budget with academic priorities with the appointment of an ad hoc committee to the Board of trustees in 2007. the impact of these relevant initiatives is still evolving.

The University has been

successful in providing an educational

experience of exceptional

quality to students of

high academic potential with

particular emphasis upon

the provision of educational opportunities for promising

black students.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 19

Mission and Goals

at the undergraduate level, the university has been successful in attracting an increas-ing number of highly qualified undergraduate students. during the past ten years, howard university’s high school SatC and aCt scores, high School Gpa, and percent of stu-dents in the top 10% of their high school class have remained consistently high as depicted in table 4.1.

another example of howard successfully attracting an increasing number of highly qualified undergraduate students is evident in the number of its scholars. during the last decade, the university has produced 2 Rhodes Scholars, 1 Marshall Scholar, 2 truman Scholars, 10 presidential Scholars, 19 fulbright Scholars, 1 luard Scholar, and 10 pickering fellows. also, there were 239 national achievement Scholars enrolled during the academic year 2007-2008 (see Supporting documents 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).

the university’s goal of attracting and sustaining an outstanding cadre of fac-ulty is exemplified by the large number of faculty members who received commen-dation in a number of national organiza-tions including the national association for the advancement of Science, the institute of Medicine, national academy of engineering, and american academy of nurses. in addition, a number of faculty have received awards such as the Carnegie Scholar, fulbright ambassador, fulbright Senior Specialist, fulbright fellow, national endowment for the humanities fellow, and the howard hughes Medical institute’s 20 Best Scholars in academia (see Supporting document 4.3).

in fulfilling the mission of developing compassionate graduates, the university

through its office of the dean of the Chapel and other campus organizations has partici-pated in a number of humanitarian, social, political, and other activities throughout the years. the office of the Chapel established alternative Spring Break (aSB) in 1994, where students participate in a number of projects during the Spring recess. aSB is a service-learning experience in which stu-dents use their gifts and skills to meet the needs of target communities and the world at large. in 2006, in the wake of hurricane Katrina, 250 students answered the call to serve through the aSB program in new orleans, la. this number increased dra-matically to 500 students in 2007 and 550 students in 2008 (see Supporting documents 4.6 and 4.7). due to the resounding successes of aSB in new orleans, during the 2009 Spring recess with approximately 300 stu-dents, aSB expanded its outreach program to the Washington metropolitan area, new orleans, Chicago, and detroit. additionally, during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Spring breaks, members of the howard Chapter of engineers Without Borders devoted their time to assist with projects in egypt, panama, Central america, Kenya, and Brazil (see Supporting documents 4.8 and 4.9).

as a leading historically Black university, howard has expanded its influence in the national and global arena through its academic partnerships with universities abroad. in the past several years, the university has created and expanded domestic and international part-nerships with universities in north america, South america, asia, africa, and europe that facilitate research, faculty and student mobility and international cooperation (see Supporting document 4.10).

Table 4.1: Average SATC and ACT Scores, HS-GPA, and Top 10% HS Class for Enrolled Howard University First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Students, Fall 2000-2007

FTIC Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Size of Entering Freshmen Class 1,438 1,524 1,375 1,460 1,453 1,415 1,520 1,461

Avg. High School GPA 3.17 3.12 3.15 3.04 3.20 3.19 3.21 3.16

Grad. in Top 10% of HS Class 21% 18% 19% 23% 22% 21% 24% 21%

Avg. SATC of Stud. Matriculated 1062 1046 1079 1081 1082 1093 1076 1049

Avg. ACT of Stud. Matriculated 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22

Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

20 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 4

University GoalsBuilding on the achievements of the 1996

Strategic Framework for Action I (SFA I) (see Supporting document 4.11), the university embarked on the Strategic Framework for Action II (SFA II) in 2000 under the leadership and direction of president Swygert. in March 2000, an e-mail was distributed to all university faculty members outlining the SFA II develop-ment process. the university community was encouraged to submit ideas and proposal for incorporation into SFA II in april of 2000 to the office of university Research and planning. during the Board of trustees fall Retreat in September 2000, the Board reviewed and approved the goals of SFA II. for strategic con-tinuity, SFA II was developed around the same four overarching goals as SFA I. of the four goals, two are directly related to academic pro-grams: (1) strengthening academic programs and services and (2) promoting excellence in teaching and research. Goals three and four are associated with, increasing private support and enhancing national and community service (see Supporting document 4.12). in Chapter 5, some of the achievements with respect to the four strategic goals are highlighted.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the university’s legacy, reflected in its mis-sion, retains salience for the university com-munity. the foci remain on providing an excep-tional educational experience to students of both high achievement and potential, with spe-cial attention to Black students. the research emphasis articulated in the mission and goals continues to be strengthened by faculty produc-tivity and increased attention to expanding and deepening the research enterprise. the dedica-tion of faculty to the development of compas-sionate graduates and a focus on human and social problems also ground the howard expe-rience. the mission has driven strategic plan-ning, as is evident in SFA I and II. Currently, the university is achieving its mission through four overarching goals: (1) strengthening academic programs and services; (2) promoting excel-lence in teaching and research; (3) increasing private support; and (4) enhancing national and community service. the following findings and recommendations for improvement emerged from this Standard:

Findings

1. While the university’s mission and other foundational documents are regularly revisited, there has been no established timetable for reviewing the university’s mission statement.

2. the mission statement did not explic-itly address the international character or commitments of the university.

3. the mission statement focused more on students of high academic potential and less on students with academic achieve-ment.

4. the mission statement was not strong in its commitment to research and gradu-ate/professional education.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. institutionalize a policy to review the university’s mission at least every five years.

2. Continue to recruit and retain highly qualified students and faculty to further the overall university mission inclusive of the commitment to expand its interna-tional character, its commitment to recruit students with high potential, and its com-mitment to expand research and graduate/professional education.

Supporting Documents

4.1 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys

4.2 Role of HBCUs as Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients

4.3 FACTS 2009—Howard University 4.4 Howard University Junior Named

Truman Scholar 4.5 Three Howard Seniors Awarded

Fulbright Scholarships4.6 Alternative Spring Break Summary4.7 Howard University’s WHUR 96.3 FM

“A Helping Hand” Radiothon4.8 Engineers Without Borders—HU

Improve Lives in Kenya, Brazil 4.9 Howard Students from Across Nation

Spend Spring Break Helping Needy in New Orleans and Panama

4.10 Strategic Framework for Action II Status Report

4.11 Strategic Framework for Action I4.12 Strategic Framework for Action II

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal 5

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 21

5 Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

Introductionhoward has made progress in enhancing

university planning, resource allocation, and advancing institutional renewal through two strategic plans. however, the university has experienced some fluctuations in funding streams that have impacted the university’s planning and resource allocation process. as a private research university, partially funded with an annual Congressional appropria-tion administered by the u.S. department of education, the planning and resource alloca-tion processes at the institution are partially affected by the federal appropriation. this sec-tion focuses on the university’s planning and resource allocation processes that are intended to advance the mission and ensure that the institution continues to improve performance.

Institutional Planningthe planning process at the university

involves the entire institution and is con-ducted through various mechanisms. General direction for the planning and improve-ment processes is derived from the Board’s focus areas, which then are emphasized in the president’s annual target areas for the university. at the beginning of each aca-demic year, schools and colleges typically hold annual retreats or designated meetings to discuss and review their plans for the upcoming year. additionally, at the end of the fiscal year each school/college and unit/department produces an annual report of the progress made towards achieving goals, inclusive of future plans.

over the past decade, the university has demonstrated commitment to institutional renewal through a concerted strategic plan-

ning process, which provided for wide con-stituent participation. to prepare its last insti-tutional plan, SFA II, a 30-member university advisory Committee (uaC), comprised of 25 faculty members drawn from all the schools and colleges, two students, and three admin-istrative staff, was appointed in September 2000 and given the charge by then president Swygert. uaC formed taskforces in four strategic areas: (1) strengthening academic programs and services; (2) promoting excel-lence in teaching and research; (3) increasing private support; and (4) enhancing national and community service. these four areas broadly guide the university and its units in their planning, resource allocation, and edu-cational activities. in november 2000, uaC submitted its Report to the president. the president’s preliminary and revised drafts of SFA II were distributed electronically to the university community in January and february of 2001 for comments. during april 2000, town hall meetings were scheduled for all university stakeholders (faculty, students, staff, and alumni). the SFA II summary of comments was presented to the Board for review and possible incorporation into the final document. adopted by the Board of trustees in June 2001, SFA II focused on 31 objectives organized under the four afore-mentioned overarching goals (see Supporting document 5.1).

the university’s strategic goals and related areas of emphasis provided the context for each unit to establish and pursue its own indi-vidual goals and objectives. in SFA II, there is no one-to-one correspondence between goals or objectives and elements of the mis-sion; rather, all or most elements of the mis-sion guide every objective in the strategic

MSCHE Standard 2An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assess-ment activities for institutional renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.

22 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

plan. to implement SFA II, many academic and administrative units, in response to self-assessments, developed and carried out stra-tegic plans.

With the federal appropriation remaining flat for the last six years and current expenses increasing by 4.8% and revenues by 2.5% annually, achievement of the strategic goals has been difficult. however, forward movement has occurred on a number of critical projects con-sidered beneficial to its success. although most SFA I objectives have been achieved, as sum-marized in SFA II (June, 2001) (see Supporting document 5.1) and SFA II year 5 Status Report (april, 2007) (see Supporting document 5.2), several on-going projects remain. examples illustrative of accomplishments in the four main goals are as follows:

Goal I: Strengthening Academic Programs and Services

in an effort to provide students with an excellent learning environment that embod-ies and reflects the vast explosion of knowl-edge, the interconnectedness of traditional academic disciplines and the integration of teaching and research, the university identi-fied 13 objectives to fulfill Goal i. only a few objectives are highlighted herein with regard to this goal. Significant efforts have been made

in terms of using an electronic communica-tion method to enhance education at the insti-tution. the university’s progress toward digi-tizing essential information and building the requisite infrastructure to facilitate asynchro-nous education (objective 10) is noteworthy. founders library has created a continually expanding digitized reserve course collection that serves all academic departments, except law and health Sciences, which have their own digital libraries. prior to 2004, there was no digitized course reserve collection. presently, about 300 course-required read-ings are digitized and available to students via the internet. in the past two years, more instructors have linked to digital course read-ing materials from their Blackboard course sites, thus making the material more directly accessible to their students.

Major progress has also occurred in pro-viding access to computing resources for all students. university residence halls were upgraded with high-quality access to voice, data, and video communications (objective 7). Students were provided high-bandwidth switches and wired access ports to the university data network to ensure access to multimedia presentations for both class-room and distance education applications. additionally, the university enhanced its campus-wide wireless capacity (objective 9). the Middle School of Mathematics and Science, established at howard in 2004, is the prototype for information technology at the university. Wireless access is now available in the Carnegie Building, Blackburn lab, all resi-dence halls, the technology Center, the School of Business, the two new digital libraries, and key conference rooms in the administration Building, howard university hospital, howard Center, the College of engineering, architecture and Computer Science, and the College of Medicine. Wireless capacity has been extended to the School of law and to key College of dentistry facilities.

additionally, significant progress has been made in establishing additional public and private strategic partnerships (objective 3). Congressional and foundation funding has been maintained for a university-u.S. State department program (the Rangel fellows) to increase minority participation in the foreign Service. former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice confirmed in a letter to

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 23

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

president Swygert her continued support of these recruiting initiatives. With the recent selection of twenty (20) 2009 Rangel fellows, 81 current or past Rangel fellows have either entered the foreign Service or are in the pro-cess of doing so (see Supporting document 5.3). also significant, Kauffman foundation funding supports the promotion of entrepre-neurial education throughout the university. Several other partnerships have been created recently with public and private organiza-tions, a few of which are described herein. the College of dentistry in association with the d.C. dental Society and the american dental association, held for d.C. children its 7th annual “Give Kids a Smile day” (see Supporting document 5.4).

in July 2008, the division of pharmacy, College of pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences, through its partnership with CvS pharmacy, launched its new, state-of-the-art pharmacy practice laboratory where students hone their skills in a practice setting, learning how to dispense medication, coun-sel patients and utilize the latest technology found in many pharmacies (see Supporting document 5.5). in april 2008, the american association of advertising agencies initi-ated a partnership with the John h. Johnson School of Communications. this new part-nership established a comprehensive center to address challenges, eliminate barriers, and identify opportunities to achieve a more diverse and inclusive advertising industry workforce at middle to senior management levels (see Supporting document 5.6). also in 2008, Bingham McCutchen, llp launched at the howard university School of law its 1l diversity fellowship program, the most recent example of Bingham’s commitment to recruiting, retaining, and advancing lawyers who will contribute to the diversity of the firm and the legal profession (see Supporting document 5.7).

in March 2007, former president Swygert and Mrs. festina S. Bakwena, permanent Secretary of the Ministry of education of the Republic of Botswana, signed a Memorandum of understanding outlining howard’s commitment to support the new Botswana international university of Science and technology (see Supporting document 5.8). the partners for the advancement of Collaborative engineering education (paCe)

selected howard in 2004 for its academic part-nership, under which the university received an in-kind contribution of software and other technology, including computer based prod-uct management, engineering, design and manufacturing software, as well as hardware and training (see Supporting document 5.9).

Goal II: Promoting Excellence in Teaching and Research

efforts to increase the number of endowed chairs at the university to promote excel-lence in teaching and research (objective 17) are encouraging. Gift-established chairs have been established in architecture, Business, Medicine, and arts and Sciences. an ini-tial gift from united technologies estab-lished an endowed professorship, which will rotate between Mechanical engineering and Business. two endowed chairs are in place or in progress in the School of Business—the KpMG endowed chair in accounting has been filled and the John e. Jacobs chair is in progress. Both the James Silcott Chair of architecture and the david and lucile packard professor of Materials Science were filled. additionally, $12.8 million from the howard university Capital Campaign has been designated to establish 13 endowed chairs. in March 2008, former Board Ceo and Chairman of time Warner inc., was appointed first holder of the Gwendolyn S. and Colbert i. King endowed Chair in public policy for the period, March 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. this chair is intended to encourage highly accomplished individuals to come to howard to share their experiences with stu-dents (see Supporting document 5.10).

faculty excellence is denoted by the increase in membership in the national academies and other professional recognitions for outstand-ing scholarship and leadership (objective 20) (see Supporting document 5.11). dr. Renee Jenkins, former Chair of the department of pediatrics and Child health, became the first african-american president of the american academy of pediatrics for the 2007-2008 year. in december 2008, leo e. Rouse, d.d.S., dean of the College of dentistry, was selected by the american dental education association (adea) to serve on the Commission on dental accreditation (Coda), the accredit-ing body for all dental education programs in the united States. also in January 2009,

24 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1: Capital Campaign Contributions by SizeSource: Office of University Advancement

83 Gifts & Pledges

over $1 Million= $186 Million

173 Gifts & Pledgesbetween $100,000 and $999,999= $51 MillionOver 35,500 Gifts & Pledges under $100,000

= $39 Million

dean Rouse was honored as the recipient of a 2009 american dental education association (adea) presidential Citation, which recog-nizes individuals and institutions that have significantly contributed to the adea mis-sion to provide leadership in the dental educa-tion community to address issues influencing education, research, and the delivery of oral health care (see Supporting document 5.12). Senior vice president for health Sciences, donald e. Wilson, M.d., M.a.C.p., received the association of american Medical Colleges’ (aaMC) most prestigious award—the abraham flexner award for distinguished service to medical education in november 2008 (see Supporting document 5.13). dr. Winston anderson, a professor of Biology, was listed among the 20 best scientists in academia by the howard hughes Medical institute, which awarded him $1 million to help transform his innovative ideas into action (see Supporting document 5.11).

Relevant initiatives to create new inter-disciplinary research groups are underway in several schools and colleges (objectives 19). these include the Keck Center for the design of nanoscale Materials for Molecular Recognition and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa) national Center for atmospheric Sciences (nCaS). other important inter-disciplinary research groups include human genome, environmental science, neurosci-ence, and material science as well as compu-tational biology and high performance com-puting. interdisciplinary research groups have also been formed between researchers in the School of law and their counterparts in the College of arts and Sciences and the School of education. additionally, an interdisciplinary Graduate environmental Studies program has been approved by the Graduate faculty and is undergoing further review. all schools and colleges are collab-orating under the umbrella of the institute for entrepreneurship, leadership and innovation made possible by the grant from the ewing Marion Kauffman foundation.

Goal III: Increasing Private Supporta major component of the SFA II was the

Capital Campaign (objective 25), which addressed the need to increase and diver-sify university revenues. to that end, the

Campaign for howard was launched in 2002 with the goal of raising $250 million over a five-year period. the Campaign ended March 2008 with gifts, pledges, and planned gifts totaling $276 million, which exceeded the ini-tial Campaign goal by 10% (see Supporting document 5.14). this accomplishment rep-resents the largest successful fund-raising endeavor ever achieved by an institution pri-marily serving african americans. outlined are major dimensions of the Campaign that made it an important development in the his-tory of howard university.

n alumni participation was increased from 12% at the start of the Campaign to 17%. the national average participa-tion rate is 12.4%.

n alumni gifts to the Campaign repre-sented, at 32%, the second largest cat-egory of contributors; again higher than the national average of 27.5% for such campaigns.

n howard was the first university whose primary focus is to serve the educational needs of african americans to launch and successfully complete a Capital Campaign of this magnitude.

figure 5.1 illustrates the distribution of contributions to the Campaign. the Capital Campaign supports the university endow-ment, ensuring the long-term financial viability of the university. additionally, it has funded several efforts to enhance insti-tutional effectiveness in the area of student learning:

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 25

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

Table 5.1 Comparison of Restricted vs. Unrestricted Gift Types

Gifts Pledges Planned Gifts Gifts In Kind Totals

Restricted $87,284,310 $76,653,831 $30,096,443 $41,000,000 $235,034,584

Unrestricted 6,877,349 29,272,813 4,865,263 0 41,015,424

TOTAL $94,161,659 $105,926,644 $34,961,706 $41,000,000 $276,050,009

Source: Office of University Advancement

n $187,000 established 8 lectureships; n $2.5 million created 4 professorships; n $12.8 million initiated 13 endowed

Chairs; n $91.5 million produced 293 named

Scholarships; and n $97 million established and enhanced

hundreds of funds supporting individual schools and colleges.

table 5.1 shows a detailed analysis of the breakout between restricted and unrestricted gifts that were received during the Capital Campaign. as is the case with most capi-tal campaigns, contributions to howard’s Capital Campaign came in the form of gifts, pledges, planned gifts and gifts in-kind.

Goal IV: Enhancing National and Community Service

the university has a long tradition of com-mitment to national and community service. each year, the office of university Research and planning, in association with the howard university Community association, publishes a booklet that identifies the many city and community activities engaged in by university faculty, staff, students, alumni, and retirees (see Supporting document 5.15). one example is the ledroit park initiative. over a decade ago, howard con-sciously decided to use its assets, capabili-ties, and influence to revitalize the adjoining neighborhood. With strong support from the fannie Mae foundation and the district of Columbia Government, and considerable community input, the university developed a plan for the 151-block area within a 1-mile radius of the main campus. the ledroit park initiative was regarded as an opportunity to demonstrate to the nation’s capital that urban neighborhoods can be turned around, and that sustainable, balanced, comprehensive revitalization can be accomplished.

phase i of the ledroit park initiative

was completed under SFA I. phase ii of the ledroit park initiative (objective 29) was to convert 29 of the areas boarded-up proper-ties and 17 vacant lots in the area into hom-eownership opportunities, thereby providing a catalyst for neighborhood-wide revitaliza-tion. today, 45 homes have been constructed and rehabilitated; their owners are university employees, municipal firefighters and police officers, dC public school teachers, and area community members. infrastructure improvements were made in phase iii, including street resurfacing, new street light-ing, bricking of sidewalks, tree planting and traffic calming measures undertaken by the City, supplemented by $5 million in federal grants awarded to the university.

the american institute of architects rec-ognized the ledroit park initiative with its 2002 Community design award and its 2003 honor award for outstanding Regional and urban design. the Washington post hailed the plan as “the most significant redevelop-ment proposal to be unveiled in the district since the master plan for the revitalization of pennsylvania avenue was approved 23 years ago” and urged the City to “endorse the howard initiative as a prototype for revi-talization of other neighborhoods.” the suc-cess of this project has been cited as key to fannie Mae’s decisions to invest $1 billion in district of Columbia neighborhoods, and replicate the program at more than 15 uni-versities nationwide.

national and community service was exemplified through the development of a national digital network to support urban education (objective 30). the university designed a national digital network that was used to distribute events of the White house Conference for helping america’s youth, held on howard’s campus, over the internet and via satellite to participating partner-universities. nineteen flagship universities representing 18

26 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

states participated, with each able to convert video streams sent from howard into desired format(s) for their campuses. furthermore, the partner-universities were to provide com-ments, feedback, and inquiries via Conference e-mail servers based at howard.

Other Planning and Improvement Activities/Efforts

other planning and improvement activities at howard include:

n the academic excellence initiative— an initiative of the academic excellence Committee of the Board of trustees and the office of the provost designed to pro-vide assessments and recommendations required to align the departmental and programmatic offerings of the schools and colleges with strategic objectives and financial resources.

n the long Range financial planning Committee—a special committee of the Board of trustees charged with recommending a strategy for aligning the university’s budget with its mis-sion and goals, and with ascertaining evolving trends in higher education and the society at large that affect howard university’s present and future status as a national research university with a predominantly african-american stu-dent body.

n presidential Select Commission on academic Renewal—a Commission appointed by president Ribeau to review during the 2009-2010 academic year and make recommendations for adjustments to the university’s academic programs.

n assessment of administrative processes initiative—an initiative designed to improve and optimize service delivery.

n Students First Campaign—a multi-phase initiative launched in Spring 2009 designed to integrate the “student-centered learning concept” throughout all facets of the university in order to improve the overall “student experience” at howard university.

n howard university african-american Male initiative—a long-term effort that seeks to increase the number of first-time-in-college african-american male students at howard university in under-graduate programs.

n faculty performance evaluation System —an on-going evaluation that seeks to improve the existing faculty perfor-mance evaluation process.

n performance evaluation program (pep) —an on-going evaluation system that seeks to improve staff performance. the office of human Capital Management recently restructured the pep.

n Customer Service training—a univer-sity-wide initiative to provide employ-ees with customer service training with the aim of transforming the workforce culture to one that is customer-centered, placing priority on delivering outstand-ing service and leadership to all stake-holders, especially the students.

additionally, individual departments/units have been actively engaged in planning and improvement activities that are clearly com-municated to their constituents with out-comes incorporated in the assessment of these various departments/units. Such plans are as follows:

n office of the internal auditor’s fiscal year 2008 audit plan—approved by the president and the Board of trustees’ audit and legal Committee Chairperson in october 2007. this plan emphasized assessment of the status of corrective actions that the university and hospital offices agreed to take in response to inter-nal and external audit reports and federal agreements. Moreover, the plan directs audits into areas where the university’s and hospital’s assets and resources are exposed to risk of theft, mismanagement, or misappropriation (see Supporting document 5.16).

n howard university libraries Strategic plan for the Main library Group (Revised august 2007)—a detailed description of the library’s goals and strategic direction for the next five years as well as performance indicators for each strategic direction (see Supporting document 5.17).

n 2008 enrollment Management Strategic plan—a five-year enrollment plan devel-oped to provide a systematic evaluation of the current enrollment situation and to design strategies to achieve enrollment missions with each of the schools and col-leges (see Supporting document 5.18).

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 27

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

Resource Allocation at howard, the process of assigning

resources (i.e., human, financial, physical, and technical) to projects to ensure their optimal use is driven by the SFA II and the availabil-ity of funds. the university’s formal budget development process for the university typi-cally begins annually in november by conven-ing the tuition and Rates advisory Committee (tRaC). however, the existing tuition recom-mendation process was identified for improve-ment and modified during ay 2008-2009.

Old Tuition Processpreviously, the tRaC, chaired by the office

of financial analysis and Budget director, was comprised of the school and college deans, student leaders, and representatives from the office of the provost, enrollment Management, Student affairs, and the office of financial analysis and Budget (ofaB). the tRaC care-fully considered information on a number of important factors impacting tuition, including national trends, competitors’ data, and enroll-ment and financial aid data. the Committee made recommendations for changes in tuition, housing, meal plans, and other student fees to the Cfo. the Cfo then recommended a tuition and rates schedule to the president for approval and presentation to the Board of trustees.

New Tuition Strategythe tuition determination process is not

viewed as an isolated decision; rather, it is considered integral to the comprehensive reform underway at all levels and thus is syn-chronous with the university’s new budget

process and initiatives to improve services, control costs, increase efficiency, and make transparent its use of resources. in the fall of 2008, a new tRaC that is chaired by the interim provost and Chief academic officer and includes deans, enrollment management staff, and student leaders was convened to develop a 5-year tuition strategy. the prin-ciples of the new strategy were as follows:

n planning horizon—multi-year approach leads to predictability which is desirable for all constituencies;

n Competitors—howard’s tuition should not be lower than tuitions at other premier hBCus; for non-hBCus, howard should over time move into alignment with other Research 1 private universities and/or “out of state” tuition for public universities, as howard draws from a national pool and it needs comparable resources to provide a high quality education while providing substantial financial aid to enable access;

n preserve access—access to a howard education must be preserved; this goal is most properly measured by the number of well-qualified students able to attend howard regardless of their family’s finan-cial situation; increased tuition rates part-nered with increased need-based aid will open access more productively and effec-tively than low tuition rates; and

n the need—premier education like the one received by howard students comes at a price; increased tuition will help fund academic program, research, and infra-structure improvements for current and future howard students.

Table 5.2: Howard University Approved and Projected Tuition Rates for AY 2009-2013

Tuition Rates

Classification Current AY2009-10 AY2010-11 AY2011-12 AY2012-13 AY2013-14

Undergraduate Program $14,205 $15,270 $17,100 $19,150 $21,450 $24,025

Graduate Programs 17,385 19,125 21,995 25,295 29,090 33,455

MBA Program 17,385 22,950 24,195 27,495 31,290 35,655

School of Divinity 15,650 16,435 17,665 18,990 20,415 –

Law 22,415 23,535 25,420 27,960 30,755 34,445

Dentistry 24,225 26,165 28,780 32,235 37,070 –

Medicine 30,015 32,415 35,010 37,810 – –

Doctor of Pharmacy 19,765 20,755 22,415 24,210 – –

Source: Office of the Provost

28 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

Consequently, the tRaC recommended a series of aggressive tuition rate increases over the next five years. the Board endorsed the strategy and approved the five year tuition plan and authorized implementation of the rates for the next two years (ays 2009-10 and 2010-11) at the January 2009 meeting. table 5.2 shows the approved and projected tuition rates for academic years 2009 through academic year 2013.

Previous Budget Process

in the past, the allocation of fiscal resources began each year in late January with a budget call from the president to all divisions. at the same time, the Budget task force, chaired by the Senior vice president and Chief financial officer (Cfo)/treasurer, served as an advisory group to the president, convened to discuss broad issues and concerns facing the university. after all budgets were submitted, the office of financial analysis and Budget analyzed the submissions and prepared a summary report. the president and the Chief financial officer/treasurer held budget hearings in early april with deans and key executives to review bud-get submissions in light of university priorities and parameters established at the beginning of the budgeting process. Based on the allocation decisions, the office of financial analysis and Budget prepared a university-wide operating budget for submission to the president and the Board. the Board approved the budget at its June meeting.

during the 1999-2008 period, a number of improvements were observed in the bud-get development process resulting from establishment of a Budget task force and the inclusion of various stakeholders. one area of continuing concern was the minimal involvement of the entire campus, most espe-cially the faculty, in the budget development process. to address this concern, president Ribeau implemented a new budget process, which operates within the existing gover-nance structure and explicitly recognizes the faculty’s role in shared governance.

New Budget Process

the budget development process is now designed to engage the entire university community and improve transparency and openness. it reflects the belief that the bud-get, while financial, derives from the operat-

ing and investment plans of the university and reflects its aspirations and priorities. in the Spring of 2009, a new budget process was established with the appointment of a Budget advisory Committee (BaC) which is chaired by the interim provost and Chief academic officer and consists of two individuals from each constituent group: faculty, staff, and stu-dents, plus at-large members, including the faculty Senate. for continuity, BaC mem-bers serve staggered terms. in the new budget process, the Cfo integrates the university’s mandatory spending requirements, plans and requests from academic affairs, health Sciences, and other divisions into a 5-year draft budget. the draft multi-year budget is then used as the starting point for BaC delib-erations. BaC examines all areas of the pro-posed budget, paying particular attention to areas that are most easily changed, and makes recommendations to the president reflect-ing their best judgment on how to advance the university towards its agreed vision. to continually improve the process, BaC also recommends improvements to the budget process for use in following years. in keep-ing with the governance documents, the faculty Senate additionally develops budget recommendations and submits these to the president. the president then submits the budget recommendations to the Board of trustees for approval. the president distrib-utes the approved budget and explanatory materials to the university community.

New Capital Budget Planning Process

in addition to implementing a new budget development process, the university, in 2008 proposed the development of a capital bud-geting process which will unify and coordi-nate capital and infrastructure planning. for the first time, budgets for capital long-term projects will be separate and distinguishable from normal university operating budgets. Since university capital planning involves large fixed capital investments and building projects that take years to complete, creating assets that will remain in service over many decades, long term and strategic approaches are essential.

the new process uses a Capital planning Council (parallel to the Budget advisory Committee previously described) to assem-ble, assess and prioritize capital funding

In addition to implementing a new budget development process, the

University in 2008 proposed

the development of a capital

budgeting process which will unify and

coordinate capital and

infrastructure planning.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 29

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

requests and maximize the alignment of cap-ital funds to university priorities. drawing input from academic units, physical facili-ties, health sciences planning, information technology, real estate operations and the Cfo’s areas, the Council will recommend to the president, capital expenditure plans for 2, 5, and 10 year planning horizons. although evolving needs and priorities will undoubt-edly cause plans to change over time, a need for broad engagement with the campus is essential to determine capital requirements and allocation priorities, which will inform decisions that university leadership makes about which projects move forward and at what pace.

Assessment of Resource Allocation

notwithstanding the success of the recently concluded Capital Campaign, the findings from the 2006 Senior Leadership Development and Succession Assessment showed that the participants’ perceptions of limited resources (financial, facility, and technology) signify a challenge for the orga-nization and its leaders (see Supporting document 5.21). Concerns about the avail-ability and allocation of resources were expressed by the majority of the participants in both interviews and surveys. there was a strong belief that additional resources were needed to compete for and retain talent and to support the work of leaders and distin-guished faculty. in recent years, the lack of alignment between the elements of the strate-gic vision and the allocation of resources has hindered the university’s ability to achieve its goals of preeminence. president Ribeau’s plans and initiatives are explicitly designed to achieve this alignment.

Institutional Renewalthe Students First Campaign (SFC) is an

example of institutional renewal. in January 2009, president Ribeau launched the Students First Campaign, which is a multi-phase presidential initiative designed to integrate student-centeredness throughout all facets of the university to improve the overall “stu-dent experience” at howard (see Supporting document 5.19). the first phase of SFC, led by SFC Steering committee, focused on eight target areas: (1) advising, (2) admissions, (3) cashiers, (4) financial aid, (5) records, (6)

residence life, (7) student accounts, and (8) student life & activities. each area, through a process called “ford Rapids,” identified prob-lem areas and generated recommendations for improvement. the facilitators, along with the responsible administrators, narrowed fur-ther the specific changes and actions that will be implemented in fall 2009 (see Supporting document 5.20).

other examples of institutional renewal at howard are human Capital Management (hCM) initiatives; specifically, hCM reor-ganization and Customer Service training. in May 2008, the office of human Capital Management retained outside consultants to assist in the restructuring of the office of total Compensation (otC), which stemmed from the 2007 assessment of the functions and services of otC. this restructuring was based on recommendations that the functions of compensation and performance manage-ment, benefits and pension administration, and benefits counseling and retirement ser-vices should be separated in an effort to pro-vide targeted customer service to the employ-ees, retirees, and vendors. to that end, otC was reorganized to eliminate the long wait for responses to issues concerning compen-sation, benefits and retirements, and to speed the provision of vendor information.

in the fall 2008 State of the university address, president Ribeau indicated that

30 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

howard’s workforce culture needed to be transformed into one that was customer-centered. a charge was given to the office of human Capital Management to lead a university-wide initiative to provide cus-tomer service training with Cabinet-level leadership. Beginning in april 2009, the professional development and leader-ship academy implemented two courses intended to position the university’s work-force to implement cutting edge strategies for “customer-centric” service. the first course, “impact 21: five-Star Service for the 21st Century,” is a prerequisite for a new Certificate program in Customer Service essentials and Student Service excellence. the second course, “Bolstering the Climate for WeCui (Welcome, Comfortable, under-stood, and important),” provides strategies for ensuring that the workplace operates in a manner conducive to the delivery of what the service-quality education program labels “five-star service.”

other institutional renewal efforts such as the faculty performance evaluation System (discussed in detail in Chapter 13—faculty) and enterprise Resource planning (eRp) are on-going. More than five years ago, the university decided that peopleSoft would be the university’s eRp application system. in July 2007, the human Resource Management module was implemented and five financial modules were implemented during July 2008: (1) General ledger, (2) asset Management (fixed assets), (3) purchasing, (4) Grants Management, and (5) accounts payable.

Academic Renewallike all dynamic institutions, howard

intends to assess its current state and future developmental trajectory in light of the dramatic changes that have occurred in the nation and the world over the past genera-tion and the influences those changes have made on higher education. at the university, a combination of incremental growth in aca-demic programs over the years and incre-mental budgeting to support this growth has led to circumstances in which many of the university’s 181 degree programs are perceived to be seriously under-funded. presently, programs compete for a share of a pool of resources insufficient to develop

and support niche programs of the highest quality that are deserving of national rec-ognition. the root cause of this may lie in the perception that the university supports far too many academic programs across too broad a spectrum.

the university also faces other challenges that may affect the development of academic programs. these include: an aging faculty and staff; a physical plant so deteriorated that it may inhibit attracting nationally recog-nized faculty, research leaders, and students. Many of howard’s academic and research facilities urgently need replacement, repair or modernization; and salaries are not always as uniformly competitive with peer or aspi-rant institutions.

the remedy to these challenges, according to president Ribeau, lies in a highly targeted process of re-budgeting resources to assure the national reputation and growth of pro-grams that best align with the university’s mission and its future. the president intends for the academic Renewal process to pro-duce recommendations which identify pro-grams that will yield resources as well as programs that will benefit from the reallo-cation of resources. the evaluation of pro-grams will be data-driven and occur at a fine level of detail—specifically at the level of individual degree programs, rather than at the departmental or school/college levels.

Academic Renewal Process

the president will appoint a Select Commission on academic Renewal to guide the academic Renewal process (program review and portfolio assessment) and under-take the review in fall 2009. Members of the Commission will serve as citizens of the entire university, rather than as representa-tives of a constituent group. they will func-tion in sub-committees that will look respec-tively at graduate/professional programs, graduate research programs, and undergrad-uate programs. over the next 12 months, the Select Commission on academic Renewal, in collaboration with the academic leader-ship, will develop detailed recommendations whereby over the succeeding three years the financial resources supporting the weak-est programs will be reallocated to support those programs that are deemed central to the university’s future development.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 31

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

the process has already begun and will continue in stages. the first phase was com-pleted at the close of fiscal year 2009 (June 30, 2009). the purpose of phase i was to achieve efficiencies and cost reductions in current operations concurrently with univer-sity-wide efforts that included restrictions on hiring and the expenditure of university funds, and the Staff voluntary Separation and incentive Retirement program (vSiRp). Within the divisions of academic affairs and health Sciences, complementary steps include reducing the number of adjunct fac-ulty members and canceling under-enrolled courses.

the work of phase 2 (fy 2010) has also begun. this phase involves further cost reductions aimed toward reducing the pro-jected budget deficit. external consultants are assisting in analyzing current staffing levels in all administrative units against national benchmarks and the practices of peer and aspirant institutions. phase 2 will also involve establishing and enforcing appropriate faculty workloads, determin-ing appropriate numbers of faculty mem-bers and support staff in academic areas (schools, colleges, and departments), and defining performance goals and objectives at the level of the individual faculty member and the academic unit.

phase 3 will begin in fall 2009 with appointment of the Select Commission on academic Renewal and run concurrently with phase 2. once appointed, the Select Commission will follow a rigorous meth-odology that will include regular feedback of its work to the campus community. the Commission will determine the data required, supervise collection and analysis of the data, and make recommendations to the president. Recommendations will comprise a broad narrative of the Commission’s findings, as well as specific analyses of each program, rankings, and recommendations for future growth or contraction (in a number of cases elimination).

the Commission will work in three sub-committees, each addressing one of the broad program levels: graduate/professional, graduate research, and undergraduate. the graduate/professional program sub-commit-tee will rank programs with a view toward identifying those that might operate with a

high level of autonomy with regard to their administration, research, revenues, and expenses.

the process of academic Renewal, of which the Select Commission is a major component, will result not only in recom-mendations to be adopted and budgets to be reallocated, but also a different framework for managing academic programs into the future. academic renewal will become a dynamic process at howard, rather than a series of discrete course corrections on peri-odic cycles of three, five, or seven years. at a minimum, the process will require a new level of awareness throughout the university of the imperative routinely to set goals, assess performance, and make appropriate changes based on data. academic leaders at the school/college and departmental lev-els must adopt a new approach to achieving and maintaining quality in their programs. faculty members can expect competitive compensation and to receive needed support, including modern, properly equipped teach-ing and research environments; in turn, fac-ulty performance will be tracked and expec-tations will be high. academic support staff will also play an important role, with new levels of skill required to support faculty and students, but in this role they too can expect to be compensated competitively. Continued efforts at aligning personnel resources—perhaps to include a phased retirement plan for faculty and continued restructuring of administrative assignments—are a central feature of academic renewal.

Successful academic renewal is intended to reduce the range of program offerings so that every program offered at howard has the resources it needs to be a program of distinc-tion. the academic Renewal process will determine which programs best fit howard’s mission, vision, priorities, and opportunities in the years ahead and lead to more targeted and focused offerings, higher quality, and greater productivity.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

over the past decade, the university has been committed to institutional renewal through a concerted strategic planning pro-cess in relation to its mission and goals.

32 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 5

Building on the successes of the 1996 Strategic Framework for Action I (SFA I), the university embarked on Strategic Framework for Action II (SFA II) in 2000. although a significant number of the capital projects identified in SFA I and II have been achieved, several on-going projects remain. a major achievement from SFA II was the Capital Campaign, which exceeded the ini-tial $250 million goal in gifts and pledges. other university-wide strategic initiatives are: advancing the research agenda; improv-ing the gender balance of the student body; enhancing the student experience, increasing openness and transparency; and improving services. despite the success of the Capital Campaign, available resources (financial, facilities, and technology) remain a chal-lenge for the organization and its leaders. howard has enacted institutional renewal projects: the Students First Campaign and two human Capital Management initiatives —Customer Service training and human Capital Management Reorganization, and academic Renewal (program review and portfolio assessment). these processes will be reviewed and assessed on a periodic basis. the following findings and recom-mendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 2:

Findings

1. planning and improvements by indi-vidual departments are not always based upon systematic evaluations and strategic priorities.

2. the Budget and Resource allocation process was not aligned with the academic and research priorities of the university.

3. the university has not adequately reviewed and assessed the impact of plan-ning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal initiatives on a periodic basis.

4. assessment of resource allocation shows that additional resources are needed to compete for and retain talent and to sup-port the work of university leaders and dis-tinguished faculty.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. implement expeditiously a university-wide planning process that links individual, departments, and unit planning and assess-

ment directly to the university’s strategic plan.

2. Review and assess the new tuition and rates and budget processes periodically to determine their effectiveness.

3. Review and assess the impact of plan-ning, resource allocation, and institutional and academic renewal initiatives on a peri-odic basis.

Supporting Documents5.1 Strategic Framework for Action II5.2 Strategic Framework for Action II

Status Report5.3 Summary of the Rangel Program 5.4 Scores of Kids Get Free Care at “Give

Kids a Smile Day”5.5 School of Pharmacy and CVS/phar-

macy Open New Practice Laboratory5.6 Howard University and AAAA

Announce Partnership to Increase Inclusion in Advertising

5.7 Bingham, Howard Launch Diversity Fellowship: Partnership with School of Law

5.8 Howard University Signs MOU with Botswana to Establish University

5.9 Howard University to Receive $70.6 Million from Pace

5.10 Richard D. Parsons Appointed First Holder Gwendolyn S. and Colbert I. King Chair in Public Policy

5.11 FACTS 2009 – Howard University5.12 Howard University Dental School

Dean Receives Presidential Citation from Nation’s Leading Dental Education Association

5.13 AAMC Honors Howard’s Donald E. Wilson with Its Highest Award

5.14 The Campaign for Howard5.15 Services 2009 – Howard University5.16 Howard University FY 2009 Internal

Audit Plan 5.17 Howard University Libraries

Strategic Plan for the Main Library Group

5.18 2008 Enrollment Management Strategic Plan

5.19 Students First Campaign 5.20 Students First Campaign Summary

Report5.21 2006 Senior Leadership Development

and Succession Assessment Report

Institutional Resources 6

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 33

6 Institutional Resources

Introductionhoward has a range of institutional resources

for support of its mission and goals. during the past decade, great strides have been made to broaden and deepen these resources. Since the last Middle States visit, the university has implemented several investment strate-gies, including bond financing, to support and enhance university resources, in particular, technology and facilities resources. this chap-ter describes the scope of the financial, human, facilities, and technical resources in the con-text of recent gains and ongoing challenges as well as initiatives to responsibly utilize and manage these resources.

Financial Resources the university’s major sources of finan-

cial resources are the federal appropriation, tuition and fees, grant and contract revenues, and the auxiliary enterprises. in addition to these sources, the university also gener-ates revenue from its endowment and other investments, the medical faculty practice plan, and private gifts. in fy 2008, approxi-mately $202 million (39%) and $117 million (23%) of the university’s operating revenue was derived from the federal appropriation and tuition, respectively (figure 6.1).

the federal appropriation represents the single largest category of the university’s

MSCHE Standard 3The human, financial, technical, physical facilities and other resources necessary to achieve an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment

Tuition & Fee (22.7%) Federal Appropriation (39.0%) Grants & Contracts (12.5%)

Contribution (1.5%) Investment Return (3.9%) Sales: Educational Departments (0.3%)

Sales: Auxiliary Enterprises (12.0%) Faculty Practice Plan (7.1%) Other (1.0%)

FY 2008 Revenue by Source ($Millions)

Figure 6.1: FY 2008 Revenue by Source ($Millions) Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

$117.3 (22.7%)

$201.7 (39.0%)

$64.4 (12.5%)

$8.0 (1.5%)

$20.2 (3.9%)

$1.7 (0.3%)$61.8 (12.0%)

$36.9 (7.1%)$5.3 (1.0%)

34 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

total revenue. the total appropriation pro-vided by the department of education to howard includes about $29 million for howard university hospital and about $3.5 million to match gifts to howard’s endow-ment. the bulk of the appropriation supports the university and, under the 1997 general statute for howard, can be allocated at the university’s discretion for its academic and research programs and construction activi-ties. as shown in figure 6.2, the federal appropriation has been relatively flat for the past eight years. in five of the past seven years Congress has imposed rescissions on funding for most non-defense federal pro-grams and as a result, howard’s approved appropriation for federal fiscal year 2009 was slightly lower than in 2002.

tuition and fees represent the second largest source of revenue for the university, excluding the hospital. Gross revenues from tuition and fees increased 60% over the past ten years, growing from $101 million in fy 1999 to $162 million in fy 2008. the tuition increase for students entering in fall 2008 included a 7.5% increase for under-graduate and most graduate programs and a 15% increase for incoming students in four professional schools (Medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and law). More aggressive tuition rate increases will be implemented

in coming academic years (see new tuition Strategy in Chapter 5).

Operating Budget

over the past ten years, the university’s operating budget has increased by $176 million, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 4.1%, as shown in figure 6.3. as illustrated in figure 6.4, the university had maintained a balanced budget from the reporting period of fy 2000 through fy 2007. in 2008 the institution experienced an operating loss, and expects to end fy 2009 with a loss as well. howard’s Board of trustees has allowed a small planned deficit for fy 2010 on the way to achiev-ing a balanced budget in 2011 to enable the university to invest in a limited number of critical strategic priorities as it develops its long-term plans.

Operating Results

figure 6.4 shows actual operating rev-enues and expenses in financial statement format from fy 2004 through fy 2008. it should be noted that the university expe-rienced operating surpluses through fy 2007. over the five-year period, revenues grew at a compound annual growth rate of 2.5%, while expenditures have grown at nearly twice that rate (4.7%). in fy 2008,

Figure 6.2: Federal Appropriation ($Millions), FY 2000-2009 Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

Howard University Federal Appropriation, FY 2000-2009

$250

$200

$150

$100

$50

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

University Academic Programs University Endowment University Hospital

30.3

$185.5

3.5

30.3

$198.6

3.5

30.3

$203.5

3.6

30.1

$204.7

3.5

29.9

$205.2

3.5

29.7

$205.5

3.5

29.4

$204.4

3.5

29.4

$204.4

3.5

28.9

$200.8

3.4

28.9

$202.6

3.4

Mil

lion

s

The bulk of the appropriation

supports the University and, under the 1997 general statute

for Howard, can be allocated at

the University’s discretion for its academic and research

programs and construction

activities.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 35

Institutional Resources

$447.1

$528.7

$563.3

$401.8$410.9

$437.4

$489.1$500.4

$516.9

$590.2

2.2% 2.3%

6.5%

1.9%

2.7%

9.4%*

2.3%

3.3%

2.6%

350

450

550

650

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Operating Budget Growth Rate

Oper

atin

g Bu

dget

Annu

al G

row

th R

ate

Total Operating Budget ($Millions) and AGR, FY 1999-2009

6.0%

Figure 6.3: Total Operating Budget ($Millions) and AGR, FY 1999-2009* Faculty Practice Plan Added to Operating BudgetSource: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

Figure 6.4: Operating Revenues and Expenses, FY 2004-2008 Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

Howard University Operating Revenues and Expenses, FY 2004–2008

$600

$550

$500

$450

$400

Operating Budget Operating Expenses

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

469.3

454.4

474

450.3

483.3

506.5

504.4

511.3

547.9

518

$ M

illio

ns

the growth of operating expenses exceeded that of operating revenues, resulting in an operating deficit of $29.9 million.

Operating Expenses

financial resources are deployed in support of a number of critical university functions. figure 6.5 depicts operating expenses for fy 2008. these expenses reflect the university’s emphasis on outstanding academic prepa-ration and student-centered priorities; with nearly three-fifths ($312 million) of the

university’s operating expenditures spent directly on academics and students.

howard, on a consolidated basis, reported total assets of $1.4 billion as of June 30, 2008, which is a decrease of $83.2 million from the $1.5 billion reported the prior year. the decrease was due mainly to a decline in the university’s investments and a reduction in the prepaid pension cost. the total asset decrease, coupled with a small increase in liabilities, meant that the com-bined entity of the university and hospital

36 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

Operating Expenses ($Millions), FY 2008

Figure 6.5: Operating Expenses ($Millions), FY 2008Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

$201.3 (36.9%)

$38.7 (7.1%)

$11.9 (2.2%)

$37.9 (6.9%)$28.0 (5.1%)

$109.3 (20.0%)

$69.8 (12.8%)

$49.0 (9.0%)

Instruction (36.9%)

Student Services (5.1%)

Research (7.1%)

Institutional Support (20.0%)

Public Service (2.2%)

Auxiliary Enterprises (12.8%)

Academic Support (6.9%)

Faculty Practice Plan (9.0%)

Table 6.1: Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2008

Selected Balance Sheet Balance at June 30 Change

Accounts ($ millions): 2008 2007 $ %

Assets

Cash & Cash Equivalents $19.6 $47.7 ($28.1) (58.9%)

Receivables (Net) 109.5 103.4 6.1 5.9%

Investments 518.6 564.7 (46.1) (8.2%)

Property, Plant & Equipment (Net) 567.6 511.0 56.6 11.1%

Prepaid Pension Cost 55.5 86.1 (30.6) (35.5%)

Other 117.8 159.1 (41.3) (25.9%)

Total Assets $1,388.7 $1,471.9 (83.2) (5.7%)

Liabilities

Accounts Payable & Accrued Expenses $118.2 $88.9 29.3 33.0%

Accrued Post Retirement Benefits 119.5 122.7 (3.2) (2.6%)

Bonds and Notes Payable 184.2 193.5 (9.3) (4.8%)

Other 150.1 153.3 (3.2) (2.1%)

Total Liabilities $572.0 $558.4 13.6 2.4%

Net Assets

Unrestricted $527.7 $611.8 (84.1) (13.7%)

Temporarily Restricted Net Assets 191.7 206.4 (14.7) (7.1%)

Permanently Restricted Net Assets 97.4 95.4 1.9 2.0%

Total Net Assets $816.7 $913.6 (96.8) (10.6%)

Total Liabilities and Net Assets $1,388.7 $1,471.9 (83.2) (5.7%)

Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 37

Institutional Resources

saw its net assets decrease by $96.8 million or 10.6% during fy 2008. information on the fy 2008 balance sheet is depicted in table 6.1.Impact of Current Market Conditions on University Portfolios

the unstable national and global econ-omy, and the unpredictability of finan-cial markets, will continue to impact the university’s operations and mission in the near future. this is due both to the direct effect on howard’s investments, and on the ability of funders and donors to con-tinue their financial support. as illustrated in figure 6.6, after a robust growth in fy 2007, the university’s endowment invest-ments began to decline in fy 2008, and so far, in fy 2009 have shown further declines.

despite current year declines in endow-ment market value, the university’s invest-ment strategy is well-positioned for the future. over the last two years, the invest-ment strategy has been augmented to better position the endowment to take advantage of potential market swings, and to protect purchasing power during recessionary periods. the university’s liquidity posi-tion remains strong despite global market conditions.

Financial Planning Strategies

the university is facing a structural defi-cit, exacerbated by, rather than caused by the current global financial crisis. despite these financial challenges, the institution continued to support priority areas (e.g., student facilities, classrooms, teaching labs, research facilities, and residence halls). in light of the $29.9 million operating defi-cit of fy 2008, the university has imple-mented short-term initiatives to reduce costs, which were outlined in president Ribeau’s letter to the howard community, dated december 3, 2008 (see Supporting document 6.1). these short-term strategies included:

n a hiring freeze; n a salary freeze until the end of the 2008-

2009 academic year;n the establishment of budget reduction

targets for all university divisions;n a substantial reduction in consulting fees

and professional services;n a substantial reduction in travel, overtime,

and stipends; and n a two-day furlough for faculty and staff

and a four-day furlough for members of the president’s Cabinet.

the university has developed a multi-year structural reform and cost reduction

Howard University Endowment Market Value

Figure 6.6: Endowment Market ValueSource: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget*Endowment Market Value as of February 2009

$424

$600

$400

$200

$02006 2007 2007 2008 2009*

$ M

illio

ns

$524 $525 $498$388

38 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

program. it includes four components:1. Staff vSRip—a voluntary retirement

program which included 339 staff who separated from the university on June 30, 2009;

2. Structural Reform—an organizational and process redesign driven by mandatory division-based budget reduction targets of $43 million in fy 2010, to continue in fol-lowing years;

3. academic Renewal—a carefully de-signed process of campus engagement, to significantly reduce the range of academic programs, and redirect resources to strategic academic/health sciences program priorities, and provide program support needed to attain excellence (see section on academic Renewal in Chapter 5); and

4. process improvement—a systematic redesign of major campus processes to reflect best practices, improve services and reduce cost.

Credit Rating

in June 2008, the university received credit ratings of a2 from Moody’s investors Service and a+ from Standard and poor’s (S & p). during the most recent credit rat-ing review in June 2009, S & p affirmed the current credit rating, but changed its outlook from stable to negative. the rat-ings agency’s analyst cited operating losses at the university and howard university hospital, declining unrestricted resources and university endowment, and long-term strategic challenges for the university’s hospital as the main reasons for the outlook change. S & p reported that although the hospital has made great strides during the 2009 fiscal year in reversing its operating losses, the hospital remains a key strategic challenge, due to its relatively small size, low acuity, and aging facility. losses for the hospital in fy 2009 are expected to be minimal, while the university has taken steps to further reduce costs and enhance revenues.

Standard & poor’s also reported that university enrollment is stable with a good demand profile. the successful comple-tion of the university’s first major Capital Campaign in fy 2008 was also noted, with a total of $276 million raised. these items, along with the university’s low debt ser-

vice burden of only 2.3% of revenue, gives strength to the current rating. Management should be able to also demonstrate contin-ued and reasonable progress toward achiev-ing operating stability over the next one to two years.

Assessment Procedures for Financials

the university has several mechanisms in place to ensure that its financial sta-tus is reviewed and evaluated against its mission, goals, and objectives. these mechanisms include the approval of the annual budget by the Board of trustees, annual financial audits by external audi-tors, annual internal audits by the office of internal audit, and periodic presenta-tions to bond rating agencies. in addi-tion, the university reports annually to the u.S. department of education on a set of measures (see section on Compliance with the Government performance and Results act in Chapter 10—institutional assessment).

Budget Forecasting

the university engaged in a number of activities to improve financial management and to more closely integrate budgeting and strategic financial planning. in that regard, the Board of trustees appointed an ad hoc Committee on long-term fiscal health in 2007. the Board committee proposed a long-range model projecting university rev-enues and costs that engendered needed dis-cussion on the difficult truth, that “business as usual” would not put howard on the path to sustained excellence.

the university recently completed the implementation of an even more sophis-ticated, interactive financial model that unites all of the planning activities for the university and hospital into a single insti-tutional viewpoint, to analyze the financial ramifications of operating and capital ini-tiatives. the university also developed an enhanced budget implementation and track-ing process, which leverages the power of the peopleSoft system. this process pro-duces a series of monthly budget reports and forecasts by division to be used as part of a more structured, regular review with cabinet officers regarding their progress in achiev-ing financial and operational goals.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 39

Institutional Resources

Technological Resourcesas a major component of SFA I and SFA II,

the university made significant investments in its technology resources over the past ten years. these investments have resulted in the dramatic expansion of the technological infra-structure, an enhanced university Web site, and the increased incorporation of technology into instruction. in addition, to fostering increased access to technology by students, faculty, and staff, this investment has supported and improved critical university functions, includ-ing admissions, enrollment, and communica-tions. Some of the technology infrastructure upgrades are outlined in table 6.2.

Information Technology Infrastructure

Guided by SFA I and SFA II (see Supporting documents 6.2 and 6.3), the university made significant progress in building the informa-tion technology (it) infrastructure that sup-ports academic instruction, student life and administration. the Report on the Infusion of Information Technology Supporting Academic Instruction and Student Life at Howard University (January, 2005) (see Supporting document 6.4), summarizes the major it projects howard has implemented as of that time. these include:

n facnet ii and facnet iii (the second and third rounds of distributing new comput-ers to all full time faculty members);

n Resnet i and Resnet ii, creation of the information laboratory (ilab), implemen-tation of wireless network access to all dor-mitory residents followed by the installa-tion of wired voice, data and cable video;

n expansion of wireless network capability to various parts of the institution;

n Major upgrade of the wide area network from fiber distributed data interface (fddi) to fast Gigabit technology;

n establishment of six eStop, electronic kiosks;

n Construction of two digital libraries;n Creation of a digital auditorium and

smart classrooms with full network and audio visual capabilities; and

n technology upgrade of the howard university Bookstore.

the information System and Services (iSaS) office hosts the university infor-mation network and operates all university computer labs. the university’s fiber optic wide area network enables the delivery of it services campus-wide and programs and activities have been implemented to strengthen it access. iSaS has developed and published improved technical standards

Table 6.2: Technology Infrastructure Upgrades

Item DescriptionBudgetary Spending

Cabling InfrastructureCampus wide underground Data Cabling upgrade. Building fiber network wiring infrastructure for students, faculty and administration.

$2,995,357

Net II/Net III

The capacities (server, bandwidth) of the University Computing Network infrastructure were strengthened and improved. The iLab ($5.3M), Student commuter Lab and E-Mail stations were built to facilitate student learning.

$26,360,461

People Soft Program The current implementation of computer web-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) technology to replace the old mainframe (financial and human resources) system.

$33,028,624

Smart Classroom Technology

42 existing classrooms/seminar rooms were renovated to house student-teacher interactive smart technology at seating locations in all colleges. Faculty meeting rooms and conference rooms were also updated.

$2,668,820

ResNet ProgramIn the ResNet program, all residence halls were upgraded to include new voice, video and data technology.

$13,658,318

Computer Integrated Visual Communicating System

Installed in hallways lobbies at the school of law, medical, and dental schools and in student activity centers at the Blackburn center and in student dining hall.

$1,500,000

Source: Howard University Office of Information Services

40 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

for wiring, networks, services, telecom-munications systems, and protocols. to alleviate the effects of increasing external challenges to the university network from spam, viruses, worms, and “trojan horse” attacks, iSaS has been very proactive in the implementation of information security measures.

Howard University Web site

the Web site (www.howard.edu) was first launched in 1997 and in March 2007, a major redesign of the site was completed. in the site’s evolving role, it not only is a repository of official information, but a key academic resource with links to the library system and electronic databases. further, it is a vital tool that facilitates many admin-istrative processes, including admissions, enrollment management, and university communications. as evidence of the utility and centrality to the community, in January 2009, the Web site registered 92,765 of page views per day. in the 2008 Self-Study surveys, 56% of students, 57% of faculty, and 61% of senior administrators surveyed responded “good” to “excellent” that the Web site effectively communicates infor-mation to all stakeholders (see Supporting document 6.5).

Technology in Instruction and Learning

technological resources are employed to enhance instruction and facilitate stu-dent learning. in the 2008 Self-Study sur-veys, most students (53%) but fewer faculty (28%) reported that technology is used to a good or excellent degree in the classrooms. Sixty percent of faculty reported a “good” to “excellent” level of success in introducing cutting-edge technological programs into the curriculum (see Supporting document 6.5). the university now has 42 smart classrooms and each one contains high-end, integrated audio-visual presentation and production capabilities, including a smart board, automated instructor station, and net-work capable student seating.

to complement the hardware investment in instructional technology, all instructors have had access to Blackboard, a web-based course management system, since 2001. Blackboard is used widely by faculty and students across campus. in 2008, Blackboard

was used by 84% of the students. in addition, faculty use of Blackboard’s many features has helped to facilitate the shift to on-line instruction at the university, an increasing trend in higher education.

Technological Advances in Administrative Functions

new system upgrades and software recently were implemented to increase the efficiency of university administration. the upgrades included an industrial strength messaging system, secure remote access, and capacity to support howard’s enterprise Resource planning (eRp) system, peopleSoft that links and integrates operating units through a com-mon database. Roll-out of the peopleSoft human Capital Management (hCM) modules in 2007 provided a streamlined system for hir-ing, payroll and other critical personnel man-agement functions. launch of the peopleSoft financial modules in 2008 improved effi-ciency of the purchasing, accounts payable, and other financial functions.

Facilities Resourcesthe university consists of five campuses,

115 buildings and 258 acres. this past decade, investment in the physical facilities markedly increased – three new buildings, major building renovations, program space for research/teaching, building code confor-mance enhancements, and annual campus-wide maintenance repairs and renovations of residence halls, classrooms, and laboratories. in addition, the university has developed comprehensive plans to improve and main-tain the physical facilities.

More specifically, during this period, expenditures included over $60 million for building code compliance renovations; $56 million invested in new buildings; over $37 million for major building renovations; and $13.5 million in renovated space for research, teaching, and learning. among these invest-ments were two new libraries, the louis Stokes health Sciences library and the law library, which opened in 2002. these facili-ties added value to the university library sys-tem, which is a member of the association of Research libraries. in addition, the howard university Research Building i (huRB i) opened in 2005, becoming the first cam-pus building dedicated solely to research.

The University now has 42

smart classrooms and each one

contains high-end, integrated

audio-visual presentation

and production capabilities, including a

smart board, automated instructor

station, and network capable student seating.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 41

Institutional Resources

other facilities renovated included tubman Quadrangle Residence halls, Meridian hill dormitory, howard Center, Carnegie, armour J. Blackburn university Center, and Wonder plaza Building, as well as 11 programmed spaces for research and teaching/learning. Building code corrections included elevator replacements, sprinkler system installations, hvaC system replacements, roof replace-ments, ada compliance, restroom improve-ments, doors/security systems, and building structure integrity.

feedback from the 2008 Self-Study survey reflected a range of responses regarding per-ceptions of university facilities. table 6.3 pres-ents student, faculty, senior administrator, and staff feedback expressed as the percentage of “good” to “excellent” responses elicited. the pattern of responses strongly indicates the need for continued improvement.

Facilities Maintenance Programto guide continued systematic investment

in facilities resources, the physical facilities Management (pfM) department has devel-oped a deferred Maintenance program, which identifies additional renovations and/or replacements over five years. the plan has three major areas: 1) deferred Maintenance projects for Building Systems; 2) deferred

Maintenance projects for Grounds; and 3) deferred Maintenance for life Safety and Regulatory projects. the plan is ever-evolving and lists university facilities, con-ditions, costs of deficiencies, and replace-ment values. each year the university also identifies facilities needing urgent repairs or renovations.

the university is in the midst of a multi-year, $69 million deferred maintenance (dM) project largely funded by bonds issued in July 2006 to replace building systems (hvaC, sprinklers and fire alarms) in 14 academic buildings and to repair or replace elevators throughout the campus. among the capital and deferred maintenance proj-ects completed are:

n Repaired or replaced 41 elevators; n updated mechanical and fire safety sys-

tems in Just hall (Biology), Mackey Building (architecture), and downing hall (engineering); and

n Renovation of the Blackburn Center Sculpture pool and the lower Quad fountain.

other critical maintenance priorities in-clude facility and classroom projects re-quested by the academic units. Some sched-uled student impact projects included: renovated/new labs, renovated/new class-

Table 6.3: Student, Faculty, Senior Administrator, and Staff Perceptions of the University’s Facilities

Item Student FacultySenior Admin.

Staff

1. Availability of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research

28% 14% 4% –

2. Quality of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research

– 18% 5% –

3. Adequacy of facilities for optimal learning 29% – – –

4. Quality of classrooms for teaching – 24% – –

5. Adequacy of day-to-day maintenance of classrooms, offices, common building areas and campus grounds

32% 12% – 25%

6. Quality of physical facilities available on campus for meetings, seminars, conferences and workshops

41% 29% 18% –

7. Quality of on-campus residential facilities 20% – – –

Source: 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

42 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

rooms/study halls, renovation of adminis-trative areas, and other general physical re-quirements.

to reduce the university’s energy consump-tion and the environmental footprint, several new initiatives have been launched, which tar-get the following goals: implementation of a comprehensive recycling program in place by december 31, 2009; reduction in university energy consumption by 15% by June 2010; and the longer-term objective of becoming climate neutral by the end of 2019.

Human Resources

as of fall 2008, howard had 3,869 staff employees at the university (1,950) and the hospital (1,919) as well as1,520 faculty (full-time 1,064; part-time 456). in addition, there is an additional 128 faculty members (7 full- time and 121 part -time) without compen-sation (WoC) as authorized in the Faculty Handbook (see Supporting document 6.6).

these appointments occur in two major categories: (1) in the health sciences, clini-cal practitioners with practices outside the university offer their services without com-pensation, and they are given temporary faculty appointments accordingly and (2) appointments to the Graduate faculty are without compensation above and beyond the compensation that the faculty member earns from his or her departmental salary. the rea-son for the WoC appointment is to create a formal record of service for which the person is not compensated. the faculty is discussed in detail in Chapter 13—faculty.

howard has demonstrated its commitment to professional development in a number of innovations. the professional development and leadership academy, established in 1997, offers training to all university employ-ees in new office technologies. it also pro-vides workshops to enhance performance, and expand employees’ technical and people skills. in an effort to continually invest in fac-

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 43

Institutional Resources

ulty, the Center for excellence in teaching, learning and assessment (Cetla), also provides on-going instruction in a variety of instructional and assessment strategies as well as expanding faculty expertise in new content areas or methodological strategies. Results from the 2006 Senior Leadership Development and Succession Assessment Study revealed that the university has the rudiments of human capital development in place, albeit uneven throughout the institu-tion. plans are being developed to establish a more comprehensive applied program to reduce the unevenness.

Staff Voluntary Separation Retirement Incentive Program (VSRIP)

the staff voluntary Separation Retirement incentive program (vSRip) was imple-mented for the purpose of reducing salary costs to better align functions with the univer-sity’s mission and to assist in meeting budget reduction targets. eligibility for participation was limited to university staff only. faculty and hospital staff members were not eligible to participate. in addition, university staff had to meet one of two criteria: (1) retirement eligible or (2) vested with 10 or more years of service. incentives included two weeks of severance pay for each year of creditable ser-vice up to a maximum of one year and cur-rent annual leave balance.

overall, one thousand and sixteen uni-versity staff members were eligible to par-ticipate: 733 by retirement and 283 vested. of that number, 339 employees (306 retired and 33 vested) accepted the vSRip and sep-arated the university on June 30, 2009. the total payroll of those participating in the program was $18,887,566. the total sever-ance paid out was $16,984,378. the annual leave cost was $1,772,582.

Separating staff included an associate provost, two deans, the university’s assistant treasurer, the vice president for alumni affairs, the associate director and Medical officer of the Student health Center, 12 assistant and associate deans, an assistant vice president, a senior associate vice president, and numerous mid-level managers. thirty-three percent (33%) of the separating staff reported to the provost, 29% reported to the Cfo, and 20% reported to the Senior vice president

for health Sciences. departments with a significant number of separations include enrollment Management, financial aid and Student employment, the Moorland Spingarn Research Center, office of the dean of the Graduate School, office of the dean of Medicine, office of the dean of dentistry, office of the associate dean of pharmacy and allied health, Campus police, Custodial Services, and Materials Management.

persons accepting the staff vSRip are not eligible for permanent re-hire. Subject to the approval of the Cabinet, separating individuals can be re-hired on wages at their last hourly salary for a period not to exceed 90 days. during this re-hire period, the focus is on transfer of knowledge, rather than on solely continuity of services. in addition, persons re-hired are involved in initiatives to implement the Budget advisory Committee and McKinsey trans-formation initiative. to date, 117 persons have been re-hired for periods ranging from one month to three months at a projected cost of $764,000.

Performance Evaluation

the institution has two separate per-formance evaluation systems in place for faculty and staff. faculty performance evaluation is discussed in detail in Chapter 13—faculty. the performance evaluation program (pep) is the primary instrument utilized at the university to manage staff performance. this program covers all non-union, non-hospital, and non-faculty employees with at least ninety days of ser-vice and is designed for both supervisory and non-supervisory staff. the annual cycle starts in april or May with an assessment of the evaluation instrument. decisions are made whether to maintain the present performance appraisal form or make revi-sions. the forms are available for supervi-sors in June. pep information sessions are conducted for supervisors in early July. evaluations are conducted in august with completed documents sent to the office of total Compensation (otC) in mid-august. the otC evaluates documents for com-pleteness and enters data into an access database. if individuals are eligible for a merit award, otC prepares the notice of

44 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

award letters and delivers them to the major offices of the university.

the performance management process consists of planning, managing, improving, appraising, and rewarding performance. it also includes objective setting for the fol-lowing year. this process engages both employees and supervisors in ongoing com-munication designed to assist employees to perform successfully in their jobs through goal setting and reinforcement of behavior that supports institutional, departmental, and individual objectives. during the evalu-ation process, employees meet one-on-one with their supervisor to review and discuss the past year and develop plans for the upcoming year.

in the 2006 Senior Leadership Development and Succession Assessment Study, results revealed that the university has performance systems in place; however, they were not con-sistently implemented with the needed met-rics, rigorous evaluation, and associated con-sequences (see Supporting document 6.7). to remedy this issue, in the 2007-2008 pep, the university implemented a revised approach to organizational performance review to include the element of feedback. previously, all appraisals were on an individual basis and supervisors have consistently rated most employees in the top two tiers of the pep. the revised process begins with assessment feed-back regarding performance of the organiza-tion relative to the standards set at the begin-ning of the cycle. additionally, the rewards process is being revised to assure that perfor-mance compensation is given to employees who are the best performers.

Resource ManagementResponsible stewardship of university

resources is a top priority. Great efforts are taken to ensure that the fiscal, facilities, tech-nological, and human resources are appro-priately and efficiently employed in service of the university’s mission and aspirations. Both internal controls and external oversight have helped to facilitate this priority.

internal university controls ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, timely and accurate financial reporting, and compliance with laws and regulations. adequate institutional controls are in place to

deal with financial, administrative and aux-iliary operations. to assess its own controls and establish best practices, the university operates under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110: Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and OMB Circular A-21: Cost Principles for Educational Institutions. there are two oversight committees—audit and legal Committee and finance Committee, which operate according to the By-laws of the Board of trustees, 2007 (see Supporting document 6.8). Several times during the year, the committees meet to dis-cuss issues in relation to audit issues as well as fiscal, ethical, and legal requirements.

in addition to the two oversight commit-tees of the Board of trustees, several uni-versity departments also play similar roles. the office of the Controller ensures that adequate internal controls and best practices are in place to manage university financial resources as well as federal grants and con-tracts. the office of internal audit performs audit investigations, departmental audits and follow-ups and provides advisory services. the office of the vice president for Research and Compliance initiates and reviews non-compliance reports in sponsored research. Some of the internal controls in place are contained within the following:

n enterprise Resource planning (eRp) System;

n Research policies; and n purchasing policies and procedures

Manual. further, there are several opportunities

to review financial management practices. annual independent audits confirming financial responsibilities are evident in the following reports:

n howard university financial Statements and Report on federal awards, year ended June 30, 2008;

n howard university financial Statements and Report on federal awards, year ended June 30, 2007; and

n howard university financial Statements and Report on federal awards, year ended June 30, 2006.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 45

Institutional Resources

to strengthen operations and services, the university completed a major study of its procurement operations and processes and concluded that there are major areas of opportunities including professional services, telecommunications, and con-tracts for repairs and maintenance, which will benefit the university in two ways: (1) cost reduction or avoidance in line items and (2) the opportunity to get “more for the money” in university departments. Savings in the amount of $100,000 have already been observed in the physical facilities department because of a new elevator maintenance contract. through strategic purchasing of future contracts on natural gas, the university has been able to avoid increases in utility costs for the next two years.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the university is facing financial chal-lenges, made worse but not caused by the

current global financial crisis. in the midst of these financial challenges, howard con-tinues to support priority areas, including investing in student facilities. howard has used technological resources to signifi-cantly improve instructional capabilities, student learning, and staff productivity. over the past decade, the university has achieved some improvements in tech-nology resources and physical facilities —new buildings, major building reno-vations, renovated program space for research/teaching, building code confor-mance enforcement, and annual campus-wide maintenance renovations, including residence halls, classrooms, lab repairs and renovations.

Significant improvements in the univer-sity’s physical infrastructure have also been made with major renovations completed or underway, although significant infrastructure needs remain. Short- and long-term strategies have been implemented to combat financial challenges. Short-term strategies included university-wide furloughs, salary and hiring

46 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 6

freezes, while long-term measures included a staff voluntary Separation and incentive Retirement program.

in addition, in the 2006 Senior Leadership Development and Succession Assessment Study, the conclusion was that the university has rudiments of human capital develop-ment in place, albeit uneven throughout the institution. the following findings and rec-ommendations for improvement emerged from review of the university’s status rela-tive to MSChe Standard 3:

Findings

1. the university’s financial management and human resource management systems are in need of improvement.

2. the university’s current budget is not ade-quately aligned with its academic priorities.

3. there is insufficient communication or awareness within the university com-munity regarding its internal and external reviews of financial and human resource management systems.

4. human capital development across university academic and administrative units is uneven.

5. assessment of resource allocation shows that additional resources are needed to compete for and retain talent and sup-port the work of leaders and distinguished faculty.

6. there is insufficient diversification of the university’s revenue stream.

7. the university’s physical and technol-ogy infrastructure is in need of on-going enhancement and maintenance to remain competitive as a research university.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. align the university’s resources and budget with academic priorities resulting from program reviews and portfolio assess-ments.

2. initiate procedures to communicate annually to the university community the results of various internal and external reviews of the university’s financial and human resource management systems.

3. develop and implement a comprehen-sive program to address the unevenness of human capital development.

4. increase the diversity of university rev-enues, which may include targeting alumni

giving and other private donors and grow-ing the university endowment.

5. intensify efforts to increase revenues from non-government sources to comple-ment tuition and federal support so that there are adequate resources to compete for and retain talent and to support the work of leaders and distinguished faculty.

6. Continue to invest in physical and technological infrastructure to support aca-demic, research and student life priorities.

Supporting Documents6.1 President Ribeau’s Letter to

Member of the Howard University Community, December 3, 2008

6.2 Strategic Framework for Action I6.3 Strategic Framework for Action II6.4 Report on the Infusion of

Information Technology Supporting Academic Instruction and Student Life at Howard University, January, 2005

6.5 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys

6.6 Faculty Handbook, 19936.7 2006 Senior Leadership

Development and Succession Assessment Report

6.8 Howard University By-laws of the Board of Trustees, 2007

Leadership and Governance 7

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 47

Leadership and Governance7

Introductiona sound governance system, competent

leadership, and effective management are regarded as critical to the university’s abil-ity to confront complex challenges and to produce sustainable results. the university also recognizes the need for effective man-agement systems to advance and strengthen its mission, goals, and vision. this report section addresses leadership, governance, policy development, and decision-making at the university, including the concept of shared governance.

Leadership of the UniversityBoard of Trustees

in accordance with its charter and By-laws, howard is governed by a Board of trustees (the Board), which has the ultimate authority and responsibility for “control-ling and directing the affairs, property and interests of the university.” the Board con-ducts its work through eight standing com-mittees: academic excellence, audit and legal, development, finance, executive, Medical affairs, trusteeship, and external affairs. the functions and responsibilities of these committees are delineated in the Howard University By-laws of the Board of Trustees (amended January 27, 2007) (see Supporting document 7.1).

addison Barry Rand was elected chair-man of the Board of trustees in 2006. the Board has 35 authorized voting members (including the president of the university) of whom seven are designated “Constituent trustees.” Comprising the “Constituent trustees” are three alumni, two faculty members, and two students, each nominated

by their respective constituencies. With the exception of the president, constituents and general members of the Board are selected by the Board following recommendations from its trusteeship Committee as outlined in the Howard University By-laws of the Board of Trustees (amended January 27, 2007). also, the Board may designate as members non-voting trustees emeriti or honorary. all new Board members partici-pate in an orientation at the beginning of their terms.

the Board’s membership comprises a governing body that is capable of assuring that the body’s fiduciary responsibilities are fulfilled (see Supporting document 7.2). Board members represent diverse fields of professional endeavor, including business, law, higher education, medicine, and sci-entific research. the trustees have actively advanced the university’s cause by provid-ing leadership in the Capital Campaign with personal contributions and by lending fund-raising assistance; working with govern-ment officials to continue the federal appro-priation, an essential part of the university’s annual budget; and encouraging an assess-ment of academic programs through a des-ignated academic excellence Committee.

Currently, the Board meets a minimum of four times each year. the January, april, and September meetings are reserved for Board action. the november meeting is uti-lized as an evaluative and planning retreat in odd years, when there is in-depth discus-sion. even years are utilized as a forum for in-depth analysis of issues of strategic importance. the executive Committee acts on behalf of the Board between meetings, as needed.

MSCHE Standard 4The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional con-stituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, con-sistent with the mission of the institution.

…Howard is governed by a Board of Trustees which has the ultimate authority and responsibility for “controlling and directing the affairs, property and interests of the University.”

48 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 7

Assessment of the Board

each year after the annual meeting in april, the Board conducts a series of assessments. Beginning July 1, 2006, the Board enhanced its self-assessment proce-dures. in September 2006, the Board iden-tified the following focus areas based on the results of its november 2005 retreat: academic excellence, health Sciences enterprise, long-term fiscal health, Board effectiveness and Strategic vision. as part of the Board effectiveness focus area, the Chairman recommended that the Board of trustees establish, as a high priority, performance accountabilities for executive, academic, and administrative levels.

at the november 2006 meeting, the Board Chairman presented the Governance Effectiveness Management System, which set forth performance metrics for the Chairman, the president, Board Committees and Committee Chairs, and trustees. the system was approved and assessment tools were drafted and approved.

Governance of the Universitythe university has a shared system of

governance. ultimate authority for gov-ernance of the university is vested in the Board and delegated by the Board to the president. the president exer-cises that authority through the provost/Chief academic officer, vice presidents, deans, directors, and other officials of the administration in consultation, as necessary, with the units of the university and with faculty, staff, and students.

the university has experienced an accelerated pattern of faculty engagement and collaboration with the administra-tion in matters of governance. president Ribeau embraced a shared approach to governance. in his first year, he prioritized making information about the university’s operations more transparent and widely accessible to the university community. in addition, dr. Ribeau meets regularly with faculty Senate leadership, and encour-ages involvement of faculty, students, and staff in major university initiatives, such as the Budget advisory Committee, the Students First Initiative, and the

recently announced Select Commission on academic Renewal.

Faculty

in addition to their teaching, research, and service responsibilities, faculty has the responsibility to assist howard with the fulfillment of its mission and vision through the development and implemen-tation of policies that will advance the university’s educational mission. Matters of exclusive concern to a single college/school are subject to deliberation and rec-ommendation by its faculty through con-sultative bodies and procedures set forth in the By-laws of that individual unit. for policy initiatives impacting more than one school/college, the consultative pro-cess may involve the twelve faculty delib-erative bodies and the faculty Senate. examples of the extent of faculty consul-tation include the merit award process, faculty appointments, promotions and tenure recommendations, and the recent proposal to implement a new performance assessment system.

the faculty Senate (“Senate”) is the inde-pendent organizational unit through which the university-wide faculty (“university faculty”) participates in the governance of the university. this body deliberates and determines the faculty positions/decisions on issues of concern and makes recommendations to the president and the Board on matters within the Senate’s jurisdiction. the Council of the faculty Senate is its legislative body, consisting of representatives from all schools/col-leges. it is governed by a Board-approved constitution. Senate officers and Council representatives are elected by the faculty through a secret ballot. the Senate has responsibility for deliberating and making recommendations regarding educational policies that are applicable to more than one school or college. faculty trustees are nominated to the Board through an election process managed by the Senate. Members of the Senate actively participate on vari-ous university committees, such as the Budget advisory Committee, tuition Rate advisory Committee, university Self-Study Steering Committee, and other ad hoc committees and task forces. although

Ultimate authority for

governance of the University

is vested in the Board and

delegated by the Board to

the President.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 49

Leadership and Governance

the faculty Senate actively participates in the university’s governance process, it has expressed continuing concerns about the administration of the university, its oper-ations and shared system of governance (see Supporting document 7.3).

Support Staff

the howard university Staff organization (huSo) is the official staff representa-tive body. all non-faculty employees of the university are eligible for huSo member-ship upon payment of a nominal fee. under By-laws approved in 2004, huSo serves in an advisory capacity and facilitates com-munication between the staff and adminis-tration. as outlined in the huSo constitu-tion, it provides input to the administration regarding university policies and procedures (see Supporting document 7.4).

Students

Student governance at howard is carried out through three categories of student orga-nizations: the howard university Student association (huSa); undergraduate and Graduate Student assemblies; and School/College Student Councils. Representatives to these organizations are elected by the appropriate student bodies. to be eligible for and maintain their positions, students must maintain a 3.00 cumulative grade point average. Student government elections are held every Spring semester. the university-wide student association, huSa, is the offi-cial representative of all students. huSa operates according to its constitution and By-laws and consists of members of the undergraduate and graduate student assem-blies and representatives from each school /college student council (see Supporting document 7.5). Student government repre-sentatives and other students actively par-ticipate on councils, task forces, and com-mittees at the department, school/ college levels. the student governance bodies pro-vide input in the formulation of policy and advise students, faculty, and administrators at the various levels of the university. Recent examples of student service on important committees include the presidential Search Committee, university-wide Self-Study Steering Committee, tuition and Rate advisory Committee, and Budget advisory

Committee. one student elected from and representing the undergraduate units of the university, and one student, elected from and representing the graduate and profes-sional divisions of the university, serve on the Board of trustees.

Decision-Making at the University

under the university’s organizational structure, the president serves as the university’s Chief executive officer and exercises executive, supervisory, and management authority as delegated by the Board. Because Board membership includes the president and constituent representatives (alumni, faculty, and stu-dents), all stakeholders are involved in the university’s decision-making process.

faculty members are actively involved in the university’s decision-making pro-cess and serve on search committees for academic administrators. the Board of trustees Search Committee that recently recommended the appointment of president Ribeau included a faculty representative. the faculty shares responsibility with the university administration in matters related to academic programs, including faculty recruitment and development; fac-ulty evaluation for reappointment, promo-tion and tenure; program development and review; student advising; class schedule planning; and general supervision of the research, teaching, and school and college outreach activities. faculty involvement in these matters is outlined in the By-laws of the respective schools and colleges.

academic policy and program recom-mendations begin at the departmental level and are submitted for consideration by the school/college faculty. following school or college faculty consideration, the dean transmits recommendations to the provost and Chief academic officer or the Senior vice president for health Sciences for review and consideration. if approved, the recom-mendation is forwarded to the president for consideration. final authority for the estab-lishment of university policy rests with the Board of trustees. Board decisions related to academic policies and programs are com-municated to the faculty.

50 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 7

faculty members are involved in decision-making as it relates to the university’s oper-ating budget and the setting of tuition rates. Working with the faculty Senate leadership, president Ribeau facilitated the Senate’s submission of fy 2010 budget development recommendations and participation on the university’s Budget advisory Committee. president Ribeau recognizes the faculty Senate as a key constituency and works col-laboratively with the Senate leadership to ensure that the university’s decision-making process is transparent and inclusive.

Assessment of Leadership and Governance

the assessment of leadership and gov-ernance at the university was conducted in light of Middle States’ response to the 1999 Self-Study Report, which praised the university’s inclusive approach to deci-sion-making, but highlighted the need for a balance between full policy deliberation and implementation.

the governance structure, established by the Charter, By-laws, and regulations of the various university entities, pro-vides substantial opportunities for faculty

and student consultation, with appropriate legal authority clearly vested in the Board or delegated by it to the president. the Board, the president, and the provost and Chief academic officer refer to examples of shared governance in the By-laws and handbooks of each school. they note the crucial consultative role of the faculty in admissions, in awarding degrees and in the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure of faculty. however, a review of the Faculty Handbook revealed dated poli-cies since the Handbook was published in 1993.

Some Senate leaders contend that the faculty is not sufficiently involved in decision-making that affects them directly. illustrative of their contention, Senate leaders point to the Board’s academic excellence Committee decision to meet with Senate leaders only once a year for thirty minutes. also, the Senate disputed the Board’ view that the search process for a new president represented an inclusive process. in some instances, administrative leaders and Senate leaders have different views regarding important university issues and approaches. for example, during the presidential search, the search committee informed and updated the faculty about the search via letter. the

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 51

Leadership and Governance

faculty Senate Chair, however, “. . . wanted better communication and a more open pro-cess from the presidential search committee . . . not a vaguely worded letter from the Chair of the Search Committee that attempted to update and inform faculty; the process was more of a closed-door exercise” (interview with Chair of faculty Senate, May 2008). (a more detailed discussion of faculty Senate concerns is set forth in a letter, which was sent to the Middle States Commission, dated april 17, 2008) (see Supporting document 7.6). their feeling of a lack of commitment to the concept of shared governance led the Senate Chair to propose the creation of an office of ombudsman at howard. the proposed office would be charged with improving commu-nications and addressing grievances involv-ing the faculty and university administrative leaders. the university recognizes the need to adopt basic standards to resolve faculty grievances and to revise the 1993 Faculty Handbook, as well as to consider other issues pertaining to faculty life and governance dur-ing the revision process.

other governance concerns that have been expressed by the faculty include: the proposed faculty performance evaluation System (fpeS); lack of integrity associ-ated with faculty compensation; academic restructuring without faculty consultation; the lack of inclusion in budget and budget-ary matters; and issues associated with the Faculty Handbook. Several of these con-cerns emerged during the Self-Study inter-views with the leadership of the faculty Senate and deans.

a common thread identified by the Chair and vice Chair of the faculty Senate was their perception of a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of upper admin-istration. they noted decisions regarding hiring, appointments, policy-development, evaluations, promotions, and information sharing—particularly the budget even though the By-laws of the faculty Senate require that the administration and faculty have access to budget information.

notably, the issue of faculty participation in budget development was resolved with implementation of a new budget develop-ment process, which operates within the existing governance structure and explicitly recognizes the role of the faculty. the new

budget process is designed to engage the entire university community and improve transparency and openness. the new budget process is detailed in Chapter 5: planning, Resource allocation and institutional Renewal.

under president Ribeau, the current uni-versity administration has worked assidu-ously to engage faculty in a transparent and participatory process on most aca-demic matters at the university, consistent with both Faculty Handbook and princi-ples of good practice in higher education. accordingly, the university administration has acknowledged the need for full faculty participation in the aforementioned faculty evaluation system and has (1) suspended implementation of the plans for one year until faculty voices can be heard and con-sidered and (2) sought explicit reactions to the proposed plan, plus the submission of alternate plans, if desired, to the office of the provost. this input will be considered in the preparation of the final plan.

in the faculty Senate’s judgment, faculty should have a role in many more university processes as well as within their respective colleges and schools. for instance, faculty Senate leaders criticized the appointment of a Senior vice president for health Sciences (SvphS) because the reassign-ment of oversight for the health Sciences from the provost’s authority occurred with-out consultation with faculty of the respec-tive Schools and Colleges. the Board, during the Swygert administration, reorga-nized the offices of the provost and Chief academic officer (Cao) and the SvphS with limited input from the university community. under that reorganization only the nine colleges and schools in the aca-demic affairs division report to the provost and Cao, while the three colleges dealing with health sciences (Medicine; dentistry; pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences) report to the SvphS.

nonetheless, the current administration regards this reorganization as an impera-tive response to the need for closer over-sight and heightened attention to the health sciences and hospital. as the university’s health-related functions and operations improve, this direct reporting line to the president may be unnecessary.

52 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 7

Both faculty Senate leadership and some deans complained that there is no shared governance with central adminis-tration and that neither group had input in major decisions and policy development. of the Self-Study Survey respondents, 38% of students, 18% of faculty and 10% of staff reported a “good” to “excellent” level of opportunity for involvement in the decision-making that affected them. Moreover, perceptions of senior admin-istrators regarding input by stakeholders in university decision-making also varied, yielding reports of good or excellent lev-els of involvement by students (31%), by faculty (35%) and by staff (14%).

president Ribeau is aware of these pre-existing faculty Senate concerns and has demonstrated his commitment to resolv-ing them. the president and interim provost and Cao met with the faculty Senate periodically during the 2008-2009 academic year. in addition, the establish-ment of the Budget advisory Committee (BaC), comprised of students, faculty, and staff, represents a significant step toward more transparency and broader involvement in decision-making.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the governance structure established under the Charter, By-laws, and regula-tions of the various university entities pro-vides substantial opportunities for faculty consultation and student input, with legal authority appropriately vested in the Board or delegated to the president. this structure has led to clear policies, and unambiguous roles and responsibilities for the govern-ing Board, central administration, deans, department chairs, faculty, and students. the university’s governing documents provide for a structure, which complies with the lead-ership and governance principles set forth in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. the university also has a system of shared governance. Still, Senate leaders maintain that the members of the faculty are not sufficiently involved in the decision-making processes that affect them.

Concerns have been raised regarding the ability of the organizational and leader-

ship structure of the university to effec-tively and efficiently develop policies that can lead to significant change. the current administration has been aggressively and assiduously responding to many of these concerns. the following findings and rec-ommendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 4:

Findings

1. the recent reorganization of the university’s academic affairs and health sciences units was done without sufficient consultation with the faculty, deans, and other stakeholders.

2. the 1993 faculty handbook does not reflect changes in academic policy, fac-ulty participation in decision-making, and administrative organization.

3. despite significant efforts over the past year, there remains a perception among some faculty of insufficient transparency in the university’s decision-making process.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. Revisit the provost and Chief academic officer /Senior vice president for health Sciences model in consultation with the various faculty, deans, and other appropri-ate university stakeholders.

2. Revise the 1993 faculty handbook to reflect current policies and processes.

3. enhance policies and procedures on Board of trustees and leadership succes-sion.

4. Continue to build upon recent ini-tiatives that are designed to enhance the transparency of the university’s decision-making processes.

Supporting Documents7.1 Howard University By-laws of the

Board of Trustees, 20077.2 Board of Trustees 2009-2010

Membership List7.3 Faculty Senate Constitution, 2000 7.4 Howard University Staff Organization

By-laws, 20047.5 Howard University 2009-2010

Student Handbook7.6 Faculty Senate Letter to Middle States

Commission, April 2008

The University’s

governing documents

provide for a structure, which

complies with the leadership

and governance principles set

forth in the Characteristics

of Excellence in Higher

Education.

Administration 8

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 53

Administration8

MSCHE Standard 5The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance.

Introductionhoward’s structure is organized into a

number of administrative and academic units which facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the day-to-day management of the university. the university’s adminis-trative services enhance instruction, learn-ing, and research and support the institu-tion in achieving its mission and goals. the administrative structure of the university is reviewed and revised as new leadership is appointed and as needs dictate.

Overview of Administrative Structure

University Officers

the organizational structure of the university is delineated in figure 8.1. as decreed by the university Charter, the ulti-mate authority is the Board of trustees with the president as Chief executive officer. the administrative structure over the past decade has provided stability in leadership. h. patrick Swygert served as president for 13 years, the third longest tenure of a president in the 142-year history of the university. in May 2007, president Swygert announced his retirement as president of howard, effective June 30, 2008. on May 7, 2008, the Board of trustees announced the appointment of Sidney a. Ribeau, ph.d., president of Bowling Green State university to the presi-dency of howard, effective august 1, 2008. during a short period of transition, July 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, Ms. artis hampshire-Cowan, J.d., Senior vice president and Secretary to the Board of trustees, served as interim president.

the president has a cabinet of adminis-trative officers who serve in an advisory

capacity. the presidential cabinet is com-prised of nine officers: university Secretary, provost and Chief academic officer (Cao), three Senior vice presidents, three vice presidents, and a General Counsel. in addi-tion several other positions report directly to the president, some of which are mem-bers of the cabinet. as the Chief executive officer of the university, the president has responsibility for the management and supervision of all activities in accor-dance with established policies and proce-dures. the president is responsible for the implementation of the university’s policies established by the Board of trustees and for recommending courses of action to the Board in coordination with faculty, staff, and other constituents in the university community.

in recent past, the university has under-gone some administrative changes revis-ing the structure and creating new posi-tions. Within administrative ranks, there has been turnover either by resignation or retirement. Since the last Middle States visit in 1999, there has been substantial turnover in the position of provost and Cao with six individuals having served in that position [antoine Garibaldi, 1996-2000; don Coleman (interim), 2000-2001; toy Caldwell-Colbert, 2001-2003; Richard english, 2003-2008; Kurt Schmoke (acting Senior vice president for academic Matters), 06/2008-08/2008; and alvin thornton (interim), 2008-present]. also several changes have occurred in the Senior vice president and Chief financial officer/treasurer position, with four per-sons having served since 1999 [thomas elzey, 1995-2002; henry Jackson (interim), 2002-2004; Sheila Roberts (acting), 2005; Sidney evans, Jr. 2005-present].

54 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 8

Board of Trustees

Dean of the ChapelChapel

Senior Vice President & Secretary of the Board of

TrusteesOffice of the SVP

& Secretary

General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Vice Provost for Student AffairsStudent Affairs

Vice ProvostEnrollment Management

President Office of the President

Provost and Chief Academic Officer

Office of the Provost & Chief Academic Officer

Vice PresidentOffice of the VP for

Development & Alumni Relations

Executive DirectorOffice of Communications

and Marketing

Senior Vice PresidentOffice of the SVP

for Health Sciences

DirectorAcademic Support Units

Senior Vice President & CFO

Office of the SVP and CFO-Treasurer

Vice PresidentHuman Capitol Management

Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer

Office of the SVP for External Affairs,

Operations & Strategic Planning and ISAS

Assistant Vice PresidentOffice of Protocol

and Events

Associate Vice PresidentResearch Compliance

Vice PresidentResearch & Compliance

Deans for Schools/Colleges

Arts & Science, Business, Engineering

Architecture and Computer Sciences,

Communications, Divinity, Education, Law,

Social Work, Graduate School

Deans for Schools/Colleges

Medicine, Dentistry & Pharmacy Nursing and

Allied Health Sciences

Associate Vice President

Materials Management

Director

Benefits, Counseling, & Retirement Services

Associate Vice PresidentSponsored Programs

CEOHU Hospital

DirectorHuman Resource

Information Systems

Deputy Chief Financial Officer

& Controller

Chief of Campus PoliceCampus Police

Assistant Treasurer

Associate Vice President

Administrative Services

Director

Financial Analysis & Budget

Associate Vice President

Auxillary Enterprise

DirectorEmployee Relations & EEO

DirectorEmployment

DirectorCompensation &

Performance Management

Howard University Organizational ChartFunctional

Figure 8.1: Organizational ChartSource: Office of the President

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 55

Administration

in the last two years, changes in respon-sibilities have shifted between the provost and Senior vice president for health Sciences (SvphS). as stated in Chapter 7, the faculty Senate believes there was insufficient engagement of the faculty in this decision. the provost and Cao now has the responsibility for all under-graduates and graduates in nine colleges and schools (excluding the Colleges of Medicine; dentistry; and pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences), the libraries (excluding the health Sciences library), and several academic support units. additionally, the provost and Cao has oversight for academic offerings, space availability, personnel and facility resources, and expenditures of univer-sity funds within budgets of units in the academic affairs division.

the SvphS presides over the hospital, health Sciences library, the Colleges of Medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences and possesses line authority from the president for the overall management of the university’s clinical enterprise and dedicated health sciences segments of the academy including oversight of these enti-

ties. further, the SvphS is responsible for the educational, research, and service programs in the health Sciences. With this administrative change, the university needs to assure that there is proper align-ment and collaboration between the office of the SvphS and the provost and Cao.

other important changes include the creation of new cabinet level positions. as a result of the nSf 2006 audit report, the Board of trustees approved posi-tion of vice president for Research and Compliance (vpRC) to provide oversight for administration of the research enter-prise. With this cabinet level position, the university needs to assure that there is proper alignment between the office of the vpRC, which has responsibility for extramural research administration, and the office of the provost, which has gen-eral responsibility for research, as well as for coordination with the SvphS office

in early 2006, president Swygert appointed don Coleman, ph.d. as the interim vpRC. dr. Coleman’s tenure ended after a national search and the appointment of oliver G. McGee, ph.d. as the university’s first per-manent vpRC on July 1, 2007. dr. McGee resigned after serving for one academic year,

56 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 8

and florence B. Bonner, ph.d., associate vice president for Compliance was appointed vpRC (acting) in august 2008.

in July 2008, Ms. elizabeth Stroud, the associate vice president for human Capital Management was promoted to vice president for human Capital Management, a newly created cabinet level position. under president Ribeau’s leadership, a new cabinet level position, vice president for presidential initiatives, was created to support the president, provost and Cao, and the other vice presidents in organizational renewal. additionally, as part of the restructuring of the division of Communications and Marketing, president Ribeau appointed an interim executive director of Communications and Marketing in May 2009 to report directly to the office of the president. this reorga-nization is part of a comprehensive plan to coordinate the university’s diverse commu-nication assets and to improve internal and external communications.

Recruitment and Hiring Process of University Officers

a rigorous hiring process for senior executives ensures that individuals selected for these positions best meet the required skills and qualifications. prior to advertis-

ing the vacancy of university officers, the president seeks approval from the Board of trustees. university officers are recruited through national searches that are coor-dinated by a search committee, published vacancy notices, and formal search com-mittee interviews. position descriptions and vacancy notices include the responsi-bilities and qualifications for prospective candidates. the roles and responsibilities of the officers are outlined in the howard university By-laws of the Board of trustees, 2007 (see Supporting document 8.1); posi-tion descriptions; and job announcements. additionally, officers in temporary (acting or interim) positions do not have clearly defined written responsibilities but assume the role of the vacant position.

the executive officers of the university serve “at the will of ” the president. those officers in “interim” roles may not serve in excess of twelve months during any con-tinuous period of eighteen months (howard university By-laws of the Board of trustees, 2007). initial hires receive an individual ori-entation from human Capital Management, in consultation with the president. at that session, the officer receives copies of the equal employment opportunity policy; Sexual harassment policy; Code of Conduct policy; personnel Guideline and Statement of Current Benefits; and a Confidentiality agreement (see Supporting documents 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6).

Academic Administrative Officers

the administration of academic units falls under the purview of the provost and Cao and the SvphS. they in turn, for their respective divisions, delegate the responsi-bility of the schools/colleges and other units to the deans and directors. academic deans are responsible for faculty recruitment and development; faculty evaluation; program development and review; student advising; collegiate budgeting and budget control; class scheduling/planning; general supervi-sion of the research, teaching, and outreach activities of the school/college. as appro-priate, the deans consult with the faculty of the school/college (Faculty Handbook). Some of these responsibilities are del-egated to the departmental chairs by the deans. departmental chairs are responsible

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 57

Administration

for overseeing the administration of aca-demic departments within schools/colleges. directors are responsible for the administra-tion of units that are not schools/colleges and may share such responsibility with fac-ulty in the units. additionally, directors con-sult with faculty who are part of their units (see Supporting document 8.7).

Assessment of the Administration

there have been some inconsistencies with the evaluation of university officers and academic administrative officers in terms of its frequency. additionally, there is no evi-dence that additional training or leadership development is routinely available for deans, directors, and officers of the university to assist them to function at maximum capac-ity in their defined positions such that opera-tional effectiveness is achieved.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the organizational structure of the uni-versity is hierarchical. in the recent past, the administrative structure has undergone several revisions, which include the cre-

ation of several new senior administrative positions. Concerns were expressed about the division of academic responsibilities between the provost and the Senior vice president for health Sciences—an orga-nizational arrangement with implications for institutional operation and decision-making. the vice president for Research and Compliance position was created to enhance the administration of the research enterprise and a vice president for presi-dential initiatives was created to support the president, provost and Cao, and other vice presidents in organizational renewal. as part of the restructuring of the divi-sion of Communications and Marketing, an executive director of Communications and Marketing was created, reporting directly to the president. the following findings and recommendations emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 5:

Findings

1. there has not been stability in the posi-tions of provost and Cao and the Senior vice president and Chief financial officer/treasurer.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the admin-istrative structure are not currently reviewed

58 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 8

periodically to maintain efficiency and abil-ity to respond to evolving requirements.

3. there is insufficient leadership training focusing on a broadening set of responsibilities and opportunities that would strengthen the operational effec-tiveness of deans, directors and depart-mental chairs.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. the president should consider prac-tices and procedures that will lead to stabi-lization in senior level university officers.

2. assess the strengths and weaknesses of the university’s administrative structure periodically to maintain utmost efficiency and continuity.

3. implement individual developmental plans focusing on operational effective-ness for university officers, deans, direc-tors and departmental chairs as ongoing leadership development training.

Supporting Documents8.1 Howard University By-laws of the

Board of Trustees, 20078.2 Howard University Policy and

Procedure on Equal Opportunity in Employment and Education Programs and Activities, 1999

8.3 Howard University Policy Against Sexual Harassment and Gender-Based Discrimination in Education Programs and Activities, 1999

8.4 Howard University Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy, 1998

8.5 Personnel Guideline and Statement of Current Benefits, 1999

8.6 Howard University Employee Financial, Personal and Private Information Confidentiality Agreement, 2008

8.7 Faculty Handbook, 1993

Integrity 9

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 59

Integrity9

MSCHE Standard 6In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constitu-encies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support for academic and intellectual freedom.

Introductionintegrity inevitably requires transpar-

ency, consistency, impartiality, fairness, clarity, accountability, effective and accu-rate communication, academic freedom, and institutional honesty. The Howard University Code of Ethics and Conduct was adopted by the Board of trustees in June of 1998 and the opening state-ment is very clear in addressing the fact that integrity and honesty are required of every member of the university commu-nity in all dealings and at all times (see Supporting document 9.1).

Academic Integrityhoward affirms that the main purpose

of an institution of higher education is the discovery of new knowledge through scholarly teaching, research, and service to the community. in pursuit of knowledge, the faculty and students must hold learn-ing and research at the highest level of integrity. the overarching university pol-icy is to comply with the policies in place regarding ethical standards of integrity in relationships within the university and all related entities, business units, subsidiaries and affiliated organizations, including, but not limited to, howard university hospital and the community, in support of academic and intellectual freedom. information per-taining to academic and intellectual integ-rity is well documented in howard policies and is made available to university con-stituencies. university policies that govern each of the constituency groups reference integrity and how it is the responsibility of each entity to hold itself accountable and perform its functions with integrity and in

accordance with their respective profes-sional codes of ethics.

university-wide policies are dissemi-nated to the various departments and are made available to all faculty, staff, and students. additionally, policies are inte-grated into university communications and publications. academic policies are found in the print or electronic versions of the Howard University Faculty Handbook (Section 2.3.1—terms and Conditions of faculty employment) (see Supporting document 9.2); and the Howard University Student Handbook, 2007-2008 (Section —academic policies, page 16; Section— policies and Regulations, page 102) (see Supporting document 9.3). academic reg-ulations are also available in the Student Reference Manual, Howard University Student Handbook, and undergraduate Bulletin (see Supporting documents 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6).

academic freedom is described in the Faculty Handbook as the freedom of faculty members and students to teach, study, and conduct research in pursuit of knowledge without interference or restriction from the law or internal and external pressures. the howard university academic freedom pol-icy is outlined in Section 2.2.4 of the Faculty Handbook (see Supporting document 9.2). additional information pertaining to aca-demic freedom is found in the Student Code of Conduct (see Supporting document 9.7) and the Howard University Code of Ethics and Conduct, Section iv: e (p. 7) (see Supporting document 9.1).

Students at the university are held to a high standard in pursuit of learning. the university prohibits any type of academic dishonesty. as stated in the academic

60 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 9

Code of Conduct, which was adopted by the Board of trustees in January 1987, students enrolled at the university may be disciplined for academic infractions such as cheating and plagiarism. the minimum disciplinary penalty for a violation of the Code is that the student will not receive credit for the course assignment or exami-nation in which the infraction(s) occurred. a more severe penalty, such as failure in the course involved or suspension from the university, may be imposed depend-ing upon the nature and extent of the infraction(s). the authority and responsi-bility for the imposition of any discipline rests with the faculty of the school/ college in which the student is enrolled. however, it may be delegated by the faculty to the dean of the school/college in which the student is enrolled (see Supporting document 9.8).

through the Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla), the university subscribes to Turnitin.com, a research resource tool that teaches the planning, organizational, and citation skills essential for producing quality writing and research. one of the assessment tools included is a plagiarism detection service. Some professors at the university now require students to submit their papers electronically to this site to determine the originality of texts based on comparisons with the Turnitin.com internal database. Since 2008, the Graduate School required all thesis and dissertation authors to submit an electronic version of their document to the Turnitin.com site and gen-erate a Turnitin.com Originality Report, in order to safeguard the academic integrity of howard theses and dissertations. this report is submitted with the oral defense request (see Supporting document 9.9). although the penalty for plagiarizing theses and dis-sertations is clear, the penalty is not so clear with regard to other types of student writ-ing—especially if a faculty member wants to go beyond what is in the Student Code of Conduct (i.e., a “0” for the plagiarized assignment).

the university uses a grade point aver-age (Gpa) system to evaluate the overall performance of the student at the end of each semester. the Gpa is computed for

all courses attempted, excluding courses repeated. to receive a Bachelor of arts or Bachelor of Science degree, students must have a cumulative Gpa of at least 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. Students graduate with honors under the following conditions: those with a quality Gpa ranging from 3.20 through 3.49 will graduate cum laude; those with a quality Gpa ranging from 3.50 through 3.79 will graduate magna cum laude; and those with a quality Gpa of 3.80 or higher will graduate summa cum laude.

Grievance procedures, which were approved by the Board of trustees in 1994 and are detailed under the Policy on Student Academic Procedures in the Student Reference Manual, howard university Student handbook, and other university publications, are applicable in the case of challenges to academic decisions.

Integrity of Academic Programs

academic programs at howard are accredited by a number of national and specialized agencies which are approved by the u. S. department of education and other accrediting entities. at present, all programs at the university are accredited. Within the last two years, the College of Medicine and Schools of law and Business, and several departments main-tained accreditation with their respective academic associations. Self-Study inter-views with six deans resulted in a consen-sus that the integrity of academic programs is challenged by issues arising from defi-cient infrastructures; inadequate services; inefficient administrative and manage-ment systems; noncompetitive compensa-tion packages for new and current faculty, and little organizational support. Concerns expressed that also may threaten the integ-rity of the academic program included an aging faculty body with few who are pro-ductive in research. the deans of the pro-fessional schools found it problematic that there was an apparent increase in faculty that were lacking in expertise or scholar-ship and demonstrated minimal profes-sional and scholarly growth.

assessment is an important and integral part of academic programs. at howard, most professional programs use national examinations as benchmarks for measur-

Since 2008, the Graduate

School required all thesis and

dissertation authors to submit an electronic

version of their document to the Turnitin.com site and

generate a Turnitin.com

Originality Report in order

to safeguard academic integrity.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 61

Integrity

ing the success of their students and grad-uates. this information has led to program enhancements, including curricular modi-fications and the institution of supplemen-tal initiatives to improve national exami-nation scores.

Scientific Integrityintegrity in the conduct of research is a

key priority for the university. in 2003, the Graduate School implemented a required Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) seminar for all graduate students. attendance at the workshop is a prerequisite for gradu-ate candidacy and is designed to ensure that all students conducting research dem-onstrate their understanding of the multiple ways that integrity can be assured including the role of the institutional Review Board (iRB) and the institutional animal Care and use Committee (iaCuC), research guidelines, ethical reasoning, conflict of interests, data management, authorship and publication practices, and mentorship.

the Research Compliance office is charged with administering the review and approval of the use of human participants and vertebrae animal subjects in research through the iRB and iaCuC. in this role,

the Research Compliance office provides guidance to faculty in preparing protocols to submit to the relevant review commit-tees. the iRB reviews all research proto-cols that involve humans, and requires the highest standards of care to ensure privacy and informed consent and to reduce the risks to human research participation. the iaCuC reviews protocols that involve vertebrae subjects.

Workplace Integritythe university reaffirms its commit-

ment to equity and nondiscrimination in the workplace, consistent with federal mandates and d.C. laws. the howard university Code of ethics and Conduct provides the framework for ethical con-duct. the university strives to ensure fair-ness and equality in its hiring, evaluation, and promotion practices with regards to administration, faculty, staff, and students. Recruitment of staff and wage employees are conducted through the new peopleSoft human Resource on-line application sys-tem, which was implemented in 2007. employment appointments are made by the office of employment in accordance with the affirmative action law.

62 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 9

the office of employment conducts ori-entation for all initial hires on or before their scheduled report date. in addition to receiving benefits information, new employ-ees receive the howard university policy and procedure on equal opportunity in employment and education programs and activities, 1999; howard university policy against Sexual harassment and Gender-Based discrimination in education programs and activities, 1999; Code of ethics and Conduct policy, 1998; personnel Guidelines and Statement of Current Benefits, 1999; and Confidentiality agreement, 2008.

Conflict of InterestConflict of interest statements and poli-

cies are outlined in the howard university Code of ethics and Conduct, faculty handbook, the howard university By-laws of the Board of trustees, and Sponsored Programs Conflict of Interest Policy, No. 600-002. at the Board level, duality of

interest, conflicts or potential conflicts of interest are required to be disclosed at least once a year and members with said conflicts are excused from participating in relevant decision making. additionally, all deans sign conflict of interest forms every year, which are maintained in the offices of the provost and General Counsel.

policies regarding faculty conflicts of inter-est and commitment apply to faculty on full-time appointments. the conflict of commit-ment policy requires faculty to limit outside employment and activities to one day per week so as to not interfere with the primary responsibilities of research, teaching, and ser-vice. faculty members must discuss potential conflicts of interest with their dean and avoid or withdraw from situations that may lead to personal gain or advantage of any kind that conflict with the university’s interest and the member’s duty to serve them.

in terms of research, beginning april 2007, all principal investigators (pis)

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 63

Integrity

were required to submit a completed con-flict of interest (Coi) form as part of their application package for extramural funds to the office of Sponsored programs/Research administration. prior to this new university requirement, only pis submit-ting applications to the national Science foundation and the national institutes of health were required to submit the Coi form as per federal regulations.

Integrity in Communication and Media

the university community is informed about important issues through the office of university Communications and Marketing, which is the central point for the dissemination of information regard-ing howard to the community. this office’s media operation disseminates news in a variety of formats including e-newsletters (Capstone On-line), Web sites, e-mails, and periodicals (Howard Magazine). also, the university Web site is the main communication portal through which faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the greater community can access a wide array of information about the university. in addition to the aforementioned commu-nication media, the university’s student newspaper, The Hilltop is published daily under the direction of an advisor.

other major university publications include:

n the Bison yearbook—published annu-ally by a student staff under the advise-ment of the office of Student activities.

n the h-Book—published by the office of Student activities, provides informa-tion on university policies, rules, codes of conduct, campus services, campus events, and annually observed events.

n howard university facts—a booklet of information taken from several univer-sity databases published by the office of university Research and planning.

n howard university Service—provides city and community activities in which howard faculty, staff, students, alumni and relatives are engaged.

n Scholarship@howard—a searchable on-line database of howard faculty authors published since 1995.

n Quest—a bi-annual research publica-tion that chronicles faculty and student research across the university.

additionally, the on-line schedule of classes, bulletins, and catalogs via the university Web site provides students with basic information pertaining to deadlines, examination schedule, finance, and academic rules and regulations. this information is presented in a logical and navigational format, which makes it easier for the reader to follow through links. a university on-line events calendar informs the community of campus activities, past, current, and forthcoming (http://www.howard.edu/calendars/).

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

university-wide ethical policies are dis-seminated to the various departments and are shared with faculty, staff, and students. as reinforcement, policies are integrated into university communications and pub-lications. academic policies are found in the print or electronic versions of the Howard University Faculty and Student Handbooks. academic regulations are also available in the Student Reference Manual, Howard University Student Handbook, and Undergraduate Bulletin.

the university’s standards of fairness and equity are in many respects under-girded by a culture of compassion and a passion for excellence. however, practices of consistency and transparency are mixed, as in any institution of howard’s size. Some professors at the university now require students to submit their papers electroni-cally to the Turnitin.com site to determine the originality of texts based on compari-sons with the Turnitin.com database. Since 2008, the Graduate School has required all thesis and dissertation authors to submit an electronic version of their document to the Turnitin.com site and generate a Turnitin.com Originality Report, in order to safe-guard the academic integrity of howard theses and dissertations. this report is submitted with the oral defense request. additionally, ethics and integrity seminars are now offered during orientation sessions for students, faculty, or staff. the follow-

The University’s standards of fairness and equity are in many respects undergirded by a culture of compassion and a passion for excellence.

64 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 9

ing findings and recommendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 6:

Findings

1. there is insufficient inclusion of eth-ics and integrity as core components in the orientation process for students, faculty, and staff.

2. there are insufficient procedures to ensure a systematic evaluation and moni-toring of compliance with university poli-cies related to integrity.

3. the university’s various official policies are not readily available in a single central location.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. develop integrity as a core component for all orientations of students, faculty, and staff.

2. develop and implement effective assess-ment procedures to ensure a systematic evaluation and monitoring of compliance with university policies related to integrity at all levels.

3. publish the university’s various official policies and procedures in a central location on the university’s Web site.

Supporting Documents9.1 Howard University Code of Ethics and

Conduct Policy, 19989.2 Faculty Handbook, 19939.3 Howard University 2009-2010 Student

Handbook 9.4 Howard University Fall 2009 Student

Reference Manual9.5 Undergraduate Bulletin*9.6 Graduate Bulletin*9.7 Howard University Student Code of

Conduct, 20009.8 Howard University Academic Code of

Student Conduct, 19879.9 Graduate School Thesis and

Dissertation Manual, 2008

*The Howard University Bulletins may be accessed through the University’s website: www.howard.edu (Click Administration; then click, Interim Provost and Chief Academic Officer; then click, Publications/Policies and School Bulletins)

Institutional Assessment 10

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 65

Institutional Assessment 10

MSCHE Standard 7The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evalu-ates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.

Introductioninstitutional assessment and effective-

ness is discussed throughout this report. however, this chapter presents additional assessment information to give an over-all portrait of institutional evaluation. assessment activities at howard are designed to determine the level of confor-mity of institutional practices to its mis-sion. the university has a long history of assessing institutional effectiveness, including regular internal and external evaluations. howard conducted its first university-wide Self-Study for Middle States accreditation in 1921, received university-wide accreditation, and has successfully reaffirmed its accredita-tion ever since. additionally, more than 30 accrediting bodies currently review more than 60 academic programs at the university. School-specific assessments are conducted on a periodic basis, typi-cally for disciplinary accreditation.

the u. S. department of education’s assess-ment of the university’s performance on key indicators and congressional oversight of the university’s budget provide an additional layer of external accountability. internally, university units conduct internal audits and provide annual reports. the system-atization of a formal internal university-wide assessment function is a relatively recent endeavor and continues to evolve. to promote the university’s effectiveness in achieving its mission, several major ini-tiatives, including organizational restruc-turing, financial planning, and academic streamlining have continued, while new initiatives have commenced that enhance the student experience and institutional operations.

Institutional Assessment Climate

the university continues to incorpo-rate assessment across all its functions. the creation of the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) in 2008 is an indicator of the university’s continued commitment to the assessment enterprise. oiae is in the process of working aggres-sively to facilitate, coordinate and institu-tionalize assessment activities across the university.

the results of the Self-Study surveys of faculty, senior administrators, and staff reflect significant university challenges in connecting the goal of incorporating assessment into institutional decision-mak-ing, planning, and budgeting. although there is imbalance in the perception of the quality and extent of the incorporation of assessment across units, it was particu-larly noteworthy that among respondents, 51% of staff, 43% of faculty and 11% of senior administrators reported unaware-ness of their unit’s assessment plan, while 13% of senior administrators reported that there is no assessment plan. among the small sample of faculty respondents, the majority (86%) were aware of their depart-ment’s policies and procedures to assess its programs and student learning outcomes. however, almost half (43%) were unaware of their school or college’s written assess-ment plan. in general, the faculty’s rating of school/college assessment functions indi-cated considerable room for growth in that very high percentages reported that they were either unaware or did not know of the assessment function. among senior admin-istrators, perceptions regarding the integra-tion of assessment into decision-making

66 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

are mixed. although over three-fourths (76%) are aware of their unit’s assessment plan, a fifth (20%) did not know enough to rate its implementation. further, while 61% endorsed the perception that their respec-tive units have policies and procedures to effectively assess activities and programs, the majority ( 61%) negatively evaluated the degree to which appropriate assessment tools are used to determine if expected out-comes are being achieved (see Supporting document 10.1).

Staff perceptions of assessment indicate the need for increased attention, with two-fifths of respondents consistently reporting lack of knowledge of their unit’s assessment plan. the level of awareness or lack thereof across the university community suggests that the profile of assessment functions needs to be raised and although the strate-gies undertaken by oiae for communicat-ing assessment information and activities appear vital, they should be studied for their impact on the “assessment culture.” oiae’s plans demonstrate that it will provide lead-ership to “cultivate a culture of assessment” that enhances evidence-based decision-mak-ing and thus institutional effectiveness.

University Assessment during the past decade, to assess unit

level progress and plan execution, the university has utilized internal and external assessment teams and consultants to con-duct feasibility studies and assess selected university operations. annual reports from each school/college and department/unit are compiled and reviewed annually by the individual departments/units and university cabinet members. additionally, the office of university Research and planning compiles and publishes summary data annually in the University Facts Book (see Supporting document 10.2), which is distributed internally and to external audi-ences. in January 2000, an interim task force on university outcomes assessment and institutional effectiveness (oaie) was established in response to concerns raised in the 1999 Self-Study Report. the interim task force was comprised of rep-resentatives from the faculty, administra-tors, staff, and students. the interim task

force was charged to propose a campus-wide organizational structure for the oaie initiative to develop guiding principles for the conduct of assessment activities; to outline the functions, roles, and responsi-bilities of individuals and units involved in assessing institutional effectiveness and educational outcomes for students; to document current levels of assessment activities underway on campus; and to develop a timeline for the implementation of a fully coordinated program of insti-tutional effectiveness measures and stu-dent learning outcomes assessments. the interim task force designed a committee structure and a set of guiding principles (see Supporting document 10.3) that were consistent with the recommendations of the Middle States association and pre-pared a draft framework for a centralized, coordinated university-wide assessment program at the university. to enhance the readiness of the university community to participate in assessment-related activi-ties, howard supported participation in national, regional, and discipline-based assessment conferences; established in-service training; increased library resources on assessment; and arranged for site visits to model programs.

in March 2001, howard submit-ted its follow-up Report on progress in the development and implementation of a Comprehensive assessment plan, which was accepted by the Middle States association. Several departments and units developed assessment plans in 2003. Since that time, schools and colleges have engaged in a variety of assessment activi-ties, some driven by accreditation require-ments and others by university expecta-tions. however, the implementation and related outcomes of the departments/units assessment plans were not adequately coor-dinated across the university. institutional assessment remained decentralized until fall 2008 when the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) was established under the office of the provost. from the outset, oiae encountered practi-cal challenges in fulfilling its agenda to iden-tify, access, and compile various sources of data across the university, apparently, because there was not a clear division of

During the past decade,

to assess unit level progress

and plan execution, the University has

utilized internal and external

assessment teams and

consultants to conduct feasibility

studies and assess selected

University operations.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 67

Institutional Assessment

responsibility among oiae and the office for university Research and planning, and other offices with assessment responsibili-ties. the lack of coordination complicated the process of “completing the circle” where data and assessment informs change in approach, policy, and practice.

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

at the onset of oiae under the direction of Gerunda B. hughes, ph.d., a five-year (2008-2013) Strategic plan was developed (see Supporting document 10.4). the plan took into consideration the current devel-opments and climate in higher education with respect to outcomes assessment (e.g., more emphasis on student learning), the university’s culture and climate in relation to outcome assessment, the availability of human, material, and financial resources—especially resources to report and dis-seminate results and findings pertaining to institutional assessment, research, and evaluation.

Organizational Structure for the OAIE Committee

Because assessment is fluid, the oaie Committee evolved both in organizational structure and design. originally formed in 2001, the oaie was restructured in Spring 2009 under a different rubric (see Supporting document 10.5). the oaie Committee is large because it includes primary stakeholders (faculty, staff, stu-dents, administrators, and alumni) from all university units. the university’s oaie is divided functionally into three sub-committees—College/School assessment (CSa), Student Quality of life (SQl), and university Community experience (uCe). the executive Committee, which consists of the chairpersons of the three subcom-mittees and the oiae director, coordi-nates the activities of the university oaie Committee.

College/School Assessment (CSA) Subcommittee

the CSa Subcommittee provides over-sight of the assessment activities of col-leges and schools with particular emphasis

on improving outcomes related to student learning and development, student advise-ment, faculty teaching and instruction, fac-ulty development, research and scholarly productivity, and academic support ser-vices. Supporting document 10.5 provides a detailed outline of the CSa Subcommittee’s structure and responsibilities.

Use of College/School Assessment Information

assessment of student learning has been the main thrust of the university’s assess-ment activity. the greatest progress in doc-umenting, organizing, and sustaining the assessment process has been made in this domain. Recent findings of direct measures of student learning are detailed in Chapter 17, assessment of Student learning. Samples of assessments used for account-ability or evaluation purposes with the pri-mary focus on college/school assessment are summarized as follows:

A. Case Studies

the following case studies describe how individual units or several collaborating units identified an area of interest or con-cern, collected data for analysis, reviewed and reflected on the results, and used the information to improve their programs, ser-vices, or student learning outcomes.

n “using Survey Results to improve the Curriculum” (see Supporting document 10.6)

n “predicting Successful Matriculation through Basic Sciences” (see Supporting document 10.7)

n “improvements in passage Rates: united States Medical licensure examinations” (see Supporting document 10.8)

n “Biology department Review leads to facilities Renovation and improvement in academic programs” (see Supporting document 10.9)

B. Indirect Measures of Student Learning using Locally-developed Instruments

1. 2008 HU Self-Study Surveysthe purpose of the surveys was to collect

data and information about the perceptions and opinions of samples of students, fac-ulty, administrators, and staff on key top-ics, such as the university’s mission, lead-

68 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

ership and governance, resource allocation, technology, physical facilities, student sup-port services, faculty concerns, and student learning outcomes. different surveys were developed for different stakeholder groups; however, some topics appeared on multiple stakeholder surveys.

Students (n=415) were asked, for exam-ple, to indicate on a 4-point likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed with a set of 13 statements (items 55-67) about “student learning outcomes.” the scale values ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, to 4 = Strongly agree. across the set of 13 items, the mean and standard devia-tion M = 2.8 and Sd = .012, respectively (see Supporting document 10.1).

faculty (n=72) were asked to indicate, on a similar 4-point scale, the extent to which they agreed with a set of 6 state-ments (items 54-59) about “student learn-ing outcomes.” across the set of items, the mean and standard deviation M = 2.9 and Sd = .038, respectively (see Supporting document 10.1).

2. 2009 Undergraduate Graduating Students’ Exit Survey

Graduating undergraduate students were asked to indicate the level of satisfaction with training in or the development of cer-tain competencies while matriculating at the university (see Supporting document 10.10). the Survey produced 866 respon-dents. the percentages of students who

responded that they were “very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” with the training or develop-ment are presented below.

n preparation for leadership 92.1 %

n Knowledge of african-american culture 89.3 %

n Knowledge of the social sciences 86.8 %

n Knowledge of the sciences 86.4 %

n Critical thinking and analysis 86.3 %

n verbal communication 85.9 %

n Written communication 82.8 %

n Knowledge of the humanities 81.7 %

n Knowledge of african culture 79.8 %

n Research skills 79.6 %

n Knowledge of global policies & issues 76.7 %

n preparation for employment in major 72.2 %

n preparation for a tech world 69.3 %

n Knowledge of mathematics 67.0 %

n Computer applications 62.3 %

n preparation for grad/professional school 60.5 %

C. Indirect Measures of Student Learning using Standardized Instruments

1. College Student Needs Assessment Survey (CSNAS)

one way to maximize the effectiveness of the university’s response to the personal and academic needs of its incoming fresh-men and thereby increase rates of retention and levels of satisfaction with their uni-versity experience is to identify their per-ceived needs. the College Student Needs Assessment Survey (CSnaS), which evalu-ates the educational and personal needs of college students, was administered initially to the howard university (hu) 2008 freshman class. the areas of great-est need reported by this class focused on finances for education and opportunities

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 69

Institutional Assessment

Table 10.1: Overall Areas of Greatest Need*:Howard University Students and Normative Sample from Private Colleges

Description of Item: Area of Consideration HU National

Obtaining adequate funds to finance my education 85%* 75%*

Learning more about other sources of financial aid available 90% 78%

Obtaining work experience in career areas of my interest 93% 65%

Arranging to discuss my career interests with people in my planned career area

93% 87%

Learning about educational opportunities after graduation 88% 83%

*Note: Percentages include all levels of need (from a little to most)Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

Table 10.2: Perceived Student Need for Assistance* in Personal and Academic Areas

Description of Item: Area of Consideration

HU NATIONAL

Needs in Personal

Areas

Deciding what to do with my life 59%* 71%*

Identifying career areas that fit my skills, abilities, and interests

62% 72%

Learning how to handle stress and anxiety in my life

63% 67%

Learning how to solve personal problems 47% 53%

Managing my time more effectively 77% 69%

Needs in General Academic

Support Skills

Obtaining remedial/tutorial assistance 44% 54%

Coping with academic difficulties 30% 42%

Improving my test-taking skills 81% 77%

Improving my problem-solving abilities and reasoning skills

74% 72%

Understanding and using computers 48% 70%

Learning how to make better use of library facilities

69% 66%

Needs in General Education

Areas

Increasing skills in mathematics 79% 75%

Expressing ideas in writing 70% 68%

Improving my understanding of what I read 64% 65%

Increasing my reading speed 61% 66%

Improving my study skills and habits 84% 77%

Increasing understanding of art, literature, and culture

69% 69%

*Note: Percentages represent all levels of need (from least to most). Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

70 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

for career or job placement (see Supporting document 10.11). the data in table 10.1 compare the perceived needs of hu fresh-men and a national norm group, while the data in table 10.2 compare the perceived student need for assistance in personal and academic areas.

a comprehensive CSNAS summary report was submitted to the office of the provost for use in institutional planning. additionally, individual CSNAS reports were prepared for the deans of the College of arts and Sciences and the School of Business—the two largest undergraduate schools/colleges—for use in planning pro-grams aimed at providing resources and academic support for students who have particular needs.

2. Results of Selected Accrediting Agencies’ Visits

n division of architecture and design (see Supporting document 10.12)

n School of law (see Supporting docu-ment 10.13)

Student Quality of Life (SQL) Subcommittee

the SQl Subcommittee provides over-sight of and coordinates assessment activi-ties related to improvement of student satisfaction and quality of life. the SQl Subcommittee’s work concentrates on activities of the following university depart-ments—Student life & activity, Special Student Services, enrollment Management,

Table 10.3: Students Perceptions of Their Experiences with Student Support Services

Excellent Good Fair PoorNot Able to

RateN

Deans Office 22% 42% 17% 4% 16% 172

Faculty in Dept. 29% 43% 20% 6% 2% 129

Staff in Dept. 30% 38% 23% 9% 1% 151

Office of President 8% 13% 15% 8% 55% 193

Office of Provost 12% 22% 16% 5% 44% 171

Enroll Mgt. (Overall) 10% 41% 31% 9% 9% 648

Student Financial Services

7% 22% 36% 29% 6% 344

University Library 16% 52% 23% 7% 2% 299

Career Services 11% 23% 13% 6% 46% 300

Campus Police 4% 19% 38% 31% 9% 300

Parking 4% 16% 13% 12% 55% 301

Bookstore 20% 51% 25% 4% 1% 295

Dining Services 6% 21% 33% 25% 15% 347

Student Health Center 6% 24% 30% 25% 15% 348

Office of Student Life and Activities

13% 37% 17% 6% 27% 350

Special Student Services

9% 14% 8% 4% 65% 347

University Counseling Service

11% 14% 8% 6% 61% 474

Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 71

Institutional Assessment

intercollegiate athletics, Residence life, Career Services, university Counseling Services, Student health Services, Student financial Services, and the university Bookstore (see Supporting document 10.5 for a detailed outline of the structure and responsibilities of the SQl Subcommittee).

Use of Student Quality of Life (SQL) Assessment Information

this section presents examples of assess-ments that were used for accountability or evaluation purposes within student quality of life areas.

1. 2008 HU Self-Study Surveys

Students rated the perceptions of their experiences with each of the offices in table 10.3. a greater proportion of student respon-dents rated their overall experiences with the various offices as favorable. Sizeable pro-portions of respondents reported no expe-

riences with several offices, among which were those of the president and the provost.

2. HU 101: Parent Survey of Selected SQL Units

the oiae conducted a paper-based survey of parents who participated in Howard University 101: 2008 New Student Orientation on august 20, 2008. the pur-pose of the survey was to elicit ratings of the effectiveness of key university offices that parents were likely to encounter during the college selection and admissions pro-cesses. using a 4-point scale, parents rated “the quality of information provided on-line or in written form” and “the responsive-ness of University personnel on the phone or in-person.” Survey results were shared with the units in order to facilitate planning, staff development, and improved customer service. the data in tables 10.4 and 10.5

Table 10.4: Parent Ratings of “Quality of Information”

HU Office RatedQuality of Information Written/On-line

Excellent Good Fair Poor N

Admissions 32% 52% 11% 5% 297

Financial Aid 18% 46% 25% 12% 288

Student Accounts 22% 54% 16% 7% 270

Residence Life 27% 50% 18% 6% 292

Student Health Center 28% 44% 20% 9% 270

Campus Police 35% 55% 9% 1% 210

Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

Table 10.5: Parent Ratings of “Responsiveness of Personnel”

HU Office RatedResponsiveness of Personnel Phone/In Person

Excellent Good Fair Poor N

Admissions 23% 40% 21% 16% 283

Financial Aid 18% 35% 25% 22% 270

Student Accounts 24% 43% 19% 14% 252

Residence Life 29% 41% 18% 13% 278

Student Health Center 28% 37% 20% 15% 264

Campus Police 33% 56% 8% 3% 164

Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

72 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

show parental ratings of quality of informa-tion and responsiveness of personnel (see Supporting document 10.14).

the results of these surveys were dis-tributed to the administrators of president Ribeau’s newly created Students First Campaign for initial use in targeting the focus of immediate and projected efforts to improve student support services during phase one of this Campaign.

3. Case Studies

n “evaluations of Counseling Center Services” (see Supporting document 10.15).

n “a Review of operating procedures to increase effectiveness of Student Services” (see Supporting document 10.16).

University Community Experience (UCE) Subcommittee

the uCe Subcommittee provides over-sight and coordination of assessment activi-ties of all units not covered by the CSa or SQl Subcommittees. this Subcommittee utilizes assessment results to improve and

gain efficiencies in administrative services and processes. uCe units conducted assess-ment activities to determine the satisfaction of all members of the howard community.

Use of University Community Experience Assessment Information

presented in this section are examples of evaluations used for accountability or evalu-ation purposes with the primary focus on the university community experience.

1. 2008 HU Self-Study Surveys

n physical facilitiesStudents, faculty, staff, and senior admin-

istrators rated the availability, quality, and adequacy of “physical facilities” at the university for various purposes. the scale ranged from excellent to poor and included “don’t know.” as indicated in table 10.6, moderately high proportions of students rated the quality of physical facilities avail-able on campus for meetings, seminars, con-ferences, and workshops as “fair” or “poor”, with similar ratings for the adequacy of physical facilities for learning and the ade-quacy of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research. Similarly, high pro-

Table 10.6: Availability, Quality, and Adequacy of “Physical Facilities” at the University

Quality of physical facilities available on campus for meetings, seminars, conferences, workshops

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Students N=172 6% 35% 39% 17% 3%

Faculty N=79 5% 24% 38% 32% 1%

Staff N= 326 4% 22% 42% 27% 4%

Senior Administrators N=65 3% 15% 46% 34% 2%

Adequacy of physical facilities for…

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Students N= 646 …learning 5% 24% 33% 32% 6%

Faculty N= 71 …teaching 6% 18% 34% 42% 0%

Adequacy of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research (e.g., labs, studios)

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Students N=648 8% 20% 30% 34% 8%

Faculty N=148 3% 11% 24% 57% 4%

Senior Administrators N=64 2% 2% 36% 53% 8%

Note: Percentage may not sum to 100, due to rounding. Source: 2008 HU Self-Study Surveys, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 73

Institutional Assessment

portions of faculty rated the quality of physi-cal facilities available on campus for meet-ings, seminars, conferences, and workshops as “fair” or “poor”, with similar ratings for the adequacy of physical facilities for teach-ing and the adequacy of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research.

Students, faculty, staff, and senior admin-istrators rated the quality and adequacy of “technology” at the university for various purposes, using the same response scale employed for the physical facilities assess-ments. as shown in table 10.7, students’ opinions were widely divergent on the rating of quality of computer-supported services provided by the university, with slightly more than half rating the quality as “fair” or “poor”. faculty and senior administrators were highly critical of the quality and adequacy of tech-nology resources at the university.

2. 2009 Undergraduate and Graduate/Professional Graduating Students’ Exit Surveys

table 10.8 indicates that high proportions of 2009 undergraduate graduating students

respond favorably to each of the items focused on overall satisfaction with university systems (see Supporting document 10.10). Similarly, table 10.9 shows that high proportions of 2009 graduate and professional graduating students respond favorably to each of the items focused on overall satisfaction with university systems (see Supporting document 10.17).

Ongoing Institutional Assessment ActivitiesCompliance with the Government Performance and Results Act

each year howard provides the u.S. department of education with updated performance indicators measuring the university’s ability to meet targets relative to the quality of incoming students’ aca-demic records, student academic achieve-ment (as measured by retention and gradu-ation rates), faculty research, fundraising initiatives, and the university’s teaching hospital. this institutional assessment is in compliance with a directive set forth by the Congress and is transmitted through

Table 10.7: Quality and Adequacy of “Technology” at the University

Quality of computer-supported services by the University

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Students N=154 14% 30% 31% 22% 3%

Faculty N=79 14% 30% 28% 28% 0%

Staff N= 325 8% 25% 38% 27% 1%

Senior Administrators N=66 3% 17% 41% 17% 21%

Adequacy of technology resources provided by the University

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Faculty N=150 9% 27% 30% 33% 1%

Staff N= 326 7% 23% 40% 28% 2%

Senior Administrators N=66 2% 26% 47% 26% 0%

Impact of the condition of computer technology on student learning

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK

Students N=195 17% 35% 25% 21% 8%

Faculty N=79 6% 27% 28% 25% 14%

Senior Administrators N=64 2% 29% 36% 17% 17%

Note: Percentage may not sum to 100, due to rounding. Source: 2008 HU Self-Study Surveys, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

74 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

completion of a report as prescribed in the Government performance and Results act (GpRa) of 1993. GpRa requires the university to set targets for performance; measure progress toward those targets; report on whether or not the targets have been met; and describe future strategies for continued progress toward those tar-gets. this process is designed to improve program management as well as to help the Congress, howard university, the office of Management and Budget, and others review programs’ progress toward their goals. data for this initiative are compiled and analyzed by the office of university Research and planning in collaboration with the offices of the provost, enrollment Management, and

Research and Compliance. the department of education uses the data to prepare a report to the Congress on the university’s performance pursuant to the GpRa format (see Supporting document 10.18, p. 9-15). through the GpRa process and the annual testimony of the university president to the house appropriations Sub-Committee, the university demonstrates its accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency to Congress.

Cooperative Institution Research Project (CIRP)

howard university has participated in the Cooperative Institution Research Project (CIRP) for 36 years and plans to continue this method of evaluation. the CiRp sur-

Table 10.8: Overall Satisfaction with University Systems: Undergraduate Graduating Students

Please indicate your level of overall satisfaction with the following systems:

Very Satisfied

%(n)Satisfied Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Don’t Know

N/A

BANNER Registration System

17.6% (154) 65.6% (573) 11.2% (98) 2.9% (25) 1.3% (11) 1.5% (13)

iLab and Campus Computer Laboratories

15.5% (135) 59.5% (519) 18.4% (161) 5.0% (44) 0.5% (4) 1.1% (10)

University Libraries 13.1% (114) 62.7% (547) 15.7% (137) 4.9% (43) 1.9% (17) 1.7% (15)

Note: Percentage may not sum to 100, due to rounding. Graduating students probably experienced a positive change in the functioning of these systems since their freshman year. Source: 2009 HU Undergraduate Graduating Student Exit Survey, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

Table 10.9: Overall Satisfaction with University Systems: Graduate/ Professional Graduating Students

Please indicate your level of overall satisfaction with the following systems:

Very Satisfied

%(n)Satisfied Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Don’t Know

N/A

BANNER Registration System

16.7% (95) 61.1% (347) 9.0% (51) 4.8% (27) 4.2% (24) 4.2% (24)

iLab and Campus Computer Laboratories

14.6% (83) 53.0% (301) 13.4% (76) 6.3% (36) 5.3% (30) 7.4% (42)

University Libraries 16.7% (95) 58.5% (332) 13.0% (74) 6.9% (39) 2.1% (12) 2.8% (16)

Note: Percentage may not sum to 100, due to rounding. Source: 2009 HU Graduate/ Professional (GP) Graduating Student Exit Survey, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 75

Institutional Assessment

vey is administered to incoming university freshmen during orientation and registra-tion. the survey covers a wide range of student characteristics such as parental income and education, ethnicity, and other demographic items; financial aid; second-ary school achievement and activities; edu-cational and career plans; values, attitudes, beliefs, and self-concept. the results of this survey, which are published annually in “the american freshman,” provide a comprehensive snapshot of the changing character of entering students at the vari-ous participating institutions. Supporting document 10.19 provides the results of the 2008 CiRp.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

howard is among more than 1200 colleges and universities in the u.S. and Canada which have participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). annually, the nSSe obtains information from hundreds of four-year colleges and universities nation-wide regarding student participation in pro-grams and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. in 2009, the university again participated in NSSE for the first time since 2003 as part of its overall institutional assessment and will

continue utilizing this method of assessment in the future. data from the NSSE will not be available until around mid-august 2009. the survey items on this instrument reflect behaviors by students and institutions that are associated with desired undergraduate educational outcomes. the university is able to use the NSSE survey results to assess and evaluate students’ undergraduate expe-riences.

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement

the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) was designed to complement the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and is coordinated by the indiana university Center for postsecondary Research. FSSE measures faculty expec-tations for and observations of student engagement in educational practices that are known to be empirically linked with high levels of learning and development. additionally, the survey collects informa-tion pertaining to how faculty members spend their time on professional activities, including teaching and scholarship, and the types of learning experiences their institu-tions emphasize. the university partici-pated in FSSE for the first time in 2009 as part of its institutional assessment and will continue to use this method of evaluation.

76 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

Table 10.10: A Description of Institutional Assessment for the AY 2008-2009

Assessment Instrument Purpose Target Population

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) (survey)

To gather information about expectations of the college experience, secondary school experiences, reasons for attending college, and other issues

Freshman students (Census)

College Students Needs Assessment Survey (CSNAS) (survey)

To assess and evaluate the self-perceived educational and personal needs of college students

Freshman undergraduate students (Census) and a sample of grad/professional students and sophomores

Prospective Student and Parent Survey 2008

To identify and rate the importance of factors from a list of those deemed to be likely for consideration in the college selection process

Prospective students and students

Assessment of General Education Competency: Written Communication

To assess students’ level of proficiency with writing skills development in English 003

Mostly Freshmen (and some sophomores)

Assessment of General Education Competency: Quantitative Reasoning

To assess students’ level of proficiency with the development of quantitative reasoning in College Algebra I, College Algebra II and Pre-calculus

All students

Senior Comprehensive Examinations (sample) To assess students’ level of proficiency in their major course of study at or near the point of graduation

Seniors (some juniors)

Howard University Undergraduate (UG) Graduating Students’ Exit Survey 2009

To obtain information about students’ undergraduate educational experiences at Howard University and your post-graduation plans

Prospective candidates for graduation in undergraduate programs

Howard University Graduate/Prof (GP) Graduating Students’ Exit Survey 2009

To obtain information about students’ educational experiences at Howard University in graduate and professional programs and their post-graduation plans

Prospective candidates for graduation in graduate and professional programs

National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 (NSSE)

To measure student engagement in their academic careers

Freshmen and Seniors (Random sample from each population)

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement 2009 (FSSE)

The FSSE surveys faculty perceptions of student engagement

Random sample of faculty who teach undergraduate students

Source: Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, 2008-2009

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 77

Institutional Assessment

When Does Assessment Take Place

Type of Administration

Who Assesses Use of Assessment Results

During Orientation and Fall Semester of first year

Paper-based (centralized)

The Howard University Counseling Center

To build a profile of the expectations and aspirations of the freshman class and establish trend data on incoming students

To provide normative data for comparisons among peer institutions and aspirational peer institutions

During Orientation for incoming student; during the first few weeks of semester for sophomores

Paper-based (centralized)

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)

To help university personnel identify, recommend or develop programs and services to address the students’ needs

Early September Fall Semester 2008

Paper-basedOffice of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)

To inform recruitment strategies implemented by the Office of Admissions and university schools and colleges, and for the development of related materials. Administrators and faculty should also use this information for their planning and evaluation purposes

Final examination period: Spring Semester 2009

Paper-basedEssayRubric scoredTwo raters

English DepartmentTo provide feedback to the English Department about student performance so that changes can be made at the course-level, where necessary

Final examination period: Spring Semester 2009

Paper-basedConstructed ResponseKey scored

Mathematics DepartmentTo provide feedback to the Mathematics Department about student performance so that changes can be made at the course-level, where necessary

Senior Comprehensive Exams: Fall Semester 2008

Variety of modalities

Departments – Theatre Arts – Classics – English – Biology – Chemistry – Mathematics – Physics & Astronomy – Political Science

-To use for program review and improvement

April 15-May 15 Spring Semester

Web-basedOffice of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

To improve programs and services for current and future students at Howard and measure the extent to which Howard is accomplishing its mission

April 15-May 15 Spring Semester

Web-basedOffice of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

To improve programs and services for current and future students at Howard and measure the extent to which Howard is accomplishing its mission

Spring SemesterOptionsPaper-basedWeb-based

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)

To determine the “value-added” experience of attending Howard University—includes measures of the quality of academic advising, acquisition of knowledge, skills and personal development, amount of reading and writing, etc.

Spring Semester Web-basedOffice of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)

To inform practice and faculty interactions with students

78 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

data from FSSE will not be available until approximately mid-august 2009. FSSE results can be utilized to identify areas of institutional strength and aspects of the undergraduate experience that may warrant attention. the information will be a chan-nel for productive discussions related to teaching, learning, and the quality of stu-dents’ educational experiences.

Summary of Assessment Data Collected by OIAE, AY 2008-2009

in addition to assessments conducted in the different departments/units, table 10.10 presents a description of institutional assess-ments conducted during ay 2008-2009.

Challenges in Institutional Assessment at the UniversityDevelopment and Maintenance of a Culture of Evidence

Challenge: to produce across the breadth of the university community enhanced

knowledge, skills, sensitivities, expecta-tions, and values related to the collection and use of empirical evidence for institu-tional improvement and accountability. individuals representing all constituent groups should be clear about what assess-ment is, why we assess and evaluate, their own assessment responsibilities, and how to use results.

Potential Solution: use all possible ave-nues to provide all university constituen-cies more assessment information that pro-motes professional growth and develops assessing/evaluative habits of thought and behavior. these avenues will include utili-zation of local and campus media (televi-sion, radio, newspapers, Web sites, etc.), other publications, personal presentations and academic interactions. oiae will col-laboratively set and inform the community on the university’s assessment agenda and related schedules and encourage, promote and reward participation in assessment activities. university-wide assessment committees and “assessment fellows” positions will be established.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 79

Institutional Assessment

Managing and Coordinating Assessment Activities with Other Units

Challenge: Many assessment and evalua-tion activities (e.g., surveys, focus groups) are conducted individually by units (e.g., administrative and student services units) across the university. these activities (e.g., surveys) often overlap, are redun-dant, and occur at conflicting times. these conditions negatively affect response rates and create “silos” or isolated pockets of limited data that are neither effectively nor efficiently utilized at institutional or other levels.

Potential Solution: Share oiae Strategic plan and master schedule of assessment activities with all schools, colleges, and units, and, in turn, have all university units share their schedules of assessment/evalu-ation activities, instrumentation, and pro-cedures with oiae. oiae will collaborate with its subcommittees to align and stream-line instruments and procedures, and coor-dinate assessment activities, in order to eliminate redundancy, misalignment (e.g., with the mission, unit goals, and objec-tives), and counterproductive schedul-ing conflicts. achieving this will require educating many stakeholders university-wide on these considerations, and adopting related policy changes.

Response Rates

Challenge: obtaining high response rates in voluntary surveys is recognized widely as a pervasive and perennial problem. oiae is challenged to change the culture around assessment, such that stakeholders (i.e., administrators, faculty, staff, and students) increasingly will willingly and reliably partic-ipate in assessment activities such as complet-ing surveys, and expect to do so periodically.

Potential Solution: Consistent, clear and prominent communications that explain the value/importance of assessment and related expectations should be gener-ated by the president and the provost and Chief academic officer. Strong top-down endorsements should translate into greater stakeholder buy-in and stimulate the gen-eration of more effective strategies and gar-ner support. additional resources should be provided to publicize assessment data collection efforts more extensively with

these resources being sufficient to test the effects of certain incentives on participa-tion. further, regular, coordinated, and well-conceived assessment activity sched-ules that are less burdensome to subjects should be developed, thereby leading the university community to expect the peri-odic occurrence of assessment-related activities/events.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

assessing the effective functioning of the university is a top priority. Much progress has been made, including establishment of the organizational assessment infrastruc-ture, development of an assessment strategic plan, and increasingly, the use of assessment findings for institutional decision-making. Since 2001, howard has developed and worked towards implementing an institu-tion-wide program utilizing assessment for planning and decision-making. the program involved design of an underlying infrastruc-ture, establishment of an effective leadership team, advancement of the university assess-ment culture, and development of processes for reporting and using information gathered for strategic planning. the College/School assessment (CSaC), Student Quality of life (SQl), and university Community experience (uCe) Subcommittees were created. in 2008, building on this structure, the university established the office of institutional assessment and evaluation.

in addition, there has been a fundamental shift in the focus of howard’s assessments of educational, co-curricular, and student services. the shift has been from primary emphasis on “input” measures (e.g., student qualifications, services, activities) to “out-come” measures designed to assess impact (e.g., student learning). the following find-ings and recommendations for improvement emerged from review of the university’s sta-tus relative to this Standard:

Findings

1. there is not a clear division of respon-sibility for assessment between the office of institutional assessment and effectiveness (oiae) and the office for university Research and planning.

80 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 10

2. the appropriateness and effectiveness of assessment Committee and College/School assessment (CSaC), Student Quality of life (SQl) and university Community experience (uCe) subcommittees should be assessed periodically.

3. there is insufficient access to and trans-parency of institutional data in a number of areas at the university that could enhance the effectiveness of academic and administrative decision-making.

4. howard university has developed and is implementing an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards; however, there is room for improvement as the following recommen-dations suggests.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. Consider an option of organizational restructuring that would consolidate the func-tions of the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) with those of the office for university Research and planning into one office that is an autonomous direct report to the president, which would receive, maintain, and secure assessment data from all academic and institutional offices, including the Cabinet, office of the president and the Board of trustees.

2. invigorate the College/School assessment (CSaC), Student Quality of life (SQl), and university Community experience (uCe) subcommittees in order to accelerate the full implementation of the assessment visions and plans of the university, and as resources permit, establish and incorporate assessment fellows campus-wide.

3. provide adequate resources for a more aggressive execution of the assessment agenda.

4. authorize access to university assessment data by appropriate university stakeholders; revisit/update policies and procedures related to data management (including storing/main-taining, securing, and sharing information).

Supporting Documents

10.1 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys

10.2 FACTS 2009—Howard University

10.3 Howard University Guiding Principles for Assessment, 2001

10.4 Strategic Plan for the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

10.5 Outcome Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Report, July 2009

10.6 Case Study: Using Survey Results to Improve the Curriculum

10.7 Case Study: Predicting Successful Matriculation through Basic Sciences

10.8 Case Study: Improvements in Passage Rates: United States Medical Licensure Examinations

10.9 Case Study: Biology Department Review leads to Facilities Renovation and Improvement in Academic Programs

10.10 2009 Undergraduate Graduating Students’ Exit Survey Report

10.11 Technical Report for the 2009 Howard University College Students’ Needs Assessment Survey

10.12 College of Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Division of Architecture and Design, National Architectural Accrediting Board Report, 2006

10.13 School of Law 2008 Self-Study Report

10.14 HU 101: Parent Survey of Selected SQL Units

10.15 Case Study—Evaluations of Counseling Center Services

10.16 Case Study—A Review of Operating Procedures to Increase Effectiveness of Student Services

10.17 2009 Graduate and Professional Graduating Students’ Exit Survey Report

10.18 Howard University Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request to the Department of Education

10.19 2008 Howard University Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP) Results

The Howard Experience

Student Admissions and Retention 11

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 81

Student Admissions and Retention 11

MSCHE Standard 8The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are con-gruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the student’s educational goals.

Introductionthis section of the Self-Study examines and

assesses issues related to undergraduate, grad-uate, and professional student recruitment and admission, student retention, and graduation rates and recent changes in the university’s enrollment function. the goal of this section is to assess whether the university is recruiting, admitting, retaining, and graduating students whose interests, goals, and academic skills are aligned with its mission.

Recruitment EffortUndergraduate

the office of enrollment Management pro-vides leadership for university undergraduate recruitment efforts, with a particular empha-sis on first-time-in-college undergraduate stu-dents. Recruitment officers, admissions repre-sentatives, and alumni from schools/colleges pursue these efforts through participation in college and community fairs, and visits to high schools and community colleges. for the period 2003-2008, more than 186 college fairs, 31 community college and 250 high school vis-its were conducted (see Supporting document 11.1). the office of admissions hosts more than 10,000 visitors annually for information sessions and campus tours. in addition, the office of admissions has launched several special initiatives which include:

n Recruitment sessions in cities around the country in conjunction with the Campaign for howard

n “virtual tours” accessed on-linen Specialized recruitment events, includ-

ing luncheons and overnight or weekend events

n targeted recruitment for high achievers and african-american males

n open house for prospective and admit-ted students

n high school and community college luncheon and information sessions

n direct mail campaigns the on-line application process, staff

realignment, and other technological modifi-cations have expedited the application process. additionally, increased communication with prospective students has become a priority and includes earlier notifications and creation of the electronic information request program, Ask Admissions.

over the past seven years, the university has increased its competitiveness as demonstrated by more undergraduate students applying to the university; fewer undergraduate students offered admission; and the increased percent-age of admitted undergraduate students who enrolled (see Supporting document 11.1).

Graduate and Professional

the Graduate and professional schools also participate in aggressive recruitment efforts. in addition to a presence at relevant national conferences and recruitment fairs, the Graduate School is engaged in recruit-ment efforts targeted at high-achieving undergraduate students who are interested in research and graduate study. the Graduate School sponsors the Ronald e. Mcnair post Baccalaureate achievement program—for new and continuing first generation, low-income, college students pursuing a ph.d.; the alliance for Graduate education (aGep) in the professorate—for Social and Behavioral economic Sciences (SBeS) and the Science, technology, engineering and Mathematics (SteM) program, to mention a few.

the professional Schools also recruit at college fairs, college classroom settings, panel discussions, and health fairs. Students

82 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 11

interested in the Colleges of Medicine and dentistry must apply through the respective professional organization clearinghouse and selected students may be invited to interview.

Recent Changes in Enrollment Management

as depicted in figure 11.1, howard’s student enrollment has remained stable. over the past ten years, total headcount enrollment has grown slightly (2.2 per-cent), to 11,227 in academic year 2007-2008. enrollment has decreased slightly in the past three years but the university is following this issue assiduously.

over this ten-year period, enrollment in the four main professional programs (dentistry, law, Medicine and pharmacy) has remained essentially stable. this is as planned, as the Colleges of dentistry and Medicine, and School of law have agreed to remain at capacity. the four professional programs

enrolled 1,574 students in academic year 2008-2009.

enrollment in howard’s graduate and other professional programs has decreased by 10.7%, or 261 students, over the past ten years, to a total of 2,173 as shown in figure 11.2, contrary to the strate-gic goal of increasing enrollment by 700 students. figure 11.3 shows that under-graduate enrollment remains strong, hav-ing increased by 6.9% during the period 1999-2008, to a total headcount of 7,480 in academic year 2008-2009.

howard received 9,750 applications for its fall 2008 undergraduate programs (figure 11.4). the overall application trend enabled the university to become more selective, increasing and then stabilizing in achiev-ing the targeted freshman class size. for fall 2008, 49% of applicants were offered admission to howard, in comparison to 68% for fall 2001. yield rates remain stable, at approximately 32%.

Figure 11.1: Total Enrollment, AY 1998-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

Howard University Total Enrollment, AY 1998-2008

12,000

11,500

11,000

10,500

10,0001998 1999 2000 2003

10,976

10,581

10,690

11,126 11,21111,256

11,574

11,43311,227

2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

11,308

11,579

Figure 11.2: Graduate Enrollment, AY 1998-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

Howard University Graduate Enrollment, AY 1998-2008

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

2,434

2,173

2,2562,323

2,249 2,2972,273

2,314 2,222

1998 1999 2000 20032001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2,280

2,182

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 83

Student Admissions and Retention

Consistent with its mission, the creden-tials of incoming undergraduate students remain strong as depicted in figure 11.5. the university achieved its target of an aver-age entering freshman SatC score of 1080 in 2002, although it fell just slightly short of the target in the past two years, which may be attributed to the change in Sat format.

Retention and Graduation RatesUndergraduate Retention and Graduation

Student retention and graduation rates are critical measures for the university. howard continues to have concern about its under-graduate retention and graduation rates. as a result, an important strategic student matric-ulation goal is to increase the rate at which

undergraduate students graduate. table 11.1 presents the retention and graduation rates for all undergraduate schools/colleges from 1996 to 2008. the four-year graduation rate has increased since 1996 moving from 30.8% in 1992 to 47.2% in 2004.

howard’s retention rate was bench-marked against those of the peer institutions (figure 11.6) selected for this study, using data reported to US News & World Report. Relative to its national peers, howard’s freshmen retention rate was better than that obtained by only three of the seven compari-son institutions; acceptable but signaling the need for improvement. howard’s freshman retention rate is certainly respectable rela-tive to its local peers, but as shown in figure 11.7, it is the lowest, again a stimulus for more effort and improvement.

Figure 11.3: Undergraduate Enrollment, AY 1998-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

6,996

6,7026,968

7,368 7,328

7,419

7,537

7,595

7,517 7,514

7,480

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Howard University Undergraduate Enrollment,AY 1998-2008

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# of Applications # of Applicants offered Admission # of Applicants Matriculated

Figure 11.4: Application for Undergraduate Admission and Matriculation, AY 2002-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

Howard University Applications for Admission and Matriculation, AY 2002-2008

84 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 11

Figure 11.5: Average SATC Scores of FTIC Applicants, AY 2002-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

950

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Average SATC of All Applicants Average SATC of Accepted Applicants

Howard University Average SATC Scores of FTIC Applicants, AY 2002-2008

Table 11.1: Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate School/Colleges: Cohort Years 1996-2008

Cohort Year

Head Count

Retention Rates Graduation Rates

% Cont’d to 2nd Yr

% Cont’d to 3rd Yr

% Cont’d to 4th Yr

% Cont’d to 5th Yr

% Graduated in 4 Yrs

% Graduated in 5 Yrs

% Graduated in 6 Yrs

1996 1,290 80.4% 66.5% 62.0% 32.2% 30.8% 45.1% 50.2%

1997 1,259 82.4% 73.3% 69.7% 34.9% 32.4% 51.4% 56.6%

1998 1,325 84.0% 73.1% 68.3% 34.1% 35.4% 51.6% 56.2%

1999 994 84.9% 79.9% 74.8% 35.3% 40.6% 59.4% 63.3%

2000 1,438 87.0% 78.2% 73.9% 32.1% 43.5% 59.3% 64.0%

2001 1,524 85.1% 75.9% 71.4% 29.6% 43.2% 59.7% 64.0%

2002 1,375 84.8% 77.3% 73.9% 29.2% 45.2% 60.1% 65.0%

2003 1,459 87.2% 78.1% 73.5% 27.7% 46.2% 61.5% N/A

2004 1,453 85.9% 79.7% 74.4% 27.5% 47.2% N/A N/A

2005 1,415 84.2% 75.9% 70.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A

2006 1,520 82.6% 76.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2007 1,460 84.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2008 1,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: N/A refers to not applicable as of March 2009; Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 85

Student Admissions and Retention

Graduate and Professional Student Retention and Graduation

a number of initiatives are underway to increase retention and reduce doctoral attrition in the Science and engineering fields, as well as to provide a supportive and supplementary role in the training of undergraduate and graduate students. these initiatives include the Graduate School’s alliance for Graduate education and the professorate (aGep); the louis Stokes alliances for Minority participants; the howard university Science, engineering and Mathematics program (huSeM); the Ronald e. Mcnair post-baccalaureate program; and the frederick douglass Scholars fellowship program. the Graduate School’s Retention, Mentoring and Support program was estab-lished in 1999 to reduce attrition, reduce time to degree, provide oppor-tunities for fellowships and internships, and enhance career and professional development.

howard is among 21 university research partners engaged in the Council of Graduate Schools’ ph.d. Completion project. this three-year study creates and evaluates intervention strategies to enhance doc-toral completion.

at howard, eight de-partments are identified as program partners: Bi-ology, Chemistry, Com-munication and Culture, Communication Science and disorders, electri-cal engineering, history, Mathematics, and phys-ics. Soon, Mechanical engineering and the in-terdisciplinary programs in atmospheric Science and Materials Science will become partners. project activities include seminars and workshops specifically designed for ph.d. students, and strate-gies implemented by fac-ulty to increase retention and reduce attrition rates

for students at the beginning, middle, and end of completing their degrees.

the university has witnessed some posi-tive results in graduate student matriculation. during the three-year period from 2005-2007, the mean time-to-degree for completion of the ph.d. decreased from 7.8 years (in 2005) to 5.5 years (in 2007) as shown in figure 11.8. in 2008 and 2009, it took 5.7 and 6.3 years, re-spectively, for students to complete their doc-toral degrees.

as shown in figure 11.9, the highest per-centage of doctoral graduates in each cohort year was in the fifth year across all disci-plines. among masters’ degree recipients, the highest percentage receiving the degree was two years across all fields of study as depicted in figure 11.10.

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007Howard U. Case Western Reserve Emory U.

Saint Louis U. Temple U. Tulane U.

Vanderbilt U. Washington U. in St. Louis

Howard University Freshman Retention Rate vs. Non-Local Peers, AY 2004-2007

Figure 11.6: Freshman Retention Rate vs. Non-Local Peers, AY 2004-2007Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

Howard University Freshman Retention Rate vs. Local Peers, AY 2004-2007

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007Howard U. George Washington

Georgetown U. University of MD-College Park

Figure 11.7: Freshman Retention Rate vs. Local Peers, AY 2004-2007Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

86 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 11

Cost of College the cost of attendance is a critical factor in

admissions at any university. howard’s tuition strategy traditionally was close to that of pub-lic institutions (figure 11.11). during the past ten years, howard engaged in substantive plan-ning around its tuition pricing and aid lever-aging strategies through its tuition and Rate advisory Committee (tRaC). the arrival of president Ribeau in august 2008 heralded a more aggressive tuition strategy, consistent with his vision and which was reflected in the multi-year tuition strategy approved by the trustees in January 2009.

Strategic discussions occurred over the past several years about whether howard should change pricing strategies, charging higher tuition, but also increasing financial aid. over the past five years, the university increased its tuition rates to levels more con-sistent with national averages. in 2007-2008, as reflected in figure 11.12, howard’s average tuition increase was 8.0%, while the average increases at the other categories of institutions were as follows: private 4-year (6.3%), public 4-year out of state (5.5%), and public 4-year in state (5.5%). howard’s increase occurred in large part because the university’s federal appropriation had remained flat, and addi-tional tuition revenue was needed to sustain current programs. during this period, stu-dent aid budgets increased commensurately, with the result that the tuition discount rate (the percentage of gross tuition revenue the university gives back in the form of student aid) remained stable at 26–28%.

earlier this decade, howard increased its tuition discount rate by increasing merit-based aid for undergradu-ate students in response to increased competition from other institutions for highly credentialed Black students. university-funded student aid is largely merit based.

data for total financial aid disbursed to students raise interesting strategic ques-tions. during ay 2007-2008, the financial aid office reported a total of $201.8 million in student aid dis-

bursed (table 11.2). during that year, the university’s gross revenue from tuition and fees was only $163 million.

Planning and AssessmentStrategic Enrollment Plan

the university has made important steps in developing a strategic approach to enrollment management. in 2002, a five-year enrollment plan was developed to provide a systematic evaluation of current enrollment trends, and design strategies to achieve enrollment goals within each school and college.

the enrollment projections for the schools and colleges within the plan are tied to the University’s Strategic Framework for Action II, which articulated the goal of increasing total enrollment to 12,000 students within five years, including a 1,400 ftiC student ceiling, with a ratio of 40% undergraduate to 60% graduate

Figure 11.8: Graduate School Ph.D. Recipients Time to Degree, AY 2005-2009Source: Graduate School Office of Retention, Mentoring, and Support Services

Howard University Graduate School PhD Recipients Time to Degree, AY 2005 - AY 2009

Num

ber

of

Years

8

6

4

2

02005 2006 2007 2008 2009

4.7 5.5 5.7 6.37.8

Completion Year

Table 11.2: Total Student Aid Disbursed, by Type, Academic Year 2007-2008

Type of Aid Amount Percent

Grants and Scholarships

$52,353,959 25.9%

Loans 138,402,473 68.6%

Tuition Remission 8,617,220 4.3%

State-Funded Assistance

346,909 0.2%

Employment 2,045,883 1.0%

Total $201,766,444 100%

Source: Howard University Office of Financial Analysis and Budget

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 87

Student Admissions and Retention

Figure 11.9: Ph.D. Graduate Rate (Year-to-Degree), Cohorts Fall 1999-Fall 2005Source: Graduate School Office of Retention, Mentoring, and Support Services

Howard University Ph.D. Graduate Rate (Year-to-Degree), Cohorts Fall 1999-Fall 2005

4.8%

12.5%

6.7%

14.4%

9.6%

5.8%

2.9%

7.8%

9.7%

10.7%

13.6%

8.7%

1.9%1.0%

9.8%

14.1%

18.5%

7.6%

1.1%2.2%

13.8%

16.3%

7.3%

4.1%3.3% 1.5%

5.3%

9.1%

12.1%

6.5.%

7.9%0.7% 1.3%

7.1%5.3%

9.1%

8+ years

7 years

6 years

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%1999 (8 yrs) 2000 (8 yrs) 2001 (7 yrs) 2002 (6 yrs) 2003 (5 yrs) 2004 (4 yrs) 2005 (3 yrs)

Figure 11.10: Masters Graduate Rate Year-to-Degree, Cohorts Fall 1999-Fall 2007

Howard University Master’s Degree Graduation Rates* forGraduate School (GS) Cohorts, Fall 1999 - Fall 2007

*It includes Master’s degrees awarded by other (non-GS) graduate academicunits due to matriculation shifts from the GS into such other units.

60%

80%

40%

20%

0%1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

7 years

6 years

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

1 years

34%38%29%31%36%

22%24%

6%

14%9%

28%23%

39%31%26%

22%

16%16%

9%

7%3%

and professional students. additionally, over the five-year planning horizon, the university would increase student aid, particularly for graduate students; achieve improvements in academic programs and administrative effi-ciency; increase faculty research grant and instructional productivity; and improve facili-ties and technological resources.

a review of current plans revealed that each school and college incorporates

student enrollment and retention into its planning. interviews with individual deans confirmed that they are concerned about success in student retention and incorporate retention data into their efforts to identify the factors that promote or hin-der student success.

the university did not achieve the planned change in its enrollment makeup, a population where graduate and professional

88 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 11

Figure 11.11: Undergraduate Tuition Rate Increases Howard and National AveragesSource: Howard University Office of Enrollment Management

Howard Private Institutions Public Institutions Inflation*

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

1998-991998-00

2000-012001-02

2002-032003-04

2004-052005-06

2006-072007-08

Undergraduate Tuition Rate Increases Howard and National Averages

students comprised 40% of the student body. in fact, the percentage of graduate and pro-fessional students declined over the past 10 years, from 36 to 33% in ay 2009.

the expected restructuring of university programs and reallocation of budget funds to new priorities did not occur. in the absence of restructured university pro-grams, available financial aid was not real-located from undergraduate to graduate and professional students. the university was, however, able to identify limited additional budget funds ($1.5 million), beginning in

fy 2008, to increase the number and level of graduate assistantships. Stipends remain below market. existing resources were not reallocated to support research and graduate education, and no significant new resources were generated. the expected increase in externally-funded research did not mate-rialize, so there were fewer than expected new research projects to engage and sup-port additional graduate students. howard’s major funder, the federal government, is also experiencing fiscal constraints and has not appropriated additional funding for

Figure 11.12: Average Percentage of Tuition and Fees Increase for Howard Universityand Institution Types for AY 2007-2008Source: Howard University Office of Enrollment

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Public 4-Year Institutions (Resident)

Howard University

Public 4-Year Institutions (Out of State)

Private 4-Year Institutions

Average Percentage of Tuition and Fees Increase for Howard Universityand Institution Types for AY 2007-2008

23,712 (6.3% increase)

16,640 (5.5% increase)

6,185 (5.5% increase)

14,020 (8.0% increase)

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 89

Student Admissions and Retention

major capital projects; in particular, funding for the planned interdisciplinary Science and engineering Center. the Campaign for howard, while very successful, did not raise significant “bricks and mortar” gifts for improvements in facilities and technol-ogy, especially critical to graduate educa-tion and research. the Campaign raised additional funding for student support, but not at a transformative level. ninety percent of university-funded student aid awarded is from unrestricted sources. in summary, these were the environmental factors that mitigated against the changed student body composition envisioned under SFA II.

Assessment of Admissions Measures and Enrollment Data

howard utilizes an on-line application process for admission. the 2008 Self-Study survey revealed that overall, students felt that the following aspects of the applica-tion process were good or excellent: prompt responses to requests for information and materials (34%); prompt processing of appli-cations for admission (45%); and the will-ingness of howard staff to answer questions (36%) (see Supporting document 11.2).

the student application process involves an interface with a number of departments within the office of enrollment Management; namely, admissions, Recruitment, Records, and Student financial Services. together, these offices are the first line of communi-cation with incoming students. Staff evalu-ations of the effectiveness of these offices were also captured in the Self-Study survey, the results of which are listed in table 11.3.

an ongoing challenge has been the pro-portion of female-to-male undergraduate student enrollment, as is found in many other colleges and universities. this widening gap gave rise to a strategic initiative aimed at recruiting and retaining more african-american male students to the university. dr. leslie fenwick (dean, School of education) was charged with developing an urban education and leadership develop-ment concept, which includes an african-american male achievement component. the goal of the African-American Male Initiative is to increase the number of first-time-in-college african-american male stu-dents in howard’s undergraduate programs.

Communication with Prospective Students: Web Site Analysis

a leading consulting firm in higher educa-tion enrollment management was commis-sioned in 2008 to examine how effectively howard communicates with its poten-tial students and provides the information needed to make an informed enrollment decision. the results confirmed the impor-tance of the Web site as a communications tool. prospective students are clearly inter-ested in using the Web as a research tool to assist them in making their enrollment deci-sions and work through the admissions pro-cess. fewer than 3% of undergraduate pros-pects and only 1% of graduate prospects surveyed indicated that the internet plays “little or no role” for them in their decision-making process. The Web Opportunities Analysis for Howard University Report contains a substantive discussion of the re-sults of the study, and recommendations for how the Web site can better serve howard’s student recruitment efforts (see Supporting document 11.3). other conclusions of note include the following:

n howard can increase market share among competitors if it enhances the quality of the experience delivered to prospective students through its Web site.

n for prospective undergraduate students, the largest gaps between their priorities and expectations and their experience with howard’s Web site came in the form of navigation and search, and in their ability to connect or communicate with individuals through the Web site.

n Resources spent to create a financial aid/scholarship calculator and blogging program could pay strong dividends, and are relatively easy to implement.

Graduate students are less satisfied with howard’s Web site than are undergraduate students. the quality of content on a college or university site is of highest importance to graduate students, followed by ease of navigation. howard could improve service to graduate students by improving content quality and navigation (including search features), and by building more interactive resources for students to complete transac-tions and make direct connections with fac-ulty, admissions staff, and current students.

90 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 11

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

demand for a howard education remains strong, particularly at the undergraduate level. however, the need to attract and retain talented students in an increasingly com-petitive and financially constrained envi-ronment will require continued attention. over the past seven years, the university has increased its competitiveness in recruit-ing first-time-in-college undergraduate stu-dents, and strengthened the effort in recruit-ing graduate and professional students. at the undergraduate level, more students have applied to the university, the number of stu-dents offered admission has decreased, and the percentage of students who enrolled has increased. among peer institutions, howard maintains a good retention rate for under-graduate students.

in addition, howard’s effort to increase its reputation as a research university over the past 10 years has necessarily focused on growing ph.d. programs. this effort has been very successful. for example, the number of ph.d.s awarded annually has increased almost 35% since 1999—from approximately 75 per year to approximately 100 per year. in May of 2009, the university awarded 97 ph.d. degrees. in 2008, the university graduated its largest ph.d. class ever – 101 students.

the university must address tuition rates and student financial aid, communication with and outreach to potential students, and the quality of student advisement and men-toring. additionally, the nature of the student body, specifically, the gender imbalance and the mix of graduate to undergraduate stu-dents, remain areas that require attention. the following findings and recommendations

for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 8:

Findings

1. the university has not achieved its stra-tegic goal of adjusting its student enrollment mix to 60% undergraduate and 40% gradu-ate/professional students.

2. the university needs to increase funding that is available for need-based financial aid.

3. the university should continue to review its admissions index across schools and col-leges to assure alignment with its mission.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. develop an explicit university-wide strategy, with supporting budgetary and infra-structure priorities, to achieve the desired undergraduate to graduate/professional stu-dent mix.

2. develop, implement, and assess a more structured approach to student retention through enhanced monitoring of the quality of the student experience across all schools and colleges.

3. enhance access to a howard education by increasing need-based student aid.

4. focus on continuous evaluation and improvement of howard’s Web site, acknowl-edging its primacy as an information source for prospective and continuing students.

Supporting Documents11.1 Summary of First-Time-in-College

Undergraduate Recruitment and Enrollment Activities (February 2008)

11.2 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys

11.3 The Web Opportunities Analysis for Howard University Report

Table 11.3: Staff Evaluations of Offices of Enrollment Management

Areas Excellent Good Fair Poor No Experience

Overall 11% 36% 21% 6% 26%

Admissions 11% 29% 20% 8% 32%

Recruitment 8% 24% 19% 5% 44%

Records 11% 34% 18% 5% 32%

Financial Aid 9% 30% 16% 8% 36%

Source: 2008 Self-Study Surveys, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

Student Support Services 12

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 91

Student Support Services 12

MSCHE Standard 9The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.

IntroductionWithin the scope of its mission, the

university provides a continuum of preven-tive, developmental, remedial, and support services and activities designed to increase the probability that each student will achieve academic success and personal develop-ment. these activities include residential, recreational, academic, health care (includ-ing mental health care), spiritual, and social support services.

Academic SupportAcademic Advisement

academic advisement is a key element to the progress and success of each student. howard university is fully committed to the belief that fundamental to successful academic advisement is an ongoing one-to-one advisor-advisee relationship, where the student actively participates in the decision-making process.

all newly enrolled students at howard are assigned a faculty or staff academic advisor and are encouraged to schedule appoint-ments to discuss their matriculation. prior to or during the general registration period, some schools/colleges require students to report to their advisors for guidance in course selection and to receive an alternate “pin” to register for courses. Generally, stu-dents are provided assistance in becoming familiar with academic policies, procedures, and program requirements. although advi-sors are available to assist and guide stu-dents, the student has ultimate responsibility for reaching his/her educational goals.

to supplement the faculty advisement process, academic, and other counsel-ing are provided in each of the schools/colleges by assistant and/or associate deans for academic or Student affairs.

at the undergraduate level, the university also maintains two educational advisory Centers, one located in the College of arts and Sciences, the other in the John h. Johnson School of Communications, which are staffed by professionals who provide counseling and advisory assistance to stu-dents in these areas.

there is anecdotal evidence that the stu-dent advisement process does not always meet student expectations. in the Self-Study student focus group, students recalled instances when miscommunication between the advisor and advisee resulted in the postponement of graduation. additionally, some students reported that communica-tion between the academic counselors and departmental advisors was sometimes inef-ficient and inconsistent.

Center for Academic Reinforcement

the Center for academic Reinforcement (CaR) is an academic support unit that pro-vides a variety of services to howard students. freshmen receive assistance to bridge the gap between high school and college, rein-force basic skills (Chapter 16), and enhance performance. Continuing students partici-pate in CaR’s auxiliary programs such as tutoring, assessment, and workshops on spe-cial topics. additionally, students utilize the CaR’s instructional program which includes courses in basic mathematics, study skills (Chapter 16), and reading improvement.

Student Academic Computingthe office of academic Computing

Services provides university-wide com-puting facilities, consulting support, and training services on the use of informa-tion technologies for students and faculty (see Supporting document 12.1). the cen-tral computer facility, which includes an

92 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 12

academic computing help desk, is located at the ilab (information lab). there are also 11 Resnet (Residential network) computer labs located in university resi-dence halls. all matriculated students are assigned account numbers to access computer resources. additional informa-tion regarding technology is in Chapter 6—institutional Resources.

Librariesthe university libraries System con-

sists of a central library complex, which includes the founders library, the contigu-ous undergraduate library building, and branch units in the Schools of engineering, architecture and Computer Science, Business, divinity, and Social Work. other campus information and resource facilities include the louis Stokes health Sciences library, the law library, the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, the afro-american Studies Resource Center, and the international affairs Center Reading Room. the louis Stokes health Sciences library

is a world-class research facility for stu-dents and health professionals in Medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences, and staff of the howard university hospital. located on the West Campus, the law library is a state-of-the art facility supporting legal research and instruc-tion in the law School on the West Campus.

the mission of the university libraries is to provide innovative, effective informa-tion services and products that support, strengthen, and advance teaching/learning and research in the university community. the library system has comprehensive resources incorporating virtually every discipline, supported by information spe-cialists and technical personnel. holdings include more than 2 million volumes, more than 12,000 current serial titles, 3.4 million microforms, and a multimedia collection.

the libraries’ collections of traditional materials are complemented by a strong and continually updated digital compo-nent. on-line Web-based catalogs provide quick access to library holdings. the Web site is a virtual library of local and global networked resources, with full-text journal articles, bibliographic databases, reference books, e-reserves, data files and multime-dia accessible 24/7 from the library, dor-mitory, office, and home. onsite electronic facilities include a fiber infrastructure, more than 150 fully networked worksta-tions, laser printers, and a 22-desktop digi-tal learning classroom.

the university is a member of the association of Research libraries, the Chesapeake information and Research library alliance (CiRla), as well as a number of regional and national organiza-tions. the library has effectively increased access to materials through its member-ship in CiRla, which offers faculty and graduate students direct reciprocal bor-rowing privileges at CiRla’s academic members libraries—George Washington, Georgetown, university of Maryland, Johns hopkins, and the university of delaware.

the university library system has signif-icantly advanced its technological capacity. founders library, the center of the sys-tem, has implemented electronic reserves and expanded access to online databases. however, the continued development of

The library system has

comprehensive resources

incorporating virtually every

discipline, supported by information

specialists and technical

personnel.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 93

Student Support Services

resources remains a major challenge. Staffing and funding needs hinder its ability to operate effectively. the law library man-ages its own digital resources, whereas the health Sciences library digital resources are integrated with those of the general library. despite improvement in resources, howard lags behind its peers. for instance, although two new state-of-the art libraries have been built, howard still lags behind its peers in its expenditures (see figure 12.1).

the office of university Research and planning compiled data from 1994-2005 from the association of Research libraries (library investment index, 108-114 mem-bers) to compare the rank of the howard university library System with that of howard’s congressionally-designated peers (Georgetown, Maryland, vanderbilt, and the university of virginia). the ranking is based on five factors: volumes in the library, volumes added, Current Serials, permanent Staff, and total expenditures. the findings indicate that howard’s hold-ings, professional staff, and total expen-ditures are in critical need of increased investment for effective student learning and faculty research.

Main Library Group Strategic Planning & Assessment Program

Strategic Planning

the Main library Group has in place a strategic plan (see Supporting document 12.2) and an assessment plan (see Supporting document 12.3). in addi-tion, a university-wide library advisory Committee, appointed by the provost and Chief academic officer, on which the four library directors sit as ex-officio members, has analyzed all aspects of operations and developed a set of six strategic goals for university consideration, which together would bring the libraries up to the stan-dards of a Research i institution. this com-mittee was comprised primarily of faculty, but also included administrators and student representatives.

Library Assessment Initiatives

the Main library Group has a two-prong approach to outcomes assessment: (1) an annual user Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) and (2) an assessment of student learning outcomes for its library instruction activities.

Emory University

Washington University

Vanderbilt University

University of Maryland

Georgetown University

George Washington

Temple University

Tulane University

Case Western Reserve

Howard University

Millions

Libarary Expenditures at Howard Peer University Research Libraries, 2006-07

Figure 12.1: Library Expenditures at Howard Peer University Research Libraries, 2006-2007Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 29, 2008, Volume LV, Number 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

33.7

27.4

24.7

24.1

24.3

23.2

21.3

14.0

13.4

9.9

40

94 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 12

Customer Satisfaction Survey and The Information Literacy Tutorial

the CSS is an annual exercise con-ducted by eight units of howard university libraries—namely, architecture, Business, divinity, founders, Media Center, pollock theatre Collection, Social Work, and the undergraduate library. (in addition to the library’s annual Spring user Satisfaction Survey, the Social Work library was assessed by the May 2008 School of Social Work graduating MSW students in an exit survey). CSS results showed general sat-isfaction with the resources, services and facilities of the library. ninety percent found the collection adequate, 98.8% found the staff of the library knowledgeable and helpful most of the time. there were some areas of dissatisfaction and those are being addressed to improve services.

the overall number of students participat-ing in library instruction classes decreased by 8.9%, while there was a marginal increase in the number of students seeking individual consultation. Class instruction with faculty support and collaboration is the method found to be most effective in teaching information literacy. a pre- and post-test typically is used to assess what is learned by participants in classes offered by library professionals.

Student Learning Outcomes (Recent Reports)

during the 2006-2007 academic year, 707 students completed quizzes in all three modules of the information literacy tutorial (tilt). the mean scores for each of the quizzes were above 91%. the major-ity of the students were in english 002 and english 003; however, tilt was also used in the courses Communications orientation (CoMC 101) and MCMC 590.

the library’s freshmen challenge page contains information about the informa-tion cycle, the information explosion, and library resources, plus quizzes to test comprehension and recall. Students in the Communications orientation class and a few other classes completed the mandatory quiz and one or more optional quizzes for extra credit.

in 2007-2008, connectivity issues plagued assessment efforts during the first semester and server glitches played havoc with the ability to obtain sufficient cases and reliable results for tilt scores. during the year, 868 students registered for the information literacy test. the students in CoMC 101 were encouraged to complete a battery of library quizzes. overall, assessment of information literacy was a challenge, given the absence of an assessment tool that is an integral part of faculty student learning out-comes assessment. therefore, the capacity to assess whether students were able to nav-igate, critically evaluate and communicate information following library instruction is limited. a solution is to incorporate, in col-laboration with faculty, information literacy assessment as an integral part of required courses. the library submitted a proposal that, if implemented, would facilitate the assessment of the degree to which reference and information literacy skills are reflected in student’s research papers and assign-ments (see Supporting document 12.4).

the results of the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey and the library initia-tives in assessing improvements in student information skills as a result of library instruction formed the basis for several strategic goal recommendations contained in the provost’s december 2008 library System advisory Committee’s Report (see Supporting document 12.5).

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 95

Student Support Services

Housing and Dining ServicesHousing

the university operates 10 residence halls, which house approximately 4,000 students. Students have a choice of their preferred housing based on availability. housing pat-terns over the past four academic years have shown an increased need for additional hous-ing. the population is comprised primarily of female residents. Since 2002, the percent-age of students who attained a 3.0 Gpa or better while residing in university housing has increased from 50.4% to 53.3%. Some residence halls offer special-category floors, such as an honors floor and graduate and professional floor. Beyond university hous-ing, the office of Residence life maintains a listing of off-campus rental properties with the various amenities and contact informa-tion on their Web sites.

according to the 2008 Self-Study Survey, 37% of howard students judged the on-cam-pus residential services as “fair”, while 20% indicated that they were “good” to excel-lent as shown in figure 12.2. further, stu-dents reported that some dormitories (e.g., tubman Quadrangle, drew hall) needed renovations. in addition to renovations, stu-dents indicated that more residence halls should be constructed. physical facilities Maintenance has identified and sched-uled needed dormitory renovations in their deferred Maintenance projects (see Chapter

6—institutional Resources for more details on the deferred Maintenance plan).

Dining Services

the university provides dining services to students through a contract process. all students are eligible to participate in the dining services provided at the university. however, students living in 4 of the 10 resi-dence halls (Bethune annex, Cook hall, drew hall, and tubman Quadrangle) are required to purchase a meal plan. there are four types of meal plans offered to students, namely:

1. traditional 19 is designated for resi-dents and provides the maximum number of meals (19) served during the week.

2. traditional 14 is designated for the resident student who will leave the campus occasionally. this plan allows any 14 meals provided during the week.

3. on the Go 10 is designed for the resi-dent student who will frequently be off cam-pus. this plan provides any 10 meals served during the week.

4. on the Go 5 is designed for the off-campus student and provides any 5 meals per week, Monday through friday.

in addition to the meal plans, all students can purchase “dining dollars,” which is a declining debit account that allows students cash-free and tax-free access to all of the dining facilities, thereby providing added security and a savings of 10% with every

242 (37%)169 (26%)

Excellent (4)

Good (3)

Fair (2)

Poor (1)

Don't Know (No Weight)

*The calculation of the mean and the std. deviation does not include the category of "Don't Know" (which is assigned no weight).

Figure 12.2: Quality of On-Campus Residential FacilitiesSource: 2008 Self-Study Survey

Quality of On-campus Residential Facilities

113 (17%) 18 (3%)109 (17%)

Mean=2.0

Std. Deviation=0.81

Number of Students*=651

96 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 12

purchase. Students on the mandatory meal plan can purchase both “dining dollars” and their mandatory meal plan. the mini-mum buy-in for “dining dollars” is $100 per semester. unused “dining dollars” at the end of the semester are forfeited. the dining services are evaluated through a voluntary customer satisfaction form which is avail-able daily. Results from the customer satis-faction forms are used to improve services in the dining areas.

University Safety and Security

the safety and security of students, faculty, and staff are top the priorities at howard. as an urban campus, the university is vulner-able to the crime patterns that plague large metropolitan areas and the administration is aggressively addressing this issue. in light of various tragedies, which have occurred in recent years on american college campuses and in an effort to consistently improve emergency response procedures, howard implemented an emergency Response plan in conjunction with the district of Columbia’s Response plan in January 2008. this plan was tested in September 2008, during tropical Storm hanna by the open-ing of the emergency operations Center that effectively managed an emergency team and coordinated with key internal stakehold-ers, city officials, and emergency officials at local universities.

in addition, a university-wide emergency notification system (alerthu) was imple-mented in 2006. this system allows the university to send time-sensitive notifica-tions via voice, e-mail, and text messaging during an emergency on or near campus. Students are encouraged to register via the Bison web at www.howard.edu/bisonweb in order to receive emergency notifica-tions. emergency notifications are limited to severe weather alerts, emergency building concerns, intruders or potential epidemics.

in January 2008, an external security consultant firm commenced a comprehen-sive safety and security assessment of the university’s multiple campus locations, which identified several areas for improve-ment. as a result of the external evalua-tion, an integrated state-of-the-art ada

compliant emergency call station system was installed.

the university regularly posts Safety alerts and tips to inform the university community via hu Communications e-mail alerts. university police Chief, leroy James developed a strategic plan for campus police, which includes prevention and reduction in university-wide crime, the professionaliza-tion of the workforce, the incorporation of technology into security operations and implementation of the recommendations of the 2008 Security assessment.

Student responses to the 2008 Self-Study survey also indicated some concerns about campus security. thirty-eight percent of students rated the Campus police/Security Services as “fair” and 31% rated them as “poor”. a specific concern raised was the response time of campus police in crisis sit-uations. howard university Campus police have taken a proactive approach to address-ing this and other concerns (see Supporting document 12.6).

Student Services Student Financial Services

the offices of financial aid, Scholarships, and Student employment and Student accounts, Collections, Student loans, and financial accounting, under the auspice of the office of Student financial Services, are responsible for all aspects of student finan-cial support. financial aid at howard refers to scholarships, loans, grants, and part-time employment from federal, university, and private sources. to support their edu-cation, many howard students depend on federal monies, primarily through the u.S. department of education Student financial assistance (Sfa) programs such as federal pell Grants, Stafford loans, perkins loans, pluS loans, Consolidation loans, federal Supplemental educational opportunity Grants, and federal Work Study initiatives. to make the application process easier, the university utilizes the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form.

emergency loans are also available to assist students with financial hardships. the university administers short-term low interest loan funds, from which students may borrow if they experience temporary

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 97

Student Support Services

cash flow problems related to emergency educational expenses such as rent, food, and books. Students are usually approved for amounts up to $800, depending on the availability of funds and loan repayment provisions.

as indicated in table 12.1, results for the Self-Study Student Survey items regarding financial assistance revealed that 25% of the sampled students rated the university’s financial assistance as “good” (25%) and “poor” (31%).

participants in the student focus group reported there had been noticeable improve-ment in services in the administration Building over ay 2007-2008. nevertheless, students stated that the most common complaint regarding the financial aid department was poor customer service. Students commented on very long wait times and noted their accounts sometimes are not credited in a timely manner, even when payments are on-line bank transfers.

in recognition of the pervasive challenges in customer service that preceded his ten-ure, president Ribeau launched the Students First Campaign (SFC) in January 2009, administered by the office of the provost. this initiative “is designed to improve all dimensions of the howard university stu-dent experience from recruitment through graduation. the major goals of the SFC are to (1) initiate immediate university-wide improvements in the delivery of student ser-vices, (2) generate and sustain an environ-ment of continuous quality improvement, and (3) enhance customer service across the academy to students, faculty and staff ” (see Supporting document 12.10).

University Student Health Center

after more than three decades in a tempo-rary facility, the university Student health Center was relocated in 2003 to a permanent home in the Medical arts Building near the university hospital. the Student health Center occupies two floors for a total of 7,700 square feet and was designed based on feedback from staff and students. the Center provides full- and part-time students with access to care for acute sickness and injuries, chronic disease management, spe-cialty referrals, health promotion, and dis-ease prevention education.

Howard University Hospital (HUH)

howard university hospital (huh) was established in 1862 as freedmen’s hospital and was incorporated into howard university by Congress in 1962. as a private, nonprofit institution, huh is the nation’s only teach-ing hospital located on the campus of a historically Black university. the hospital is a level 1 trauma Center and has become one of the most comprehensive health care facilities in the Washington, d.C. metropoli-tan area.

today, huh serves as a major acute and ambulatory care center for the inner city of Washington, dC, receiving over 13,000 admissions and 47,000 emergency room vis-its annually. during the non-operational hours of the university’s Student health Center and in cases of emergency, students are advised to seek medical assistance at huh.

hospital operations are financed through a combination of federal funds, hospital-ization insurance and Medicare payments, and contractual agreements for patient care

Table 12.1: Students’ Responses to Items Related to Financial Assistance (n=302)

Item Excellent Good Fair Poor NA

QUALITY OF: % % % % %

Process for obtaining financial assistance information

5 27 33 32 2

Application Processing 4 24 37 30 5

Administration of financial assistance after awarded

9 25 32 30 5

Source: 2008 Self-Study Student Survey, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

98 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 12

services with the Washington, dC govern-ment, and other local jurisdictions.

the hospital is also a major teaching and training facility for nurses, pharmacists, para-medics, and physicians, providing training for approximately 450 medical school stu-dents and 300 dentistry students annually. in april 2007, the hospital ranked number one among selected area hospitals on 19 quality measures published by the u.S. health and human Services department.

Special Student Services

the office of Special Student Services (oSSS) administers disabled student ser-vices, veterans affairs benefits, judicial, and new special student orientation pro-grams. in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and other pertinent federal, state, and d.C. dis-ability and antidiscrimination laws, howard reaffirms its commitment through oSSS to provide access and reasonable accommoda-tion to students with documented disabilities and assistance in their academic programs of study. during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years, 483 and 360 students, respectively, requested assistance.

through oSSS, the university is approved by the district of Columbia State approving agency to file for benefits for students who are deemed eligible to receive funds from veterans affairs. upon valida-tion each semester, eligible students report to oSSS to initiate the filing of required documentation.

the university through oSSS conducts the new Student orientation program, which is held each fall semester. the orientation pro-gram facilitates a smooth transition for new and transfer students into their academic and community life at howard. the program includes academic advising, course registra-tion, workshops, and seminars, as well as social and spiritual experiences.

oSSS also ensures that all students enrolled at the university are aware of the expecta-tion that they are to adhere to and uphold the Code of ethics and Conduct, 1998. Students found in violation may be subject to the rules as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct and Judiciaries, 2000. these two documents outline prohibited behaviors and

procedures for responding to and adjudicat-ing such issues.

International Student Services

in 2008, the student body at howard con-sists of individuals from 67 countries with different cultural and ethnic needs. the office of international Student Services (iSS) provides guidance and support to ease adjustment to life in a new country. this guidance begins with a specialized orien-tation program for approximately 600 new and transfer international students at the beginning of the fall and Spring semesters. individual orientation sessions are also pro-vided to international faculty and staff.

iSS provides several support services to howard’s international community. these include visa and immigration assistance, per-sonal counseling, and orientation to academic and social life in the u.S. iSS also facilitates the integration of international students and scholars into the howard community and promotes awareness of this group’s important contributions to the mission and international character of the university. iSS serves as a resource center for information often needed by the international and university commu-nities and functions as an advocate for inter-national students, staff, and scholars. the office publishes a newsletter four times a year, organizes informational meetings with non-university resource people, and main-tains information on international student financial aid sources. iSS sponsors and par-ticipates in activities to increase awareness of the international and intercultural nature of howard university, including Global Community Week and projects of regional student organizations.

Career Services Office

the university Career Services office (CSo) provides an array of career develop-ment services to the entire student commu-nity, howard alumni, academic units, and recruiting partners. Career professionals pro-vide guidance to students as they chart their academic and career paths that lead to gradu-ation, employment, careers and life experi-ences. the programs and services offered by CSo include individualized career coach-ing, training workshops and seminars, com-prehensive on-line and in-house job search

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 99

Student Support Services

resources, fall and Spring career fairs, on-campus interviewing and employer informa-tion sessions. these offerings significantly augment the educational experience by help-ing reduce anxiety associated with career and major selection, thus contributing to improved academic performance, retention, graduation, and job placement rates. during the 2007-2008 academic year, the CSo mea-sured its effectiveness using a number of key performance indicators. the results on some of the key performance indicators are pre-sented below.

n Students reported job placement rate of 67% after graduation.

n over 96,000 students and alumni accessed CSo on-line platforms for the reporting period.

n a total of 515 students signed into the career resources library for usage.

n Between 23% and 25% of graduates indicated that they would pursue gradu-ate or professional degrees.

n 191 employers scheduled structured on-campus interviews, information ses-sions and corporate presentations.

n 352 employers participated in the fall 2007 and Spring 2008 career fairs.

n 15 career education training sessions were coordinated between staff and employer partners.

n 74 graduate and professional schools attended the 2007-2008 Graduate & professional Schools’ (GapS) fair (october 3-4, 2007).

n over 4800 students attended the com-bined fall and Spring Career fairs (october 3-4, 2007, and february 20, 2008, respectively).

n 550 student and alumni consultations were conducted through walk-in and scheduled appointments with Career Services staff.

n 435 students attended the GapS fair. n Student registration with on-line job

search and career development services remained strong; 4866 students and alumni registered with the office.

n Student surveys for career fairs, on-campus recruitment services, and on-line survey were consistent in reports of high levels of satisfactions with a rating of 4 on a 5-point scale (5 = Completely Satisfied).

n employers’ ratings were consistently high, reflecting almost complete satis-faction with the services and programs offered by the CSo. Ratings were 4.5 on a 5-point scale with 5 being “Completely Satisfied.”

University Counseling Service

the university Counseling Service offers a wide range of counseling and psychologi-cal services to assist students and psychi-atric services are available upon referral. the clinical staff of the Counseling Center is comprised of licensed mental health pro-fessionals and professionals in training. Confidential individual and group coun-seling and psychotherapy are available to students who report a broad range of con-cerns. in addition, the Counseling Center also offers university community educa-tion and campus group consultation.

Student ActivitiesStudent Clubs and Organizations

the office of Student activities facilitates the student organization recognition process and maintains updated contact information for all approved student groups in the fol-lowing areas: academic and professional; religious; student government; cultural and social; honor societies; and state and regional

100 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 12

organizations. there are over 200 student organizations on campus. each academic year, during one of the university’s Chapel worship services, all student leaders from the various organizations are commissioned to serve in their elected or appointed positions.

Athletics

howard university supports 19 varsity athletic programs, including division 1-aa football; seven programs (basketball, cross country, soccer, swimming and diving, ten-nis, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field) for men and women; and four programs (bowling, lacrosse, volleyball, softball) in which only women participate. howard is a member of the Mid-eastern athletic Conference (MeaC) and national Collegiate athletic association (nCaa). all student athletes must be medically and aca-demically cleared before participating on any intercollegiate athletic team. additionally, athletes are required to register and maintain the minimum number of course credit hours. from 2002-2006, howard student athletes led the MeaC all academic team with a 3.0 and above grade point average.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

howard’s concern for the overall quality of student life is evidenced by the myriad services and activities that are available to enhance and facilitate the development of a

well-rounded student. however, major find-ings indicate that there is a need to strengthen services in areas such as student advise-ment, library services, and campus security. for example, howard’s library system has large and comprehensive resources incorpo-rating virtually every discipline, supported by information specialists and technical personnel. the university library system has significantly advanced its technological capacity. despite these advances, it still lags behind its peers. to address the challenges in student services, in 2009 president Ribeau launched the Students First Campaign to improve service delivery by making process improvements in critical areas that influence the student experience. the following find-ings and recommendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 9:

Findings

1. unevenness is reported in student advising across schools, colleges, and departments.

2. the university’s library resources are insufficient for a research university.

3. despite considerable progress in student services in recent years, some areas remain that require attention by the university.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. provide support for and expansion of the Students First Campaign to all departments and student support functions, including space utilization.

2. Continue to enhance the quality of stu-dent services offered by the university.

3. implement the recommendations pro-mulgated by a recent task force on library resources.

Supporting Documents12.1 Howard University 2009-2010 Student

Handbook 12.2 Howard University Libraries Strategic

Plan for the Main Library Group12.3 Library Assessment Plan 12.4 Referencing Rubrics12.5 Library Advisory Committee Report,

2008 12.6 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard

University Self-Study Surveys12.7 Students First Campaign

Faculty13

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 101

Faculty13

MSCHE Standard 10The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.

Introductionthe university’s mission recognizes the

importance of having a distinguished fac-ulty that is committed to student develop-ment, scholarly productivity, and service. howard’s faculty members perform a variety of instructional, research, service and pro-fessional development activities as part of their contributions to the realization of the university’s mission. this chapter provides a profile of the faculty, reviews the university’s faculty recruitment and development efforts, and summarizes the faculty’s research and scholarship achievements. issues related to faculty compensation, evaluation, and their roles in the governance of the university are also addressed.

Profile of FacultyCurrently, howard has 1064 full-time and

456 part-time faculty members. Seventy-

percent (70%) of the faculty is full-time. during the 2008-2009 academic year, the number of full-time faculty members did not change from the previous year when there were 1068 full-time faculty members at the university. during the 2006-2007 academic year, there were 1083. during the 2007-2008 academic year, the number of part-time fac-ulty members increased substantially from 162 to 573.

figures 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3, display howard’s 1520 faculty members based on rank and gender, ethnicity, and their distri-bution among the university’s schools and colleges, and ethnicity as of fall 2008. as illustrated in figure 13.1, 57% of howard faculty members are males and 43% are females. Women are 25% of the professors, 42% of the associate professors, 50% of the assistant professors, and 49% of instructors, lecturers, adjuncts, and others as depicted in figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1: Faculty (FT & PT) by Rank and Gender, Fall 2008Source: Office of University Research and Planning

234

77

212

156

213

214

61

83

91

71

5427

0

100

200

300

400

500

Professor AssociateProf.

AssistantProf.

Instructor Lecturer Adjunct Other

Male Female

Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by Rank and Gender, Fall 2008

6

21

102 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 13

figure 13.2 shows that the College of arts and Sciences has the highest number of fac-ulty followed by the College of Medicine. although the faculty is predominantly african american (71%), it has a significant number of White (19%) and asian/pacific islander (8%) members. this level of fac-ulty diversity contributes to an environment in which howard students are exposed to differing perspectives in the acquisition of an education.

of the full-time faculty, over 86% hold the ph.d. or their first professional degree

(fpd), or both, as do over 69% of the part-time faculty (and thus about 81% of the over-all faculty). two percent hold the Bachelors, 6% hold the MSW or Mfa, and about 11% hold other Master’s degrees, with most of these faculty members appointed as instruc-tors, lecturer, adjuncts, and technicians.

Faculty Recruitment and Retention

the university’s commitment to excel-lence in teaching, research scholarship, and

0

100

200

300

400

500

Figure 13.2: Faculty (FT & PT) by School/College, Fall 2008Source: Office of University Research and Planning

Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by School, Fall 2008

438

779110825

6078

291

57

404

131

51

Art

s &

Sci

ence

s

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

icat

ions

Den

tistr

y

Div

inity

Ed

ucat

ion

CE

AC

S

Gra

dua

te S

choo

l

Law

Med

icin

e

CP

NA

HS

Soc

ial W

ork

Figure 13.3: Faculty Distribution by Ethnicity, Fall 2008

Figure 13.3: Faculty Distribution by Ethnicity, Fall 2008Source: Office of University Research and Planning

1073 (71%)

121 (8%)

22 (1%)

287 (19%)11 (1%)2 (0.1%)

4 (0.3%)

Black Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic White Non-Hispanic

American Indian Non-Resident Alien Not Ascertained

Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by Ethnicity, Fall 2008

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 103

Faculty

service begins with the recruitment and retention of quality faculty members.

the general policy and requirements for faculty appointments are described in the Faculty Handbook (1993) (see Supporting document 13.1). however, schools and col-leges may have additional requirements or procedures regarding the search and appoint-ment process. Most faculty positions require a terminal degree, with the doctorate con-sidered the terminal degree in most fields of study. howard follows relatively conven-tional procedures for faculty recruitment, which begins at the departmental level. once approval is given to hire, job announcements are posted to various internet or publication sites. also, faculty members may contact pro-spective applicants at relevant professional meetings where colleagues with knowledge of promising candidates are requested to spread the word about open positions within their professional networks.

howard competes with other institu-tions in a very competitive market to hire and retain excellent faculty. Many factors influence its ability to be competitive in this regard, including the competitiveness of its compensation and benefits, program and degree offerings, quality of students, and support for research and professional development. although in recent years the university has lost a number of very pro-ductive faculty members, it has also been able to recruit many very qualified faculty. the goal going forward is to recruit, hire and retain faculty in areas that align with the university’s revised mission and strategic goals and objectives. during the 2006-2007 academic year, in part to retain highly quali-fied faculty, the university implemented a major salary adjustment for faculty to bring faculty to 90% of the median by rank and discipline.

Faculty Responsibilitiesthe responsibilities of the faculty are pre-

sented in the Faculty Workload Policy (see Supporting document 13.2) and Faculty Handbook (1993). the primary foci of the faculty are dedication to instruction, schol-arly research, and service to the community in promotion of the university’s and depart-mental missions, goals, objectives, and stra-tegic plans.

a general faculty workload policy was developed in 2002 to establish the prin-ciples of consistency, equity, and flex-ibility, together with a uniform process for determining workload responsibilities across schools and colleges. this policy established a university-wide framework for individual effort in each of the three workload categories, while allowing for variation in an individual faculty member’s proportion of effort within this context. the policy allowed each college/school to establish minimum expectations for its entire faculty across the three domains of work responsibility.

Teaching

the delivery of instruction at howard is conducted by faculty, who utilize a vari-ety of approaches and teaching methods to enhance student learning. instructional methods commonly include lecture, discus-sion, group work, case studies, laboratory work, field work and guided self-instruc-tion, both mediated and not. prominent among the teaching methods is widespread use of the Blackboard system as a support for instruction. usage varies among faculty members, but includes posting of course syllabi, assignments and other pertinent course information, grading and assess-ment, presentation of course content, and dialog and information exchange opportuni-ties between the instructor and students, and among students themselves. Several smart classrooms have been installed throughout the campuses that give students real-time access to the internet during class periods and to other distance learning opportuni-ties. in some cases, students can enrich their classroom experience through service learning. a Center for the advancement of Service learning has been established on campus, which develops and promotes ini-tiatives that integrate service learning into existing courses and curricula throughout the university.

Courses are assigned to faculty at the department level. under the supervision of a faculty member, graduate students, apprenticing as teaching assistants, provide instruction for some courses. the current policy allows the chairperson (or the dean) discretion in allocating teaching workload

…Howard competes with other institutions in a very competitive market to hire and retain excellent faculty.

104 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 13

responsibilities with consideration for research and service activities of the unit (see Supporting document 13.3). however, perhaps a more systematic approach to allocating workload is warranted, given the perception by the majority (60%) of faculty surveyed that the workload in their depart-ment is not fair (see Supporting document 13.4).

faculty members indicate that “commit-ment to their students” is the strongest con-tributor to their job satisfaction. evidence for this strong positive impact of faculty on students is observed in both the fac-ulty and student survey results. according to the Self-Study Survey, students’ overall responses regarding the quality of faculty instruction and availability were positive (table 13.1).

Research and Scholarship

in addition to maintaining excellence in teaching, howard’s faculty members have distinguished themselves in research and scholarly work. faculty productivity levels are noteworthy in terms of extramural and intramural funded projects and published articles, despite unevenness in the levels among faculty, departments, and colleges. a detailed summary of research productiv-ity as reflected by extramural and intramural funded projects is provided in the research emphasis section. other evidence of schol-arly productivity includes the significant numbers of publications in refereed journals

in the arts, humanities, and sciences and health sciences (table 13.2). howard’s fac-ulty work to enhance student scholarship and collaborate with them in research and publication activity.

in addition to dissertation and thesis proj-ects, faculty mentored student research is presented annually during school and col-lege research days.

Service

the faculty’s commitment to professional and university service is evidenced by their participation on numerous university com-mittees and involvement in local commu-nity service, and national service initiatives corresponding to their respective fields. faculty serve on national boards, as editors and reviewers for peer-reviewed journals, as reviewers for public and private grant appli-cations, as site visitors to other campuses, and hold leadership roles in their profes-sional organizations. also, faculty members lead or participate in centers on campus, that, in addition to research activities, have prominent service functions.

Faculty Development

the concept of professional develop-ment is reflected in the activities of all three components of faculty responsibility. the university administration recognizes that effective faculty development is essential to strong academic programs. through the Center for excellence in teaching, learning

Table 13.1: Summary of Selected Student Responses to Faculty Instruction

Item Excellent Good Fair PoorDon’t Know

Professor’s ability to stimulate critical thinking

31% 42% 21% 6% 1%

Quality of student-faculty interactions in your Department

26% 38% 23% 11% 1%

Availability of your professors to provide students with additional help beyond classroom and office hours

26% 39% 26% 7% 2%

Availability of faculty for academic advising during scheduled office hours

23% 46% 21% 9% 2%

Availability of opportunities in your Department to collaborate with your professors on projects

14% 29% 21% 18% 18%

Source: 2008 Self-Study Student Survey, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 105

Faculty

and assessment (Cetla), the professional development and leadership academy, the office of Research education and technical assistance, the fund for academic excellence initiative, the sabbatical leave program, the intramural Research program (Research Section), and with modest sup-port at the departmental level to attend pro-fessional conferences, the faculty can hone their skills and enhance their professional development.

from its inception Cetla has been an invaluable resource to university faculty and is playing an increasing role in fac-ulty professional development. Cetla offers workshops throughout the year in two broad areas—teaching with technol-ogy and teaching strategies and classroom teaching assessment. Cetla’s Summer institute offers an opportunity to earn certification for professional develop-ment that will enhance teaching, learning, and assessment. Cetla also maintains a repository of course syllabi for archi-val purposes and for information sharing among colleagues.

to increase extramural funding and enhance compliance, the office of Research and technical assistance (Reta) provided

the university research community with training to more successfully obtain and manage sponsored research projects. Reta promoted the understanding of institutional policies and procedures, sponsor require-ments, and federal regulations to ensure financial, program, and regulatory compli-ance. through its certification program, Reta offered courses that cover the life-cycle of an award (see Research education and technical assistance in Chapter 18).

Faculty Recognitionin order to support and advance excellence

in teaching and scholarship, recognition is given for outstanding instruction by howard faculty. annually, the faculty Senate pres-ents the exemplary teaching award to a selected faculty member, judged by a com-mittee of peers to have demonstrated notable instructional accomplishment. additionally, Cetla features on its Web site teachers who exhibited noteworthy achievements in teaching. Since 1997, the university has held a faculty authors appreciation day, at which published authors during the pre-vious academic year receive a certificate of recognition signed by both the president and provost and Chief academic officer.

Table 13.2: Howard University Faculty Authors and Student Co-author, 1999-2009

Unit 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

All Schools 656 782 717 744 893 1,110 915 880 942 852 269

Business 33 20 28 26 36 33 13 21 22 22 3

CEACS 37 49 27 32 47 91 98 35 43 50 11

Dentistry 9 18 9 20 9 15 25 21 27 10 10

Medicine 137 177 181 216 324 420 337 260 305 325 93

CPNAHS 46 59 72 64 91 99 74 46 38 54 19

Communications 15 15 26 13 17 12 21 14 12 10 10

Divinity 19 24 20 22 15 18 13 30 18 17 5

Education 36 27 22 9 18 25 21 20 17 24 7

Law 39 43 37 44 39 31 19 30 3 3 0

Social Work 4 11 16 19 26 24 13 16 42 22 9

Arts & Sciences 269 303 256 263 253 318 255 362 399 315 108

Note: Numbers include joint authors duplicate entries*Publications as of May 12, 2009Source: Office of University Libraries

106 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 13

Curricular Development

each school/college has oversight of its program offerings, curricular development standards, and faculty involvement as described in the By-laws of that school/col-lege. the schools/colleges, departments/programs have an academic Curriculum Committee that is elected by faculty members, consistent with the By-laws of that particular entity. these Committees ensure that curricula and learning out-comes are properly aligned. additionally, to assist with achieving this alignment, Cetla’s syllabus development initiative emphasizes the importance of articulating appropriate learning outcomes.

Faculty Compensationdespite significant efforts over the last

decade in addressing the issues of salary compression, equity and competitiveness, lack of faculty salary parity relative to insti-tutional peers remains a concern for faculty and university administration. during fiscal years 2002 and 2004-2008, the university provided across-the-board faculty sal-ary increases for eligible faculty, ranging between 2.0-3.0% of base salaries per year. While no across-the-board salary adjust-ments were made for fys 2000, 2001, and 2003, eligible faculty received merit-based salary adjustments during those periods. although these increases resulted in sig-nificant progress, some individual salaries remain below those of counterparts at other

private research institutions and local peers. in 2007, former president Swygert and

the Board of trustees began to examine faculty salaries with the aim of making market adjustments an important compo-nent of faculty compensation. this initia-tive promises to close the gap between faculty salaries at the university and those of its local and national peer institu-tions, and to alleviate the perception and the reality of salary compression among the faculty. despite these efforts, faculty members continue to express concerns related to the faculty performance award program. an ad hoc faculty committee has proposed a model for compensating faculty in a manner competitive with peer and regional institutions. these recom-mendations are under review in light of budgetary realities.

Variable Salary Componenta faculty member’s salary for a given

academic year is comprised of two factors: the current base salary and a variable sal-ary component. together they encompass a faculty member’s institutional base sal-ary. the variable salary component, insti-tuted in 2007, acknowledges and offers rewards to faculty members who have been productive in securing funded grants and contracts in a given academic year. the dollar amount comprising the variable salary component is determined through a relatively complex formula. this formula takes into account the total number of funding dollars a faculty member accrued in the previous academic year; whether the person served as pi (principal investiga-tor), Co-pi, or participant on a given grant or project in that time span; the total num-ber of research/contract dollars brought in by the faculty as a whole for that given year; and the amount of monies set aside by the university for this compensation program. this variable amount, by defini-tion, will fluctuate from year to year for a given faculty member depending on fac-ulty productivity for the previous year. this plan to properly compensate faculty for their extramural research productivity is noteworthy; however, an assessment of variable salary component revealed that this effort did not significantly increase the

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 107

Faculty

number of extramurally funded research-ers. the initiative has been suspended.

Benefits

the university offers a comprehensive benefits program which includes medical, prescription, dental, and vision coverage provided through a select network of pro-viders. Benefits also include workers com-pensation, unemployment compensation, and a retirement plan supplementing Social Security. in 2001, an employee assistance (hu-helpS) and a commuter assistance program (Smart Benefits) were initiated. in addition to comprehensive benefits, full-time faculty members, as well as their dependent children, are eligible for remission of tuition within the university. Generally, the benefits package offered to faculty is typical of uni-versities of comparable size in the region.

Faculty Promotionthe Faculty Handbook (1993) and the

By-laws of each school/college, clearly state the policies and procedures for appointment, renewal, promotion, tenure, and dismissal. appointment, promotion, and tenure criteria are discussed at the new faculty orientation conducted by the office of the provost.

Faculty EvaluationFaculty Performance Award Program

the faculty performance award program is the university’s sole method for faculty salary adjustments that are premised on performance. the decision to grant per-formance-based monetary awards depends on the availability of funds in each fiscal year. the program is intended to provide a clear and distinct link between pay strat-egy and exceptional performance of the faculty. awards are determined based on annual performance evaluations by faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure (apt) Committees and administrators.

Faculty Performance-Based Evaluation System

as outlined in the Faculty Handbook, 1993, each member of the faculty hold-ing a temporary, probationary, or tenured appointment, whether full- or part-time, is evaluated at least every two years. the

purpose of this evaluation is to (1) pro-vide a basis for rewarding merit pay; (2) establish a basis for making decisions concerning reappointment, promotion, and tenure; and (3) provide a basis for fac-ulty development. the department chair and the department’s apt or executive Committee reviews the faculty member’s documented performance. Student input is also required in this process. there have been some inconsistencies with the fre-quency of faculty evaluation. the Faculty Handbook prescribes that evaluation should occur at least every two years for each faculty member. to ensure that the reviews occur, the deans must submit a written notice certifying completion of the review to the provost or Senior vice president for health Sciences. there has been discussion of the need to create more uniformity in the university faculty teach-ing performance system, including the procedures that are used to distribute the results of the evaluations.

the faculty performance evaluation System (fpeS) is currently under review. during the 2007-2008 academic year, a committee chaired by dr. leslie t. fenwick (dean, School of education) consisting of faculty members, chairs, deans, and other representatives, reviewed the university’s existing faculty performance evaluation process and developed baseline criteria for evaluating faculty performance. in february 2008, the Committee submit-ted its report recommending the proposed fpeS through the provost to the president. fpeS, which will complement the policies outlined in the Faculty Handbook and the Faculty Workload Policy, has two goals:

n to develop a general rubric for use in assessing and evaluating faculty per-formance in the areas of instruction, research, and service commensurate with the university’s mission and the goals and objectives of each school and college.

n to ensure accountability and trans-parency in a context of mutual com-mitment to the ideals of a healthy and productive academic environment.

during the Spring 2008 semester, the pro-posed fpeS was reviewed by faculty mem-bers, who submitted individual feedback

...The Faculty Performance Award Program is the University’s sole method for faculty salary adjustments that are premised on performance.

108 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 13

on-line, and reviewed at the school/college level during regularly scheduled faculty meetings. each school/college was asked to develop specific faculty evaluation scor-ing rubrics and procedures within the fpeS Committee’s framework. the framework recommends that the faculty in the respec-tive schools/colleges define performance expectations in the categories of instruction, research, and service relative to academic discipline, rank and the workload of individ-ual faculty members.

Faculty Governancefaculty participation in the governance at

howard university is recognized as a central value both by the faculty and university’s lead-ership. as discussed in Chapter 7- leadership and Governance, numerous efforts have begun under the leadership of president Ribeau to engage the faculty in decision-making on such topics as budget, compensation, and the aca-demic future of the university. With respect to faculty governance, there is a need to revise the Faculty Handbook.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

university faculty members are particularly committed to the student-centered focus of the university’s mission. they are dedicated to quality teaching, productive research, service, and professional development. a number of factors, including staffing levels, unevenness of workload, lack of competi-tive salaries, and inadequate support for new faculty recruitment and new faculty-start up funds, have compromised faculty effective-ness. Recent efforts to revisit the workload and evaluation policies to address some of

these challenges are underway and should be a priority. the following findings and recom-mendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 10:

Findings

1. there is a continuing perception by the majority of the faculty that the implemen-tation of the workload policy is not fair.

2.there is unevenness within and across departments, schools, and colleges regard-ing faculty productivity, notwithstanding the noteworthy productivity of many fac-ulty.

3. faculty salary parity relative to insti-tutional peers continues to be a significant issue for most faculty members, despite recent improvements.

4. howard does not have a dedicated pool of funds to attract and retain additional nationally-known scholars and faculty.

5. departmental-level staffing and infra-structure to support faculty research is insufficient.

Recommendations for Improvement

1.Review the university’s faculty work-load policy as part of an effort to address the perception by the majority of faculty who believe the implementation of the fac-ulty workload policy is not fair.

2. Refine and enhance the structure of the university’s faculty development program.

3. increase faculty salaries to be more competitive with peers at other research universities in the context of enhanced uni-versity revenue from diverse sources.

4. establish a dedicated recruitment and retention fund to attract additional nation-ally-recognized scholars, retain the stron-gest current faculty, and promote the devel-opment and retention of the university’s young and promising faculty.

Supporting Documents

13.1 Faculty Handbook, 199313.2 Faculty Workload Policy, 200013.3 Academic Affairs Strategic Planning

and Budgeting Updates, 2007 13.4 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard

University Self-Study Surveys

Educational Offerings14

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 109

Educational Offerings14

MSCHE Standard 11The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coher-ence appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational offerings.

Introductionthe university’s academic programs,

most of which are more than 100 years old, emanate from howard’s mission of being a comprehensive research-oriented university. the university strives to respond to evolv-ing societal needs and prepare students for leadership and service to the nation and the global community. howard addresses these challenges by providing a high quality aca-demic experience of great breadth and depth across its five colleges (arts and Science; dentistry; engineering, architecture, and Computer Sciences; Medicine; and pharmacy, nursing, and allied health Sciences) and seven schools (Business, Communications, divinity, education, Graduate, law, and Social Work). howard’s colleges and schools have a strong tradition of academic excellence, offering under-graduate degrees in 80 disciplines, master’s degrees in 63 disciplines, ph.d. degrees in 29 disciplines, other doctorates in 4 areas, first professional degree in 5 disciplines, and professional certification in 5 areas. in addi-tion, the university offers 5 dual degrees (see Supporting document 14.1).

over the past 10 years, 51 academic pro-grams have been accredited. one program has not been reviewed, one program closed, and one program is seeking first-time accred-itation. Between 2008 and 2009, there were 29 programs in 8 schools/colleges under-going self-studies and external reviews for reaccreditation.

all schools and colleges have adopted mission statements consistent with the emphasis of providing an “educational experience of exceptional quality,” which has been demonstrated by the continued

reaffirmation of accreditation of academic programs. additionally, “the quest for solu-tions to human and social problems in the united States and throughout the world” is evident in the foci of most schools and aca-demic programs, and particularly so in the professional programs that are deeply rooted in a tradition of service. in fact, a survey of senior university administrators found that 73% believed that the educational offerings at howard are aligned with the university’s mission.

led by its faculty, the university has engaged in curriculum reform that is designed to respond to changes in academic disciplines and national and international environments. a few new degree programs and certificates have been added. various special programs, centers, publications, and school and college academic initiatives sup-plement the university’s educational oppor-tunities and sustain its service legacy.

Curricular Development and New Programs

Curricular development and new programs are the major responsibility of the faculty. (Curricular development is discussed in Chapter 13 – faculty). a few new courses, degree programs, and certificate programs have been created in response to significant employment and development opportuni-ties. proposals for new curricula undergo an extensive planning and review process that addresses need, quality, student learn-ing outcomes, assessment, and institutional fiscal resources. after completing the plan-ning and review process, proposals for new programs are recommended to the provost

110 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 14

and Chief academic officer or Senior vice president for health Sciences. a few of these innovative programs added recently are highlighted below:

n the School of Business established a Bachelor of Business administration degree program in Supply Chain Management (SCM), which was approved by the Board of trustees in august 2007 (see Supporting document 14.2).

n an introductory, freshman-level, inter-disciplinary research course was offered in Spring 2007 to broaden undergradu-ate perspectives on research, foster con-sideration of alternative career paths, and institutionalize interdisciplinary research in the College of arts and Sciences (see Supporting document 14.3).

n a master of public health program was created in 2004 but was discontinued in 2008.

the Graduate School has developed graduate-level certificate programs; to date, four are offered and a fifth has been approved:

n Graduate Certificate in Computer Security (see Supporting document 14.4),

n Graduate Certificate in university and faculty preparation (see Supporting document 14.5),

n Graduate Certificate in Women’s Studies (see Supporting document 14.6),

n Graduate Certificate in international affairs (see Supporting document 14.7), and

n Graduate Certificate in Migration Studies (proposal approved Spring 2008).

in addition, three interdisciplinary doc-toral programs have been launched. these include new ph.d. programs in atmospheric Sciences, Materials Science, and Mass Communications and Media Studies.

Program Reviewsthe schools and colleges conduct program

reviews, generally rotating among depart-ments, in order to accomplish periodic reviews. Many of these reviews are associ-ated with periodic accreditation reaffirma-tions such as in the professional schools. typically, a review committee is established consisting of faculty, students, and some-times alumni and faculty from other schools and colleges. Site visits by external review-ers are sometimes a part of the program review process. final reports are submitted to the dean and the provost or Senior vice president for health Sciences as appropri-ate, for review.

enhanced academic program reviews will be an important component of the university’s academic renewal process that president Ribeau has initiated. the program reviews will facilitate the realignment of program and curricular offerings and more strategic and efficient use of resources in the realization of the university’s mission. during the 2009-2010 academic year, a Select Commission on academic Renewal, appointed by president Ribeau, will lead a review of undergraduate, graduate and pro-fessional programs and make recommen-dations for changes to the president. the president will consider the recommenda-tions and present to the Board of trustees a plan for academic renewal (see the section on academic Renewal in Chapter 5 – planning, Resource allocation and institutional Renewal). following the implementation of the university’s Strategic Frameworks for Action I and II, the university embarked on a next phase of strategic academic planning involving school and college-level program reviews. after he assumed his position,

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 111

Educational Offerings

president Ribeau asked the provost and Senior vice president for health Sciences to assess their respective academic portfolios and make recommendations for changes, taking into consideration program perfor-mance and national standing, disciplinary trends, and student and societal demands. he also asked each dean to offer short-and long-term recommendations for changes in their academic program. the president will make this information available to the Commission as a baseline for its work.

Learning Goals and Objectives for Academic Offerings

the range, relevance, and rigor of edu-cational offerings at the university are grounded in the development of and adher-ence to learning goals and objectives. articulation and documentation of learn-ing outcomes occurs across university aca-demic units and at different levels. at the level of the individual course, the syllabus articulates the expected learning outcomes. usually, syllabi include summary statements of the course goals for student learning by expressing what a student should be able to do after completing the course successfully. this general goal is often supplemented by specific objectives, articulating particular activities and the knowledge and skills that a student should be able to demonstrate at the end of the course.

the university has, through its Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla), institutionalized the university’s commitment to enhancing the quality of academic offerings with emphasis on improving faculty teaching and student learning. to ensure that course syllabi con-sistently meet these criteria, Cetla, estab-lished a course in syllabus development that emphasizes the importance of articulating learning outcomes and the ways they are measured. Cetla began a “syllabus com-petition” in 2006, with detailed feedback provided to submitters, intended to enhance the ability of syllabi to clearly communicate learning outcomes and measurements.

at the program level, learning objectives are generally presented in well-documented program descriptions. General education

requirements in the undergraduate programs are described by each department. also, major and minor requirements are gener-ally well-articulated. Graduate and profes-sional programs have well-defined and doc-umented curricula with associated learning outcomes.

undergraduate departments prepare com-prehensive examinations in the major fields that are aligned with the learning objectives presented in the respective departmental/programmatic curriculum. Graduate depart-ments also augment the course-based assess-ments with comprehensive exams, usually in the core and field areas within a discipline. in addition, for theses and dissertations, a formal process for assessing the quality of proposals exists in all departments, and the student must successfully complete the proposal before proceeding to candidacy, and publically defend the dissertation upon completion.

for professional programs, there are exter-nal certification exams (such as nClex in nursing or Bar exams in law) that demon-strate progress toward meeting the learning objectives of these programs. faculty and academic administrators regularly review academic programs and curricula to ensure that there is appropriate alignment with the knowledge and skills measured on certi-fication and licensure examinations. over the past ten years, the university has made significant strides in enhancing resources to support instruction. in the area of infor-mation literacy and access, the university has made substantial progress in providing appropriate resources for students. in partic-ular, the central student technology labora-tory (the “ilab”) was a major development that included ample computing, printing, and software power for students. Similarly, all dormitories are wired for internet access (t3 and wireless) and all but one has com-puter labs. further, most university build-ings are also equipped with wireless internet access.

all students have access to Blackboard, an electronic course management platform used to support course instruction. the library has increasingly moved to a digital format by subscribing to a variety of on-line schol-arly resources, and supports remote off-cam-pus access. Several colleges, schools, and

...Graduate and professional programs have well-defined and documented curricula with associated learning outcomes.

112 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 14

departments have created smart-rooms that provide multi-media and technology infused classrooms, computer labs, and specialty labs for their particular disciplines (i.e., mathematics, economics, biology, engineer-ing, and sociology/anthropology).

in addition to the strides in technology and resources for information access and literacy, the university has invested in other critical academic support resources. over the last decade, two new libraries (law and health Sciences) were constructed. in addition, a building dedicated to research (huRB1) was completed.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the quality of the university’s educational offerings is assessed through a diverse system of external site visits and internal program reviews. each of the university’s academic programs that are eligible for accreditation participates in the accreditation review pro-cess. Schools and colleges conduct regular internal program reviews, generally rotating such reviews among departments to ensure that each program and department housing the program is reviewed regularly. a com-prehensive academic portfolio assessment is underway at the university, as part of the academic renewal process. the academic renewal process will result in the strategic realignment of the university’s academic programs consistent with its mission.

the university, through its Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla), has institutional-ized its commitment to enhance the qual-ity of academic offerings through Cetla’s emphasis on improving faculty teaching and student learning. Cetla provides a course in syllabus development that emphasizes the importance of articulating learning out-comes and measuring outcomes.

finally, all students have access to Blackboard, an electronic course man-agement platform used to support course instruction. Several colleges, schools, and departments have created “smart-rooms” that provide multi-media and technology infused classrooms, computer labs, and specialty labs for their particular disciplines. the fol-lowing findings and recommendations for

improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 11:

Findings

1. the university’s academic programs and offerings are not sufficiently inter-disciplinary and experientially based.

2.Student performance on licensure examinations is uneven within and across schools/colleges and requires continued attention.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. evaluate academic offerings and streamline, modify, or augment offer-ings in response to changing times with special emphasis on expanding interdis-ciplinary and experiential learning offer-ings, especially in international studies and community development.

2. increase external examination pas-sage rates by providing more student sup-port, curricular reform, and related fac-ulty development.

Supporting Documents14.1 FACTS 2009 – Howard University14.2 Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Program14.3 Undergraduate Interdisciplinary

Research Course14.4 Graduate Certificate in Computer

Security14.5 Graduate Certificate in College and

University Faculty Preparation14.6 Graduate Certificate in Women’s

Studies14.7 Graduate Certificate in International

Studies

General Education15

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 113

General Education15

MSCHE Standard 12The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning and technological competency.

IntroductionGeneral education at howard is designed

so that undergraduate students can acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in essential skills: (1) oral and written com-munication, (2) scientific and quantitative reasoning, (3) critical analysis and reason-ing, and (4) technological competency. to that end, a Core Curriculum Committee was appointed in 1996-1997 by the provost and Chief academic officer, consisting of faculty and students to make recommenda-tions pertaining to college level proficiency in General education. this committee was charged with devising a common set of experiences for all undergraduate students, enabling them “to become productive mem-bers of society who can analyze, think criti-cally, understand justice, and the importance of service to humanity.” in 2000, the Board of trustees approved the Core Curriculum for undergraduate students.

the university-wide Core Curriculum was initiated in fall 2001 as part of the Strategic Framework for Action II. the General education requirement is imple-mented in the undergraduate schools and colleges through a Core Curriculum coordinated by the office of the provost. a faculty advisory committee from the undergraduate schools and colleges is being contemplated to monitor its imple-mentation and assessment of the General education requirement.

the General education curriculum reflects six overarching themes: intellec-tual openness and cultural diversity; his-torical awareness; empirical analysis; lit-eracy and statistical reasoning; social and human relations; and health and physical education. it also requires that students

demonstrate college-level proficiency in oral and written communication; scientific and quantitative reasoning; and technol-ogy. this curriculum is consistent with the competency areas outlined by the Middle States Commission on higher education. Schools/ colleges with specific core and general education requirements have aug-mented these for compatibility with the university-wide Core Curriculum guide-lines (see Supporting document 15.1). the dean’s office of each undergraduate school/college maintains the listing of courses that fulfill the university-wide undergraduate Core Curriculum.

the General education program require-ments are disseminated to students through a variety of modalities, including the howard university Bulletins, department Web sites, and materials developed by vari-ous departments. during advisement ses-sions, new and transfer students receive an orientation concerning the curriculum and graduation requirements. transfer students are required to take courses in the Core Curriculum unless these requirements were otherwise satisfied through transfer credits from previous institution(s).

University-Wide Core CurriculumWritten Communication

the Freshman Composition Sequence is designed to ensure high levels of literacy, proficiency in analytic skills, and knowl-edge of various discourses. all students must enroll in the two-semester english 002 and english 003 sequence (or an equivalent year-long honors sequence 075 and 076). exemptions are granted because of stellar

Undergraduate students should be enabled “to become productive members of society who can analyze, think critically, understand justice, and the importance of service to humanity.”

114 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 15

ap scores on the College Board examina-tions. Students are placed in the appropri-ate level of english (english 002 or Car-verbal [remedial english] based on scores from the verbal section of the Sat ii exam-ination. Students who need additional help are referred to the Writing Center, which is staffed by faculty from the department of english and graduate/teaching assis-tants. Writing proficiency is assessed for english 002 and 003 through in-class and out-of-class essays, student portfolios, and course grades. at the end of the sequence, students are required to take a departmental examination that is scored by at least two faculty members who use a departmen-tally-developed holistic rubric. Supporting document 15.2 presents student learning data results on written communication for the Spring 2009 english 003 final exami-nation. although data have always been collected at the classroom level, Spring 2009 was the first opportunity to aggre-gate data across written communication courses, thereby, providing institutional level outcomes. Results indicate that 70% of students whose scores were reported were deemed proficient. the office of institutional assessment and evaluation is collaborating with the department of english to develop an analytical descriptive rubric which provides evidence of student performance on all aspects of written com-munication. Written communication will be assessed every semester to determine stu-

dent proficiency through 2013; afterwards, written communication will be assessed on an annual basis.

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC), established in 1991, is an interdepartmen-tal, “interdisciplinary” program. this pro-gram, which is located in the Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla), is another method of achieving written competency, but within a particular field. instructors in various disci-plines are certified as WaC teachers so that they can offer writing-intensive courses within their own fields. the WaC program is assessed at both the faculty and student levels on a regular basis and has many strategies for gauging its effectiveness. data show that most students indicated that WaC courses were worthwhile, especially as a tool for learning the subject matter of the disciplines. however, despite its cur-ricular innovation, the impact of WaC on undergraduate writing proficiency remains limited, as participation is voluntary.

Oral Communication

to fulfill the oral communication require-ment in the general education curriculum, students in arts and Sciences; Business; pharmacy, nursing and allied health; and Communications are required to enroll in Principles of Speech (COMC 101). for undergraduate students in the College of engineering architecture and Computer Science, the oral communication require-ment is met through the infusion of oral communication components into the regu-lar disciplinary classes. the principles of Speech course facilitates effective oral communication in a variety of speech situ-ations, familiarizing students with com-municative processes and their effect on human interactions. assessments of verbal communication competence are achieved at the classroom level. however, beginning Spring 2010, data will be aggregated across oral communication courses to enable the assessment of institutional level outcomes.

in addition to the single required speech class, there are supplemental opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate profi-ciency in oral communication. other courses in the General education program require stu-dents to conduct oral presentations. however,

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 115

General Education

there is no clear articulation of the metrics used at the departmental or course level. additionally, all undergraduate students have the opportunity to participate in two annual undergraduate research symposia sponsored by the College of arts and Sciences and the Graduate School. these symposia not only help students increase research competence and technological fluency; but also demon-strate proficiency of oral communication. Students are evaluated based on research competence and oral competence, including articulation, verbal coherence, maintaining eye contact, and responsiveness to questions.

Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning undergraduate students in the College

of arts and Sciences and the School of Business are required to complete two semesters of college-level mathemat-ics courses. Students in the School of engineering, architecture and Computer Sciences are required to complete four semesters of college- level mathematics courses (Calculus i, ii, iii, and differential equations). Students in the School of pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences (Basic nursing program) are required to complete one semester of col-lege-level mathematics (College algebra i) and one course in elementary Statistics, and Sociology. Students in the School of education who are pursuing teacher edu-cation take the same general education courses as the CoaS students; therefore, they complete two college-level math-ematics courses. except for Journalism students in the John h. Johnson School of Communications who must complete two college-level mathematics courses, com-munications students complete one semes-ter of college-level mathematics—College algebra 1 (Math 006). natural Science courses are taught under division “d” in the College of arts and Sciences. in this division, students are provided a wide array of courses that provide competencies in scientific and quantitative reasoning.

although student performance in sci-entific and quantitative reasoning has always been assessed at the classroom level, in Spring 2009 student learning data for qualitative reasoning was aggregated across courses to provide institutional

level outcomes. evaluation of scientific reasoning is scheduled for fall 2010. Supporting document 15.3 shows quan-titative reasoning student learning data for Spring 2009 College algebra i, ii, and pre-Calculus departmental final exami-nations by school/college. items which represented a specific aspect of quanti-tative reasoning were identified on each of the aforementioned final examinations and student performance on those items was recorded. one aspect of quantitative reasoning, defined by the Mathematical association of america, states that stu-dents should be able to “use arithmeti-cal, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve problems.” Results for this aspect of quantitative reasoning indi-cate that the percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency (i.e., scored 60.0% or better on the item) was 63.6% for College algebra i, 54.1% for College algebra ii, and 77.0% for pre-Calculus. the overall proficiency rate for quanti-tative reasoning across the three courses in Spring 2009 was 61.7%. Quantitative reasoning will be assessed every semester through 2013 to determine student profi-ciency; after 2013, quantitative reasoning will be assessed on an annual basis.

Critical Analysis and Reasoning Several courses satisfy the critical anal-

ysis and reasoning requirement. these include several philosophy courses, the afro-american Core Cluster, and other courses specifically designed to teach criti-cal thinking. all students in the College of arts and Sciences, the School of Business, and human development majors in the School of education are required to take one of the following philosophy courses to fulfill this general education requirement: phil 051 Principles of Reasoning; phil 053 Introduction to Philosophy of Science; phil 055 Introduction to Philosophy; phil 057 Introduction to Ethics; and phil 159 Philosophy of Economics. further, stu-dents in all schools/colleges must enroll in a sequence of courses to demonstrate com-petencies in critical analysis and reason-ing in the Social Sciences, fine arts, and the humanities. although assessment has always been conducted at the classroom

116 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 15

level, effective Spring 2011, data will be aggregated across classes for critical anal-ysis and reasoning to provide institutional level outcomes.

all students must enroll in the University-Wide Afro-American Core Cluster. Critical analysis and reasoning are central to the multidisciplinary study of african and african-american history and culture. the Afro-American Core Cluster was instituted over thirty years ago in response to the need to diversify the university’s undergraduate curriculum and more adequately reflect in it the legacy mission of the university. it has not been assessed since its implementation. a clear articulation of its continuing pur-pose and objectives should be developed.

Technological Competence

Students are afforded a variety of expe-riences that build competency in infor-mational technology. in addition to meet-ing quantitative and scientific reasoning requirements, division “d” courses also integrate technological competency into the curriculum. further, for those with less exposure to technology, a number of courses that target computer competence are offered.

over the past decade, with an increased campus-wide capacity in the technologi-cal infrastructure, the use of technology in administration, instruction, scholarship, communication, and literature, and for searching has become ubiquitous. all stu-dents are given e-mail accounts when they first enroll and access is required for course registration and navigation of the official university information. in addition, stu-dents are provided access to Blackboard, a web-based course management platform which is used to facilitate information dis-semination, communication, and assess-ment in courses. all matriculated students have access to electronic databases, on-line information, and resources via the library system. further, numerous faculty members have incorporated technologi-cal innovation in instruction and course assignments (i.e., presentation and mul-timedia software, simulcasts, e-learning, Blackboard, blogs, electronic databases, and podcasts). technological fluency is a skill required by all students in negotiating

every aspect of the university experience. Standards such as that involving technolog-ical competency are assessed at the class-room level, but this competency would be more effectively assessed at a “higher” and broader level, given the importance of technology to today’s educated student.

Assessment of General Education

the majority of assessments within the General education program are at the classroom level, as was indicated earlier in each competency section. Since the establishment of oiae, a more founda-tional approach has been undertaken to aggregate data across classes for the core competencies in order to provide insti-tutional level outcome information (see Supporting document 15.4). oiae has done substantial work with the College of arts and Sciences to review and improve assessment instruments and procedures in General education areas, including quanti-tative reasoning (Mathematics) and written communication (english 003).

the 2008 Self-Study Survey of students, faculty, and senior administrators regard-ing their perceptions of various aspects of the university found that the majority of students and faculty agreed that the general education program was meeting its goals. approximately 69% of faculty and 82% of students found that the general educa-tion academic program enhanced students’ abilities to form independent judgments; approximately three-fourths of both stu-dents (74%) and faculty (72%) indicated that it enhanced student’s abilities to understand fundamental theory; and 81% of faculty and 65% of students reported that the ability to interact in a culturally diverse world was developed more fully. further, 71% of students reported that the general education program enhanced their knowledge of african-americans and other people of color; while nearly three-fourths (73%) reported an enhanced ability to stimulate students to think critically; and three-fifths (59%) affirmed the university’s success in introducing technological pro-grams into the curriculum. approximately two-fifths (41%) of senior administrators

Technological fluency is a skill

required by all students in

negotiating every aspect of the University

experience.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 117

General Education

endorsed the view that there was alignment between general education policies and stu-dent learning (see Supporting document 15.5).

Challenges of the University-Wide Core Curriculum

although a number of policies exist on required courses, there is no uniform state-ment concerning the purpose and value of howard’s General education curricu-lum, or a uniform statement that explains clearly how the program is articulated across all of the undergraduate programs. undergraduate schools and colleges require their students to enroll in general education courses with the expectation that they will acquire competencies recommended by the core curriculum. nevertheless, there is not a single uniform General education Core Curriculum that is required across all the university’s undergraduate programs.

Most schools and colleges already have incorporated within their curricula the basic skills required by the “Core.” therefore, it would appear that the Core Curriculum has been fully implemented throughout the university. however, with lack of clear articulation, questions have arisen concern-ing what actually constitutes a university-wide Core Curriculum, as opposed to departmental (divisional) requirements.

at howard university, all undergradu-ate schools require students to take first-year freshman composition. in addition, although almost all undergraduates must complete a year-long sequence in math-ematics, the School of Communication requires only one semester of college-level mathematics for majors in four of its pro-grams. Students in Journalism, however, must complete a year-long mathematics sequence. further, only students in four colleges/schools are required to complete a formal speech course.

the School of engineering, architecture and Computer Science effectively integrates most core curriculum competencies into its major program. as excellent role models, the departments of Systems and Computer Science and electrical engineering have implemented the university Core Curriculum into their course curricula, making reference to the themes of the university-Wide Core Curriculum and the “core” experiences—events and service programs.

the core curriculum panel suggested that there might be challenges associated with implementation of the core curriculum; for example, some schools and departments would have to undertake additional course design activities and identify additional “human and material resources.” however, despite the challenges, the schools/colleges have taken

118 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 15

steps toward fulfilling the recommendations of the Core Curriculum Committee by iden-tifying existing courses and experiences that could be appropriately integrated into the Core Curriculum. What remains, however, is the task of consolidation and refinement so that, across schools and colleges, all undergradu-ates are bonded by a universal core of learning and experiences.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

General education at howard is designed so that undergraduate students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in essential skills: (1) oral and written com-munication, (2) scientific and quantitative reasoning, (3) critical analysis and reason-ing, and (4) technological competency. the General education curriculum reflects six overarching values: intellectual openness and cultural diversity; historical aware-ness; empirical analysis; literacy and sta-tistical reasoning; social and human rela-tions; and health and physical education. the university has established a core curriculum that speaks to core competen-cies for all undergraduates. however, the precise General education course arrange-ments need to be specified further across schools and colleges to develop a more distinctive howard university experience which also will allow improved, uniform and reliable assessment of student learn-ing outcomes and core competencies. a clear commitment to General education at howard is well established, as are effective strategies to achieve the core competen-cies. nevertheless, the implementation of a university-wide core curriculum across all undergraduate programs remains incom-plete. Whereas the english, Mathematics, and african-american cluster classes are required of all students, there is significant variation in other required student courses and experiences (i.e., courses in Speech, the Sciences, physical education, and spe-cial university events, e.g., Convocation and Charter day). Because of this decen-tralized implementation, common data on the effectiveness of the Core Curriculum are limited or difficult to access. the fol-lowing findings and recommendations for

improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 12:

Findings

1. there is insufficient assessment of core competencies outside of the classroom, including summative assessment.

2. there is unevenness of articulation, implementation, and assessment of the university’s core competencies across all undergraduate schools/colleges.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. appoint a body of faculty, students, and staff to review the current university-wide core competencies and to recommend strategies to schools and colleges for revis-ing, updating, and assessing the curriculum, in order to insure effective implementation of the program designed to develop those competencies in all howard students.

2. Refine the General education curricu-lum in all undergraduate schools and col-leges to best advance the university-wide core competencies.

3. Refine the delivery of core competen-cies in all departments and schools such that there is a recognized interconnection between general education and academic program requirements.

4. Continue to involve the office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) in the review, revision and devel-opment of instruments and procedures for assessment of general education/core-cur-ricular areas.

Supporting Documents15.1 General Education Grid: Fulfillment

of Competencies15.2 Spring 2009 Assessment of General

Education Outcomes in Written Communication

15.3 Spring 2009 Assessment of General Education Outcomes in Quantitative Reasoning

15.4 Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Report, July 2009

15.5 Technical Report for the 2008 Howard University Self-Study Surveys

Related Educational Activities 16

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 119

16 Related Educational Activities

MSCHE Standard 13The institution’s programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.

Introduction the university offers related educational

opportunities for its students, which supple-ment their regular academic coursework and activities, and enhance their learning and personal development. these educa-tional opportunities include internships, undergraduate honors programs, study abroad, academic enrichment, co-op pro-grams, on-line instruction, and certificate programs, all of which adhere to academic and professional standards and align with the university’s mission. this Standard examines the university’s efforts to pro-vide a range of opportunities for students to supplement and enrich their educational experiences.

Academic Reinforcement Initiatives

howard is committed to the academic success of each of its students, especially those students who need some form of aca-demic reinforcement. the university offers academic enrichment opportunities to eli-gible students in Mathematics, english, and college study skills, through its Center for academic Reinforcement (CaR), which is housed in the School of education.

Mathematics

undergraduate students who are accepted at howard take a Mathematics placement exam-ination (Mpe) via the Blackboard course man-agement system. the Mpe results are used for placement in Mathematics courses (see Sup-porting document 16.1). voluntary support is provided to all students via the Mathemat-ics lab located in the Center for academic Reinforcement (CaR). the Mathematics lab is staffed by the department of Mathematics and CaR faculty, as well as student tutors.

the effectiveness of CaR-Mathematics classes and Mathematics lab support has been demonstrated. a study was conducted that compared the performance of students who successfully completed CaR’s Basic Mathematics ii courses from fall 2003 to fall 2005 compared with the performance of all other students in College algebra i from Spring 2004 to Summer 2006. the study revealed that students in College algebra i who had successfully completed Basic Math ii generally performed better than the overall population of students in College algebra i (figure 16.1).

English Proficiency and Graduate Expository Writing

the department of english does not administer a placement examination to undergraduate students. all new entrants are required to register for the first col-lege-level english course. Based on the results of their first in-class essay (the “diagnostic exam”), faculty may elect to send students to the CaR-verbal pro-gram, which is dedicated to preparing them to succeed in english 002. however, when students are identified as underpre-pared, most of them do not drop english 002 and enroll in the CaR-verbal course, as shown in table 16.1. in response to the Self-Study Committee’s findings, effective fall 2009, the university will use writing scores from the Sat or aCt for placement into the appropriate english course.

undergraduate students who need to strengthen their writing skills may vol-untarily avail themselves of the Writing Center. in fall 2007, the Self-Study Committee observed that the Center did not have enough operating hours or tutors. the Committee also noted a growing need for

Howard University is committed to ensuring the academic success of each of its students, especially those students who need some form of academic reinforcement.

120 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 16

assistance in english as a second language (eSol). as a result of the Committee’s assessment, the university provided funds to hire enough tutors (including an eSol specialist) to staff the Center weekdays during business hours and to pilot-test an on-line Writing Center to increase evening and weekend access. Currently, neither the english department nor CaR tracks the performance of eSol or other under-prepared students in subsequent english classes.

on the graduate level, all master’s and doctoral students enrolled in the Graduate School are required to demonstrate writ-ing proficiency. the Graduate expository Writing examination (GeWe) is

administered to all incoming graduate stu-dents and serves as an instructional vehicle for implementing the Board of trustees’ 1976 mandate that all graduate students demonstrate proficiency in academic or expository writing as a prerequisite to can-didacy. Students who do not satisfy the min-imum proficiency are required to complete a course in “academic Communication,” which focuses on scientific writing.

College Study Skills

Beginning in 1974, all undergraduate students who enrolled in CaR courses were required to take a study skills course. in 1980, this course was no longer manda-tory for CaR-referred students, which has

Figure 16.1: Grade Distribution for CAR-Math vs.Non-CAR Students in College Algebra ISource: Howard University Office of Academic Reinforcement

Grades

Per

cent

age

of

Stu

den

ts

Grade Distribution for CAR-Math vs.Non-CAR Students in College Algebra I

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

A B C D F W

CAR-Math Non-CAR

Table 16.1: Number of Freshmen Scoring Below the English 002 Cut-Score Compared to CAR-Verbal Enrollment

Semester/Year Below 002 Cut-off Enrolled in CAR % Enrolled in CAR

Fall 2005 296 13 4.39%

Spring 2006 55 4 7.27%

Fall 2006 155 26 16.77%

Spring 2007 24 2 8.33%

Fall 2007 88 13 14.77%

Source: Department of English and the Center for Academic Reinforcement, Howard University

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 121

Related Educational Activities

resulted in declining participation among the students who are, most in need. further, when students are accepted with the condi-tion of enrolling in a college study skills course, there is no penalty for not adhering to these admissions requirements.

Certificate Programshoward offers 52 undergraduate, gradu-

ate, and professional certificate programs, but only 18 are for credit (see Supporting document 16.2). Between 1997 and 2007, howard awarded more than 600 credit-based certificates (see Supporting document 16.3). By comparison, howard’s ten peer institutions offer an average of 46 certificate programs, and most of these carry academic credit (see Supporting document 16.4).

the university offers two types of certificate programs: (1) Certificate of Completion programs and (2) Certificate of Competence programs (see Supporting document 16.2). Certificate of Completion programs do not require a college degree or college enrollment status for admission and continuing education units (Ceu’s) may be earned. Certificate of Competence programs require a college degree or enrollment in an undergraduate or graduate program for admission and are designed to

demonstrate competence in a specialized field. they may also fulfill prerequisites for Board examinations.

Strengths of Certificate Programs at Howard University

the strengths of howard’s certificate programs include the following:

n the accessibility of certificate pro-grams in terms of tuition cost, loca-tions where courses are offered, and day and time of class meetings.

n the revenue-generating capacity of short-term certificate programs —rev-enue which may be used for regular academic programs or underfunded student educational enrichment activi-ties. allied health’s certificate pro-gram in phlebotomy is a case in point: Clinical lab Science program has used some of the $1 million in revenues it earned between 1996 and 2004 to hire a part-time lab assistant and upgrade equipment for on-site students.

n the clearance of Certificate of Competence programs through a cur-riculum review process that is at the departmental, school/college and provost levels.

n the inclusion of courses that are a part of Certificate of Competence programs

122 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 16

in the accreditation process of the departments in which these courses reside.

Challenges for the Certificate Programs

despite these strengths, there are a num-ber of obstacles to the effective opera-tion of certificate programs. they are as follows:

n the paucity of credit programs. Research as well as anecdotal evidence indicates that there are missed opportunities in many areas, including computer science (e.g., various software and hardware certifications as well as help desk cer-tification), health sciences (e.g., prac-tical nursing, geriatric care, hospice care), biomedical science, construction management, project management, lan-guage programs, cultural programs, and the popular arts.

n the absence of a clear process for devel-oping and implementing Certificate of Completion programs and non-credit courses.

n administrative processes that do not facil-itate the implementation of contract-based revenue-generating certificate programs in partnership with an external entity.

n inadequate marketing, public informa-tion, and advertising support.

n inadequate staff support and opera-tional funding.

n the need for main-campus certificate courses to be offered in more accessible locations to better serve the community, for instance, at sites such as the howard university hospital and howard Center.

Experiential Learning in several programs within the university,

students are involved in practicum, co-ops, internships, fieldwork and community service as part of their program or field of study. these activities are designed to enable students to grasp the concepts and theories of their discipline and how to apply them in a professional setting under super-vision. Most of the experential learning activities are in the professional programs in the health Sciences. other programs reside in the Schools of education, Business, Communications, and Social Work, among others. Students are assigned to sites where faculty advisors work closely with site supervisors to assess their progress. in some programs, students maintain a log which is submitted as part of their final evaluation.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 123

Related Educational Activities

the Center for urban progress provides students community learning and service opportunities through the Community development leadership program, the Community development Work Study and the Center for advancement for Service learning. each year, 6-8 students receive financial support through the Community development Support Collaborative. these students obtain hands-on experience and networking opportunities through intern-ships with partner organizations.

Internships

numerous internship opportunities are made available to undergraduate, gradu-ate, and professional students through their academic departments. Students typically register for academic credits for these internships under faculty direction in accordance with regulations governing degree requirements, and are assigned to internship positions at appropriate pub-lic and private agencies and facilities. Students are required to devote a des-ignated number of hours to the intern-ship and are often required to complete a research component or a formal paper related to the internship. internship course faculty coordinators and internship site supervisors collaborate in the evaluation of students.

Undergraduate Honors Programs

undergraduate honors level study is offered to students through the university’s various honors programs. undergraduate honors programs exist in the College of arts and Sciences, the School of Business and the John h. Johnson School of Communication.

as entering freshman, students may qualify for admission to an honors pro-gram based on high school cumulative grade point average, Sat/aCt scores, statements of interest and extracurricu-lar activities. following their initial year of enrollment, students who meet the required cumulative grade point aver-age may be invited to join an honors program.

honors program participants are required to take prescribed courses, participate in designated honors activities and complete

honors theses or projects. through the office of the provost, the university has recently implemented a university-wide honors program that will include campus-wide honors programming under the direc-tion of an honors advisory Council.

Study Abroad Programs

through its Study abroad office, located in the Ralph Bunche international affairs Center, and its undergraduate schools and colleges, the university offers students a diverse array of study abroad opportuni-ties. typically, students study abroad for one semester, and have the earned credits applied to their howard university tran-scripts. the College of arts and Sciences, the School of law, and the School of Business have well-organized and effec-tive study abroad programs. in addition, the Graduate School offers students a number of academic and research interna-tional experiences related to their degree program. Several are funded from extra-mural sources.

Distance-Learningthe university does not have a well devel-

oped centralized distance learning program. distance learning is offered through five academic units at the university. Below is a brief description of the university’s dis-tance learning programs.

Division of Pharmacy

the division of pharmacy’s non-traditional doctor of pharmacy (ntdp) program provides working pharmacy profession-als on-line, self-paced courses that can be accessed via the internet. Students are required to visit the campus twice dur-ing the program. this format has resulted in national and international enrollment. ntdp curriculum is learner- and com-petency-based and incorporates commu-nication, problem solving, and critical thinking in all program phases (http://www.ntdp.howard.edu). all course con-tent is developed and delivered (via Web Board) by an outside vendor and howard faculty serve as preceptors, meeting weekly with students on-line to discuss clinical cases.

Through its Study Abroad Office, located in the Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center, and its undergraduate schools and colleges, the University offers its students a diverse array of study abroad opportunities.

124 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 16

Clinical Laboratory Science

the department of Clinical laboratory Science (ClS) offers an on-line B.S. program to certified Clinical laboratory technicians and Medical laboratory technicians. the program prepares students for professional certification examinations at the technolo-gist level.

Howard University Continuing Education (HUCE)

established to maximize educational access for professional and personal devel-opment, howard university Continuing education (huCe) provided educational opportunities for individuals and orga-nizations in a variety of formats. the university recently decided to discontinue its Continuing education program in its present form, effective november 1, 2009. decisions are being made regarding organi-zational locations for its on-line offerings, grants and language institute. Recently, huCe significantly increased its self-paced and instructor-led on-line offerings and now offers eight certificate programs on-line in paralegal studies, technology, management, and small business. Most huCe distance learning instruction is designed and delivered by vendors, rather than by howard faculty (see Supporting document 16.5).

School of Business

in 1997, the School of Business launched an on-line MBa program with the aid of a grant from e-College. however, the on-line MBa program expired in 2003 because of low enrollment. Currently, the School of Business offers a few distance learn-ing courses, mainly in the department of information Systems and decision Sciences. Compared to the enrollment in courses taught on campus by the same instructors, enrollment in these courses has increased, while student attrition has decreased.

English Department

Since 2003, the department of english has offered one or more sections of freshman Composition, technical Writing, or pre-law Writing on-line. Some of these on-line courses are very popular and often oversubscribed, enrolling more than 30 students instead of the official maximum of 20.

Opportunities for Enhanced Development of Distance Education

there are opportunities for the university to further develop its distance education offerings and infrastructure. overall, howard’s dl offerings account both for less than 1% of the university’s course offerings and 6% of enrollment (see Supporting document 16.9). howard currently offers only two on-line degrees (a nontraditional doctorate in pharmacy and a new Bachelor’s of Science in Clinical laboratory Science), along with on-line certificates in paralegal studies, manage-ment, small business, and technology.

there is a robust market of students for on-line education, especially among african americans, the primary service population for howard. the market is very competitive and the university will have to take aggressive steps within the context of its academic renewal initiative and program restructuring to take advan-tage of distance learning opportunities. Most of the universities that graduate more african americans with master’s degrees than howard offer at least 7 master’s degrees on-line (see Supporting document 16.6). nova Southeastern university, the

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 125

Related Educational Activities

overall top producer of african-american doctoral degrees, offers 15 doctorates on-line http://www.diverseeducation.com/top100Graduatedegreeproducers2007.asp. Several hBCus offer at least five on-line degrees, including the master’s and doctorate (see Supporting document 16.7). among howard’s local peer insti-tutions, George Washington offers seven on-line master’s degrees (see Supporting document 16.8).

despite its limited offerings, howard can still attract more students seeking higher education. Supporting document 16.10 and 16.11 revealed two noteworthy trends. first, the dl courses have attracted a larger percentage of students over the age of 24, specifically those aged 45 or older. Second, its graduate and professional distance learning students have lower drop/Withdrawal/failure (dWf) rates than undergraduate distance learning students. together, these trends suggest that the university has the potential to attract and retain more nontraditional stu-dents through distance learning. in fall 2008, after learning about the Self-Study

Committee’s findings, the department of Communication Sciences and disorders began working with Cetla to acceler-ate its development of an on-line graduate program.

Distance Learning Infrastructure

the administration of distance learning offerings is decentralized. the Distance Education Policy designates the responsi-bilities for technical support to the central administration (Blackboard course man-agement system and a help desk) via iSaS, with scheduling and oversight to the aca-demic departments.

the central administration also provides on-line library services, registration and a distance learning orientation for faculty and students offered by Cetla, but there is insufficient administrative support for stu-dent advising, tutoring and other services. although Cetla offers Blackboard and distance learning certification programs, most department chairpersons do not require faculty to demonstrate proficiency in the use of distance learning technolo-gies, course design, or management.

126 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 16

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

the university is engaged in several sup-plemental activities that enhance the edu-cational experience of its students. through placement or diagnostic testing, howard identifies and places students who require additional academic support and reinforce-ment in appropriate courses. the university has increased revenue from its continuing education and distance learning programs, but has missed some opportunities. Many for-credit programs could be offered and aggressively marketed. additional adminis-trative support should be provided to iden-tify market needs in the area of continuing education and expeditiously develop curri-cula or partnerships to meet those needs. faculty and departments should be encour-aged to develop more distance learning courses, and additional support should be provided for existing efforts in this area.

the following findings and recommen-dations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 13:

Findings

1. Student academic placement data are not adequately coordinated and used to support student matriculation.

Certificate program offerings and market value are not adequately evaluated.

2. there is inadequate administrative support for distance education.

3. there is an under utilization of new aca-demic delivery and organizational arrange-ments and systems for teaching and learn-ing, e.g., distance learning and learning communities.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. establish a central placement office within enrollment Management to adminis-ter placement tests, enforce the university’s placement policy, and track student progress.

2. establish a process to determine what certificate programs should be offered that includes priorities from assessments of industry and federal sector training needs, occupational trends, and demographics of the university’s contiguous communities

and target audiences. Create a strategy to increase public relations, marketing, and advertising certificate programs.

3. establish a single point of contact to provide administrative support for dis-tance education in order to (a) assist on-line students with services such as regis-tration, financial aid, and graduation, and (b) assist departments proctoring exams and marketing their distance learning programs.

4. offer incentives to enhance faculty proficiency in utilizing new strategies of delivery systems in support of teaching and learning.

Supporting Documents16.1 Enrollment in CAR, Fall 2005-Spring

200816.2 Howard University Certificate

Programs by School/College16.3 Credit Certificates Awarded at

Howard University, 1997-200716.4 Certificate Programs at Howard

University and Peer Institutions 16.5 Howard University’s Distance

Education Vendors16.6 Top Producers of African-American

Master’s Degrees, Including On-line Degrees

16.7 Directory of HBCU DL Programs16.8 Number and Types of DL Programs

at Howard and Its Peer Institutions16.9 Howard University On-line Courses,

August 2005-January 200816.10 Comparison of DL vs. On-Site

Enrollment, AY 2003-2004 to AY 2006-2007

16.11 Howard University Student Performance by Level for On-line Courses, January 2003- August 2007

Assessment of Student Learning 17

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 127

Assessment of Student Learning17

Introductionhoward promotes successful student

learning as a critical institutional outcome. all university units, directly or indirectly, provide experiences that support student learning. a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the assessment of learning outcomes reflects the complexity required to capture its multifaceted nature. Student learning is a fundamental component of howard’s mission. thus, the clear articula-tion of expected student learning outcomes at all levels and there assessment is neces-sary to achievement of the university’s mis-sion and goals. Student learning outcomes assessment at howard is mission-driven (Chapter 4), student-centered (Chapter 17), broadly defined (Chapter 14), collaborative (Chapter 10), and results-oriented.

this Chapter summarizes the progress that has been made in student learning out-comes assessment since the 1999 reaffirma-tion of accreditation by the Commission on higher education. in particular, this Chapter provides updates on outcomes assessment related to university programs, support sys-tems, plans, activities, and measures. data emerging from the assessments of student learning (direct and indirect) document-ing outcomes achievement are highlighted. additionally, case examples from various units are reported and recommendations for strengthening the collection and use of stu-dent learning assessment data are offered.

Statements of Expected Student Learning

Statements of expected student learn-ing outcomes for howard’s students are articulated at various levels, including the

institutional, degree/program, and course levels. at the institutional level, although more general, expected student learning outcomes, are stated in various docu-ments, including the Strategic Framework for Action II (see Supporting document 17.1), the Student Reference Manual (see Supporting document 17.2), annual reports, and the strategic plans of vari-ous units. expected student learning out-comes at the school/college and depart-ment/program levels are consistent with the university’s mission and appropriate higher education and relevant disciplines. an example, articulating the relationship among the university’s mission, college/program instructional goals, and learn-ing objectives, is found in the College of engineering, architecture and Computer Science (see Supporting document 17.3).

typically, expected student learning outcomes are available on the school/col-lege and department/program Web sites, in assessment plans, annual reports, and other relevant documents (e.g., Self-Study reports for accrediting bodies). additionally, learning outcomes are com-municated to students through course descriptions and syllabi, lectures, pre-sentations, assignments, Blackboard and other web postings, and faculty-student interactive discussions.

the placement of explicit statements of expected student learning outcomes in course syllabi is uneven as evidenced by examination of the course syllabi database, which is located on the Cetla Web site. Some course syllabi list clear and measur-able expected learning outcomes, while others fall short in this area (see Supporting documents 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, and 17.7).

MSCHE Standard 14Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appro-priate points, the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.

128 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 17

Cetla maintains an on-line syllabus tutorial for faculty use and sponsors an exemplary Syllabus award program with winning syllabi posted on Cetla’s Web site for all faculty to review as needed.

the university-wide Core Curriculum was initiated in 2001 as part of the SFA II to ensure that all howard undergraduates acquire effective skills in language, mathe-matics, the use of computers, critical think-ing, and communication. detailed informa-tion on the General education curriculum and its expected learning outcomes is pro-vided in Chapter 15.

Documented, Organized, and Sustained Assessment Process

after the 1999 Middle States site visit, the university established a system to bet-ter ensure a documented, organized, and sustained assessment process for evaluat-ing student learning. in 2001, a task force (of administrators, faculty, staff, and stu-dents) was appointed. in 2003, the office of the provost and the outcomes assessment and institutional effectiveness (oaie)

Committee implemented a university-wide professional development training course, “Writing an Effective Assessment Plan,” for deans, department chairs, directors of graduate studies, and assessment represen-tatives from each school/college. during this training, a campus-wide assessment plan template was discussed and distrib-uted for use by administrators, faculty, and staff. Many units now have formal mecha-nisms for assessment processes. illustrated in figure 17.1 is the School of Business student learning assessment framework, which shows the involvement of faculty, students, administrators and alumni in the School’s assessment process.

all units at the university submitted assessment plans and processes to the office of the provost. the Work Group’s examination of the units’ assessment plans (office of the provost’s restricted Web site https://www.howard.edu/assessment/restricted/plans/index.htm) revealed that the plans varied in their scope and depth. the examination also found that the pro-cess of assessment of student learning out-comes is primarily decentralized, usually under the purview of individual programs,

Figure 17.1: School of Business Structure for the Assessment of Student LearningSource: School of Business

Structure for the Assessment of Student Learning

Student Focus

Groups Academic ExellenceCommitee

Board of Visitors

Board of Commitee on Assessmant & Assurance of Learning

Associate Dean

Office of the Dean

Department Chairpersons

Department Adv. Boards

Core Coordinators

DepartmentalCurriculum Committees

DepartmentFaculty

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Undergraduate Academic Planning Committee Graduate Programs Committee

MEMBERSHIP:ACCT Faculty RepresentativeFINA Faculty RepresentativeINFO Faculty RepresentativeMGMT Faculty RepresentativeMKTGF Faculty Representative

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 129

Assessment of Student Learning

departments, and schools/colleges. further, it was clear that some units, particularly those focusing on preparation for profes-sional practice such as dentistry, divinity, engineering, architecture, law, medicine, allied health sciences, nursing, pharmacy, social work, and teacher education, have well-defined plans and procedures of gath-ering data on student outcomes and using the results for improvement. this is driven by university expectations and external accreditation requirements.

the depth of assessment data collected is uneven across the non-professional units, such as College of arts and Sciences, the largest academic unit on campus. Significant progress in outcomes assess-ment planning and implementation, how-ever, has been made in these units over the past decade.

Student Achievement of Key Learning Outcomes

assessment of key student learning out-comes occurs at all levels of the university (vertical) and at different points of the students experience (horizontal). howard collects and/or uses assessment data from incoming students, in part, to assist in placing students in appropriate courses in their first year of matriculation. likewise, incoming undergraduate students’ verbal and mathematical skills are assessed in order to place them in appropriate courses of these types during their first year of matriculation. new entrants and trans-fer students who have not received col-lege credit for mathematics must take the Mathematics placement exam, which is on-line. the results of this examination are

utilized to facilitate placement in math-ematics courses (e.g., Basic Mathematics, College algebra).

the freshman Writing program collects post-test assessments (in english 002 and english 003) to gauge student learning. the two-semester sequence of freshman Composition is designed to fulfill, in part, the component of the university-wide Core Curriculum related to proficiency in lan-guage and communication skills. the post-test results reported for ay 2005-2006 were quite encouraging (table 17.1) with the over-whelming majority of students successfully passing the department’s post-test assess-ment in english 002 and english 003.

the Writing across the Curriculum (WaC) program, an interdepartmental, interdisciplinary program, aims to assist students to “learn to write” and “write to learn” through promoting writing across the disciplines. WaC courses seek to ensure that students master the professional con-ventions of a particular discipline, while reinforcing skills learned in freshman english. the courses foster active learning within a discipline since writing encour-ages careful reading, observing, listening, and thinking. Coordinated by the english department, the WaC program originated in the College of arts and Sciences in 1991. however, since merging with the Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla) in 2003, the WaC program has served the entire university. the WaC program has both faculty and stu-dent support, as revealed by the results of a survey of nearly 2,000 students who com-pleted WaC courses at howard university. Results indicated that more than 90% of the students rated the courses highly, especially

Table 17.1: Department of English Post-test Assessments Results in English 002 and English 003: Fall 2005 and Spring 2006

Course and Semester %/Number Students Passed %/Number Students Failed

English 002 (Fall 2005) 93.9% (1,221) 6.1% (79)

English 003 (Fall 2005) 84.4% (135) 15.6% (25)

English 002 (Spring 2006) 95.0% (133) 5.0% (7)

English 003 (Spring 2006) 91.5% (985) 8.5% (62)

Source: Howard University Department of English

130 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 17

as a tool for careful reading and critical thinking.

one sustained measure of student learning outcomes is grades, which are subsequently translated into cumulative grade point aver-age (Gpa). While at one level, grades pro-vide a measure of how much students have learned, it must also be recognized that the fidelity of grades, as a valid learning out-comes assessment measure, depends upon the rigor of the examinations and assign-ments that are utilized as evidence of stu-dent learning and the systematic nature of the grading system employed.

howard requires its undergraduate stu-dents to earn and maintain a cumulative minimum Gpa of 2.0 for good academic standing. however, some professional pro-grams (e.g., divisions of pharmacy and allied health Sciences) require a higher overall or major Gpa. Graduate students are required to earn a minimum Gpa of 3.0 for good standing. table 17.2 illustrates Spring 2008 Gpa by school/college, level, and gen-der. the results indicate that undergraduate and graduate students’ cumulative Gpa is well above the minimum requirements.

Student learning outcomes also are directly measured in many undergradu-ate, graduate, and professional programs through use of standardized tests of dis-ciplinary knowledge and tests of general educational performance. an example of a standardized test used to assess student outcomes at the undergraduate level is the etS Major field test in Business, utilized by the School of Business. Business stu-dents took this standardized examination for the first time in april 2005. the dean of the School reported that although student performance at that time did not meet the School’s expectations, the results provided valuable perspectives on student achieve-ment. Students who had been exposed to a greater number of comprehensive examina-tions throughout their course of study (i.e., students with academic concentrations in accounting and finance) performed at a higher level on the examination.

at the professional school level, the met-ric that has been the primary focus of the School of law’s strategic planning is first time bar passage rate (72% for howard law students vs. 75% first time national average).

Table 17.2: Average Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) by School/College, Level, and Gender: Spring 2008

SCHOOLS/COLLEGESUndergraduate Grad/Prof Total

M F T M F T M F T

Arts and Sciences 2.77 2.91 2.86 3.77 3.65 3.71 2.78 2.91 2.87

Business 2.79 3.02 2.92 3.60 3.59 3.59 2.88 3.06 2.98

Communications 2.76 2.99 2.93 3.17 3.22 3.20 2.78 3.00 2.94

Dentistry 2.59 3.05 3.02 2.85 2.97 2.91 2.84 2.98 2.92

Divinity N/A N/A N/A 3.25 3.40 3.33 3.25 3.40 3.33

Education 3.03 2.92 2.93 3.55 3.60 3.59 3.42 3.23 3.28

Engineering/Architecture/Computer Science

2.64 2.89 2.73 - - - 2.64 2.89 2.73

Graduate School N/A N/A N/A 3.55 3.66 3.62 3.55 3.66 3.62

Pharmacy/Nursing/Allied Health Sciences

2.93 2.93 2.93 3.11 3.23 3.19 3.02 3.02 3.02

Social Work N/A N/A N/A 3.51 3.59 3.57 3.51 3.59 3.57

Note: Table excludes data for students enrolled in the College of Medicine and School of Law since their GPA is calculated on a different metric than students in other schools/colleges at the University.

Source: Howard University Department of Enrollment Management

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 131

Assessment of Student Learning

the College of Medicine requires students to pass the united States Medical licensing examination (uSMle) Step 1 (mastery of sciences basic to the practice of medicine) as a prerequisite for promotion from the sophomore to junior class. further, medical students must pass uSMle Step 2 (clinical knowledge and skills) in order to graduate.

as a private research university, howard is the leading producer of on-campus african-american ph.d. recipients. time-to-degree for doctoral level students is another set of student outcome data routinely collected and monitored. the university has witnessed some positive results in this area. during the three year period from 2005-2007, the mean time-to-degree for completion of the ph.d. decreased from 7.8 years (in 2005) to 5.5 years (in 2007). Since 1999, the majority of completers in each cohort year obtained a ph.d. degree in five years across all disciplines. other indicators of student outcomes include retention and graduation rates (see Chapter 11—Student admission and Retention for a detailed discussion of retention and graduation rates).

While assessment planning, timing, met-rics for documenting student learning, and use of assessment results in program improvement operates at multiple levels, responsibility falls on individual programs, departments, schools/colleges. assessment of student learning outcomes at the school/

college and program/course is widespread and the methodologies diverse. there exist examples of assessing: (a) cognitive out-comes, or those involving the learning of knowledge of the discipline, including key theories, concepts, and applications (e.g., senior comprehensives); (b) behavioral learning outcomes, or those involving the ability to demonstrate a specific set of iden-tified skills or abilities, usually within a spe-cific domain-related context (e.g., perfor-mances in fine arts, observations of student teaching, internship/practicum evaluations); and (c) affective outcomes, or those involv-ing the development of students’ attitudes, beliefs, and values (e.g., student surveys). assessment of student learning outcomes at the school/college and program/course level is widespread and the methodologies uti-lized are diverse. despite variations across disciplines, there are some commonalities among various programs in the types of student assessment utilized (e.g., course-embedded assessments such as tests, student portfolios, comprehensive exams, capstone experiences) (see Supporting document 17.8).

in the senior year, all students in the College of arts and Sciences must pass a comprehensive examination or approved option in their major field as a requirement for graduation. Student outcomes on the senior comprehensive examination for ay

132 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 17

Table 17.3: Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment at Howard University: Spring 2008

Selected Survey Question“Good” &

“Excellent”

Providing Opportunities to Achieve Learning Outcomes

Howard University is achieving its mission by “providing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high academic potential with particular emphasis on the provision of educational opportunities to promising Black students”

89%

Ability of Howard to meet the educational needs of its entering students 67%

Degree to which teaching/learning atmosphere at HU is conducive to students’ intellectual development

64%

Degree to which academic programs in your School/College prepare students for life in the 21st century

70%

Availability of physical facilities for conducting state-of-the-art research 28%

Adequacy of physical facilities for optimal learning 29%

Communicating Expected Learning Outcomes

Adequacy of communication to you about course goals and objectives (e.g., course syllabus, assignments), in general

76%

Adequacy of communication to you about course grading policies 72%

Using Outcomes Results for Improvement

Extent to which student evaluations are used in your School or College to improve instruction

36%

N=651Source: 2008 Self-Study Student Survey, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

Table 17.4: Placement Reports of Howard University Graduating Seniors: Class of 2007

Placement Type % Students Placed

Job placement reported at graduation (May 2007) 57%

Job placement by October 2007 67%

Pursuit of graduate and professional degrees (reported May 2007) 26%

Source: Howard University Office of Career Services

2007-2008 indicate that the majority of students pass the senior comprehensive examination (see Supporting document 17.9). in fall 2008 Senior undergraduate Comprehensive examinations sample, student outcomes show that the passing rate was high in all disciplines except in Chemistry (see Supporting document 17.10).

exit interviews and surveys of students, as well as alumni perceptions and atti-

tudes, are other ways to assess student out-comes particular to their attitudes and val-ues. here, students are often asked to reflect upon their learning and other benefits as a (direct or indirect) result of their educa-tional experiences at howard university. in Spring 2008, the office of institutional assessment and evaluation conducted a survey of students, faculty, administrators, and staff. the student survey participants were 651 howard university students.

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 133

Assessment of Student Learning

their responses to the items on the student survey, except for questions about facilities and the utilization of student feedback, were fairly to extremely favorable. Results from selected items are provided in table 17.3.

the university’s Career Services office collects student outcomes data on job place-ments for graduating seniors. Based on data collected through an on-site survey at grad-uation, year-round on-line survey, and to a limited extent employer reported data, the vast majority of howard’s graduates either have job placement or graduate school acceptance upon graduation (table 17.6).

Communication of Learning Assessment Information

there is evidence at various levels that student learning information is shared and, in many instances, acted upon to make improvements aimed at enhancing teaching and learning. administrators disseminate student outcome data in documents such as Self-Study reports, annual reports, unit strategic plans, and on program Web sites. in terms of the explicit and specific use of student outcome data for making curricula improvements, the evidence was mixed. While the documents reviewed often made very general statements of using assessment data for improvement; listed below are some more illustrative specific examples:

n Based upon longitudinal student out-comes data related to retention and graduation rates, an important strategic goal of the university is to increase the graduation rate so that it exceeds the national graduation average. to accom-plish this goal, undergraduate schools and colleges were charged with assess-ing barriers to student retention and graduation and developing interven-tion strategies. increased attention was given to student placement and remedi-ation through the Center for academic Reinforcement.

n Based upon assessment data (i.e., bar pass rates), a major effort is aimed at improving law students first time pass rates, including the hiring of a visit-ing professor to teach a bar prepara-tion course entitled Maryland Law in National Perspective.

n during the ay 2004-2005, the office of the provost, in conjunction with the university’s academic excellence program, awarded a grant to the chair-person of the School of Business’s academic planning Committee to evaluate the skill sets of seniors com-pleting the undergraduate program. the Committee recommended to the faculty that the School administer the etS Major field test in Business, a standardized examination designed to measure students’ comprehension and retention of fundamental business con-cepts. Students took the examination for the first time in april 2005. a focus group was held whereby students pro-vided feedback on the content of the etS Major field test, their individual and group performance, as well as other academic matters. as a result of student learning outcome data, as well as other student feedback, curricula enhance-ments were implemented. the specific strategies to enhance student learn-ing in core courses vary across depart-ments. for example, the department of Marketing has revised both the Principles of Marketing and Business Communication courses by substantially increasing the number of writing assign-ments and oral presentations required of students, whereas the department of accounting has increased the number of problem-based exercises used in class and instituted mandatory study ses-sions in accounting i and accounting ii courses. in the Spring 2008 semester, the Business law faculty sponsored dis-cussion groups comprised of students from different sections in which they provided extended feedback on exami-nation issues and discussed successful learning strategies and techniques. Since these changes, increases in student per-formance on the etS Major field test have been evident.

n Based upon student outcomes from the pRaxiS i examination, in 2002, the School of education created new courses, taught by faculty in the Center of academic Reinforcement (CaR) enti-tled Basic Math i pRaxiS, CaR verbal pRaxiS, and CaR Reading pRaxiS.

134 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 17

n in the College of dentistry, assessments serve as an analytical and advisory tool to all departments and programs. assessments are proactively utilized to: (a) assess and provide guidance in the revision of the academic mis-sion and goals of the College; (b) ana-lyze academic programs and recom-mend changes based on requirements by accreditation agencies and student and program director self-evaluations; (c) evaluate student didactic, clinic, and laboratory learning experiences and influence positive change; and (d) examine instructional/teaching methods and practices and recommend changes. data obtained from assessment efforts have been used in the development of probability-based models to measure the effectiveness of operations in the College.

n Given national and university stu-dent outcomes data related to time-to-degree for completion of the ph.d., the Graduate School has undertaken con-certed efforts aimed at improvements in this area. in 2005, the Graduate School was selected to join 21 major u.S. and Canadian research universities to participate in a $2.6 million three-year ph.d. Completion project. in May 2007, the Council of Graduate Schools announced that howard was continuing

to participate in the second phase of the grant extending to 2009.

n Students on probation in the School of Communication are required to attend a minimum of four workshop sessions designed to strengthen their study skills and provide counseling services, as needed.

n after Cetla assisted the department of Clinical laboratory Science in solic-iting students’ opinions about the cur-riculum, Cetla conducted a series of instructional design workshops for the entire Clinical laboratory Science fac-ulty to address the issues that emerged in the curriculum survey.

n Cetla advised the School of pharmacy about adopting the idea Center’s course evaluation instruments, which it subsequently did. after reviewing the idea survey results, the School of pharmacy requested Cetla to develop a training agenda that would strengthen teaching in the areas where the idea surveys revealed a need for improve-ment. as requested, Cetla tailored instructional design and technology workshops to the faculty’s needs. in response, the faculty organizer wrote, “Overall, thank you very much for two successful workshops for our faculty. We now have another piece of evidence to demonstrate application of our assess-ment data. I will follow up with faculty at the end of the Spring semester to determine how many have incorporated some of these principles.”

Professional Development Opportunities

information obtained from interviews with the provost and Chief academic officer (Cao) and the Chair of the Board of trustees’ academic excellence Committee indicated that senior-level university offi-cials recognize the importance of student learning assessment data and the need for such data to be part of the total structure for promoting institutional effectiveness. Since its 1999 Middle States reaffirma-tion, howard university has supported a number of units and activities for faculty members to improve their knowledge and

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 135

Assessment of Student Learning

skills related to assessing student learning, to improve their curricula, and improve their teaching. Some activities previously cited in this report include: development and maintenance of an outcomes assessment Web site, under the office of the provost and Cao, which includes a variety of links to general resources, handbooks, guides, and review articles; and implementation of a university-wide professional develop-ment training program in 2003 on “Writing an Effective Assessment Plan” designed for deans, department chairs, directors of grad-uate studies, and assessment representatives from each school/college.

one of the most widespread and sustained campus-wide strategies to systematically assist departments and faculty in improving student learning and implementing and utiliz-ing student learning assessment is through the work of the Center for excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment (Cetla). Cetla strives to empower the faculty to teach more effectively, especially with technology, and to utilize more effective techniques for evalu-ating their teaching. faculty participation in Cetla’s workshops has been strong, sug-gesting faculty support of the student learn-ing assessment process and their desire to strengthen their skills in the area. faculty evaluations of these teaching and learning workshops have been favorable.

the recently created office of institutional assessment and evaluation (oiae) is pro-viding added support to faculty, staff, and students regarding student outcomes assess-ment. the oiae is expected to provide pro-grams and services that: (a) elicit faculty, staff, and student involvement in the devel-opment of assessment techniques, strate-gies, methods and tools to enhance learning, teaching and scholarly productivity; (b) pro-vide information that is used to improve pro-gram quality, efficiency and effectiveness; and (c) provide feedback to units to enhance effectiveness of the university’s programs and services.

the university’s professional development and leadership academy also provides pro-fessional development for faculty, staff, and administrators around a variety of issues, including assessing student learn-ing outcomes. in fall 2000, the professional development and leadership academy

sponsored a two day course on “Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness.” the workshop, which was offered four times, was taught by a School of education faculty member within the School of education experienced in outcomes assessment. this workshop was discontinued after the imple-mentation of outcomes assessment work-shops in Cetla.

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

howard has made substantial improve-ments in the assessment of student out-comes and the use of data for improvement. it is evident that assessment of key student learning outcomes occurs at all levels of the university and at different points of the student’s experience. assessment of student learning outcomes is largely decentralized, mostly under the purview of individual pro-grams, departments, and schools/colleges. despite variations across disciplines, some commonalities exist among various pro-grams in the types of student assessments that are utilized. Some units, particularly those focusing on preparation for profes-sional practice, have well-defined plans and procedures of gathering data on student out-comes and using the results for improvement. this is driven by university expectations and the external accreditation requirements for these professions.

howard collects and uses assessment data of incoming students, in part, to assist in placing students in appropriate courses in their first year. there is evidence at various levels that student learning information is shared and acted upon to make improvements aimed at enhancing teaching and learning. administrators disseminate student out-come data in documents such as Self-Study reports, annual reports, unit strategic plans and program Web sites. in addition, howard has supported workshops, web resources, and mini-grants for faculty to improve their knowledge and skills related to assessing stu-dent learning, to improve their curricula and to improve their teaching.

Based upon the review of assessment of student learning outcomes at the university and within various schools/colleges and departments/programs, the collection and use

136 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 17

of student assessment data at the university, while growing, can be strengthened. the following findings and recommendations for improvement emerged from the review of the university’s status relative to MSChe Standard 14:

Findings

1. despite many improvements in assessing student learning outcomes, the university has not comprehensively imple-mented a university-wide strategy for assessing undergraduate student learning in each of its schools and colleges.

2. there is insufficient institutional bud-getary and personnel support to ensure a continuous, systematic, and coordinated process for conducting student outcomes assessments across all units within the university.

3. there is unevenness in the databases related to student learning outcomes.

4. there is insufficient linkage between student outcomes assessment data and institutional planning.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. appoint a task force, consisting of faculty, students, administrators, and staff charged with drafting a coherent set of university-wide learning outcomes that all undergraduate students are expected to demonstrate by the time they graduate from howard university and a methodology for their assessment.

2. ensure more systematic and coor-dinated collecting, reporting, and usage of student learning outcomes assessment data related to general education and the implementation of university-wide Core Competencies beyond individual course-level assessments.

3. Maintain ongoing institutional bud-getary and human support and leadership to ensure a continuous, systematic, and coordinated process for conducting student learning outcomes assessment across all undergraduate schools/colleges.

4. ensure that all academic units maintain an up-to-date database related to student learning outcomes and that this be subse-quently collected, housed, and maintained centrally in the office of institutional assessment and evaluation.

5. Create a more deliberate link between student learning outcomes assessment data and institutional planning and communi-cate this in such key documents as strategic plans and annual reports.

Supporting Documents17.1 Strategic Framework for Action II 17.2 Howard University Fall 2009 Student

Reference Manual17.3 College of Engineering, Architecture

and Computer Science (EACS) Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Expected Student Outcomes in Relation to University’s Mission

17.4 Example of a Course Syllabus from the Humanities

17.5 Example of a Course Syllabus from the Natural Sciences

17.6 Example of a Course Syllabus from the Social Sciences

17.7 Example of a Course Syllabus from the Health Sciences

17.8 Assessment Measures Utilized in the University’s Academic Programs

17.9 Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 Sample of Results for the Senior Comprehensive Examinations for Departments in the College of Arts and Sciences - Pass/Fail Scores

17.10 Fall 2008 Sample of Results for the Senior Undergraduate Comprehensive Examinations for Departments in the College of Arts and Sciences

Research 18

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 137

Research18

Introductionin 1988, the Carnegie foundation for the

advancement of teaching in its Classification of institutions of higher education desig-nated howard university for the first time as a Research i university. With this designation, howard joined 88 other universities, only 25 of which were private like howard university. in 1988, howard was the only historically Black College/university (hBCu) with that designation.

in 2000, when Carnegie revised its rank-ing system, howard was classified as a doctoral/Research extensive university, its highest classification for research universi-ties. the classification was based upon the university’s level of extramural research funding, the level of its ph.d. production, and the overall size and range of its under-graduate and graduate instructional pro-grams. howard was 1 of 151 universities classified in this category, and again was the only hBCu to be so classified.

in 2005, the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching substantially revised its classifications. howard is now classified as a high Research activity (Ru/h) university, the second tier classification, and joins 103 other private and public universi-ties so designated. universities with this clas-sification must award at least 20 doctorates annually and perform at the required level in terms of extramural research activity.

this chapter discusses the following issues related to research at howard university: extramural and intramural research, under-graduate and graduate research, research infrastructure and facilities, institutional sup-port for research and publications.

during the last decade, howard university has given focused attention to its research agenda and made a number of organiza-tional, personnel and facilities adjustments to enhance its research profile. Many chal-lenges remain as faculty continues to express strongly the need for more investments in the university’s research enterprise.

Extramural Research

the university recognizes the importance of extramural research and has given it prior-ity in the recently revised mission statement. president Ribeau has articulated his goals of restructuring the university to facilitate addi-tional graduate and professional education and sponsored research. achieving the extramural research goals will not be done at the expense of general research among faculty and gradu-ate and undergraduate students.

during the past decade, faculty submitted an average of 425 extramural research pro-posals annually. the average number of pro-posal that were funded annually during the past decade was 278. approximately 65% of the proposals submitted were funded. the yearly proposal and award statistics are pre-sented in figure 18.1.

the number of proposals submitted peaked at 569 in 2003 and declined until 2008 when there was an increase. awards have also decreased steadily since a high of 361 in 2004. the most recent fy 2008 figures reflect the fewest number of awards received over the past 10 years attributable perhaps partially to the decline in federal funding. figure 18.2 shows the total amount of funds received during the period between fy 2003 and fy 2008.

as shown in table 18.1, sponsored activ-ity at howard is concentrated in six schools/colleges. in percentage terms, over a six-year period (fy 2003-2008), the largest total funds awarded was in the College of Medicine.

the university’s largest supporter of extramural research is the federal govern-ment, which accounts for approximately 90% of the total amount of extramural funds received from fy 2003-2008. as table 18.2 shows, federal research dollars declined every year since 2004, after reaching a peak of $68,162,522.

historically, the largest provider of federal funding to the university has been the national institutes of health (nih), followed by the national Science foundation (nSf).

138 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

Figure 18.1: Number of Proposals Submitted and Awarded, FY 1999-2008Source: Office of Sponsored Program/Research Administration

0

200

400

600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of Proposals Number of Awards

Number of Proposals Submitted and Awarded, FY 1999-2008

181

242317343

361

310234254

235

298

467

487508

463

569461 470

392

382

410

Table 18.1: Total Funds Awarded by School/College for FY 2003-2008

School/College/Other FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008Total

FY03-08% of Total

Medicine $27,901,166 $34,026,445 $25,094,310 $21,978,194 $27,615,260 $22,660,471 $159,275,846 43%

Graduate School 9,644,930 12,170,157 8,194,911 6,939,237 7,383,712 4,709,474 49,042,421 13%

Engineering , Architecture, & Computer Science

8,792,460 8,116,667 9,552,753 6,898,578 4,600,106 4,535,251 42,495,815 12%

Arts & Sciences 3,238,490 3,409,845 2,650,418 8,482,740 2,593,897 $3,548,468 23,923,858 7%

Education 4,055,006 8,829,656 4,113,285 2,209,765 2,471,543 2,240,077 23,919,332 6%

Pharmacy, Nursing, & Allied Health

5,099,511 3,092,398 4,395,822 4,038,701 $1,819,906 2,107,136 20,553,474 6%

Other (WHUT-TV, Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center, etc)

1,245,757 1,817,039 4,330,878 1,156,555 4,261,230 557,750 13,369,209 4%

Office of the Provost 2,350,001 0 4,465,224 1,652,128 1,830,500 1,519,493 11,817,346 3%

Business 856,019 3,843,528 543,200 511,995 50,000 1,155,100 6,959,842 2%

Dentistry 247,434 79,449 222,169 2,447,910 295,910 1,931,826 5,224,698 1%

Law 5,000 1,129,713 1,749,954 0 149,474 3,034,141 1%

Continuing Education 15,000 40,000 826,292 677,375 591,924 390,000 2,540,591 1%

Social Work 966,975 358,336 25,000 114,142 277,200 96,350 1,838,003 1%

Communications 718,191 245,279 20,000 161,797 551,509 115,030 1,811,806 <1%

Office of the VP for Health Sciences

692,433 0 0 0 0 125,000 817,433 <1%

Divinity 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 <1%

Total $65,823,373 76,033,799 $65,563,975 $59,519,071 $54,342,697 $45,840,900 $367,123,815 100%

Source: Office of Sponsored Programs/Research Administration

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 139

Research

Table 18.2: Total Funds Awarded by Sponsor Type for FY 2003-2008

Fiscal Year FederalCorporate /

PrivateFoundation State/Local Other

Total Amount

FY 2003 $61,123,126 $2,278,880 $1,235,253 $1,087,592 $98,522 $65,823,373

FY 2004 68,162,522 1,141,942 4,543,945 616,803 1,568,587 76,033,799

FY 2005 59,755,819 3,063,938 659,190 1,334,679 750,349 65,563,975

FY 2006 52,196,669 1,282,628 3,431,582 598,058 2,010,134 59,519,071

FY 2007 48,708,787 636,173 1,345,388 1,142,731 2,509,618 54,342,697

FY 2008 40,725,744 2,514,131 1,517,254 874,096 209,675 45,840,900

Total FY 03-08 $330,672,667 $10,917,692 $12,732,612 $5,653,959 $7,146,885 $367,123,815

% of Total Funds 90% 3% 3% 2% 2% 100%

Source: Office of Sponsored Programs/Research Administration

the slight decreases in nih and nSf fund-ing in fy 2008 are noteworthy, especially when contrasted with the growth in funding observed in earlier years during the decade (figure 18.3). a continuation of this decrease over time will prove especially challenging for the university as it seeks to strengthen its research productivity and enhance its reputa-tion as a research university. for 2009, the trend is distinctly upward in both the number of proposals and the dollars.

Intramural Research

the university administers seven intramu-ral grant programs through the offices of the provost and Senior vice president for health Sciences. the total amount of funds available for these intramural research programs varies

from year-to-year. the office of the provost receives $1.56 million to assist with four intra-mural programs. of the funds awarded by the office of the provost, $150,000 per year is for the university-Sponsored faculty Research program in the Social Sciences, humanities, and education; $400,000 is earmarked for the Mordecai Wyatt Johnson awards, $400,000 is designated for the new faculty Research Start-up fund, and $606,000 is allotted for the fund for academic excellence Grants.

the health Sciences support for intramu-ral research is provided to each of the health Sciences colleges based upon specific requests by the dean. for ay 2008-2009, the funds awarded were as follows: Medicine - $2,128,145; dentistry—$127,500; pharmacy, nursing and allied health Sciences—$162,393.

Figure 18.2: Total Amounts of Funds Received During FY 2003-2009Source: Office of Sponsored Programs/Research Administration*Funds received through April 30, 2009

Total Amounts of Funds Received During FY 2003-2009

0

65.8 76.065.6 59.5 54.3

45.8 44.4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

20

40

60

80

Mill

ions

140 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

over the past five years, the provost and the Senior vice president for health Sciences intensified their efforts to assist departments and schools in providing start-up funds for new faculty, particularly in the SteM areas. these two-year-long start-up packages range from $25-50,000.

the university’s pool of discretionary funds available for faculty start-ups, particularly in the SteM areas, pales in comparison to the level typically provided at peer and aspira-tional research universities. the relatively low level of faculty start-up funds is a major source of discord among new faculty mem-bers, who generally need access to special-ized and expensive facilities and equipment. Continuing faculty who are between research grants or who are in need of funds to jump start new research initiatives have few inter-nal sources of support, aside from the fund for academic excellence, the Mordecai Wyatt Johnson Research fund (typically for interdis-ciplinary research efforts) and the university-Sponsored faculty Research program in the Social Sciences, humanities, and education. each of these initiatives offers a limited number of small awards ranging from $ 5,000-$50,000 annually, but because of limited resources only a small number of faculty can be supported annually. during the past two to three years, the Mordecai Wyatt Johnson awards program has been dormant and the funds have been unofficially transferred into the new faculty Research Start-up fund, in order to provide greater research incentives for new hires. the

lack of start-up and other intramural research funding is a serious impediment and disincen-tive for faculty research productivity.

Undergraduate Research

undergraduate research is a valuable and integral component of the undergraduate aca-demic experience at howard. undergraduate students in several departments are heavily involved in research activities even though most of these activities are not extramurally funded. Some support for undergraduate research is funded from federal grants, and some departments and schools designate small allocations for undergraduate research. in some cases, faculty members reportedly support undergraduate research with their personal funds. unfunded student research activities are located prominently in humani-ties, social sciences, and fine arts programs in the College of arts and Sciences, though they are common throughout the other schools and colleges.

the recently established program in undergraduate Research (puR) is a valu-able component of the undergraduate aca-demic experience at howard. Sponsored by the office of the provost, this initiative was established in the fall of 2005 and recog-nizes not only the overall benefit of engag-ing the entire campus in higher order think-ing activities, but also has the advantage of preparing highly competitive undergradu-ate students to become successful graduate students.

Figure 18.3: Total Award Amount from NIH' and NSF², FY 1999-2008Source: ¹National Institutes of Health-awards include funds for fellowships, training grants, research grants, and research and development contracts. ²National Science Foundation-awards include funds for research support, education and human resources, and major research equipment.

Howard University Total Award Amount from NIH' and NSF², FY 1999-2008

1618

34

17

24 27 24 2823 2222

2528

3436

40 4035

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NIH (total) NSF (Federal Financed)

Mill

ions

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 141

Research

the quintessential activity of the office for undergraduate Research is the annual under-graduate research symposium, Posters on the Hilltop. Modest awards are distributed for most outstanding presentations. the office of undergraduate Research, through a few external funding mechanisms, also provides travel awards to national and regional confer-ences for howard university undergraduates who have participated in original research. other activities provided by this office include workshops on developing powerpoint poster presentations and providing large for-mat poster printing services—at no cost to the student.

in addition to Posters on the Hilltop, the College of arts and Sciences is host-ing for the fourth year the Symposium on Undergraduate Research. this two-day event gives undergraduate students in the College’s four divisions—fine arts, humanities, natural Sciences, and Social Sciences – an opportunity to present their research findings through poster and oral presentations.

it is noteworthy to mention that among the howard undergraduate students who participated in the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (nCuR), 28 and 29 of the participating students’ essays were accepted for publication, respectively, in the faculty refereed nCuR Journal for 2008 and 2009, respectively. the university has been the most published academic institu-tion in the journal for two years in a row (see Supporting document 18.1). the university currently houses several funded extramu-ral undergraduate programs, which provide tuition and stipends to undergraduate stu-dents. highlighted below are some of the undergraduate research programs:

n nSf-howard university Science, engineering and Mathematics program (huSeM) is a multidisciplinary pro-gram involving nine departments in the College of engineering, architecture, and Computer Sciences and the College of arts and Sciences.

n nSf-Washington/Baltimore/hampton Roads louis Stokes alliance for Minority participation (lS-aMp) focuses on seek-ing to increase the number of underrep-resented minorities who choose careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

n nSf-undergraduate Mentoring in environmental Biology provides stipends and research support to early undergradu-ate biology majors to encourage more participation in careers in environmental biology.

n nSf-howard university undergraduate Social, Behavioral and economic Sciences (SBeS) awards promotes and expands experiential learning opportuni-ties for undergraduate students in these disciplines at howard and prepares under-graduate students for successful applica-tion and admission into ph.d. programs in the SBeS disciplines.

n the MaRC-huRt behavioral program in psychology has received continuous nih funding for 26 years and represents a most distinguished undergraduate research pro-gram.

n the howard hughes Medical Research Scholars program is in its second year and focuses on the early introduction of fresh-man and sophomore students to research and training at off-campus research-intensive universities during the summer. a senior in the howard hughes program was one of five recipients nationwide of the prestigious Gilliam fellowship for advanced Study ($250,000 over 4years) to pursue graduate study at any university in the world—a first for howard.

n the former MBRS, now Support for Continuous Research and excellence (SCoRe), program has historically pro-vided more research training for under-graduates than any other program at the university.

n the former fogarty Minority international Research program (MiRt), now Minority health international Research training program in health disparities (MhiRt), has provided global research opportunities studying tropical and infectious diseases for students from howard and universities throughout the world.

additionally, several undergraduate sum-mer programs are in existence, which pre-pare students for graduate school, namely:

n Mcnair program offers undergraduate students an opportunity to participate in a 6-week summer research program.

n the howard university amgen Scholars program (huSap) offers students

142 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

enrolled in four-year colleges and uni-versities throughout the united States, puerto Rico and other u.S. territories, the chance to participate in a science and bio-technology summer program at howard university.

n howard university noaa Center for atmospheric Sciences (nCaS) offers an 8-week summer research internships to outstanding students who are motivated for future graduate study in the physical sciences, mathematics, or engineering.

n leadership alliance, an academic consor-tium of 33 institutions of higher learning including leading research universities and minority serving institutions, develops underrepresented students into outstanding leaders and role models in academia, busi-ness and the public sector, with an empha-sis on providing them with an intensive summer research experience as a mecha-nism to prepare them for future graduate and professional school enrollment.

an initial Strengths, Weaknesses, oppor-tunities, and threats (SWot) analysis, exam-ining the feasibility of a campus-wide puR, revealed the following strengths: access to a cadre of talented, underrepresented minor-ity students; a university-wide commitment to research excellence; a plethora of exter-nally-funded training programs that featured undergraduate research; and an administra-tive commitment to developing an all-inclu-sive program in undergraduate research for the campus. Weaknesses of particular concern included a high mentee to mentor ratio and a paucity of financial and technical support and incentives for faculty mentors.

Graduate Research

in 2008, howard celebrated its 50th year of doctoral production. through its 29 ph.d. pro-grams, howard continues to be the largest on-campus producer of african-american ph.d. recipients in the united States. the university has a stated goal of developing a culture of research that has its underpinning in (a) one-on-one mentoring by committed and funded faculty, (b) partnerships with research inten-sive universities nationwide and institutions in the Washington metropolitan area, and (c) opportunities to participate in research work-shops and interact with distinguished seminar speakers from universities and industry. the

university encourages global research experi-ences that enhance the cultural and academic growth of students. in addition, howard pro-motes the early introduction of students to research and the integration of research into interdisciplinary programs.

in addition to the laboratory and major research centers throughout the university, graduate and professional students are involved in research as an integral part of their academic experience. through several federally funded training programs, a number of graduate students are actively engaged in research in many fields. one such program is the alliance for Graduate education and the professoriate (aGep) in which howard has joined with the university of texas–el paso (utep) to form a unique partnership committed to increasing underrepresented, minority doctoral students in SteM fields. With a $2.5 million grant from the national Science foundation, the partnership rep-resents the first major endeavor in gradu-ate education to join a Research-extensive historically Black College and university (hBCu) with a Research-intensive hispanic Serving institution (hSi) to address the severe underrepresentation of african-americans and hispanics in SteM doctoral education. the combined strengths of the two institutions are a particular advantage of the partnership. this alliance expands the range of doctoral disciplines offered by howard’s aGep program to include the SteM disciplines of computer engineering, environmental science and engineering, and geological sciences offered at utep.

the howard university atmospheric Sciences Cooperative Science Center (CSC) was established to study some of the critical national and global environmental issues. the university was one of four Minority Serving institutions (MSis) awarded a combined grant of $15 million by the u.S. department of Commerce in 2001. in 2006, howard was awarded an additional $12.5 million by the u.S. department of Commerce to continue its research and training efforts. the noaa Center for atmospheric Sciences (nCaS) consortium consists of: Jackson State university, the university of texas at el paso, the university of puerto Rico at Mayaguez, the university of illinois at urbana-Champaign, and the State university of new york at

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 143

Research

albany. atmospheric Sciences is a relatively new and growing program. enrollment in the ph.d. program has increased from 2 in 1999 to 20 in 2009; Master’s level enrollment has decreased since 2000, reflecting an emphasis on the ph.d. program. Student/faculty ratios approach 3.5:1. Since the inception of the program, 10 students have graduated from the program. the seven-year graduation rate for ph.d. students of approximately 50% is typical for the department. Currently, the pro-gram has 20 graduate students who are fully funded through extramural funds.

despite recent increases, stipend levels for graduate students at howard remain non-competitive. While Johns hopkins university, harvard university, and the university of Maryland, College park, for example, pro-vide tuition and graduate stipend support from $25,000−$35,000, howard provides graduate stipends of $16,000−$18,000, with a limited number of stipend/tuition pack-ages in the $30,000-$35,000 range. the low stipend level places serious hardships on graduate students living in the high cost Washington metropolitan area.

Research InfrastructureReorganization of Research Administration

during the last decade, research adminis-tration at the university has undergone two major restructurings. in 2003, the university reorganized the responsibilities for research administration and created the office of the vice provost for Research. Graduate School dean orlando l. taylor, ph.d. was appointed as the vice provost for Research to provide oversight and coordinate all aspects of uni-versity research policies, priorities, and administration. these responsibilities resided under this office until 2006 when the second restructuring commenced.

Responding to the national Science foundation (nSf) audit report of 2006, the university improved internal controls over management of nSf funds. in June 2006, the university’s Board of trustees approved a new cabinet level position of vice president for Research and Compliance (vpRC) and a new organizational structure for extramural research administration. the vpRC works with the provost, who retains primary respon-

sibility for research overall. the creation of this position provides the university with a single cabinet-level executive having full accountability for the university’s research administrative infrastructure. the establish-ment of this cabinet-level position represents the university’s commitment to promot-ing and fostering research activities for the university community while maintaining compliance with federal, state, local, and university regulations governing research.

in the structure approved by president Swygert in 2006, the vpRC has two direct reports—associate vice president for Research Compliance and associate vice president for Sponsored programs. the associate vice president for Research Compliance oversees the new Research Compliance office, consisting of admin-istrative support for institutional commit-tees such as the institutional Review Board (iRB), the institutional Biosafety Committee (iBC), and the institutional animal Care and use Committee (iaCuC). the associate vice president for Sponsored programs oversees the following units: (1) Research administration, responsible for all extra-mural pre-award and non-financial post-award functions; (2) post award Services, responsible for facilitating travel transac-tions, human resources, and purchasing in relation to research and sponsored programs; and (3) Research education and technical assistance, a new office at howard, which provides training and technical expertise to the research community (abolished June 30, 2009). it is important to note that this new structure approved by the president, called for Grants and Contracts accounting (a fourth department), which was to encompass Restricted fund accounting—to be estab-lished not under the office of Sponsored programs, but to remain under the office of the Controller. the university is considering the merits of moving the functions of Grants and Contracts accounting to Sponsored programs.

the streamlining of the functions was intended to move the university forward in its research enterprise and to realize greater efficiencies. While this was an important action, there are still many details in the structure below the vpRC position that need to be more fully developed to create the

144 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

robust infrastructure needed to support the university’s current and projected volume of research activity.

in early 2006, former president Swygert appointed don Coleman, ph.d. as the interim vice president for Research and Compliance. the university engaged a consulting firm to assist with the implementation of the new organizational model for research. the con-sultant team also assisted with the develop-ment and implementation of new policies and procedures for sponsored programs. from dr. Coleman’s effective appointment date through the end of fiscal year 2006–2007, dr. Coleman led implementation of the new research and compliance structure and vet-ted 37 new policies to govern all aspects of extramural research administration, which are available at http://ovprc.howard.edu/. two off-campus retreats involving over 500 faculty and staff were conducted during the summer of 2006 to lay a comprehensive foundation for compliance. Speakers at the retreats covered the university’s strategic intent and addressed all phases in the “life cycle” of a sponsored award. dr. Coleman’s tenure ended after the appointment of oliver G. McGee, ph.d. as the university’s first permanent vice president for Research and Compliance on July 1, 2007. dr. McGee resigned his position after serving for one academic year, and florence B. Bonner, ph.d. associate vice president for Compliance, was appointed acting vice president for Research and Compliance in august 2008.

Facilities to Support Research

Research infrastructural excellence is apparent at several university sites. excep-tional standards are found in the Materials Science Research Center of excellence ($1 million per year), the CReSt nanotechnol-ogy labs ($1 million per year), and the high energy electrical engineering labs ($500,000 per year) in the College of engineering, archi-tecture, and Computer Science. underpinning these labs is a constant source of extramural and intramural funding. in these facilities “clean” labs, high-tech instrumentation and service maintenance contracts support state-of-the-art research infrastructure comparable to any Ru/h university nationally.

the Special neurosciences Research program (SnRp) (physiology department) and the howard hughes Collaborative Core lab (Biology) represent the only two man-aged Collaborative Core units (CCus). these facilities provide instrumentation not available in stand-alone research labs and in these high tech equipment is manned and managed by specially trained technicians. CCus enhance collaboration between faculty and students, allow quality control of research output, and provide hands-on training activities for under-graduate and graduate students. also CCus are expensive and costs must be met jointly by faculty extramural research grants and the university’s own funds. Several millions were spent in 2005−2007 to upgrade instruc-tional laboratories in the biology, chemistry, and physics departments. upgrades included the replacement of lab tables and benches, and installation of a sprinkler system, and a self-controlled heating/aC system. the reno-vated facilities are adequate for instructional purposes, but are largely inadequate for state-of-the-art SteM research. While science research laboratories and facilities generally are in need of major renovation or replace-ment, the situation is equally severe in build-ings housing the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Many of the buildings housing the SteM disciplines are more than 60 years old and are not suitable for today’s cutting-edge research. high-tech instrumentation is not on par with leading research universities. the university is planning its capital budget to begin to address these kinds of infrastructure issues.

Research Centers and Institutes

a wide array of centers and institutes engage faculty and students across the university in research. additionally, academic departments sponsor numerous other research labs and programs to advance the university’s research mission. table 18.3 provides examples of some of the research centers currently in operation.

Institutional Support for Research Office of Sponsored Programs

the office of Sponsored programs (oSp), under the auspices of the office of the vice president for Research and Compliance,

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 145

Research

encompasses the departments of Research administration (Ra), Research education & technical assistance (Reta), and the post award Services unit (paSu). the Research education & technical assistance depart-ment was abolished in June of 2009. oSp provides both pre- and post-award non-finan-cial administrative as well as training services for sponsored research to the university com-munity.

Research Administration

it is recognized that research projects and other sponsored programs are crucial for the success of academic disciplines while through research the university extends the frontiers of knowledge in all disciplines. additionally, extramural funding is a potential source of significant revenue for the university. the office of Sponsored programs/Research administration (oSp-Ra) provides essen-tial support that enables the university and its individual researchers to manage the con-duct of research at the university. the main purpose of oSp-Ra is to assist faculty in obtaining extramural funds, provide them administrative assistance in the pre-award and post-award stages of the grant process.

Research Education and Technical Assistance

the office of Research education and technical assistance (Reta) established in october 2006, under the auspices of the office of Sponsored programs, was charged with assessing and addressing the education and information needs of central office staff, principal investigators, project directors, departmental personnel, and others in the university’s research community who are involved with sponsored programs activities. this office was abolished June 30, 2009, and the responsibilities were restructured into the Research Compliance office.

the office of Sponsored programs/Reta developed and implemented the Sponsored Research internal Certification program, entitled Research education and Compliance training (ReaCt), which covered the life-cycle of an award; created education resources and materials for both internal and external awards; and conducted education sessions, seminars, and workshops for the research community. in Spring 2007, classroom cer-

tification sessions was provided in face-to-face format, while in Spring 2008 the certification program was made available both in classroom format and via Blackboard. the classroom ses-sions were discontinued in august 2008 and training remained available through Blackboard until december 2008. table 18.4 presents the total number of faculty and staff who partici-pated in seminars, workshops, and the certifica-tion program conducted by oSp/Reta during the period January 2007-august 2008.

to disseminate information to the research community regarding funding opportunities, certification classes, workshops, and semi-nars, the following media proved successful: oSp/Reta list-serv, hu Communications, interdepartmental/Campus mail, and email mes-sages from the provost‘s office.

Post Award Services Unit

post award Services is responsible for moni-toring post-award expenditures, sub-recipient monitoring, and facilitating human Resource transactions as they relate to sponsored awards.

Research Compliance Office

the Research Compliance office (RCo), a division of the office of the vice president for Research and Compliance is responsible for maintaining regulatory compliance for the university. the RCo ensures compliance with sponsored research and training programs. this includes compliance with the a-21 and a-133 circulars, as well as internal and external audits of sponsored research. the following regulatory committees operate under RCo:

n the institutional Review Board (iRB) for research involving human participants;

146 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

Table 18.3: Examples of Research Centers

Centers/Programs Purpose Location

African American Hereditary Prostate Cancer (AAHPC) Study Network

The AAHPC is a linkage study of hereditary prostate cancer. The aim is to enroll 100 families with prostate cancer in which at least four men are affected in each family and there are four other (unaffected) relatives are available for the study. DNA from these families will be studied to determine if there is linkage to a known hereditary prostate cancer locus on chromosome 1 or other locations.

Howard University Cancer Center

Atmospheric Sciences Cooperative Science Center

The Howard University Atmospheric Sciences Cooperative Science Center (CSC) was established to research some of the critical environmental conditions occurring nationally and globally. The Center has developed a primary research theme: “Improving our Understanding of Climate Variability and Weather Prediction through Integrated Observations, Models and Data Analyses.” Underneath this theme the Center defines core activities that largely demonstrate integrated efforts involving multiple partner institutions in the areas of observations, modeling, and data analysis.

Beltsville Research Campus

Cancer Center

The mission of the Howard University Cancer Center (HUCC) is to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in the local and underserved community, primarily African-Americans, and to have a positive impact on malignant diseases in the population. Several projects underpin the research objectives of the HUCC.

Howard University Hospital

Center for Drug and Alcohol Research

The Center for Drug and Alcohol Research strives to increase the participation of Howard University faculty and students in drug abuse research. The Family Life Center uses Howard University students to serve as volunteer-mentors for elementary school students who are at risk of being perpetrators or victims of antisocial behaviors. Their goal is to enhance the social skills and the academic abilities of these students through the implementation of Youth Empowerment Program components.

Howard University College of Medicine

Center for Drug Abuse Research

The Center for Drug Abuse Research was established to increase the involvement of HBCUs in federally supported research and other programs of high priority in the federal government. CDAR strives to increase the participation of faculty and students in drug abuse research at Howard University and at the Region 1 HBCUs. In addition to faculty investigators, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, graduate research assistants, and administrators staff CDAR.

Howard University College of Medicine

Center for Urban Progress

The Center for Urban Progress (CUP) is an interdisciplinary center comprised of faculty, staff, and students that mobilizes the Howard University community to address urban crises—locally, nationally, and globally—through the development of academic programs and community leadership training.

Howard University College of Arts & Sciences

Launched in 1995, the Center’s goal is to advance the urban research and community development agenda of Howard University. The Center leads University efforts to install a community development content in the curriculum, directs several urban research activities, operates five community service programs, directs several other funded projects, publishes a formal working paper series for community development research, provides technical support to Washington, D.C. government organizations, and collaborates extensively with other units of the University in achieving its mission.

Howard University Department of Economics

E. Franklin Frazier Center for Social Work Research

The Frazier Center for Social Work Research fosters collaborative research projects with community agencies such as the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Health and Human Services. Past research has spanned multiple disciplines, from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to violence prevention and its effect on the cost of public health care. The Center also supports leadership training for young women, assists homeless families with children in need of shelter in the Washington D.C. area, and studies the resettlement of Afghan refugee families in Afghanistan. Through its emphasis on excellence in inquiry, the Center promotes theory building, prevention, treatment, and policy research, as well as program evaluation.

Howard University School of Social Work

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 147

Research

Centers/Programs Purpose Location

Michigan/Howard University AT&T Collaborative Access Team

The University of Michigan and Howard University along with Lucent Technologies have formed a collaborative access team. Its goal is to develop a sector for real-time X-ray studies at Argonne National laboratory’s Advanced Photon Source. This theme encompasses a range of topics that lend themselves well to the unique characteristics of high brilliance, high transverse-coherence, and favorable timing structures in single bunch mode. It is envisioned that the sector developing into an international gathering point for scientists and engineers with strong interests in time-resolved structural studies.

Mid-Atlantic AIDS Education and Training Center

MAAETC DCLPS at Howard University was established to provide HIV/AIDS-related training in the Washington, D.C. area. MAAETC DCLPS is a part of a multistate consortium of academic institutions and health care agencies. This consortium is one of fifteen AIDS Education and Training Centers (ETCs) established through a cooperative agreement program of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Public Health Services, Department of Health and Human Services. Howard University

College of Medicine

MAAETC DCLPS is responsible for providing multi disciplinary HIV/AIDS education programs for targeted health care providers in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas. The MAAETC DCLPS is also working closely with metropolitan area hospitals, clinics, public health agencies, and local HIV/AIDS organizations to provide a variety of educational opportunities.

Moorland-Spingarn Research Center

The Moorland-Spingarn Research Center (MSR

Howard University Founder’s Library

Its collections include more than 175,000 bound volumes and tens of thousands of journals, periodicals, and newspapers; more than 17,000 feet of manuscript and archival collections; nearly 1000 audio tapes; hundreds of artifacts; 100,000 prints, photographs, maps, and other graphic items. Scholars, museums, students, and other researchers from Howard University and throughout the world use the collections. Information provided by the MSRC is regularly used in exhibitions, video productions, news programming, and a wide range of publications. For the arts, humanities and social sciences, Moorland-Spingarn is a most valuable resource for research and analyses in these fields.

Nanotechnology and Nanoscience

The Nanotechnology and nanoscience programs probe novel molecular building blocs for nanoscience, examine electrical field dependence of quantum efficiencies of silicon composites in the infrared at room temperature, cancer therapies based on surface modified magnetic nanoparticles and degradable stealth polymeric nanoparticles for the fabrication of targetable drug delivery systems, among other systems.

Howard University Materials Science Research Center of Excellence; CREST Nanotechnology Labs; and the High Energy Electrical Engineering Labs in the School of Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Science.

National Human Genome Center

The National Human Genome Center at Howard University is a comprehensive resource for genomic research on African Americans and other African Diaspora populations, distinguished by a diverse social context for framing biology as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of knowledge gained from the human genome project and research on genome variation. The vision for the NHGC is founded upon Howard University’s history of providing leadership for America and the global community in the critical areas of education, health, and social justice.

Howard University Cancer Center

Specialized Neuroscience Research Program

The Specialized Neuroscience Research Program focuses on cutting-edge research dealing with the cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for aging, Alzheimer’s disease, and neurorespiratory problems. This interdisciplinary program has helped to enhance the quality and quantity of research, the interdisciplinary collaboration between faculty and students, and training of graduate students in this field at Howard.

Howard University College of Medicine

148 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

Table 18.4: Participants in the Seminars, Workshops, and Certification Program

ItemsTotal # of

Faculty or PIsTotal # of Staff

or Other

Total # Sessions Conducted 53 41

Total # Session Registrants 220 226

Total # Session Attendees 283 294

# React Modules Conducted 18 19

# React Module Registrants 36 79

# React Module Attendees 96 166

# Exams Passed 43 84

# Certifications Completed 4 16

# Seminars or Workshops Conducted 35 22

# Seminar or Workshop Registrants 184 147

# Seminar or Workshop Attendees 187 128

Source: Office of Sponsored Programs/Research Education and Technical Assistance

n the institutional animal Care and use Committee (iaCuC) for research involv-ing vertebrate animals; and

n the institutional BioSafety Committee (iBC) for research involving hazardous materials, select agents or recombinant dna.

University Regulatory Committees

howard is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants and to complying with federal and local regu-lations governing human participant research. the university’s iRB reviews and approves all research protocols involving use of human participants or analysis of data gathered from humans. engaging in research activity involv-ing human participants without prior approval may result in disciplinary action up to and including the termination of research privileges and/or academic appointment.

howard demands the highest standards of humane care in the use of laboratory ani-mals and assures compliance with federal and local regulations and accreditation guidelines. animals may not be used in research, testing, or teaching without prior approval from the iaCuC. the university animal Care facilities are monitored regularly by a licensed veteri-narian who, jointly with the iaCuC, deter-mines that all vertebrate animals are main-

tained under humane conditions. the howard iaCuC has maintained continuous accredi-tation by the association for assessment. if necessary, investigators contemplating the use of laboratory animals in research, test-ing, or teaching must undergo prerequisite training and acquire a copy of the iaCuC Information and Guidelines for Investigators Using Animals in Research or Teaching from the animal Care office.

it is university policy to comply with all federal and local regulations, and howard’s nuclear Regulatory Commission (nRC) approved license when ordering, receiving, storing, handling, transferring, or disposing of any radioactive material (RaM). any activ-ity involving RaM must comply with nRC regulations, the authorized user’s guide, and the university’s policy. all investigators using radioactive materials in their research must enroll in a Radiation Safety course that is taught biannually.

Office of the Controller

the office of the Controller provides an accounting of all university transactions and ensures timely and accurate payments to employees and vendors as well as performs financial reporting, to include consolidation of hospital financial results.

Restricted Fund Accounting

Restricted fund accounting (Rfa) is located within the Controller’s office. it is primar-ily responsible for the financial management of sponsored project funds. Responsibilities include controlling, processing, accounting, preparing and filing financial reports, billing for awards, and coordinating the annual a-133 audit. Rfa also establishes and administers financial policies and procedures that will ensure compliance with government regula-tions. additionally, Rfa prepares, submits, and negotiates the university’s facilities and administrative (indirect cost) and fringe ben-efit rates with the federal government.

Restricted fund accounting office reviews restricted funds on a monthly basis for actual to budget comparisons, for grants expiring or being extended, for the drawdown of govern-ment funding under letters of Credit, and the collection of payments on behalf of the research community to ensure receipt of payments. the Rfa staff is organized into teams assigned

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 149

Research

Table 18.5: Peer and Aspirational Peer Universities

No. University Research Classification

1 Case Western Reserve University RU/VH

2 Emory University RU/H

3 George Washington University RU/H

4 Georgetown University RU/H

5 St. Louis University RU/H

6 Tufts University RU/H

7 Tulane University RU/VH

8 Vanderbilt University RU/VH

9 University of Miami RU/H

10 Washington University of St. Louis RU/VH

to support specific schools and departments. the teams work closely with the appropriate Research administrators to improve service to principal investigators, faculty, and extramural research administration staff. each accountant is responsible for the financial management of assigned awards as they move through the grant’s life cycle, for managing work load, for complying with requirements, and for meet-ing the specific financial reporting terms of the agreement. the supervisory and manage-ment authority for Rfa is not currently within the office of the vice president for Research and Compliance. however, the university is reviewing the merits of moving supervisory authority from the Controller’s office to better serve faculty conducting extramural research.

Materials Management – Purchasing

the university operates a central purchasing activity which procures all materials and services to include certain professional ser-vices for the university. the responsibilities and authorities of the Materials Management department (MMd) are defined in a manual that sets forth purchasing policies and prac-tices to be followed by all university depart-ments. like Rfa, supervisory and manage-ment authority for the MMd is not currently found within the office of the vice president for Research and Compliance. the university is also reviewing the merits of moving super-visory authority for the MMd to better serve research faculty.

Publications during the 2007-2008 academic year, fac-

ulty and mentored students have demonstrated productivity and remarkable creativity in the advancement of new knowledge. evidence of research productivity is provided by the signif-icant number of publications in refereed jour-nals in the natural and social sciences, arts, and humanities. faculty publications are discussed in Chapter 13 - faculty.

Comparison with Peer and “Aspirational” Universities

Subsequent to a critical review and assess-ment of the research program at howard university, an evaluation was conducted to examine howard’s programs relative to peer and “aspirational” institutions. table 18.5

shows the 10 peer and aspirational universities utilized for comparison with howard.

howard university has consistently gen-erated $20-$40 million annually in federal research funding. this performance places howard, along with St louis university in the lowest tier among the peer and aspira-tional peer universities. the predominant faculty perception is that howard’s adminis-tration is not cognizant of the requirements for state-of-the-art research and consequently does little to facilitate or enhance grant writ-ing. however, the administration has, in fact, made significant allocations in the fy 2010 budget to address these issues. for example, the fy 2010 budget includes targeted profes-sorships, enhanced research funding in aca-demic affairs and health sciences, enhanced funding for research laboratories, and enhanced funding for research equipment.

Assessment of the Research Enterprise

until 2006, the university held the Carnegie foundation’s designation as a “doctoral/Research university-extensive,” 1 of only 151 such universities in the nation and the only historically Black university so designated in the top tier. today, howard is classified as a “Ru/h: Research university (high Research activity),” 1 of 103 universities so designated and 1 of 4 historically Black universities in this tier, which represents a decline from the first to the second tier of research universities. this present designation was based on data from 2003-2004.

150 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

Table 18.6: Federally Financed R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, Ranked by Expenditures FY 1999-2007 – Dollars in millions

Rank Institution 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

18 Wash Univ. 219 254 285 303 357 371 401 408 424

36 Vanderbilt 117 130 146 173 222 262 282 300 312

37 Emory 133 145 170 186 228 243 267 268 271

41 Case 140 151 159 182 205 196 212 307 305

81 U Miami 102 107 112 121 131 143 156 150 148

110 Tulane 51 52 56 65 82 88 95 84 98

113 Georgetown 84 99 94 75 88 96 100 92 102

114 Tufts 63 65 72 73 79 93 98 96 91

116 GWU 50 50 52 59 69 78 79 75 88

164 St Louis U 24 26 28 41 37 37 45 45 48

186 Howard 22 25 28 34 36 40 40 35 34

Note: Rank based on All R&D expenditures in 2007. Source: National Science Foundation

howard has undertaken various initiatives over recent years to enhance its research enter-prise. a variable pay program for extramurally funded researchers was instituted recently as one element of a compensation plan to encour-age faculty to seek extramural funding (see Chapter 13—faculty for discussion on vari-able salary).

in 2003, the office of the vice provost for Research, as described earlier in this chapter, was established to oversee and coordinate the various dimensions of university research pol-icy, priorities, and administration, which then included only pre- and post-award non-finan-cial administration. the university recognizes the inextricable relationship between research and graduate education. Responsibility for extramural research administration and gradu-ate education thus was situated under the lead-ership of the office of the vice provost for Research. the vice provost for Research also served as dean of the Graduate School. under this structure, actions were taken to minimize or eliminate administrative barriers in process-ing research applications and post-award fund-ing drawing input from an informal 13-person faculty Research advisory Council.

as previously mentioned in this discussion, the audit initiated by nSf in 2005 concluded that the university needed to do more to estab-lish and maintain a system of sound internal controls to manage, account for, and monitor

grant funds in accordance with federal and agency grant requirements. hence, the Board of trustees approved the aforementioned new organizational structure for administering the research enterprise, which not only includes the pre-award office but all post-award func-tions. to date, the new organizational struc-ture has not been fully established because of remaining issues for resolution, including the complete integration of the post award Service unit and Grant and Contract accounting departments.

a recent examination of the university’s trends in extramural research productivity (i.e., number of proposals submitted, num-ber and dollar amounts of awards received) within schools/colleges revealed that only a few schools/colleges could be characterized accurately as actively involved in extramu-ral research and that most schools/colleges failed to meet their established extramural research targets. this finding may account, in part, for why the university failed to reach its established goal of $100 million in extra-mural research funding by 2007.

howard’s research activity, quality, and pro-ductivity qualify it for designation as a Ru/h university. however, continuing challenges in its research infrastructure and administra-tion have no doubt contributed to the lack of robustness of faculty and unit efforts in apply-ing for and obtaining extramural funds to

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 151

Research

Table 18.7: Impediments to the Conduct of Sponsored Programs

Reason Number Percent

Getting the paperwork through the system 138 78.0%

Obtaining the appropriate signatures 117 65.7%

Purchasing equipment and supplies 117 64.2%

Space to conduct research 100 56.5%

Monitoring the expenditures 89 50.9%

Hiring personnel to work on the project 87 49.7%

Paying personnel who worked on the project 116 66.7%

Bureaucracy 142 80.7%

Lack of administrative personnel in my department 124 71.7%

Submitting financial reports on time 66 37.9%

Submitting technical reports on time 62 36.3%

Getting my subcontract agreement executed 73 42.7%

Support from central offices 113 65.7%

Having to perform administrative duties 115 66.9%

Source: 2007 Facalty Research Survey

Table 18.8: Faculty Reasons for Not Applying for Research Awards

Reason Number Percent

Too many horror stories from current PIs 36 31.3%

Too many administrative duties 53 44.5%

Lack of financial incentives 48 41.7%

Lack of support from the University’s central offices 60 50.8%

Too time consuming 49 41.5%

Inadequate university facilities 57 50.9%

Source: 2007 Facalty Research Survey

support research activity. in the fall of 2007, the office of Sponsored programs/Research education and technical assistance con-ducted two surveys (faculty Research Survey and a Research needs assessment Survey) to identify the issues that affect faculty research productivity, gain a better understanding of the immediate needs of the research com-munity, and design more customer-oriented services and solutions.

Results obtained from 230 faculty mem-bers responding to the 2007 faculty Research Survey showed that 17.20% of faculty indi-cated that their interests lie “very heavily in research;” while 45.8% indicated that their interests lie in both teaching and research, “but leaning towards research.” although taken together this suggests a high level of faculty interest in research, faculty members also identified the challenges that impede their research productivity. Most faculty (79.7%) reported that their departments did not grant release time to prepare proposals for externally funded projects, although over half (53.7%) of faculty surveyed reported this as a very important activity for grant seeking (see Supporting document 18.2).

in addition, faculty expressed high lev-els of dissatisfaction with several central administration units in managing funded research projects in fy 2007: these units included accounts payable (36.7%); employment (29.0%); human Resources (27.9%); Material Management department (31.3%); payroll (38.6%); physical facilities Management (42.3%); Restricted fund accounting (34.6%); office of the Controller (30.9%); and purchasing (34.0%). Specifically, the faculty reported several internal barriers to the conduct of sponsored programs. table 18.7 lists the reasons identi-fied by faculty as internal impediments.

faculty who did not apply for external funds noted several reasons for not applying for external funds (table 18.8).

Summary, Findings and Recommendations

Research is a major commitment and com-ponent of howard. funded from a variety of extramural and internal sources, research by the university’s faculty and its undergraduate and graduate students are a critical attribute

152 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 18

in howard’s quest for elevation into the top ranks of the nation’s research universities.

the university continues to have an active sponsored research portfolio, with its high-est extramural support coming primarily from the department of health and human Services (hhS), including the national institutes of health (nih) and the national Science foundation (nSf). at the same time, the robustness of the sponsored research port-folio lags significantly behind those peer and aspirational research universities that also have medical and engineering schools, and universities with the full array of SteM disci-plines, such as howard. to increase its spon-sored research portfolio, a key component of any research university’s reputation, howard will have to significantly enhance its research infrastructure and improve administrative and financial support of faculty research, as well as graduate assistantship stipends. the university is now devoting increased and focused attention to these matters.

Based on extramural support, primarily from nih and nSf, the university presently is classified by the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching as a Research university with high Research activity (Ru/h), the second highest research classifi-cation. our examination found that the trend over the last four years was a decrease in pro-posals and dollars though this now appears to have been reversed. a variable pay program for extramurally funded researchers was insti-tuted recently as one element of the plan to encourage faculty extramural funding activ-ity. Support for extramural research at the university is a high priority within the aca-demic portfolio assessment initiative and the new Budget advisory Committee process.

during the last decade, extramural research administration at the university has been reorganized twice. in 2003, the university reorganized the responsibilities for extramu-ral research administration and created the office of the vice provost for Research. in June 2006, the Board of trustees approved a new cabinet-level position of vice president for Research and Compliance (vpRC) and a new organizational structure for extramu-ral research administration. the following major findings and recommendations for improvement emerged from the review of this area of special emphasis for howard:

Findings

1. there are insufficient funds for new faculty startups, particularly in the natu-ral sciences, and for the internal support of research for continuing faculty, gradu-ate student stipends, and undergraduate research.

2. the office of Sponsored programs/Research administration (oSp/Ra) does not have sufficient resources, inclusive of staff, to meet the needs and expectations of faculty members who are engaged in spon-sored research.

3. despite recent improvements and administrative reorganization in research administration, a significant percentage of faculty researchers report continued chal-lenges in conducting sponsored research, particularly with respect to issues associated with accounting, personnel, and materials management.

4. there has been insufficient investment in technological and physical infrastructure to support research.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. provide increased internal support for new faculty startups, particularly in the natural sciences and for investigators who wish to develop interdisciplinary research.

2. increase internal support for under-graduate research, graduate student sti-pends, and for postdoctoral appointments.

3. Reconsider the desirability of placing all sponsored research administration func-tions, including accounting, personnel, and purchasing, under a single, seamless administrative unit, the ovpRC.

4. provide the necessary resources to enhance a customer responsive climate within the office of Sponsored programs that meets the needs and expectations of faculty members who are engaged in spon-sored research.

5. provide sufficient resources to enhance university-wide technological and physical infrastructure to support research.

Supporting Documents18.1 Summary of the National Conference

on Undergraduate Research 18.2 2007 Faculty Research Survey

Summary

Conclusion 19

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 153

Conclusion19

this Self-Study has provided a can-did look at the progress made by the university over the past ten years, where the institution stands today, and more importantly, where new journeys and pathways can and will lead in the future. it has also provided major findings and recommendations for enhancing institu-tional and educational effectiveness.

the Self-Study reveals that howard is in compliance with the Characteristics of excellence as defined by the Middle States association of Schools and Colleges and is eligible, therefore, for reaffirmation of its accreditation. the Self-Study has revealed further that the university has made considerable prog-ress in addressing the issues raised in the 1999 MSChe reaffirmation of accredi-tation and the concerns raised in the 2004 periodic Review Report (pRR). at the same time, the university, like virtually all other similar institutions in the united States, faces significant challenges, many of which are associ-ated with rising costs in the midst of the current domestic and global economic downturn which has affected virtually all aspects of its operations, including faculty/staff salaries, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the academic/research infrastructure. despite this, the university is poised to pursue aggres-sively its aspiration to climb system-atically into the top echelon of research universities in the united States.

Somewhat independent of a focused attention on fiscal issues, the Self-Study was conducted at the same time that the Board of trustees and the university’s leadership was engaged in a review of the quality, breadth, and depth of howard’s academic programs with an eye toward streamlining those offer-ings, enhancing quality and determin-ing niche areas where the university can assume national and international stature

in teaching and research. it recognizes the need to launch new academic initiatives as an element of its continuing academic port-folio assessment.

the Self-Study sought to address several issues attendant to the MSChe standards with the goal being to enhance the quality of its administrative functions and especially its academic and research programs. Some of these issues were: does the university’s existing mission statement accurately reflect who we are? does the existing vision state-ment accurately capture our aspirations? how does the university wish to be perceived in the external world and to the national aca-demic community? What kind of students do we want to attract in view of the institu-tion’s mission, vision, core values, and leg-acy? how can we institutionalize a culture of assessment in such a way as to consistently use outcome measures to improve programs leading to enhanced student learning and institutional effectiveness? the Self-Study process has contributed to the dialogue on these and many other such issues and will continue to do so in the future.

the Self-Study coincided in part with the search for and appointment of a new presi-dent to replace h. patrick Swygert, who presided over the institution during nine of the ten years since the last reaffirmation of accreditation. president Ribeau has sought to build upon howard’s history and legacy to advance the institution to even greater heights by focusing on student services and building an enhanced sense of community with all of the university’s constituent ele-ments, particularly the faculty. president Ribeau has ushered in a new era of trans-parency and participation by all segments of the university community on many issues, including the university’s budget, plans and performance. early signs suggest a strengthened collegial atmosphere within the community which can enable progres-sive change and help the university pursue its priorities.

154 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 19

the assessment of the institution, through the lens of the 14 MSChe Standards and the additional Research emphasis section, has provided a framework through which the university examined itself, confronted its assumptions and evaluated its plans for its future. the Self-Study helped the university focus on such critical areas as planning, resource allocation and institu-tional renewal; leadership and governance; institutional effectiveness; student services; and assessment of student learning and aca-demic offerings – all of which translate our mission and goals into meaningful realities for our students, faculty and the wider uni-versity community.

the university’s mission was refined and approved by the trustees to reflect its classification as a research university and its commitments to global learning and internationalization, interdisciplinarity and attracting both highly talented students and students with high potential for aca-demic achievement. it has also established a long-term enrollment management goal for restructuring its mix of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students to bring the mix in line with its peer and aspirant institutions. enhanced attention has been given to the university’s core curriculum for undergraduates. the university has begun to implement a comprehensive university-wide assessment plan. it established a cen-tralized office of institutional assessment and evaluation to lead and coordinate the university’s assessment agenda on student learning and institutional effectiveness, col-lecting and organizing data to inform deci-sion makers regarding institutional policies, budget plans, curriculum and teaching/learning strategies. these efforts will con-tinue to be a focus of the university in the years ahead.

the university has also significantly enhanced its research infrastructure and appointed a cabinet level officer to pro-vide oversight for the research enterprise with an eye toward significantly raising the university’s level of extramural funding for research. it has also stabilized its financial situation as reflected in its improved bond rating and the creation of a presidentially appointed Budget advisory Committee chaired by the provost and Chief academic

officer, building on the work done by the Blue Ribbon task force on long Range financial planning. the university’s new budget process is designed to assure that howard’s financial resources are properly aligned with its academic, research and ser-vice priorities.

in the midst of these advances, the university continues to respond to concerns raised by the university’s faculty Senate with respect to its role in university gov-ernance. president Ribeau has made sig-nificant efforts to reach out to the faculty Senate, as well as to the faculty across all the Schools and Colleges, in an effort to engage the faculty meaningfully and trans-parently in university decision-making. faculty Senate members are a part of the president’s newly formed Budget advisory Committee, and the Self-Study Steering and executive Committees. the president and provost meet regularly with faculty Senate leadership. there are positive signs that this effort and others will mitigate long standing tensions between the university’s adminis-tration and its faculty Senate.

Based on this current assessment, the institution faces a number of contemporary challenges, which include:

n increased expectations and require-ments for howard, like all institutions, to provide more documentation on stu-dent learning and institutional effective-ness through ongoing assessment, and to use these assessments systematically to guide program improvement.

n increased competition from traditionally White institutions (tWis) and hBCus for the best and brightest of african-american students—howard’s core con-stituency at the undergraduate, graduate and professional student levels.

n Graying of the professoriate which requires the development of succes-sion plans for the faculty—and the university’s leadership—to attract new individuals to sustain institutional core values and legacy, while bringing new ideas and perspectives to meet changing times and student needs.

n increasing tuition rates, partly linked to the university’s economic situation, to keep pace with the cost of education while simultaneously increasing need-

The University’s mission was refined

and approved by the Trustees to reflect its

classification as a research

university and its commitments

to global learning and

internationalization...

2009 Self-Study Report ❘ 155

Conclusion

based financial aid to meet the require-ments of talented students who are oth-erwise compromised in their ability to enroll and remain at the university.

n evolving priorities in research funding at the national level, thereby requiring a possible realignment of research and academic priorities in order to increase extramural support and indirect cost recovery.

the Self-Study process has resulted in a number of recommendations that are designed to advance the university’s mis-sion, legacy, core values and aspirations. in general, these recommendations will continue howard’s advancement into the upper echelon of american research univer-sities. they are also intended to strengthen the curriculum, increase extramural fund-ing, produce a more data-driven decision making paradigm, improve faculty life and strengthen the student experience at

howard. the major recommendations pro-mulgated herein include:

n Review and assess the impact of plan-ning, resource allocation and institu-tional renewal initiatives on a periodic basis.

n align the university’s resources and budget with academic priorities result-ing from program reviews and portfolio assessments and campus deliberations.

n Continue to intensify efforts to increase revenues from non-government sources to complement federal support.

n Revisit the provost and Chief academic officer/Senior vice president for health Sciences administrative model in con-sultation with the various university constituencies.

n Revise the 1993 faculty handbook to reflect current policies and processes.

n develop an explicit university-wide strategy, with supporting budgetary and

156 ❘ Howard University

Chapter 19

infrastructure priorities, to achieve the desired undergraduate to graduate/pro-fessional student mix.

n enhance access to a howard education by increasing need-based student finan-cial aid.

n implement the recommendations pro-mulgated by a recent task force on library Resources to improve the qual-ity of university libraries.

n provide support and expansion of the Students First Campaign to all depart-ments and student support functions at all levels, including space utilization.

n establish a dedicated faculty recruit-ment and retention fund to attract and retain additional nationally recognized scholars, and promote the development and retention of the university’s young and promising faculty.

n evaluate academic offerings and stream-line, modify or augment offerings in response to changing times with special emphasis on expanding interdisciplinary and experiential learning.

n appoint a body of faculty, students and staff to review the current Board-approved university-wide core compe-tencies and to recommend strategies to schools and colleges for revising, updat-ing and assessing curricula to implement the competencies.

n offer professional development and incentives to enhance faculty profi-ciency in utilizing new strategies and delivery systems in support of teaching and learning.

n appoint a university-wide task force to craft a coherent set of learning out-comes for all howard undergraduates and a methodology for assessment.

n provide sufficient resources to enhance university-wide technological and phys-ical infrastructure to support research.

howard university has been described by many as a national treasure and by others as being both unique and irreplaceable. at this stage in the history of the united States, howard certainly remains an important insti-tution for contributing to the national goal of fulfilling the american dream of full inclu-sion of all of its citizens into american life. howard today continues to be the nation’s largest producer of african-american ph.d.

recipients by a research university, as well as the largest producer of african-american undergraduates who go on to earn a ph.d. howard is among the nation’s leading pro-ducers of african americans in medicine, the fine and performing arts, law, dentistry and many other professions. in an era where the nation needs to replenish its workforce with new talent in order to remain a world leader, howard continues to be a major con-tributor to preparing a multicultural group of men and women for the nation’s work-force and the professions. in the global and increasingly interconnected world of today, howard’s strong international constituency of students, faculty and alumni, as well as its connectivity with many countries in the developing world, especially in africa and the Caribbean, positions it as a special place with respect to addressing national and international needs and goals.

finally, this Self-Study was conducted in a manner that allowed for a thorough and candid look at where the institution has been over the past ten years, where the institution is today and, perhaps more importantly, where its new journeys and pathways will lead.

© 2

009

ho

wa

rd

un

ive

rS

ity

2400 Sixth Street nw waShington, dc 20059 202-806-2550

www.howard.edu/SelfStudy

1  

Recommendations by Theme

Theme 1: Academic Offerings

Standard 1 – Mission and Goals Recommendation 1-1: Institutionalize a policy to review the University’s mission at least every five years. Recommendation 1-2: Continue to recruit and retain highly qualified students and faculty to further the overall university mission inclusive of the commitment to expand its international character, its commitment to recruit students with high potential, and its commitment to expand research and graduate/professional education

Standard 11 – Educational Offerings Recommendation 11-1: Evaluate academic offerings and streamline, modify, or augment offerings in response to changing times with special emphasis on expanding interdisciplinary and experiential learning offerings, especially in international studies and community development. Recommendation 11-2: Increase external examination passage rates by providing more student support, curricular reform, and related faculty development.

Standard 12 - General Education Recommendation 12-1: Appoint a body of faculty, students, and staff to review the current University-wide core competencies and to recommend strategies to schools and colleges for revising, updating, and assessing the curriculum, in order to insure effective implementation of the program designed to develop those competencies in all Howard students. Recommendation 12-2: Refine the General Education curriculum in all undergraduate schools and colleges to best advance the University-wide core competencies. Recommendation 12-3: Refine the delivery of core competencies in all departments and schools such that there is a recognized interconnection between general education and academic program requirements. Recommendation 12-4: Continue to involve the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) in the review, revision and development of instruments and procedures for assessment of general education/core curricular areas.

Standard 13 – Related Educational Activities Recommendation 13-1: Offer incentives to enhance faculty proficiency in utilizing new strategies of delivery systems in support of teaching and learning. Recommendation 13-3: Establish a process to determine what certificate programs should be offered that includes priorities from assessments of industry and federal sector training needs, occupational trends, and demographics of the University’s contiguous communities and target audiences. Create a strategy to increase public relations, marketing, and advertising for certificate programs.

Appendix D

  2  

Theme 2: Enrollment Management and Student Support Services Standard 8 – Student Admissions and Retention

Recommendation 8-1: Develop, implement, and assess a more structured approach to student retention/recruitment through enhanced monitoring of the quality of the student experience across all schools and colleges. Recommendation 8-2: Develop an explicit University-wide strategy, with supporting budgetary and infrastructure priorities, to achieve the desired undergraduate to graduate/professional student mix. Recommendation 8-3: Enhance access to a Howard education by increasing need-based student aid. Recommendation 8-4: Focus on continuous evaluation and improvement of Howard’s website, acknowledging its primacy as an information source for prospective and continuing students.

Standard 9 – Student Support Services Recommendation 9-1: Provide support for and expansion of the Students First Campaign to all departments and student support functions, including space utilization. Recommendation 9-2: Continue to enhance the quality of student services offered by the University. Recommendation 9-3: Implement the recommendations promulgated by a recent task force on library resources.

Standard 13 – Related Educational Activities Recommendation 13-2: Establish a central placement office within Enrollment Management to administer placement tests, enforce the University’s placement policy, and track student progress. Recommendation 13-4: Establish a single point of contact to provide administrative support for distance education in order to: (a) assist online students with services such as registration, financial aid, and graduation, and (b) assist departments proctoring exams and marketing their distance learning programs.

Theme 3: Faculty Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

Recommendation 4-2: Revise the 1993 Faculty Handbook to reflect current policies and processes.

Standard 10 – Faculty Recommendation 10-1: Establish a dedicated recruitment and retention fund to attract additional nationally recognized scholars, retain the strongest current faculty, and promote the development and retention of the University’s young and promising faculty. Recommendation 10-2: Increase faculty salaries to be more competitive with peers at other research universities in the context of enhanced university revenue from diverse sources.

  3  

Recommendation 10-3: Refine and enhance the structure of the University’s faculty development program. Recommendation 10-4: Review the University’s faculty workload policy as part of an effort to address the perception by the majority of faculty who believe the implementation of the faculty workload policy is not fair.

Theme 4: Senior Leadership Stabilization Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

Recommendation 4-1: Revisit the Provost and Chief Academic Officer/Senior Vice President for Health Sciences model in consultation with the various faculties, deans, and other appropriate university stakeholders. Recommendation 4-3: Continue to build upon recent initiatives that are designed to enhance the transparency of the University’s decision-making processes.

Standard 5 – Administration Recommendation 5-1: An assessment of the degree to which senior administration has stabilized and has effectively advanced PCAR, increased fiscal stability, and increased participation, collaboration, and transparency in decision making. Recommendation 5-2: The President should consider practices and procedures that will lead to stabilization in senior level university officers. Recommendation 5-3: Implement individual developmental plans focusing on operational effectiveness for university officers, deans, directors and departmental chairs as ongoing leadership development training. Recommendation 5-4: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the University’s administrative structure periodically to maintain utmost efficiency and continuity. Recommendation 5-5: Enhance policies and procedures on Board of Trustees and leadership succession.

Standard 6 – Integrity Recommendation 6-1: Develop integrity as a core component for all orientations of students, faculty, and staff. Recommendation 6-3: Publish the University’s various official policies and procedures in a central location on the University’s Web site.

Theme 5: Research and Special Emphasis

Recommendation RSE-1: Provide increased internal support for new faculty startups, particularly in the natural sciences and for investigators who wish to develop interdisciplinary research. Recommendation RSE-2: Increase internal support for undergraduate research, graduate student stipends, and for postdoctoral appointments. Recommendation RSE-3: Reconsider the desirability of placing all sponsored research administration functions, including accounting, personnel, and purchasing, under a single, seamless administrative unit, the OVP RC. Recommendation RSE-4: Provide the necessary resources to enhance a customer responsive climate within the Office of Sponsored Programs that meets

  4  

the needs and expectations of faculty members who are engaged in sponsored research. Recommendation RSE-5: Provide sufficient resources to enhance University-wide technological and physical infrastructure to support research.

Section V: Assessment Processes and Plans Standard 6 – Integrity

Recommendation 6-2: Develop and implement effective assessment procedures to ensure a systematic evaluation and monitoring of compliance with university policies related to integrity at all levels.

Standard 7 – Institutional Assessment Recommendation 7-1: Consider an option of organizational restructuring that would consolidate the functions of the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) with those of the Office for University Research and Planning into one office that is an autonomous direct report to the President, which would receive, maintain, and secure assessment data from all academic and institutional offices, including the Cabinet, Office of the President and the Board of Trustees. Recommendation 7-2: Invigorate the College/School Assessment (CSAC), Student Quality of Life (SQL), and University Community Experience (UCE) subcommittees in order to accelerate the full implementation of the assessment visions and plans of the University, and as resources permit, establish and incorporate Assessment Fellows campus-wide. Recommendation 7-3: Provide adequate resources for a more aggressive execution of the assessment agenda Recommendation 7-4: Authorize access to university assessment data by appropriate University stakeholders; revisit/update policies and procedures related to data management (including storing/maintaining, securing, and sharing information).

Standard 14– Assessment of Student Learning Recommendation 14-1: Appoint a task force, consisting of faculty, students, administrators, and staff charged with drafting a coherent set of University-wide learning outcomes that all undergraduate students are expected to demonstrate by the time they graduate from Howard University and a methodology for their assessment. Recommendation 14-2: Ensure more systematic and coordinated collecting, reporting, and usage of student learning outcomes assessment data related to general education and the implementation of university-wide Core Competencies beyond individual course level assessments. Recommendation 14-3: Maintain ongoing institutional budgetary and human support and leadership to ensure a continuous, systematic, and coordinated process for conducting student learning outcomes assessment across all undergraduate schools/colleges. Recommendation 14-4: Ensure that all academic units maintain an up-to-date database related to student learning outcomes and that this be subsequently

  5  

collected, housed, and maintained centrally in the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation. Recommendation 14-5: Create a more deliberate link between student learning outcomes assessment data and institutional planning and communicate this in such key documents as strategic plans and annual reports.

Section VI: Linked Institutional Planning and Budget Standard 2 – Planning Resource Allocation & Institutional Renewal

Recommendation 2-1: Implement expeditiously a university wide planning process that links individual, departments, and unit planning and assessment directly to the University’s strategic plan. Recommendation 2-2: Review and assess the new tuition and rates and budget processes periodically to determine their effectiveness. Recommendation 2-3: Review and assess the impact of planning, resource allocation, and institutional and academic renewal initiatives on a periodic basis.

Standard 3 – Institutional Resources Recommendation 3-1: Align the University’s resources and budget with academic priorities resulting from program reviews and portfolio assessments. Recommendation 3-2: Initiate procedures to communicate annually to the University community results of various internal and external reviews of the University’s financial and human resource management systems. Recommendation 3-3: Develop and implement a comprehensive program to address the unevenness of human capital development. Recommendation 3-4: Increase the diversity of university revenues, which may include targeting alumni.

[Type text]

1

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC RENEWAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROGRESS REPORT & SCORECARD JANUARY 2011-MAY 1, 2015

Discontinued Programs—Pages 2-6 New and Transformed Programs—Pages 7-9

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST AND CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER

Appendix E

[Type text]

2

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Discontinued Programs

Program or Initiative

STATUS Completed In Progress

Anthropology (B.A.) Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Art History (M.A.) Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program

termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

Fashion Merchandising (B.A.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Interior Design (B.A.) Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program

termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Hospitality Management (B.B.A.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Insurance Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

[Type text]

3

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Program or Initiative

STATUS Completed In Progress/ on Track

Classical Civilization (B.A.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Communications Sciences & Disorders (B.S.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Communication & Culture (M.A.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

Communication & Culture (Ph.D.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2018.

Complete degree program closure September 2018 BOT

MA & MA in Curriculum and Instruction

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

M.A.T. Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program

termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

[Type text]

4

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Program or Initiative

STATUS Completed In Progress/ on Track

CAGS Programs Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of program

termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

M.A. and M.S. in Educational Administration & Policy

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

EdD. Programs in Counseling Psychology, Educational Psychology and School Psychology

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2018.

Complete degree program closure September 2018 BOT

MS Human Development

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

Bachelor of Music Education (B.Mus.E.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

[Type text]

5

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Program or Initiative STATUS Completed In Progress

Master of Music Education (M.Mus.E.)

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

Philosophy (M.A.) Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of

program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

Master of Art in Public Administration

Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011

Enrolled students notified of program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

German, B.A. Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of

program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

Russian, B.A. Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of

program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2015.

Complete degree program closure September 2015 BOT

French, M.A. Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of

program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

[Type text]

6

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Spanish, M.A. Admissions discontinued Jan. 2011 Enrolled students notified of

program termination 4/30/2011.

Enrolled students must complete degree requirements by August 2014.

Complete degree program closure September 2014 BOT

[Type text]

7

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

New Programs and Transformed Initiatives January 2011-May 2014

Program or Initiative STATUS Completed In Progress

General Education Reform University-wide committee completed report and submitted recommendations for 21 learning outcomes to Provost.

Faculty of Schools/colleges refining general education requirements.

120-hour standard for Bachelor’s programs initiated Fall 2013

Center for Academic Excellence

Center for Academic Excellence established as a unit in the Office of Undergraduate Studies effective February 2014

African Diaspora Studies Proposal for a doctoral degree program is currently under review by dean of the Graduate School.

Architecture Board of Trustees approved changing the 5-Year B.Arch. to the M.Arch. effective Fall 2014. Note: transition from bachelor’s to master’s status not completed due to reporting requirement but accrediting agency

Classics to Ancient Mediterranean Studies

An Interdisciplinary major in the College of Arts and Sciences has been approved. A concentration in Ancient Mediterranean Studies will be offered effective fall 2016.

Health, Human Performance and Leisure Studies Department

Proposal for transferring some programs and faculty to the College of Nursing and Allied Health, and reconfiguring the remaining program offerings is under review by the Office of the Provost.

Law L.L.M. New organizational structure Interdisciplinary Studies Major in the College of Arts and Sciences

The Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a Department of Interdisciplinary Studies and an Interdisciplinary degree program in the College of Arts and Sciences on September 27, 2014. Admissions to the program will begin in fall 2016.

Interdisciplinary undergraduate major in Religious Studies

Proposal is under development.

[Type text]

8

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Program or Initiative STATUS Completed In Progress

Merger of departments of Communication and Culture with department of Mass Communication/Media Studies

New Department of Media Studies, Communication and Culture launched Fall 2013

Reorganization of academic programs and infrastructure in the School of Communication

New organization and degree programs launched Fall 2013

BS in Teacher Education Program launched Fall 2013 Dual M.Ed. in School Psychology and Counseling Services

Program launched Fall 2013

Ph.D. in Religious Studies Proposal is currently under review by dean of the Graduate School.

Master of Art (Religious Studies)

Program being transformed to provide foundation for doctoral program.

Interdisciplinary Ph.D. --Civil and Environmental Engineering

Ph.D. in Civil Engineering approved April 2015

[Type text]

9

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Program or Initiative STATUS Completed In Progress

Interdisciplinary Ph.D. –Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Proposal under review

Master of Public Affairs Planning in progress

Re-establish Master of Public Health

Under review

Re-establish separate College of Pharmacy

Completed 2011

Revise criteria for Graduate Faculty Membership

Completed. New criteria approved by the Board of Trustees and initiated 2012.

Reorganization of Basic Medical Sciences Doctoral Programs into single degree program in Biomedical Sciences

Proposal under review

UNIVERSITYSTUDIESCOMMITTEEREPORTTheHowardUniversityGeneralEducation

Experience:Achieving21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCenturyUndergraduate

“HUGE21for21”

DraftJanuary16,2013

Appendix F

2

UNIVERSITYSTUDIESCOMMITTEEREPORT

CONTENTSExecutiveSummary 4LearningOutcomes 9Recommendation1:Thatallschoolsandcollegesofferingundergraduatedegreeprogramsadopttheaccompanying learningoutcomesandensuretheirstudentsachievetheassociatedcompetenciesthroughtheprograms’curriculaaswellasthroughstudent involvement inco‐curricularandextra‐curricularlearningexperiences.Assessment 11Recommendation 2: That there be a systematic, ongoing, and annual assessment andevaluationoftheeffectivenessofthegeneraleducationprograminachievingitsstatedgoalsand objectives related to: (a) student learning outcomes, (b) course and co‐curricularoutcomes,(c)facultyoutcomes,(d)supportservices,and(e)theassessmentprocessitself.TheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience 13Recommendation3:ThatallschoolsandcollegesadoptaUniversity‐widemodelforGeneralEducationthatwouldincludetwoelements,developedinrelationtoeachschoolandcollege’sspecific needs: a “Common First Year Experience” that focus primarily on building andreinforcing intellectualandapplied skillsanda “CapstoneLearningExperience” in the finalyearthatwillenablestudentstosynthesizewhattheyhavelearned.Co‐curricular,StudentAffairs,andLibraryEngagement 16Recommendation 4: That schools and colleges incorporate co‐curricular and/or extra‐curricularlearningexperiencesprovidedbystudent‐supportserviceareassuchastheDivisionof Student Affairs and University Libraries as a formal mechanism to achieve generaleducationlearningoutcomes.CenterforAcademicExcellence 19Recommendation 5: That the University establish the Center for Academic Excellencemodeled on the design proposed by the Undergraduate Program Work Group of thePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal(PCAR).Thiscenterwill,amongotherthings,coordinate theprovisionof the followingacademic supportprogramsand services: summerbridgeprogram(s);advisingincollaborationwithfacultyandprofessionalstaffadvisorsandcounselors;blockschedulingasappropriate;andearlywarningandsupportprogram(s).AdministrativeCoordinationandSupport 20Recommendation6: Thattheuniversityestablishaformalinfrastructuretocoordinateandsupport General Education that includes provost‐level coordination, a university‐widecommittee,andsupportforfaculty,staffandcollaboratingunits.Resources 21Recommendation7: ThattheUniversityprovideadequatefiscal,technological,andhumanresourcestoplan,implement,assess,andsustaintheGeneralEducationExperienceeffectivelyandefficiently.

[note:pagenumberswillbecorrectedafterfinalediting]

3

APPENDICESA.MembersoftheCommitteeB.RationaleforGeneralEducationReformC.LearningOutcomesD.SampleFirstYearExperienceCurriculumE.ProgramofStudyMappingforGeneralEducationLearningOutcomesF.GlobalProcessMapG.HighImpactPractices

4

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Backgroundcontext:IntheSpringof2011,auniversity‐widecommitteetookupthechargeofPresidentSidneyA.RibeautoexaminethecurrentstateofgeneraleducationatHowardUniversityandtomakerecommendationsabouthowitmightbeimproved.ChairedbyAssociateProvostJosephP.ReidyandstaffedbytheOfficeoftheProvost,thecommitteeconsistedoffacultymembersfromalltheschoolsandcollegesofferingundergraduatedegreeprograms,staffmembersfromrepresentativeacademicsupportunits,andstudents.ThecommitteefocusedparticularlyonthelearningoutcomesthatwillenableundergraduatestudentstoachievetheattributesoftheHowardUniversitygraduateasdefinedbythePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal.CharacteristicsoftheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience:Extensivediscussionswithfacultymembers,administrators,curriculumcommittees,andstudents,revealedthatarevisedgeneraleducationprogramatHowardUniversityshouldexhibitthefollowinggeneralcharacteristics:1.flexibility,2.simplicity,3.auniversity‐widefocus,4.adistinctiveidentity,5.responsiveness,6.sharedresponsibility,and7.innovation.Givenitsuniversity‐widecharacter,theprogramwillbeadministrativelyhousedintheOfficeoftheProvost,withdesignatedcoordinatorsineachschoolorcollegethatoffersundergraduatedegrees.Recommendations:ThecommitteeoffersthefollowingsevenrecommendationsasaframeworkforreforminggeneraleducationatHowardUniversity.TheyreflectthebreadthofskillsandexperiencesthatgraduatesofHowardUniversityshouldhaveattheirdisposaltopursuerewardingcareersandtofacethechallengesofthe21stCentury.Thefirsttworecommendationsarefoundationalinthesensethattheyaddresstheessenceoftheprogram.Theotherfiverecommendationsaddressoperationalfeaturesoftheprogram.

1. Assuringtheadequatepreparationofgraduatesandenablingstudentstosucceedintheiracademicprogramsrequiresclearlydefinedlearningoutcomes.Theselearningoutcomesmustreflectbothbroadinstitutionalinterestsaswellasthespecializedneedsofparticularprogramsofstudy.Thecommitteerecommends21learningoutcomesthatfallwithinfourbroadcategories:knowledgeofhumanculturesandofthenaturalandphysicalworld;intellectualandappliedskills;socialandindividualdevelopment;andintegrativeandappliedlearning.

2. Trackingstudentprogresstowardachievingthelearningoutcomesanddeterminingtheeffectivenessoflearningexperiencesinhelpingthemtodosorequiresarobustassessmentstrategy.Adiagnosticexaminationwillbeadministeredtostudentsattheendofthefirstyeartoidentifyareasthatmayrequireremedialattention.Assessmentoftheprogramwillbesystematicandon‐goingtoassurethatitisachievingitsstatedgoalsandobjectives.

3. TheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperienceisauniversity‐widemodelinwhichschoolsandcollegesspecifyhowtheirstudentswillachievetheidentifiedlearningoutcomes.Twokeycomponents,theoperationaldetailsofwhichwillbedeterminedbytherespectiveschoolsandcolleges,area“CommonFirstYearExperience”anda“CapstoneLearningExperience”inthefinalyear.

4. Studentswillsatisfylearningoutcomesthroughacombinationofthestandardcurricularelementsofclasses,seminars,laboratories,internships,andthelikeas

5

wellasthroughco‐curricular,extra‐curricular,andtechnology‐enabledlearningexperiencesdeterminedbyeachundergraduateschoolandcollege.

5. TheuniversitywillestablishaCenterforAcademicExcellencemodeledonthatproposedbytheUndergraduateProgramWorkGroupofthePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal(PCAR).

6. AdministrativecoordinationandsupportfortheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperiencewillbehousedintheOfficeoftheProvost.Elementsofthissupportwillincludedesignatedcoordinatorsineachundergraduateschoolandcollege,auniversity‐wideadvisorycommittee,andsupportforfaculty,staffandcollaboratingunits.

7. Theuniversitywillallocatethenecessaryfiscal,technologicalandhumanresourcestoimplementtheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience.

NextSteps:ThecommitteerecommendsthatduringtheSpring2013semesterdeansandfacultymembersoftheundergraduate‐servingschoolsandcollegesreviewandapprovetheserecommendations.Thentherespectivefacultieswillmapthecompetenciesandlearningoutcomestocoursesandco‐curricularandextra‐curricularactivitiesthatwillfulfillthegraduationrequirementsoftherespectiveprograms.SomeofthecurricularchangesmaytakeeffectasearlyastheFall2013semester.Thecommitteewillserveasaresourcetofacilitatethesediscussionsuntiltheprogram’sadministrativestructureisestablishedandthesuccessoruniversity‐widecommitteeisconstituted.

6

RecommendationstoCreateaPrograminGeneralEducationTitledTheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience

Backgroundcontext:Inthespringof2011,auniversity‐widecommitteetookupthechargeofPresidentSidneyA.RibeautoexaminethecurrentstateofgeneraleducationatHowardUniversityandtomakerecommendationsabouthowitmightbeimproved.ChairedbytheAssociateProvostJosephP.ReidyandstaffedbytheOfficeoftheProvost,thecommitteeconsistedoffacultymembersfromalltheschoolsandcollegesofferingundergraduatedegreeprograms,staffmembersfromrepresentativeacademicsupportgroups,andstudents.Fromthestart,thecommitteeoperatedwiththegoalofadvancingtheworkongeneraleducationdoneattheuniversityoverthepriordecade.Notableamongtheseinitiativesweretheself‐studyconductedaspartofthereaffirmationofaccreditationbytheMiddleStatesCommissiononHigherEducationin2008and2009andworkoftheUndergraduateProgramWorkGroupofthePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal(PCAR)in2009and2010.Whilemindfulofthemission,history,andacademiccultureofHowardUniversity,thecommitteealsoexaminednationaltrendsregardinggeneraleducationaswellassimilarinitiativesatpeerandaspirantinstitutions.TheworkoftheAssociationofAmericanCollegesandUniversities(AAC&U)hasbeenparticularlyusefulinthisregard.AAC&Uhasforyearsservedasanationalforumforimprovingthequalityofundergraduateeducationwithseveralprogramsfocusingespeciallyongeneraleducationreform.Sinceearlyin2011,PresidentRibeauhasservedontheboardofdirectorsofAAC&U,andinJune2011adelegationofcommitteemembersattendedtheannualgeneraleducationinstitutesponsoredbyAAC&U.Recenteffortstorefinetheuniversity’sstrategyandplanforassessingstudentlearningalsosupportthereexaminationofgeneraleducation.TheOfficeofInstitutionalAssessmentandEffectiveness(OIAE)assessestheeffectivenessoftheuniversity’slearningenvironmentinsupportingtheachievementofstudentlearningoutcomes.Amongotherthings,theOIAEhasanalyzedHowardUniversity’sresultsfromtheNationalSurveyofStudentEngagement(NSSE),whichisdesignedtomeasurethelevelofstudents’engagementwiththelearningenvironmentattheirinstitutionsandtheextenttowhichtheinstitutions,inturn,engagestudentsinavarietyoflearningopportunities.DatafromrecentNSSEreportssuggestthatHowardUniversitystudentsareawareoftheiracademicneedsinseveralkeyareas,includingquantitativereasoningandwrittencommunications.Thesefindingsreinforceanecdotalevidencefromfacultymemberswhofrequentlyexpressconcernsregardingstudents’facilitywithbasicacademicskills.Otherdataalsosuggestedpossiblelinksbetweenthegeneraleducationandsuchareasofconcernastheuniversity’sfour‐yeargraduationratesandbottlenecksassociatedwiththestudentregistrationandgraduationclearanceprocesses.Inshort,thelinksbetweenstudentsuccessinoneinstanceandcurricularandadministrativestructuresinanotherappearedtowarrantinvestigation.Thecommitteefocusedconsiderableattentionontherelationofstudentlearningoutcomestothetraditionalmainstayoftheacademiccurriculum,thethreecredit‐hourcourse.Becausegraduationrequirementsaredenominatedincredithoursearnedratherthanlearningoutcomesorcompetenciessatisfied,programsareobligedtomaptherelationshipsamongtheseelementscarefully.ThiswasbroughtintosharpfocusinJune2012whentheBoardofTrusteesmandatedthatallundergraduatedegree‐grantingprogramsrequireno

7

morethan120credithours(downfromthecurrentrangeof127to132hours)forstudentstosatisfygraduationrequirements.CharacteristicsofaRevisedGeneralEducationProgram:Followingextensivediscussionswithfacultymembers,administrators,curriculumcommittees,andstudents,thecommitteecametounderstandthatarevisedgeneraleducationprogramatHowardUniversityshouldexhibitthefollowingcharacteristics:

1. Flexibility—university‐wideguidelinesshouldalignwithwhatthefacultiesoftheundergraduate‐servingschoolsandcollegesdesignateasthekeycompetenciesandlearningoutcomesthatwillbestachievesuccessonthepartoftheirstudents.

2. Simplicity—inlightofthecurrentcomplexarrayofgeneraleducationrequirements,arevisedmodelshouldreducethenumberofrequirementsandpermitstudentstosatisfythemthroughawidervarietyofcurricularandco‐curricularlearningexperiencesthaniscurrentlythecase.

3. University‐wideapplicability—theprogramshouldhaveauniversity‐widefocusratherresidinglargelyintheCollegeofArtsandSciencestotakethegreatestadvantageoftheintellectualandpedagogicalwealththataresearchuniversityhastooffer.

4. Distinctiveidentity—theHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperienceshouldbeviewedasanacademicprogramwithdefiningorsignaturefeaturesthatwillmakeitadistinctiveelementoftheundergraduatecurriculumandhelptoattractprospectivestudentstotheuniversity.

5. Responsiveness—byinculcatingacultureofassessmentineveryaspectoftheGeneralEducationExperience,bothindividualandgrouplearningactivities(whethertheybetraditionalcoursesorco‐curricularorextra‐curricularactivities)shouldparticipateinacomprehensiveassessmentprogramtoallowforconstantimprovementofthelearningenvironment.

6. Sharedresponsibility—fromthestart,thecommitteehasassumedadynamicinteractionbetweentheuniversitycommitteeandthecurriculumcommitteesandthedeansandfacultiesoftherespectiveundergraduatedegree‐grantingprograms.

7. Innovation—theprogramshouldtakefulladvantageofnewlearningstyles,pedagogies,andtechnologiestoengagestudentsandtoachieveidentifiedlearningoutcomeswiththeexpectedlevelofflexibility.

Almostofnecessity,aprojectofthisnaturecreatespressurepoints.Theseincludethegeneraltensionsbetweenstasisandchange,nationaltrendsandlocalrealities,theperspectiveofthestudentsandthatofthefaculty,amongothers.Thecommitteebelievesthattheoperationalsolutionstomostofthesepotentialproblemsmustbedevisedattheindividualprogramandtheschoolandcollegelevels.Atthesametime,thecommitteemaintainstheneedforcommonelementsthatwillcutacrossthevariousschoolsandcollegesandfortheprogramtoretainauniversity‐widecharacterthatwillminimizethelikelihoodofparochialismattheprogramorschool/collegelevels.AchievingthosegoalswillbestbeservedbyhousingtheinitiativeadministrativelyintheOfficeoftheProvost

8

withtheongoingengagementofauniversity‐widecommitteeconsistingoffaculty,administrativestaff,andstudents.Recommendations:ThecommitteeoffersthefollowingsevenrecommendationsfortheconsiderationoftheProvost,thedeansandfacultiesoftheschoolsandcolleges,supportstaff,andundergraduatestudentsastheuniversitypursuestheworkofreforminggeneraleducation.Thefirsttworecommendationsareconsideredfoundationalinthesensethattheyaddresstheessenceoftheprogram.Thesubsequentfiveaddressoperationalfeaturesoftheprogram.

1. Learningoutcomes:thatallschoolsandcollegesofferingundergraduatedegreeprogramsadoptthe21learningoutcomesappendedtothisreport(seeAppendixC)andensuretheirstudentsachievetheassociatedcompetenciesthroughtheprograms’curricula,studentinvolvementinco‐curricularactivities,anduseoftechnology.

2. Assessment:thattherebeasystematicongoingandannualassessmentandevaluationoftheeffectivenessofthegeneraleducationprograminachievingitsstatedgoalsandobjectivesrelatedto:(a)studentlearningoutcomes,(b)courseandco‐curricularoutcomes,(c)facultyoutcomes,(d)supportservices,and(e)theassessmentprocessitself.

3. TheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience:thatallschoolsandcollegesadoptauniversity‐widemodelforgeneraleducationthatwouldincludetwoelementsdevelopedinrelationtoeachschoolandcollege’sspecificneeds:a“CommonFirstYearExperience”thatfocusesprimarilyonbuildingandreinforcingintellectualandappliedskillsanda“CapstoneLearningExperience”inthefinalyearthatwillenablestudentstosynthesizewhattheyhavelearned.

4. Co‐curricular,extra‐curricular,andacademic‐supportfeatures:thatschoolsandcollegesincorporateco‐curricularand/orextra‐curricularlearningexperiencesprovidedbystudent‐supportserviceareassuchastheDivisionofStudentAffairsandUniversityLibrariesasaformalmechanismtoachievegeneraleducationlearningoutcomes.

5. CenterforAcademicExcellence:thattheuniversityestablishtheCenterforAcademicExcellencemodeledonthedesignproposedbytheUndergraduateProgramWorkGroupofthePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal(PCAR).Thiscenterwill,amongotherthings,coordinatetheprovisionofthefollowingacademicsupportprogramsandservices:summerbridgeprogram(s);advisingincollaborationwithfacultyandprofessionalstaffadvisors/counselors;blockschedulingasappropriate;andearlywarningandsupportprogram.

6. Administrativecoordinationandsupport:thattheuniversityestablishaformalinfrastructuretocoordinateandsupportgeneraleducationthatincludesprovost‐levelcoordination,auniversity‐widecommittee,andsupportforfaculty,staffandcollaboratingunits.

9

7. Resourceneeds:thattheuniversityallocatefiscal,technologyandhumanresourcestoplan,implement,andassessthegeneraleducationprogramtoensureeffectivenessandefficiency

AdditionalConsiderationsregardingImplementation:Thecommitteeencouragesthedeansandfacultymembersoftheaffectedschoolsandcollegestobearinmindthefollowingconsiderationsastheyimplementtherecommendationsandaddressotheraspectsofgeneraleducationreform:

1. Reducingcurrentgraduationrequirementstomeetthenewmaximumof120credithoursislikelytorequirestructuralmodificationsbeyondsimplyreducingthenumberofelectivesavailabletostudents.Wherepracticable,generaleducationrequirementsmightbereducedandgreaterflexibilityintheuseofalternativecoursestosatisfyrequirementsmightbeimplemented.

2. Majorandminorfieldrequirementsmayneedtoberevisedtoassurecontinuityinthelearningobjectivesbetweenthegeneraleducationprogramandspecificgraduationcompetenciesoftheprograms.Emphasisshouldbeplacedonassuringthatstudentsengageinincreasinglymorechallengingandrewardinglearningactivitiesastheymovefromthefirstyearthroughthefourthyearoftheirdegreeprograms.

3. Programsareurgedtodevelopinnovativepedagogicalapproachestoaddressinglearningoutcomes.Someoftheseinnovationsmighttakeadvantageofnewandemerginginstructionaltechnologies.OthersfallintothecategoryofwhatAAC&Udescribesas“highimpactpractices,”suchasundergraduateresearchprograms,learningcommunities,andexperientiallearning,whichresearchsuggestsimprovestudentlearning.

4. Thecommitteeadvocatesstronglyinfavorofdevelopinginterdisciplinaryapproachestoundergraduatelearningthatwillrequirecollaborationacrosstheschoolsandcollegesandhelpfosterinstructionalandresearchcollaborationsamongfacultymembers,undergraduatestudents,graduatestudents,andacademicsupportservicesintheresidencehalls,studentaffairs,anduniversitylibraries.Suchinterdisciplinarylearningopportunitieswillalsoenableachievementofmultiplelearningoutcomessimultaneously.

5. Althoughsomenewresourceswillhavetobeidentifiedtosupportgeneraleducationreform,particularlyintheareaoffacultydevelopment,mostresourcesnecessarytosupportanewmodelwillhavetobeidentifiedinternally,byreducingthenumberandrangeofrequiredcoursesandbyencouragingfacultymembersoutsideoftheCollegeofArtsandSciencestoteachgeneraleducationcourses.

6. Theimportanceofassessmentateverylevelcannotbeoveremphasized.Assessmentmusttakeineveryaspectoftheprogram,beginningwithassessingindividualstudents’achievementoflearningoutcomesattheirvariousstagesofdevelopmentandcontinuingthroughevaluatingtheprogram’seffectivenessinsupportingstudentlearning,Ongoingassessmentwillbecriticaltosuccess.

10

NextStepsThecommitteerecommendsthatduringtheSpring2013semesterdeansandfacultymembersoftheundergraduate‐servingschoolsandcollegesreviewandapprovetheserecommendations.Thentherespectivefacultieswillmapthecompetenciesandlearningoutcomestocoursesandco‐curricularandextra‐curricularactivitiesthatwillfulfillthegraduationrequirementsoftherespectiveprograms.SomeofthecurricularchangesmaytakeeffectasearlyastheFall2013semester.Thecommitteewillserveasaresourcetofacilitatethesediscussionsuntiltheprogram’sadministrativestructureisestablishedandthesuccessoruniversity‐widecommitteeisconstituted.AppendicestotheReport:Anumberofconceptualandoperationaldocumentsareattachedtothereportforthebenefitoftheuniversitycommunityatlargeandthefacultymembersandadministratorsofundergraduateprogramsinparticular.Theseare:

A. MembersoftheCommitteeB. OverviewofCommittee’sCharge/CaseforGeneralEducationReformC. LearningOutcomesD. SampleFirstYearExperienceCurriculumE. GeneralEducationMappingofCurriculum/Co‐curricularforEachUndergraduateAcademic

ProgramF. GlobalProcessMapG. HighImpactPractices

11

Recommendation1.AdoptLearningOutcomesThatallschoolsandcollegesofferingundergraduatedegreeprogramsadoptthe21learningoutcomesappendedtothisreport(seeAppendixC)andensuretheirstudentsachievetheassociatedcompetenciesthroughtheprograms’curricula,studentinvolvementinco‐curricularactivities,anduseoftechnology.The21learningoutcomesidentifiedbelowdescribetheattributesthatshouldcharacterizea21stcenturyHowardUniversitygraduate.Theselearningoutcomesshouldguidefacultymembersandprogramadministratorsindevisingcurriculaandco‐curricularactivities,supportedbyappropriatepedagogyandlearningtechnology,toensurethedevelopmentofgraduateswhoarepreparedtoaddressthechallengesfacingthe21stcenturyworld.Thelearningoutcomescomplementprogram‐specificlearningoutcomesoftheschoolsandcolleges.Thisemphasisonlearningoutcomestransformsgeneraleducationrequirementsfromalistofdiscretecoursestoonethatfocusesonusingmultipleapproachestostudents’achievementoflearningcompetencies.Theemphasisonlearningoutcomesenablesschoolsandcollegestodevelopinnovativemethodsofachievingstudentlearningappropriatetotheirdisciplines.Emphasizinglearningoutcomeswillrequireadecentralizationofgeneraleducation,givinggreaterflexibilitytoschoolsandcollegestodeterminetheappropriatelevelofcompetencyforeachlearningoutcomeanddevelopappropriatestrategiesforassessingstudentprogressfrombenchmarkthroughmilestonetocapstonelevelsofcompetency.TheidentifiedgeneralcompetenciesofaHowardUniversitygraduatederivefromsourcesbothinternalandexternaltotheuniversity.Internally,theseincludethemostrecentMiddleStatesSelf‐StudyandtherecommendationsofthePCARUndergraduateProgramWorkingGroupaswellasintensivediscussionswithfacultyfromalloftheundergraduateschoolsandcollegesandwithstudents.TworepresentativeexternalsourcesaretheAssociationofAmericanCollegesandUniversities(AAC&U),anationalorganizationthatforyearshaslaboredtoimprovethequalityofundergraduateeducationandgeneraleducationinparticular,andtheLuminaFoundation,whichaimstoachieveadramaticincreaseinthenumberofcollege‐degreerecipientsintheUnitedStatesoverthenextgeneration.TheAAC&U’stworeports,LiberalEducationandAmerica’sPromise(LEAP)andValidAssessmentofLearninginUndergraduateEducation(VALUE),emphasizefourbroadareas:knowledgeofhumanculturesandthephysicalandnaturalworld,intellectualandappliedskills,personalandsocialresponsibility,andintegrativeandappliedlearning.TheLuminaFoundation’sTheDegreeQualificationsProfile,identifiesfiveareasthatoverlapthoseofAAC&U:appliedlearning,intellectualskills,specializedknowledge,broadintegrativeknowledge,andciviclearning.Thecommitteerecommendsthefollowinglistof21learningoutcomesthatallHowardUniversityundergraduateprogramsshouldemphasizetopreparetheirgraduatesforthe21stcentury:

1. CreativeThinking2. CriticalThinkingandProblemSolving3. EthicalReasoning

12

4. InquiryandAnalysis5. WrittenCommunication6. OralCommunication7. QuantitativeLiteracy8. QualitativeLiteracy9. InformationLiteracy10. KnowledgeofTechnology11. KnowledgeoftheArtsandHumanities12. KnowledgeoftheSocialSciencesandHistoricalAwareness13. InterculturalKnowledgeandForeignLanguage14. AfricanDiasporaAwareness15. ScienceandEnvironmentalConsciousness16. PhysicalandMentalHealth17. Teamwork18. FinancialLiteracyandEntrepreneurship19. CivicKnowledgeandEngagement20. FoundationsandSkillsforLife‐LongLearning21. IntegrativeandAppliedLearning

These21competenciesarelistedinAppendixCalongwiththeframinglanguagethatwasusedtodevelopthem.Thisreportoffersrecommendationsonhowtheuniversityshouldimplementacomprehensiveplantoachievethese21learningoutcomescalledtheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience:21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCentury(HUGE21for21).Thefacultymembersoftheindividualschoolsandcollegeswilldeterminehowtheselearningoutcomesareachievedthroughacombinationofspecificclassesandco‐curricular,extra‐curricularandotherexperientiallearningactivities.Thecoursesmaybenew,redesignedorcurrentcoursestaughtbyfacultymembersthroughouttheuniversity.Theco‐curricularandexperientiallearningactivitiesmightincludeactivitiessponsoredbyUniversityLibraries,ResidenceLife,StudentAffairs,andtheRalphBuncheInternationalAffairsCenter.Examplesincludelearningcohortsintheresidencehalls,theFreshmanLeadershipTrainingProgram,AlternativeSpringBreak,andStudyAbroad.Somelearningoutcomesmaybeachievedthroughinnovativepedagogyandlearningtechnology,forinstance,throughself‐pacedon‐linetutorials.Eachschoolandcollegeshouldcreateprogramsofstudyforeachmajorthatmapgeneraleducationlearningoutcomestothecourses,co‐curricularactivities,andotherlearningoptionsdesignedtoachievethoseoutcomes.AsampleprogramofstudymapappearsinAppendixD.TheUniversity’sCenterforExcellenceinTeaching,LearningandAssessment(CETLA)willassistfacultymembersinredesigningandcreatingcourses,selectingandincorporatingappropriateinstructionaltechnology,creatingandimplementinghighimpactteachingandlearningpractices,andotherwisehelpingstudentstoachievetheselearningoutcomes.Comprehensiveassessmentwillbecriticaltothesuccessoftheprogram.Beginningwiththeperformanceofindividualstudents,theassessmentframeworkmustalsoincludeeachprogram’sabilitytonurturegraduateswhoachievethestipulatedlearningoutcomesinatimelyfashion.Finally,itmustexaminethecontinuingrelevanceoftheidentifiedlearningoutcomesascomparedtothedesiredcompetenciesonaregularbasis.TheOfficeof

13

InstitutionalAssessmentandEffectiveness(OIAE)willassistindevelopingandimplementingassessmentplans,collectingassessmentdata,andreportingtotheProvostannuallytheeffectivenessofthegeneraleducationprograminpromotingstudentlearning.Recommendation2ofthisreportcontainsspecificsuggestionsregardingassessment.Toincreaseawareness,knowledgeandunderstandingofthese21universitylearningoutcomes,thecommitteerecommendsthedevelopmentofacomprehensivepublicoutreachcampaigninconjunctionwiththeOfficeofUniversityCommunications.Thebrandingthememaybetitled“HUGE21for21”(TheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience:21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCentury).Amongotherthings,thiscampaignshouldincludeawebsitededicatedtogeneraleducationwithinformationonthelearningoutcomesandhowstudentsinthevariousacademicprogramsmayachievethem.Otherelementsofthecampaignshouldincludeprintedmaterialthatpromotesthelearningoutcomesandtheusesocialmedia,emailandotherelectronicmedia.Thecampaignshouldextendbeyondstudentstoincludeotherconstituenciessuchasprospectivestudentsandtheirparents,alumniandexternalpartners.

Recommendation2.TheAssessmentofOutcomesintheUniversity‐wideGeneralEducationProgramThattherebeasystematic,ongoing,andannualassessmentandevaluationoftheeffectivenessofthegeneraleducationprograminachievingitsstatedgoalsandobjectivesrelatedto:(a)studentlearningoutcomes,(b)courseandco‐curricularoutcomes,(c)facultyoutcomes,(d)supportservices,and(e)theassessmentprocessitself.Highereducationaccreditingagenciesrequiremeaningfulandsystematicassessmentofgeneraleducationlearningoutcomesaspartofeachuniversity’soverallplanforassessinginstitutionaleffectiveness.Theagenciesalsoexpectthateachinstitutionusesassessmentresultsforcurricularimprovement.Generaleducationoutcomesmaybeassessedinvariouswaysandatvariouslevelsofanalysis.Course‐levelassessmenttechniquesincludecourse‐embeddedassessmentssuchasexaminations,quizzes,artisticperformances,researchpapers,oralpresentations,casestudyanalyses,andstandardizedtests.Institutionallevelassessmentoccursbyaggregatingdataacrosscoursesandco‐curricularactivitiestogainunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftheprogram.ThecommitteerecommendsthattheassessmentplanfortheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperienceconsistofthefollowingcomponents:1.AssessmentofStudentLearningOutcomes:

University‐widegeneraleducationlearningoutcomesshallbemappedtocourses,co‐curricularactivities,andinnovativepedagogy;andassessmentmethodsappropriatetoexpectedlevelsofstudentperformanceshallbedeveloped.

Assessmentofgeneraleducationlearningoutcomesshalloccureachtermandmaytaketheformofcourseembeddedtests,finalexaminations,essays,oral

14

presentations,computer‐basedtests,researchpapers,demonstrations,projects,portfolios,andthelike.

TomeetthebenchmarkofeffectivenessfortheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperienceProgram,atleast80percentofstudentswhoenrollinacourseorparticipateinaco‐curricularactivitythatsatisfieslearningoutcomerequirementswillbejudgedcompetentorproficientatthecompletionofthatexperience.

Strategiesforimprovingstudentperformanceand/orlearningoutcomesshallbeimplementedatthelevelofthecourseorotherlearningexperience.Casestudiesoftheseimplementationsshallbedocumentedtoillustratetheuseofassessmentresults.

Studentswilltakeadiagnosticexaminationattheendofthefirstyeartodeterminewhereadditionalremediationmaybenecessarytoassuresuccessinsubsequentyearsoftheirchosenprogramsofstudy.

2.AssessmentofCourseandCo‐CurricularOutcomes

Allcoursesintheuniversity‐widegeneraleducationprogramareevaluatedeachsemesterusingauniformevaluationmethodand,totheextentpractical,acommonevaluationinstrument.

Courseevaluationdataareanalyzedtodetermineiftheresultsmeetdesirablelevelsofeffectiveness.

Academicprogramsdevisestrategiesanddevelopcasestudiestoillustratetheuseofassessmentresultstoimprovecoursedesignandpedagogyintheinterestofpromotingstudentlearning.

3.AssessmentofFacultyOutcomes

Facultyevaluationsareconductedthroughtheuniversity‐wideFacultyPerformanceEvaluationSystem(FPES).

Facultymemberswhoteachintheuniversity‐widegeneraleducationprogramareexpectedtomeetdesirablelevelsofperformanceassetbytheirpeers.

WiththeassistanceofCETLA,departmentsdevisestrategiesforimprovingfacultyoutcomesanddevelopcasestudiesoftheseimplementationstoillustratetheuseoftheassessmentresults.

4.AssessmentofAcademicSupportServices

Supportservices,whichincludedevelopmental/remedialcoursework,tutoring,advisement,registration,financialaid,libraryresources,careerservices,specialstudentservices,residencelife,andcounselingservicesshallbeassessedandevaluatedfortheireffectivenessinhelpingstudentstosucceedacademicallyandpromotingretentionandtimelygraduation.

Workingwiththeacademicprograms,leadersoftherespectiveacademicsupportserviceunitsshalldevisestrategiesforassessingtheircontributionstostudentlearninganddevelopcasestudiesoftheseimplementationstoillustratetheuseoftheassessmentresults.

5.AssessmentoftheAssessmentProcessesforGeneralEducation

15

Theassessmentresultsforeachoftheforegoingcomponentsofthegeneraleducationprogram,individuallyandcollectively,shallbeusedtoevaluatetheassessmentprocessitselfandleadtomodificationsthatimproveitseffectiveness.

Recommendation3.CreateaHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperienceProgramThatallschoolsandcollegesadoptauniversity‐widemodelforgeneraleducationthatincludestwoelementsdevelopedinrelationtoeachschool’sandcollege’sspecificneeds:a“CommonFirstYearExperience”thatfocusesprimarilyonbuildingandreinforcingintellectualandappliedskillsanda“CapstoneLearningExperience”inthefinalyearthatenablesstudentstosynthesizewhattheyhavelearned.Atpresent,thereissubstantivevariationamongschoolsandcollegeswithregardtogeneraleducationrequirements.Adoptingauniversity‐widemodelfortheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperiencewouldinstitutionalizeaunique“HowardExperience”amongallundergraduates;ensurethatstudentsarewellequippedwithbasicintellectualandappliedskillstosucceedinupperdivisioncourses;andenrichtheprofileoftheHowardgraduateasonewhoisbroadlytrainedandfullyequippedtoaccepthisorherroleasagloballymindedservantleader.Becauseeachschoolandcollegeisbestequippedtounderstandtherolegeneraleducationmustplayinitsundergraduatecurriculum,thecommitteedoesnotrecommendasinglemodelforachievinggeneraleducationoutcomes.Asthisrecommendationsuggests,thecommitteerecommendsthearticulationofskillsandattributesalongafour‐yearspectrum—benchmarkforyearone,milestonesforyearstwoandthree,andcapstoneforyearfour.Thecommitteepresumesthatallstudentswillentertheuniversityatbenchmarkstatus(withthenewCenterforAcademicExcellence,asproposedbythePCARUndergraduateStudiesWorkGroupandendorsedinRecommendation5ofthisreport,makinginterventionsasnecessary).UsingthelearningoutcomespresentedinRecommendation1,theHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperiencewillhelpstudentsdemonstratemilestonelevelsofachievementduringthefirsttwoyearsofstudy.TheCapstoneExperienceinyearfourwillemphasizestudents’subject‐areaknowledgeandskills,whilealsodemonstratingthewaystheyhavestrengthenedthoseskillsthroughthemajor/minorprogramtoachievecapstonelevelproficiency.ThecommitteesupportsthePCARUndergraduateProgramsWorkGroup’sacademicmodelfordeliveringundergraduateeducationthatpresumespre‐orientationentranceassessments;pre‐collegesummerbridgeprogramsasnecessary(followedbypost‐bridgeassessment);andacommonfirst‐yearexperiencetoincludecomposition,mathematics,afirst‐yearseminar,afirst‐yearproficiencyexamination,andtheAfro‐Americanrequiredcourse.Tothismodelthecommitteeproposesaddingoneadditionalrequirement—aninterdisciplinarycourse—andelevatingtheCommonTextasthefirstsignatureelementoftheCommonFirstYearExperience. TheGeneralEducationExperience,asproposedhere,seekstoaddresstwolimitationsthatcharacterizethecurrentgeneraleducationmodel.FirsttheCollegeofArtsandSciencescarriesnearlyalltheinstructionalburden,andsecond,first‐yearstudentsfindthemselvesindisciplinarysilos,preventingthedevelopmentofacommonacademic“Howard

16

Experience”acrossschoolsandcolleges.ThecommitteeproposesthatallschoolsandcollegesgrantingundergraduatedegreesofferrepresentativecoursesthatcontributetotheexistingAfro‐Americancourserequirementandtotheproposedinterdisciplinarycourserequirement.OnepotentialmodeltoachievethismaybetoelevatethecurrentCollegeofArtsandSciences“division”structureofcourseofferingstotheUniversity‐wideGeneralEducationExperiencelevel,withallschoolsandcollegescontributingcourseofferingsandlearningopportunitiestoanexpandeddivisionstructure.Innovativepedagogywouldinevitablyleadtoenlivenedcoursesandactivitiesthatinstitutionalizepracticesthatcurrentlyexistbutlieoutsideoftheofficialrecord.FacultyfromAfro‐AmericanStudies,forexample,informallycontributetoahygienecourseintheCollegeofDentistry;whilephilosophyfacultycollaboratewithbiologyfacultytoconsiderbioethicsdiscoursesintheundergraduateclassroomandinscholarshipalike.Inshort,theGeneralEducationExperienceproposestoelevateandrewardinnovation.Itseekstopromoteandinstitutionalizenewteachingandlearningstrategiesamongfacultyandstudentsfromteam‐taughtcoursestolearningcommunitiesandco‐curricularactivitiestoproblem‐basedlearningandresearchexperiences.Participatingfacultywouldself‐select(witharepresentativemixofjunior,mid‐level,andseniorfaculty),engageconsistentlyintraining,andberewardedwithincentivesthatfortifytheuniversity’scommitmenttoexcellenceinitsgeneraleducationprogram.CommonFirst‐YearExperienceThecommitteerecommendsthatthefirst‐yearexperienceofstudentsacrossalltheundergraduateschoolsandcollegesfocusonbuildingandreinforcingintellectualandappliedskillssuchaswrittenandoralcommunication,quantitativereasoningandliteracy,andcriticalthinking.Itisfurtherrecommendedthatthecommonelementsemphasizethefollowing:(a)quantitativereasoning(mathematics),(b)writtenandoralcommunication,(c)anewlydesignedFreshmanSeminar,(d)aCommonText(linkedtoacourseortorequiredco‐curricularactivities),(e)aninterdisciplinarycourse,and(f)foundationalskillsnecessaryforsuccessintheintendedmajorfield(e.g.,thebiologicalandnaturalsciences,history,foreignlanguage,etc.).SeeAppendixDforthesamplemodelofafirst‐yearcommoncourseschedule.Whilelanguageandsocialsciencecourses,alongwithadisciplinespecificintroductorycourse,werealsoproposed,theywerenotultimatelyincludedbecauseotherpossibleinnovativemethods—suchaslearningtechnologyandtheco‐curricularandextra‐curricularlearningactivitiessponsoredbyUniversityLibraries,StudentAffairsandotherunitsoutsideoftheschoolsandcolleges—canbeusedtoachievecompetencyintheseareas.CoursessuchasPrinciplesofSpeechmightcontinuetoberequiredbyschoolsandcolleges,butthelearningoutcomeoforalcommunicationmightalsobeachievedthroughcoursessuchasInterpersonalCommunication,whichmighthelpstudentsachievetheappropriateskillsetforaprofessionalschoollikeNursingmoresothanatraditionalpublicspeakingcoursewould.Mathematics,naturalscience,andcompositionPlacementpracticesformathematics,naturalscience,andcompositioncoursesshouldbeexaminedregularlyandsupportforplacementstrategiesshouldbeprovidedbythenew

17

CenterforAcademicExcellenceincollaborationwiththedepartmentsofferingthesecourses.Ongoingdialoguebetweenthedepartmentsofferingthesecoursesandundergraduatedegreeprogramsshouldbethestandardbothtoassureproperplacementandtoassurethatparticularcoursesareaddressingtheexpectedlearningoutcomesoftheprograms.Justastheprogramsmustassurethatthefoundationalcoursesinthosedisciplinesimparttheappropriateskillsatbenchmarkandmilestonelevels,sotoomusttheybuilduponthoseskillsinthemajorfieldcoursestoachievecapstonelevelsofcompetency.FollowingtherecommendationofthePCARUndergraduateProgramsWorkgroup,Recommendation2ofthisreportproposesthatalocallydeveloped,first‐yeardiagnosticexaminationbeadministeredtoassessthepercentageofstudentswhomeetcompetencybenchmarkssetattheschoolandcollegelevel.Bytheendofthefirstyear,studentswhodonotmeetminimumlevelsofachievementinwritingandcomputationshouldbeidentifiedandprovidedwithaprogramofremediation.University‐wideFreshmanSeminarandCommonTextThecommitteerecommendsthedevelopmentofaUniversity‐wideFreshmanSeminardesignedtohelpstudentsunderstandthemissionandlegacyofHowardUniversityaswellasthecorecompetenciesthatformthebasisfortheGeneralEducationExperience.Thecourse,asignaturecomponentoftheExperience,wouldcomplementratherthanreplaceexistingorientationcoursesrequiredbyindividualschoolsandcolleges.Currently,theSchoolofCommunication,theCollegeofBusiness,theCollegeofNursingandAlliedHealth,andtheCollegeEngineeringandComputerScienceofferorientationcoursesthatintroducestudentstomajor‐fieldrequirements,programs,andacademicadvising.TheCollegeofArtsandSciencesusesitsseminartointroducestudentstoknowledgeproductionacrosstheacademicdisciplinesandthroughthelensofAfricanandAfricanAmericancultureandthehistoricandcontemporaryproductionofHowardUniversity’sfaculty.TheUniversity‐wideFreshmanSeminarwillalsoinstitutionalizecriticalelementsoftheuniversity’seffectivepedagogy.TheseminaristhelogicalplacetoimplementactivitiesassociatedwiththeCommonText.ThecommitteerecommendsthattheCommonText,whichhasbeenusedforthelasttenyearsbythefreshmanEnglishprogramandhasbeenrecentlyadoptedbytheCollegeofArtsandSciencesasamodelfortheentirecollege,constitutethesecondsignatureelementoftheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience.InterdisciplinaryCourseWhileitisnotpossibletoconceptualizeasinglecoursethatintroducesstudentstothefullrangeofhumanknowledgeandthataimstoshapetheiroutlookandbehaviorasagentsofpositivechangeandasmembersofapurpose‐drivensociety,itispossibletodesigncoursesthatareinterdisciplinaryinnatureandthathelpdevelopstudents’understandingofthecommunity,nation,andworldinwhichtheyliveandtheirrolesasactorsinthesecommunities.Facultyfromschoolsandcollegesshouldcollaboratetodevelopcoursestomeetthisrequirement,whichwillserveasthethirdsignatureelementoftherevisedgeneraleducationprogram.ThiscommitteefollowstheexamplesofanadhoccommitteeoftheCollegeofArtsandSciencesonInterdisciplinaryStudiesandtheInterdisciplinaryWorkingGroupbegunundertheauspicesofagrantfromtheMellonFoundation.Itenvisionsthedevelopmentofaclusterofinterdisciplinarycourses,perhapsnumberingbetween15and30,spanningtheacademicdisciplines.Thegoalofthesecoursesshouldbetocombinetwo

18

ormoreacademicdisciplinestorevealhowdifferentdisciplinarymethodscanbeintegratedtocreatenewknowledgeandtoshapestudents’thinkingalongsuchcompetenciesasglobalconsciousness,environmentalconsciousness,computationalandanalyticalskills,ethicalandculturalawareness,andwrittenandoralcommunication.Thesecourseswouldculminateinaprojectthatrevealsstudents’abilitytothinkacrossdisciplinesandtocombinetwoormoredisciplinarymethodstodevelopnewcriticalinsightintoanidea,topic,ordiscourse.Thecoursescouldalsoserveasseedbedsforexperientialandproblem‐basedlearning.CapstoneExperienceThecommitteeconcurswiththePCARUndergraduateProgramsWorkgroup’srecommendationthatdegree‐grantingprogramsshoulddevelopcapstonelearningexperiencesinthefinalyearthatwillenablestudentstosynthesizewhattheyhavelearnedduringtheirmatriculationasundergraduatestudents.Whilesomedepartmentsalreadyrequirecapstoneexperiences,alldegree‐grantingprogramsshouldrequireaCapstoneExperiencethatwillenablestudentstorevealacapstonelevelofcompetencyoftheGeneralEducationProgram’slearningoutcomesandunderstandtheirrelationtotheirmajorfield(s)ofstudy.Recommendation4.PromoteCo‐curricular,StudentAffairsandLibraryEngagementThatschoolsandcollegesincorporateco‐curricularand/orextra‐curricularlearningexperiencesprovidedbystudent‐supportserviceareassuchastheDivisionofStudentAffairsandUniversityLibrariesasaformalmechanismtoachievegeneraleducationlearningoutcomesResearchinstudentlearningaswellasHowardUniversity’sassessmentdatademonstratethatstudentlearningoccursthroughactivitiesandexperiencesoutsideandinsidethetraditionalclassroom.Infact,co‐curricularandevennon‐curricularsettingsoftenprovidestudentswithopportunitiesforstudentstointegrateandapplywhattheyhavelearned.Totakeoneexample,theuniversityroutinelyhostslectures,symposia,workshops,paneldiscussions,andforums.Theseeventsfeatureparticipantswhorepresentinternational,national,regional,andlocalentitiesthatincludegovernments,foundations,corporations,andorganizationsrepresentingawiderangeofinterests.Theseeventsaresitesoflearningthathavetraditionallybeenconsideredextra‐curricular,butthatnonethelessaddresscompetenciesthatstudentsshouldacquirepriortograduation.Totakeanotherexample,theprogramsandservicesofferedbytheDivisionofStudentAffairsandbyUniversityLibrariesalsoaddressmanyofthe21HowardUniversitylearningoutcomes.Thelibrariesofferon‐linetutorialsinarangeofskillscriticaltostudents’academicsuccess.ThevariousunitsinStudentAffairssponsoractivitiesrangingfromphysicalfitnessprogramsthroughhealthscreeningstohighlyeffectivecommunityserviceprojects.Bypermittingstudentstocompletecertainco‐curricular,extra‐curricularandtechnology‐basedprograms,theschoolsandcollegesmayhavegreaterflexibilityinachievinggeneraleducationandprogram‐specificlearningoutcomes.Ofparticularnotearethoseoutcomesrelatedtophysicalandmentalhealth,teamwork,entrepreneurship,civicknowledgeandengagement,andfoundationsandskillsforlife‐longlearning.Suchaflexibleapproachwillalsoassistprogramsincomplyingwiththe120‐hourgraduationrequirementestablishedbytheBoardofTrusteesinJune2012.Tohelpguideindeterminingwhichco‐

19

curricularprogramsandactivitiesmightsatisfylearningoutcomes,thenewuniversity‐widegeneralstudiescommitteeproposedinRecommendation6willproviderubricsandguidelines.AlsoseeAppendixD,whichdisplaysamapforaligningco‐curricularactivitieswithgeneraleducationlearningoutcomes.ThecommitteerecommendsfurtherinvestigationofthewaysinwhichBlackboard,BannerandtheBisonOnecardmayenablewideradoptionandeasierassessmentoffulfillinggeneraleducationlearningoutcomesthroughco‐curricularactivities.CurrentlysomeschoolsandcollegesuseBannertotracksuccessfulcompletionofcertaintests,thesisandothernon‐creditrelatedwork;howtheydothisshouldbesharedacrossunitstohelpplanandimplementthisrecommendation.Itmaybenecessarytoupgradeexistingsystemsoracquirenewtechnologytoenablesuchco‐curricularactivitytoappearontranscripts.TheBisonOneCardmightbeusedtotrackinvolvementinstudentactivities.Blackboardmightbeusedtoenablestudentstocreatedigitalportfoliosthatcouldhelpthemtrackandreflectontheirnon‐coursebasedlearning.AsdescribedindetailinRecommendation2ofthisreport,theOfficeofInstitutionalAssessmentandEffectivenesswillworkcloselywithalloftheinvolvedpartiestodevelopstandardmechanismsforassessingstudentlearningthroughthisnon‐courserelatedactivity.Theacademicunits,includingtheparticipatingfunctionalunitsinuniversitylibraries,andstudentaffairsmustworkcloselytogethertoassurethesuccessoftheseassessmentefforts.Recommendation5.EstablishaCenterforAcademicExcellenceThattheUniversityestablishtheCenterforAcademicExcellencemodeledonthedesignproposedbytheUndergraduateProgramWorkGroupofthePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewal(PCAR).Thiscenterwill,amongotherthings,coordinatetheprovisionofthefollowingacademicsupportprogramsandservices:summerbridgeprogram(s);advisingincollaborationwithfacultyandprofessionalstaffadvisorsandcounselors;blockschedulingasappropriate;andearlywarningandsupportprogram(s).ThereportoftheUndergraduateProgramWorkingGroupofthePresidentialCommissiononAcademicRenewaldescribedamodelCenterofAcademicExcellence(Center).ThemodeldrewfromtheexperienceoftheCenterforAcademicReinforcement(CAR),whichhasforyearsaddressedtheacademicdifficultiesthatcertainundergraduatestudentsface,raisingtheirlevelofpreparation,buildingastrongcommitmenttolearning,andreinforcingtheircommandoverfoundationalacademicskillsnecessarytoachieveacademicsuccess.BearinginmindthataprocessfordevelopingsuchaCenterisunderway,thecommitteerecommendsthatthefollowingminimumcomponentsbeconsideredinthedevelopmentofthecenter:ThePre‐CollegeSummerBridgeProgramThisprogramwouldprovidesupportforstudentswhohavenotyetachievedoptimalacademicperformancebutwhononethelessshowacademicpotential.Studentswhoareacceptedintotheuniversityprovisionallyshouldberequiredtoattendtheprogram.StudentswithlowSAT/ACTscoresinmathematicsandEnglishwouldhavetheopportunitytoentercollege‐levelcoursesbycompletingsummerbridgeprogramssuccessfully.These

20

programsshouldbecoordinatedwiththedepartmentsofmathematicsandEnglish.Othersummerbridgeprogramsmightbedesignedforhigh‐achievingstudents,modeledonsuccessfulpre‐collegepreparatoryprogramsthatidentifyandgroomstudentsingrades10through12tofacilitatetheirtransitionintocollegeandintoanacademicenvironmentthatisatoncechallengingandsupportive.AdvisingTheCenterforAcademicExcellenceshouldserveacoordinatingfunctionwithschools/colleges/departmentstoensurethatstudentsbenefitfromsoundacademicadvisingduringtheundergraduateyears.Transfer,at‐risk,andnon‐traditionalstudentsshouldhaveaccesstoprogramsthattakeintoaccounttheirspecialcircumstancesandneeds.Senioradvisementandgraduationclearancewillstillremainwiththeacademicunits.Ideally,thisCenterwillprovideadvisementthataddressesstudents’needsinareasthatarenotacademicinthestrictsense.Thesemightrangefromsuchmattersastimemanagement,interpersonalrelationships,andcareerstoreferralsforprofessionalcounselingservices.At‐Risk/EarlyAlertProgramAsanextensionoftheAdvisingandPre‐CollegeSummerBridgecomponents,theAt‐Risk/EarlyAlertProgramcanaidinretention,reducetheriskofstudentstop‐outordrop‐out,andprovideclosermonitoringandsupportofstudentsplacedonacademicprobationorsuspension.TheprogramwouldbedevelopedincollaborationwithexistingservicesthatincludebutarenotlimitedtotheUniversityCounselingCenter,theDeanforSpecialStudentServices,andtheDeanoftheChapel.HonorsEducationandSupportforScholarlyActivityTheCenterforAcademicExcellenceshouldserveacoordinatingfunctionfortheexistinghonorsprogramsintheCollegeofArtsandSciences,theSchoolofBusiness,andtheSchoolofCommunications.Althoughtheseprogramswillretaintheircurrentautonomy,thecoordinationoftheCenterwillencouragecollaboration,enableconsistency,andavoidduplicationofefforts.TheCenterforAcademicExcellencemayalsoserveasthesiteformentoringstudentsinterestedinapplyingforavarietyofnationalandinternationalscholarships,awards,andhonors.ThesemightincludeRhodes,Marshall,Mitchell,Gates,Cambridge,Truman,Goldwater,Udall,andFulbrightfellowships.TheCenterforAcademicExcellencewouldcoordinatethementoringofprospectivecandidatesfromamongthefaculty,formerwinnersandstafffromtheschools,collegesandacademicsupportunitssuchastheRalphBuncheCenter.Thiswouldincludeidentifyingprospectivecandidatesfromtheirfirstsemesterofmatriculation;advisingthemwithrespecttoappropriatecurricular,co‐curricular,andextra‐curricularchoices;assistinginthepreparationofapplicationsandfurnishingsupportivelettersofrecommendation;andconductingmockinterviewsinpreparationforthefinalstagesofcompetitiontoparticipateintheseprograms.UndergraduateResearchTheCenterforAcademicExcellenceshouldserveacoordinatingfunctionregardingundergraduateresearch.Anumberofacademicprogramscurrentlysupportundergraduateresearch,insomecasesasadirectcomponentofthecurriculumandinothercasesthroughspecialprograms,includingonethatmaybesupportedbygrants.TheCentermightservea

21

valuableclearinghousefunction,informinginterestedfacultymembers,programdirectors,andstudentsaboutundergraduateresearchinitiativesandopportunitiesacrosstheuniversity.Althoughsuchafunctionwouldbeparticularlyvaluableforstudentswhointendtopursueprestigiousnationalawardsandscholarshipsorgraduatestudy,researchhasdemonstratedthevaluethatresearchexperiencesprovidetoallundergraduatestudents.MentorshipProgramIncollaborationwithexisting,successfulprograms,theCenterforAcademicExcellenceshoulddevelopandcoordinatementorshipprogramsthathelpstudentssucceedacademically,financially,psychologically,socially,andspiritually.Thegoalshouldbeforeverystudenttobenefitfrompeerandfacultymentorshiptoassistinnavigatingthemajorchallengesoftransitioningintotheuniversity,balancingcompetingobligations,completinggraduationrequirementstimely,andtransitioningfromtheuniversityintograduateeducationorthefirststepsindevelopingtheircareers.Recommendation6.IncreaseAdministrativeCoordinationandSupportThattheuniversityestablishaformalinfrastructuretocoordinateandsupportGeneralEducation that includesprovost‐level coordination,auniversity‐wide committee,andsupportforfaculty,staffandcollaboratingunits.Transitioningtoanoutcomesandassessment‐basedgeneraleducationapproachrequiresstrongsupportandcarefulcoordinationfromtheOfficeoftheProvost.Recommendationsinthisreportcallforanexpansionofcoursesandactivitiesthatmaysatisfylearningoutcomes.Theparticipationofallacademicandacademic‐supportunitswillbenecessarytoensurealignmentwiththisapproachacrossthecampus.TheOfficeoftheProvostisthemostsuitableunittocoordinatethisactivityandensurethatitissuccessfulandsustainable.Astandinguniversity‐widecommitteeconsistingofrepresentativefaculty,students,andstafffromallunitsoftheuniversityisanidealframeworktoensurethatinputisreceivedfromallstakeholdersinthisprocess.Theoutcomesandassessmentapproachisdynamic,andcoursesandco‐curricularactivitieswillcontinuetoevolvetowardalignmentwiththisapproach.Accordingly,facultymembers,directorsofdegreeprograms,andschool‐andcollege‐leveladministratorswillhavetomodifyexistingcourses,createnewcourses,anddevelopappropriateco‐curricularactivitieswherebystudentsmaymeetoutcomesthatcanbesuccessfullyassessed.Developmentactivitiesandtrainingwillbenecessarytohelpfacultymembersduringthisprocess.Theuniversity‐widecommitteewillworkinpartnershipwiththeOfficeoftheProvosttoensurethatfacultymembersandstaffreceiveinformationandsupporttomakethetransitiontothisnewmodelthatfocusesonlearningoutcomes.Theuniversity‐widecommitteewillworkcollaborativelyto:1)ensureaccurateimplementationofthelearningoutcomesapproachinallcurricula,2)periodicallyreviewlearningoutcomesandrecommendchangesasappropriate,3)determinewhichpoliciesandproceduresmayneedtobeupdatedtoallowsuccessfulalignmentwiththelearningoutcomesapproach,and4)recommendongoingfacultysupporttoimplementthelearningoutcomesapproach.Theprovostshouldprovideadministrativeandfinancialsupporttothiscommitteetoassureitssuccess.

22

Recommendation7.IncreaseResourcesThattheUniversityprovideadequatefiscal,technological,andhumanresourcestoplan,implement,assess,andsustaintheGeneralEducationExperienceeffectivelyandefficiently.Anyeffectivegeneraleducationreform,especiallyonethatincorporatesaparadigmshiftthattakesanoutcomes‐basedapproachtoteachingandlearning,musthaveappropriatefiscal,technological,andhumanresourcestoassureitssuccess.Externalresourcesshouldbepursuedatboththeprogrammaticandinstitutionallevels.Priorityconsiderationshouldbegiventoidentifyinginternalresourcesthatwillenablemembersofthefaculty,professionalstaffandsupportstafftomeettheneedsoftheGeneralEducationExperience.Whilethecommitteeacknowledgesthatadditionalresourceswillberequired,itrecommendsforemostthebetteruseofcurrentresources.Theuniversitymustundertakeacampus‐widediscussionthatwillresultinidentifyingcreativewaysofusingexistingresourcesdifferentlytoaccomplishthegoalsoftheGeneralEducationExperienceandtopromotestudentlearning.Itisthereforeimportanttodevelopnewmodelsforsatisfyinglearningoutcomesthatdonotdependexclusivelyonthreecredit‐hourcourses.Thiswillallowforthecreativereallocationoffacultyresourcestomeetnewprogramrequirementssuchasredesigningcoursesandparticipatinginassessmentactivities.Efficientandeffectiveplanninghasthepotentialtoreduceimaginedresourceneeds.Forexample,strategicallytimedcoursereleaseswouldenablefacultytosignificantlycontributetoandservetheGeneralEducationExperienceatnoexpenseandwithoutcompromisingcourseofferings.Withmorefacultycontributinginstructionunderthenewmodel,thefacultymembersofdepartmentswithheavyservice‐courseobligationsunderthecurrentmodelwillbeabletolightentheirburden,refocustheireffortstoeffectiveteachingandstudentlearning,andcontributetheirservicesoutsideoftheclassroomtoassurethesuccessoftheGeneralEducationExperience.WorkloadagreementsandFacultyPerformanceEvaluationSysteminstrumentsshouldreflectfacultyengagementingeneraleducation,andbothincentiveandrewardstructuresshouldreaffirmtheparamountsignificanceoftheGeneralEducationExperiencetoassuringthatHowardUniversitygraduatespossesstheagreed‐uponprofileofacademicskillsandlearningexperiencesforsuccess.TheCenterforExcellenceinTeachingandLearningmustbeengagedfullyateverylevel.CETLAiswellpoisedtohosttrainingsessionsforfacultymembersinthepracticesthathaveyieldedeffectiveresultsandtohelpfacultydevelopnewwaysofencouragingexcellenceinteachingandlearning.WhilesomeadditionalresourcesmayberequiredtomaximizeCETLA’sabilitytosupporttheGeneralEducationExperience,theCETLAalreadypromotesmanyoftheinitiativesthecommitteerecommendsthatarecurrentlypracticedbutnotformallyinstitutionalized.Eachschoolandcollegeshouldidentifyanindividualwhowillcoordinategeneraleducationandensurethecompleteandtimelyreportingofassessmentdata.Additionaladvisorsandacademicandco‐curricularcoordinatorsfortheproposedinitiativesmayberequiredtoimplementandsustainvariousinitiatives.Membersoftheproposeduniversity‐widecommitteemayrequirereleasetimefromteachingaswarrantedbythecommittee’scharge

23

andactivities.Additionalsupportstaffmayalsobenecessarytohelpwithcollectingandprocessingassessmentdataandwithrecordingthelearningoutcomesthatwillbesatisfiedthroughco‐curricularandextra‐curricularlearningexperiences.RestoringtheFundforAcademicExcellenceconstitutesanimportantfirststepinmakingresourcesavailabletosupportcurriculumrevision.ThiswillencouragefacultytoreimagineandredesigncoursesandtocollaborateacrossschoolsandcollegesinwaysthatsupportthekindofteachingandlearningnecessarytoenableexcellenceintheGeneralEducationExperience.Intheareaoftechnology,upgradestocurrentsystemssuchasBanner,Blackboard,andtheBisonOnecardarelikelytobenecessarytoensurethesuccessfulimplementationofanumberofinitiativesrecommendedinthisreport.Likewise,ETSshouldworkcloselywithschoolsandcolleges,CETLA,theOfficeofInstitutionalAssessmentandEvaluation,theDivisionofStudentAffairs,UniversityLibraries,andotherdivisionstoensuretheyhavethenecessarytechnologytoachievethelearningoutcomes.Finally,theOfficeofUniversityCommunicationsmustbeengagedtodevelopapromotionalplanforthenewinitiative.Resourcesmaybeneededtodevelopadedicatedwebsite,printedmaterial,andongoingcommunicationsviasocialmedia,emailandotherelectronicmedia.Thecampaignmustencompassalumni,parents,potentialstudents,andexternalpartnersandincludecurrentandprospectivefacultymembersandstudents.Insum,successoftheGeneralEducationExperiencewillrequireresources.

24

UniversityStudiesCommitteeReportAPPENDICESA.MembersoftheCommitteeB.RationaleforGeneralEducationReformC.LearningOutcomesD.SampleFirstYearExperienceCurriculumE.GeneralEducationMappingofCurriculum/Co‐curricularforEachUndergraduateAcademicProgram

F.GlobalProcessMapG.HighImpactPractices

25

APPENDIXA

MembersoftheUniversityStudiesCommitteeMr.TyroneBarksdale,OfficeoftheProvostDr.RosalieS.Boone,CurriculumandInstruction,EducationMr.KennethBurnett,Business**Dr.LorraineFleming,CivilEngineering,Engineering,Architecture,ComputerSciencesDr.RochelleFord,CommunicationsDr.RajniGoel,InformationSystemsandDecisionSciences,BusinessMs.CarrieHackney,UniversityLibraryDr.GerundaHughes,OfficeofInstitutionalAssessmentandEvaluationDr.KimberlyJones,CivilEngineering,Engineering,Architecture,ComputerSciencesDr.SubodhKulkarni,Management,BusinessDr.VelmaLaPoint,HumanDevelopmentandPsychoeducationalStudies,EducationDr.ValarieLawson,CenterforAcademicReinforcement,Education*Dr.MarkLee,ResidenceLife,StudentAffairsDr.JillMcGowan,Mathematics,ArtsandSciencesMs.CarolMcKinnon,Registrar,Dr.ErnestQuimby,Sociology,ArtsandSciences*Dr.TeresaRedd,CenterforExcellenceinTeachingandAssessmentDr.JosephReidy,OfficeoftheProvostDr.OmariSwinton,Economics,ArtsandSciencesDr.JohnTharakan,ChemicalEngineering,Engineering,Architecture,ComputerSciencesDr.DebyiiThomas,CommunicationandCulture,CommunicationsDr.MichaelWallace,OfficeofInstitutionalAssessmentandEvaluationProf.MelissaWeir,UndergraduateNursing,NursingandAlliedHealthSciencesDr.DanaWilliams,English,ArtsandSciencesDr.AlmazZewde,AfricanStudies,ArtsandSciencesCommitteeStaffMs.ReginaDrakeMs.SheleseLyngFormerMembersoftheCommitteeDr.SegunGbadegesin,Philosophy,ArtsandSciencesDr.ChukaOnwumechili,CommunicationandCulture,CommunicationsDr.GregoryJenkins,Physics,ArtsandSciencesDr.SpiridonKaravatas,PhysicalTherapy,NursingandAlliedHealthSciencesDr.DeborahSchiavone,UndergraduateNursing,NursingandAlliedHealthSciences*FacultySenate**Student

26

APPENDIXBRationaleforGeneralEducationReform

May2011

Intellectualo UniversityStudiesmustprovideanentrywayforincomingstudentsto

groundthemselvesintheuniversityasthefirststeptowardundergraduatedegreesandgraduate/professionalopportunities

o TheGeneralEducationProgramhasnotbeenrevampedinmorethan20years

o Thescholarshipofteachingandlearningsuggeststhevalueofnewapproaches

o Leadingresearchuniversitiesareengagedinthework(seethewebsiteoftheReinventionCenter,tonameonlyone)

o HowardUniversityisaresearchuniversity;sostudentsateveryprogramlevelneedtobeengagedinresearch

o Universitiesareidentifyingsignatureexperiencestocharacterizetheirprograms—oftenbeginninginthefreshmanyear

Pedagogicalo Emphasisonstudentlearningoutcomeso Emphasisoncommonexperiencesinsuchthingsaslearning

communitieso Emphasisco‐curricularandexperientiallearningexperiencesin

academicprogrammingo Nationaldatasuggesttheneedtochange

“AcademicallyAdrift,”NewYorkTimesOp‐edcolumn,May15,2011.

Otherstudiesonstudentlearningo HowardUniversity‐specificdatasuggesttheneedtochange

75percentofundergraduatestudentspersistintotheirsenioryearbutlessthan50percentgraduateinfouryears

Fewerthan25percentofstudentswhoenrollinFreshmanAlgebraearnapassinggrade,whichadverselyaffectscompletionratesandimposesadditionaldebtonstudents

StudentsinNSSEresponsesrelatedtogeneraleducationrecognizetheirneedforacademicassistanceincoresubjectareassuchascomposition,mathematics,etc.

Overridesandgraduationclearanceproblemsoftenarethedirectresultofgraduationschemeswherebystudentsarestillsatisfyingfreshman/sophomoregeneraleducationdivisionalrequirementsintheirsenioryears

Organizationalo UniversitystudiesshouldnotresidesolelyintheCollegeofArtsand

Sciences

27

o Needtodevelopalternativestothecurrentadditivemodelinwhich,forinstance,anotherrequiredcourseisaddedtogeneraleducationrequirementstoaddressaparticularstudentlearningoutcomesuchascomposition

o Needtotakeadvantageoflearningtechnologyandnewmediao Needtoengageschool/collegeanddepartmentalcurriculum

committeeswithupdatingtheirmajor‐fieldcurriculatomatchtherevisionstogeneraleducationrequirements

Financialo Departmentalresources(bothfacultyeffortandcorrespondingsalary

dollars)areovertaxedwithgeneraleducationcourseso Delayedtimetodegreemeansadditionaltuitionpayments/loansfor

students

28

APPENDIXC

TheHowardUniversityGeneralEducationExperience:21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCentury

 1.CreativeThinking

AHowardgraduatewillbeabletocombineorsynthesizeexistingideas,images,orexpertiseinoriginalways.Graduateswilldemonstratetheexperienceofthinking,reacting,andworkinginanimaginativewaycharacterizedbyahighdegreeofinnovation,divergentthinking,andrisktaking.

Summary/FramingLanguageCreativethinking,asitisfosteredwithinhighereducation,mustbedistinguishedfromlessfocusedtypesofcreativitysuchasthecreativityexhibitedbyasmallchild’sdrawing,whichstemsnotfromanunderstandingofconnections,butfromanignoranceofboundaries.Creativethinkinginhighereducationcanonlybeexpressedproductivelywithinaparticulardomain.Thestudentmusthaveastrongfoundationinthestrategiesandskillsofthedomaininordertomakeconnectionsandsynthesize.Whiledemonstratingsolidknowledgeofthedomain'sparameters,thecreativethinker,atthehighestlevelsofperformance,pushesbeyondthoseboundariesinnew,unique,oratypicalre‐combinations,uncoveringorcriticallyperceivingnewsynthesesandusingorrecognizingcreativerisk‐takingtoachieveasolution. 2.CriticalThinkingandProblemSolving

AHowardgraduatewillbeabletounderstandandevaluateproblemsandissues,gatherrelevantevidence,makeappropriateassumptionsandcometoalogicalconclusionorsummarythatisbasedonexistingevidenceandassumptions.Withregardtoproblemsolving,aHowardgraduatewillbeabletodefineaproblem,identifystrategies,proposehypothesesandsolutions,evaluatepotentialalternativesolutions,implementsolutionsandevaluateoutcomes.

Summary/FramingLanguageCriticalthinkinginvolvesstudents’abilityto(1)clearlystateproblemsorissues,includingallrelevantinformation;(2)identifyandevaluateevidencefromavarietyofsources;(3)providenewdataorinformationasnecessary;(4)identifyandevaluateassumptions,bothobviousandabstract;(5)framepersonalopinionsandacknowledgeotherperspectives;(6)acknowledgeobjectionsandrivalpositions,andprovideconvincingreplies;(7)andevaluateimplications,conclusions,andconsequencesbasedonavailabledata,evidence,contextandassumptions.Problem‐solving covers a wide range of activities that may vary significantly acrossdisciplines, including problems that may range from well‐defined to ambiguous, in

29

simulatedorlaboratorycontexts,and/orinrealworldsettings.Therubricdistillscommonelementsofvariousproblemsolvingcontextsandfunctionsacrossdisciplinesandincludesproblem identification, identification of different strategies, proposing hypotheses andevaluatingalternativesolutions,andimplementingsolutionsandevaluatingoutcomes.3.EthicalReasoning

AHowardgraduatewillengageinethicaldecision‐makingwhenconfrontedwithanethicaldilemma,recognizeethicalissues,applyethicalprinciples,andeffectivelydefendaposition.Thegraduatewillnotonlyassesshisorherownethicalvalues,butalsoevaluateothers’ethicalperspectivesbyidentifyingtheunderlyingassumptionsandimplications.

Summary/FramingLanguageThisethicalreasoningoutcomefocusesonhelpingstudentsturnwhatthey’velearnedintheclassroomintoaction,pragmatically,whilethiscannotbeeasilyobserved,facultycanobservetheextenttowhichstudentshavetheintellectualtoolstomakeethicalchoices.Ethicalreasoningfocusesonfiveelements:ethicalself‐awareness,ethicalissuerecognition,understandingdifferentethicalperspectives/concepts,applicationofethicalprinciples,andevaluationofdifferentethicalperspectives/concepts.Students’ethicalself‐identityevolvesastheypracticeethicaldecision‐makingskillsandlearnhowtodescribeandanalyzepositionsonethicalissues.Presumably,theywillchooseethicalactionswhenfacedwithethicalissues.4.InquiryandAnalysis

AHowardgraduatewillmakeintelligentandinformedjudgmentsontopicalissuesandprovidereasonedalternativestoinadequateknowledgeparadigms.

Summary/FramingLanguageAHowardstudentwillreceiveexemplarytraining

o inthesystematicexplorationofideasandissues;o inthecriticalevaluationofavailableevidence;o in the insightful analysis of the empirical and/or logical connections

betweeneventsandideas;ando inthesympatheticunderstandingofotherpointsofviewandperspectives.

This trainingwillproduceagraduate that competently sortsout information, synthesizesideas,critiquespreexistingparadigms,andprovidesinformedandintelligentalternatives.5.WrittenCommunication

AHowardgraduatewillusevariedwritingtechnologies,texts,data,andimagestodevelopandexpressideasclearlyinwriting.Thegraduatewillalsowriteinavarietyofgenresandstylesfordiverseaudiencesthroughiterativeexperiencesacrossthecurriculum.

Summary/FramingLanguageThewriter(1)fulfillstheassignedtaskanddemonstratesathoroughunderstandingofthesubject matter, the target audience, and the purpose, (2) uses an effective composing

30

processtodevelopappropriate,relevant,andcompellingcontentthatillustratesmasteryofthe subject, conveys the writer's understanding, and shapes the entire work, (3)demonstratesdetailedattentiontoandsuccessfulexecutionofawiderangeofconventionsand language particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s), includingorganization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices, (4) demonstratesskillfulsynthesis,analysis,andevaluationofcredible,relevantsourcestodevelopideasthatareappropriatefordisciplinesandgenres,documentingsourcesasnecessary,(5)displaysafacility with the language of the discipline and mastery of grammar, spelling andmechanics,including communicatingmeaning to readerswith clarity and fluency,and (6)integratessourcessmoothlyaccordingtotheconventionsofthediscipline.6.OralCommunication

AHowardgraduatewillspeakcompetentlyandconfidentlytodiverseaudiencesaswellaslistentoandanalyzespeechesandmessagesfromothers.Thegraduatewillalsoeffectivelyusevariousmeans,includingtechnologyandnonverballanguage,tosupporthis/herdelivery.

Summary/FramingLanguageTheeffectivespeakerisabletosuccessfullyaccomplishthefollowing:(1)listenandanalyzecommunication from others, (2) speak persuasively and appear credible to diverseaudiences, (3) use language that is illustrative, imaginative, memorable, compelling andappropriateforthedisciplineandaudience,(4)useaneffectiveorganizationalpatternforspeech that includes a clearly stated introduction with a central idea, a body includingclaimsandevidences,effectiveandseamlesstransitions,andaconclusionthatremindstheaudienceofearlierargumentsandthecentralidea,(5)deliverspeecheswitheffectivenon‐verbal actionsandqualitiesthat includeposture,eye contact, illustrators, amplifiedvoice,tonalvariety,andexpressiveness,(6)useavarietyofsupportingmaterialsthatmayincludeanalogies, examples, statistics, and quotations from credible sources, and (7)speakextemporaneously.7.QuantitativeLiteracy

AHowardgraduatewillreadandinterpretgraphsandstatistics,understandtherelationshipsdescribedinequationsappropriatetohisorherdiscipline,writesomeequationsthataccuratelydescriberelationshipsrelevanttohisorherdiscipline,andperformaccurateandpertinentcomputationstosimplifyequationsorderivequantitativeanswers.

Summary/FramingLanguageQuantitativeLiteracy(QL)isneitherjustcomputationnorsimplythecitingofsomeoneelse'sdata.QLisahabitofmind,awayofthinkingabouttheworldthatreliesondataandonthemathematicalanalysisofdatatomakeconnectionsanddrawconclusions.QLencompassessuchskillsasanalyzingquantitativeinformation,representingquantitativeinformationinappropriateforms,completingcalculationstoanswermeaningfulquestions,makingjudgmentsbasedonquantitativedataandcommunicatingtheresultsofthatworkforvariouspurposesandaudiences.Inanycase,asuccessfuldemonstrationofQLwillplacethemathematicalworkinthecontextofafullandrobustdiscussionoftheunderlyingissuesandproblems.

31

Finally,quantitativeliteracyskillscanbeappliedtoawidearrayofproblemsofvaryingdifficulty.Forexample,thesamestudentmightdemonstratehighlevelsofQLachievementwhenworkingonasimplisticproblemandlowlevelsofQLachievementwhenworkingonaverycomplexproblem.Thus,toaccuratelyassessastudent’sQLachievementitmaybenecessarytomeasureQLachievementwithinthecontextofproblemcomplexity,muchasisdoneindivingcompetitionswheretwoscoresaregiven,oneforthedifficultyofthediveandtheotherfortheskillinaccomplishingthedive.Inthiscontext,thatwouldmeangivingonescoreforthecomplexityoftheproblemandanotherscorefortheQLachievementinsolvingtheproblem.8.QualitativeLiteracy

AHowardgraduatewilldemonstrateappreciationforandcompetencyincollecting,managing,analyzing,synthesizing,interpretingandapplyingnon‐numericaldata.Sheorhewillbeabletodescribethepurposesofqualitativeliteracy;identifythecomponentsofqualitativemethodology,i.e.,collection,management,interpretation,application,etc.,ofnon‐numericaldata;recognizewaysinwhichdataarecontextual;criticallyanalyzequalitativedata;andconsistentlyreflectonhowknowledgeandsocialrealityareculturallycreated.

Summary/FramingLanguageQualitativeliteracyisasystematicwayofthinkingabout,understandingandinterpretinginformationandexperiences,fromtheculturalperspectivesofthosewhoarestudied.Itrequiresobjectivityandpersonalreflectionbythestudentinvestigatorregardingthepurposes,methodsandoutcomesofproposedoractualresearch.Thisinvolvesrecognizingandaccountingforone’sbiases,assumptions,conceptionsandapproaches.Italsoemphasizesthevalue,challenges,limitationsandstrengthsofdocumentingotherpeople’svoices,e.g.,asreflectedinnarratives,stories,artifactsandvisuals.9.InformationLiteracy

AHowardgraduatewillrecognizewhenthereisaneedforinformationandbeabletoidentify,locate,evaluate,andeffectivelyandresponsiblyuseandsharethatinformationfortheproblemathand—whetherthisinformationislocatedorsharedthroughprinted,oral,electronic,digitalorothermedia.

Summary/FramingLanguageInformationliteracyaddressesthestudent'sabilitytodeterminetheextentofinformationneeded,accesstheneededinformation,evaluateinformationanditssourcescritically,useinformationeffectivelytoaccomplishaspecificpurpose,andaccessanduseinformationethicallyandlegally.Howardgraduatesshouldbeableto:(1)defineeffectivelythescopeoftheresearchquestionorthesis;(2)determinekeyconcepts;(3)identifyandselectvarioustypesofinformation(sourcesfromvariousmediaincludingoral,printed,electronic,digitalandothermedia)directlyrelatedtoconceptsthatanswertheresearchquestion(s);(4)accessinformationusingeffective,well‐designedsearchstrategiesandmostappropriateinformationsources;(5)analyzecriticallythecredibilityofinformationsources,particularlydistinguishingbetweennews,information,propaganda,opinion,reportedfacts,

32

etc.;(6)analyzethoroughly(systematicallyandmethodically)theirownandothers'assumptions;(7)evaluatecarefullytherelevanceofcontextswhenpresentingaposition;(8)communicate,organizeandsynthesizeinformationfromsourcestoachieveaspecificpurposewithclarityanddepth;(9)shareinformationinthemostappropriatemedia(written,oral,digital,electronic,etc);(10)correctlyuseallofthefollowinginformationusestrategies(usecitationsandreferences;choiceofparaphrasing,summary,orquoting;usinginformationinwaysthataretruetooriginalcontext,distinguishingbetweencommonknowledgeandideasrequiringattribution);and(11)demonstrateafullunderstandingoftheethicalandlegalrestrictionsontheuseofpublished,confidential,and/orproprietaryinformation.10.Technology

AHowardUniversitygraduatewillbeabletodemonstrateasoundunderstandingofthenatureandoperationoftechnologysystems;todemonstrateproficientuseoftechnologyrelevanttotheirmajorareaofstudyandgeneralinformationgatheringandanalysis;toapplystrategiesforidentifyingandsolvingroutinehardwareandsoftwareproblemsthatoccurduringeverydayuse;tounderstandtheethical,legal,culturalandsocietalissuesrelatedtotechnologyandconsequencesofmisuse;topracticeresponsibleuseoftechnologysystemsinformationandsoftwarerelevanttoinformationgathering,analysisandtheirmajorareaofstudy;andhavepositiveattitudestowardtechnologyusesthatsupportlifelonglearning,collaboration,personalpursuits,andproductivity.

Summary/FramingLanguage“Technologicalliteracyencompassesthreeinterdependentdimensions—knowledge,waysofthinkingandacting,andcapabilities.”(NAE&NRC,2002,p.3)Technologicalliteracy,likeotherformsofliteracy,iswhateverypersonneedsinordertobeaninformedandcontributingcitizenfortheworldoftodayandtomorrow.Ontheotherhand,technologicalcompetencyiswhatsomepeopleneedtobepreparedtobesuccessfulinatechnicalcareer.Understandingtechnologyinvolvestheabilitytounderstandandsynthesizefactsandinformationintonewinsights(ITEA,1996).Fromarelatedperspective,apublicationpreparedbytheNationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andtheNationalResearchCouncil(NRC)entitledTechnicallySpeaking:WhyAllAmericansNeedtoKnowMoreAboutTechnology(2002),statesthat“technologicalliteracyencompassesthreeinterdependentdimensions—knowledge,waysofthinkingandacting,andcapabilities.Likeliteracyinscience,mathematics,socialstudies,orlanguagearts,thegoaloftechnologicalliteracyistoprovidepeoplewiththetoolstoparticipateintelligentlyandthoughtfullyintheworldaroundthem”(p.3).Technologicalliteracy,likeotherformsofliteracy,iswhateverypersonneedsinordertobeaninformedandcontributingcitizenfortheworldoftodayandtomorrow.Inordertoachievetechnologicalliteracy,studentsthereforemustdevelopabroadrangeoftechnologicalknowledgeandabilities.Ontheotherhand,technologicalcompetencyiswhatsomepeopleneedtobepreparedtobesuccessfulinatechnicalcareer.Thelong‐termgoaloftechnologyliteracyisforstudentstousethetoolsoftheirsocietywithskillandinanethical,accurate,andinsightfulmannertomeetthedemandsofthe21stCenturyworkplace.TheICTPanelstatesthatliteracycannotbedefinedasprimarilythemasteryof

33

technicalskills.Thepanelconcludedthattheconceptshouldbebroadenedtoincludegeneralliteracyskillsandcriticalthinkingandproblemsolvingskills(ETS,2002).11.ArtandHumanities

AHowardgraduatewillanalyze,interpret,andevaluatetheintellectualandimaginativeworksthathumanshavecreatedthroughtheagesandaroundtheworld—aswellasthehistoricalandideologicalcontextthatproducedthoseworks.

Summary/FramingLanguageAsAfricanAmericanscholarW.E.B.DuBoisstated,“intelligence,broadsympathy,knowledgeoftheworldthatwasandis,andoftherelationofmen[andwomen]toit—thisisthecurriculumoftheHigherEducationwhichmustunderlietruelife.”Therefore,throughclosereading,carefulobservation,attentivelistening,andanalyticalwriting,theHowardgraduatewillexaminetheenduringthemesofhumanisticinquirynotonlyin“WesternCivilization,”butbeforeitsbirthandbeyonditsreach.Forexample,thesethemesmightinclude"CulturalCollision"or"TheRelationshipoftheSelftotheOther."TheHowardgraduatewillalsodescribethewaysthathumanshavetransmittedwisdom,ideas,andheritage—fromtheepicsofoldMaliandthedramasofClassicalGreecetotheemancipatorynarrativesofenslavedAfricansandthedigitalphotographsoftoday’smillennials.Inaddition,theFineArtsgraduatewillexpressthatculturalknowledgethroughperformanceorinwritten,visual,ordigitalform.

12.SocialSciencesandHistoricalAwareness

AHowardUniversitygraduatewilldemonstrateanunderstandingofthebroadeconomic,political,andculturaldevelopmentofhumansocietyandsocialrelationshipsintheirhistoricalandcontemporaryglobal,regional,andnationalcontexts.Thegraduatewillbeabletodescribethebasicstructuralconfigurationsthataffecthumansocialconditionsandresponsestosocialproblems,withreasonableemphasisonhowtheexperiencesofpeopleofAfricandescenthavecontributedtotheseconfigurations.Further,graduateswilldemonstrateanunderstandingoftheprocessesbywhichlegal,cultural,andeconomicinstitutionshavebeendevelopedandtherolesofformalandinformalsocialinstitutionsinshapingindividualandcollectiveliveswithemphasisontheroleofhumanagencyinadvocatingforthecommongoodandinreshapingorinfluencingtheseinstitutions.

Summary/FramingLanguage:Socialsciencesandhistoricalawarenessinvolvesastudents’abilitytogroundtheirlearninginthenaturalsciencesandthehumanitieswithfundamentalquestionsofindividualandgrouphumanbehavior.Socialsciencesandhistoricalawarenessshouldenablestudentstolinkthecreativeandscientificendeavorofteachingandlearningtothecultivationoftheirqualitativeandquantitativeknowledgeproductionandtheinterrogationofnormativeassumptionsaboutthehumanconditionandexperience.Studentswillalsobeabletolinktheirworktotheguidingprincipleofthesocialsciencesastaught,learned,andpracticedatHoward:towedacademicexcellenceandsocialresponsibility.Curricular,co‐curricular,andextra‐curricularactivitiesinformedbythehistorical,political,social,anthropological,andeconomicprofileandexperiencewill

34

developstudents'abilitiestoemergeassocial‐changeorientedmembersofsocietytopopulateprofessionsinlocal,national,andinternationalpolicymakingandintheacademyandprivatelife.13.InterculturalKnowledgeandForeignLanguageCompetence

AHowardUniversitygraduatewillhavebroadandmultipleperspectivesofhisrelationshiptothelargersocietyandworldinwhichhelivesandwilldemonstrateresponsibilityforlivinginaculturallyandethnicallydiverseworld.HowardUniversitygraduateswillobtainalevelofcompetencyinaforeignlanguageattheappropriatelevelfortheirrespectivemajordisciplines.

Summary/FramingLanguageInterculturalknowledgeandcompetenceis"asetofcognitive,affective,andbehavioralskillsandcharacteristicsthatsupporteffectiveandappropriateinteractioninavarietyofculturalcontexts.”(Bennett,J.M.2008.Transformativetraining:Designingprogramsforculturelearning.InContemporaryleadershipandinterculturalcompetence:Understandingandutilizingculturaldiversitytobuildsuccessfulorganizations,ed.M.A.Moodian,95‐110.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.)HowardUniversityhasbeenaleaderinprovidingleadershiptoAmericaandtheglobalcommunity.,Tomaintainandgrowthisleadershipfootprint,HowardUniversitygraduatesmustbeableintegrateinterculturalknowledgeandcompetenceintoeachaspectoftheireducation,seeingtheirrolesasmembersofaworldcommunityandknowingthatwesharethefuturewithothers.HowardUniversitystudentsshouldbeexposedtoculturaldiversityandbeequippedtoimprovesocialjusticeglobally.Studentsshouldbeabletoidentifytheirownculturalpatterns,compareandcontrastthemwithothers,andadaptempathicallyandflexiblytounfamiliarwaysofbeing.Inanattempttocommunicateacrossandwithincultures,studentsshouldimprovetheirabilitytocommunicatewithothersspeakinganotherlanguage.However,schoolsandcollegesmustdeterminetheextenttowhichstudentsintheirvariousprogramsshouldachieveforeignlanguagecompetency.Somemayachievefluencywhileothersacquireanappreciationandopennesstoforeignlanguages.14.AfricanDiasporaAwareness

AHowardUniversitygraduatewilldemonstrateanunderstandingofthevariouscultural,social,political,andeconomicforcesandcircumstancesthathaveshapedthebroadexperiencesofpeopleofAfricandescent(includingthecontinentofAfricaanditsglobaldiaspora).GraduateswillalsodemonstrateanabilitytoapplyresearchskillsspecifictotheirparticularacademicdisciplinetoaddresssomeofthemajorproblemsarisingoutofcircumstancesofracialoppressionthataroseintheWesternhemisphere.

Summary/FramingLanguage:TheAfricanDiasporaawarenessinvolvesstudents’demonstratedabilitythroughbothformalandinformalresearchtoidentifyspecificcontributionsand/orperspectivesofAfricanpeopleineachdiscipline,courseofstudy,and/orlearningexperienceforwhichthisisreasonablypossible.Students’achievementoftheAfricanDiasporaAwarenessoutcomebeyondbenchmarklevelsmaybeevidentinbothtraditionalandnon‐traditionalacademiclearningspacesandwilldrawheavilyonthefullrangeofuniversityactivities,including,but

35

notlimitedto:academiccoursework,co‐curricularandextra‐curricularprogramming,specialeventsandguests,andrelevantactivities.DevelopmentofthisawarenessbeyondtheuniversitycampuswillrelyontheWashington,DC‐area'srichresources,including,butnotlimitedtofederalandlocalmuseums,institutes,peerinstitutionsofhighereducation,andcommunity‐basedorganizationswithparticularemphasisonthoseinstitutionsdevotedtothestudy,preservation,and/orpromotionofdimensionsoftheAfricanworldexperience.15.ScienceandEnvironmentalConsciousness

AHowardgraduatewilldemonstrateanunderstandingoftheroleofscienceinsocietyanditsimpactonthesustainabilityoftheplanet.

Summary/FramingLanguageScientific inquiry is based on investigation of evidence from the natural world, and thatscientific knowledge and understanding evolves based on new evidence and differs frompersonal and cultural beliefs. Critical to this scientific approach is the recognition of therelationship between the natural sciences and society and the application of science tosocietalchallenges(e.g.,health,conservation,sustainability,energy,naturaldisasters,etc.).Specifically, an understanding of contemporary environmental issues such as climatechange, resource depletion and biodiversity loss as well as the complexity of proposedsolutionsisimportant.16.PhysicalandMentalHealth

AHowardUniversitygraduatewilldemonstrateconceptsofphysicalandemotionalwellnesstomakewiselifestylechoices.

Summary/FramingLanguagePhysical education and health has long been a part of the general education or corecurriculum of Howard University, which includes swimming and other activity coursesofferedthroughtheCollegeofArtsandSciences.Whilecoursesareoftenalogicalmethodof teaching about physical andmental health, all graduates of HowardUniversity shouldhaveanappreciationforandanunderstandingofthebenefitsofahealthy,activeandwell‐balanced lifestyle even if they are not required to take particular courses. Graduates ofHowardUniversityshouldhaveanappreciationforlifelongfitnessasdemonstratedbytheirability tophysicallymeet thedemandsofeveryday lifeandby theirunderstandingof thebenefitsofphysicalactivityanditseffectonintellectual,emotional,andphysicalwellbeing.Justasphysicalhealthiscritical,studentsmustremainemotionallyandmentallyhealthyaswell. Students should recognize mental health challenges they and others may face andmethods to cope with challenges such as stress, depression and anxiety. Furthermore,students should be aware of health disparities exiting in their communities and learn tothinkcriticallyabouthowtoaddressthosedisparities.Physicalandmentalhealthcompetencycanbedemonstratedthroughstudentsabilityto(a)establishdailyhabitsforcaringfortheirbodiesincludingappropriatephysicalactivitiesinordertomaintainorimprovephysicalandmentalhealthandpreventillnesses;(b)identifyaspectsofsocial,physical,and/oremotionalwell‐beingforthecommunitywhileconsideringpresentandfutureconditionsinsociety;(c)torecognizetheneedforhealthypersonalrelationshipandlifestylewithmembersoftheirfamilyandcommunity;(d)andto

36

understandandapplythescientificmethodtohealth,fitnessandnutritioninformationtodeterminethevalidityofthatinformationand,insodoing,understandtherelationshipbetweenscientificresearchandestablishedknowledge.17.Teamwork

AHowardgraduatewillbeabletocontributetoteammeetings,facilitateindividualcontributionsfromteammembers,facilitateindividualcontributionsoutsideofteammeetings,fosteraconstructiveteamclimate,andrespondtoconflictinteamsettings.

Summary/FramingLanguageTeamwork is working together with peoples of different backgrounds and disciplines.Studentsparticipateonmanydifferent teamsand thepeople the studentsworkwith arelikely to be different in each of the different teams. This competency speaks to studentsworking together, contributing to teamefforts, facilitating contributions from individuals,fosteringconstructiveteamclimates,negotiatingconflictsandworkingtowardsconsensus.18.EntrepreneurshipandFinancialLiteracy

AHowardGraduatewilldiscoverandevaluateopportunities,assessrisks,analyzetheresourcerequirements,createactionplans,developmodels,andpresentplanstostakeholders;andgraduateswillbeabletoapplybasicpersonalandbusinessfinancialprinciplesinregardstomoneymanagement,income,spending,credit,budgets,financialplanninganddebt.

Summary/FramingLanguageEntrepreneurshipencompassesawiderangeofactivitiesthataddvaluetosituations,projects,activitiesandorganizations.Theseactivitiesincludecreatingnewsystems,resourcesorprocessestoproducenewgoodsorservicesandservenewmarkets.Assuch,theknowledgeofentrepreneurshipinvolvestheidentificationofpotentialnewideas,conductingfeasibilityanalysis,developingaplan,mappingoutprocessesforthenewventure,assemblinganeffectiveteamofpeopletoleadtheventure,andpresentingaplantovariousstakeholders.Likewisefinancialliteracyinvolvesstudentsbeingabletousearationaldecision‐makingprocesstosetandimplementfinancialgoals,understandingsourcesofincomeandtherelationshipbetweenincomeandcareerpreparation;understandingprinciplesofmoneymanagement;understandingtherightsandresponsibilitiesofbuyersandsellersunderconsumerprotectionlaws;andunderstandingofsavings,investing,andretirementplanning.19.CivicKnowledgeandEngagement

AHowardgraduatewilldeveloptheknowledge,values,andskillsneededtomakeapositivedifferenceinciviclifelocallyorgloballyandwillstrivetomakethatdifference.

Summary/FramingLanguageInkeepingwithHowardUniversity’svisionofdevelopingleadersforAmericaandglobalcommunity,ourgraduatesmustbepreparedfortheirpubliclivesascitizens,membersof

37

communities,andprofessionalsinsociety.Personalidentityandcommitments,disciplinaryframeworksandtraditions,pre‐professionalnormsandpractice,andthemissionandvaluesofHowardUniversityframethiscivicknowledgeandengagementoutcome.Civicengagementcanrangefromindividualvolunteerismtoorganizationalinvolvementtoelectoralparticipation.AccordingtoThomasEhrlich,editorofCivicResponsibilityandHigherEducation,civicengagementis"workingtomakeadifferenceintheciviclifeofourcommunitiesanddevelopingthecombinationofknowledge,skills,valuesandmotivationtomakethatdifference.Itmeanspromotingthequalityoflifeinacommunity,throughbothpoliticalandnon‐politicalprocesses."(PublishedbyOryxPress,2000,Preface,pagevi.)Civicengagementalsoencompassesactionswhereinindividualsparticipateinactivitiesofpersonalandpublicconcernthatarebothindividuallylifeenrichingandsociallybeneficialtothecommunity.Therefore,studentsmayobtainthiscivicknowledgeandengagementthroughcommunity‐basedlearning,service‐learningclasses,community‐basedresearch,orservicewithinthecommunity.20.FoundationsandSkillsforLife‐LongLearning

AHowardUniversitygraduatewilldemonstratemasteryoftheskillstoaccess,evaluate,andintegrateinformationandappropriatetechnologytosustainlifelonglearningasacurious,independent,reflective,andeffectivecitizenoftheglobalcommunity.

Summary/FramingLanguageWhileobtainingabachelor’sdegreeisanachievement,HowardUniversitygraduatesareexpectedtobelifelonglearnersbothwithintraditionalinstitutesofhighereducationandthroughamultitudeofothervenues.Lifelonglearningis“allpurposefullearningactivity,undertakenonanongoingbasiswiththeaimofimprovingknowledge,skillsandcompetence.”Studentsmustbeabletodemonstratecuriosity,transfer,independence,initiative,andreflection.21.IntegrativeandAppliedLearning

AHowardUniversitygraduatewilldevelopanunderstandingandadispositionthatbuildsacrossthecurriculumandco‐curriculum—frommakingsimpleconnectionsamongideasandexperiencestosynthesizingandtransferringlearningtonew,complexsituationswithinandbeyondthecampus.Thestudentwilladapthis/herintellectualskillstocontributeinawidevarietyofsituationsandtounderstandanddevelopindividualpurpose,valuesandethics.

Summary/FramingLanguageTheintegrativeabilityinvolvesmakingconnectionsacrossdifferentdisciplinesovertime,andextendingtheseconnectionstorealworldproblemsinthecommunityoutsidetheacademicboundaries.Theterm“co‐curriculum”referstoaparallelcomponentofthecurriculumthatisinadditiontoformalclassroom(e.g.,communityservice,studentgovernment,residencehallactivities,studentorganizations,etc.)Withinthecampus,studentsshouldbeabletomakeconnectionsacrossvariousdisciplinesbyadoptingmultipleperspectives,multiplemodesofinquiry,andmultiplesolutions.Theintegrativelearningabilityofthestudentsmaybeevidentnotonlyinthetraditionalacademicwork

38

samples,suchasassignments,researchpapers,presentationsandacademicprojectsbutalsoinreflectivewriting,self‐assessment,andcreativeendeavorsofallkinds.Beyondthecampus,studentsshouldbeabletoconnectthelearninggainedinclassroomstudytolearninggainedinreallifesituationsthatarerelatedtootherlearningexperiences,extra‐curricularactivities,orwork.Theworksamplesofstudentsshoulddemonstratetheconnectionsbetweenformalstudyandinformalortacit/experientiallearningthatincludeimplicationsforpersonal,professionalandciviclife.

APP

PENDIXD

39

40

APPENDIXEMapping the 21 Learning Outcomes to Curricular, Co‐Curricular and Extra‐curricularLearningExperiences

HowardUniversityLearningOutcomes

InternalCurricular

ExternalCurricular

Co‐curricular Assessment

Content:CoursesWithinYourSchool/College

Content:ExternalCoursesthatareexpectedtomeetthisOutcome

Content:Internships,experientiallearning,etc.

Directand/orIndirectAssessmentMeasuresLearningOutcomeswithintheSchool/College

1.CreativeThinking

2.CriticalThinkingandProblemSolving

3.EthicalReasoning

4.InquiryandAnalysis

5.WrittenCommunication

6.OralCommunication

7.QuantitativeLiteracy

8.QualitativeLiteracy

9.InformationLiteracy

10.Technology

41

11.ArtandHumanities

HowardUniversityLearningOutcomes

InternalCurricular

ExternalCurricular

Co‐curricular Assessment

12.SocialSciencesandHistoricalAwareness 13.InterculturalKnowledgeandForeignLanguage

14.AfricanDiasporaAwareness 15.ScienceandEnvironmentalConsciousness

16.PhysicalandMentalHealth

17.Teamwork

18.FinancialLiteracyandEntrepreneurship

19.CivicKnowledgeandEngagement

20.FoundationsandSkillsforLife‐LongLearning

21.IntegrativeandAppliedLearning

42

APPENDIXF

UNIVERSITYSTUDIESCOMMITTEEPUTTINGSTUDENTSFIRSTINGENERALEDUCATION

GLOBALPROCESSMAP

K‐12: Background to Freshman year

July: Freshman profile: Who are we 

admitting? Placement Assessment

Early August: Preliminary 

Freshman course package

First year common experience: Curriculum: 

Assessment of Learning Outcomes

Second year: 

Curriculum: Assessment of Learning Outcomes

Junior year: Assessment of Major/Minor Learning Outcomes

Senior year: Assessment of Major/Minor Learning Outcomes

Senior profile/Capstone 

Assessment: Where are our scholars 

going?

Alumni Assessment: What are our scholars 

doing?

43

Developmentof“HUGE21for21”AdaptedfromAAC&UEssentialLearningOutcomes(CommitteehasgivenparticularattentiontocircumstancesofHUstudents.)

HUPCARProfileofGraduates

HowardUniversity’01Core(Foundonhoward.edu)

HowardUniversityGeneralEducation21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCenturyHUGE21for21(Notesomeoutcomesfitintomultiplecategories,butarelistedonlyonce)

KnowledgeofHumanCulturesandthePhysicalandNaturalWorld

Globalconsciousness

HumanitiesCourse(Most)

Humanities&Art

SocialScienceCourse(Most)

SocialSciencesandHistoricalAwareness

Technology1Afro‐AmericanStudiesClusterCouse(ALL)

AfricanDiasporaAwareness

Environmentalconsciousness

Science(Some) Science&EnvironmentalConsciousness

Technology

Proficiencyinworldlanguages

ForeignLanguage(Some)

InterculturalKnowledge&ForeignLanguageCompetence

IntellectualandAppliedSkills

Excellentcriticalthinkingskills

Creative ThinkingCritical Thinking&ProblemSolvingInformationLiteracy

Outstandingcomputational&analyticalskills

CollegeMath(Most)

QuantitativeLiteracyQualitativeLiteracyInquiry&Analysis

Excellentoral&writtencommunicationskills

2CoursesofEnglishcomposition(ALL)Writing(Some)

WrittenCommunication

PrinciplesofSpeech(Some)

OralCommunication

44

AdaptedfromAAC&UEssentialLearningOutcomes(CommitteehasgivenparticularattentiontocircumstancesofHUstudents.)

HUPCARProfileofGraduates

HowardUniversity’01Core(Foundonhoward.edu)

HowardUniversityGeneralEducation21LearningOutcomesforthe21stCenturyHUGE21for21(Notesomeoutcomesfitintomultiplecategories,butarelistedonlyonce)

Personal&SocialResponsibility

Excellentappreciationforactivism&service

FreshmanOrientationcourse(most)

Civicknowledgeandengagement(local&global)

Culturallyknowledgeable&sensitive

Interculturalknowledge&competence

Highlevelofethicalawareness

Philosophy(some) EthicalReasoning

Outstandingleadershipskills

Teamwork

Integrative&Appliedlearning

Excellentskillsintheapplicationofknowledgetosolvinghumanproblems&challenges

PhysicalEducation(most)

Physical&MentalHealthEntrepreneurship&FinancialLiteracyFoundationsandSkillsforLifelongLearningIntegrative&AppliedLearning

APP

Hi

First-Many studenemphadevelocutting

CommThe olcommoand/or themesoption

LearnThe kestudengroup commo“libera

WritinThese projectdifferein suchinquiry

CollaCollaband shdiffereassignm

UndeMany Undergfrom thconnecresearctechno

DiverMany experieculturecontinuaugme

PENDIX G

gh-Im

-Year Seminaschools now bu

nts together withasis on critical inop students’ integ-edge question

mon Intellectder idea of a “con courses or a required partic

s—e.g., technols for students.

ning Commuey goals for learnts with “big queand work closeon topic and/or al arts” and “pro

ng-Intensive courses emphats. Students are

ent disciplines. Th areas as quanty.

borative Assborative learningharpening one’s ent backgroundsments and writi

ergraduate Recolleges and ungraduate researhe National Scict key concepts ch. The goal is tologies, and the

rsity/Global Lcolleges and unences, and worles, or both—oftuing struggles a

ented by experie

G

mpact E

ars and Expeuild into the curh faculty or stafnquiry, frequenellectual and prans in scholarship

tual Experiencore” curriculum

vertically organcipation in a learlogy and society

nities rning communitestions” that ma

ely with one anocommon readin

ofessional cours

Courses size writing at aencouraged to

The effectivenetitative reasonin

signments ang combines twoown understan

s and life experiing, to cooperat

esearch niversities are nch, however, haience Foundatioand questions w

to involve studesense of excite

Learning niversities now ldviews differenten explore “difaround the globential learning i

Educati

eriences rriculum first-yeff on a regular bnt writing, informactical competep and with facul

nces m has evolved innized general erning communiy, global interde

ties are to encouatter beyond theother and with tngs through theses”; others feat

all levels of instproduce and re

ess of this repeang, oral commu

nd Projects o key goals: learding by listeniniences. Approactive projects and

now providing reas been most pron and the reseawith students’ eents with activement that come

emphasize cournt from their owfficult differencebe for human rigin the communi

45

ional P

ear seminars or basis. The highemation literacy,

encies. First-yealty members’ ow

nto a variety of ducation prograity (see below). ependence—wi

urage integratioe classroom. Stuheir professors.

e lenses of diffeture service lear

truction and acrvise various for

ated practice “acunication, inform

rning to work ang seriously to tches range fromd research.

esearch experierominently usedarch communityearly and activeely contested ques from working

rses and prograwn. These studiees” such as racights, freedom, aty and/or by stu

Practic

other programsest-quality first-, collaborative lar seminars can wn research.

f modern forms,am that include These programith a variety of

on of learning audents take two. Many learning

erent disciplinesrning.

ross the curricurms of writing fcross the curricumation literacy,

and solve problethe insights of o

m study groups w

ences for studend in science discy, scientists are e involvement inuestions, empirig to answer imp

ams that help stues—which mayial, ethnic, and and power. Frequdy abroad.

ces

s that bring sma-year experiencelearning, and otalso involve st

, such as a set os advanced inte

ms often combincurricular and c

across courses ao or more linkedg communities es. Some delibera

ulum, including for different audulum” has led tand, on some c

ems in the compothers, especiallwithin a course

nts in all disciplciplines. With sreshaping theirn systematic invical observationportant question

udents explore cy address U.S. dgender inequali

quently, intercu

all groups of es place a stronther skills that tudents with

of required egrative studies ne broad cocurricular

and to involve d courses as a explore a ately link

final-year diences in to parallel effortcampuses, ethic

pany of others, ly those with

e, to team-based

lines. strong support r courses to vestigation and

n, cutting-edge ns.

cultures, life diversity, worldity, or

ultural studies ar

ng

ts cal

d

d

re

46

Service Learning, Community-Based Learning In these programs, field-based “experiential learning” with community partners is an instructional strategy—and often a required part of the course. The idea is to give students direct experience with issues they are studying in the curriculum and with ongoing efforts to analyze and solve problems in the community. A key element in these programs is the opportunity students have to both apply what they are learning in real-world settings and reflect in a classroom setting on their service experiences. These programs model the idea that giving something back to the community is an important college outcome, and that working with community partners is good preparation for citizenship, work, and life.

Internships Internships are another increasingly common form of experiential learning. The idea is to provide students with direct experience in a work setting—usually related to their career interests—and to give them the benefit of supervision and coaching from professionals in the field. If the internship is taken for course credit, students complete a project or paper that is approved by a faculty member.

Capstone Courses and Projects Whether they’re called “senior capstones” or some other name, these culminating experiences require students nearing the end of their college years to create a project of some sort that integrates and applies what they’ve learned. The project might be a research paper, a performance, a portfolio of “best work,” or an exhibit of artwork. Capstones are offered both in departmental programs and, increasingly, in general education as well.Source: High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter by George D. Kuh, (Washington, DC: AAC&U, 2008). For information and more resources and research from LEAP, the Liberal Education and America’s Promise initiative of the Association of American Colleges & Universities, see www.aacu.org/leap.

Strategies to Improve Student Performance on Licensure Examinations

Schools/Colleges Curricular Reform Student Support Faculty Development

School of Education Alignment of exam testing area competencies into course content

Greater student access provided for test preparation materials

Monthly meetings conducted by Teacher Education Advisory Council (TEAC)

College of Pharmacy Requirement of higher incoming PCAT Scores and GPA; additional course requirement for admission

Installation of new exam software

Launching of a faculty mentoring program

School of Law Creation of a supplemental “Bar” course

Implementation of a Bar Task Force

Participation of faculty and community in forums with students

School of Dentistry Offering of advanced courses in areas of concern

Improvement in tracking student performance

Required faculty and course evaluation by students to enhance faculty teaching

School of Nursing and Allied Health

Revision of admission standards and academic requirements; pre-examinations

Greater pre-examination review and testing

Conduct workshops on course delivery, item/exam writing, and assessment

School of Communications

Addition of a mandatory exam preparation course

Testing of students exam preparation skills

Implementation of a series of seven workshops focusing on promotion and tenure, classroom management, technology and new teaching pedagogies. (Junior Faculty Seminar Series)

College of Medicine Revised course delivery method-more engaged learning and fewer lectures

Construction of new training centers

Implementing new faculty development programs

Appendix G

CONFIDENTIAL

ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNT PROJECTIONS ACTUALS

FALL 2010 - FALL 2017

FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTEHEADCOUN

TFTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT

UNDERGRADUATES

Arts and Sciences 3,430 3,535 3,430 3,535 3,430 3,535 3,430 3,535 3,403 3,550 3,228 3,351 3,475 3,601 3,487 3,605

Business 995 1,000 995 1,000 995 1,000 995 1,005 977 1,012 942 978 1,028 1,063 1,071 1,104

Communications 1,001 960 1,001 960 1,001 960 1,001 966 973 1,005 1,013 1,040 1,049 1,075 1,000 1,034

Education 92 105 92 105 92 105 92 108 94 96 79 83 72 76 80 90

Engineering/Arch/Comp Sci 609 700 609 700 609 700 609 696 585 612 565 586 594 611 543 562

Nursing/AHS 609 635 609 635 609 635 609 634 585 626 552 596 631 673 644 687

Dental Hygiene 0 17 20 17 0 17 21 17 20 20 18 18 15 15 19 19

Exchange Program 0 5 1 5 0 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 5 5 10 10

Consortium 50 32 50 0 50 19 48 18 52 12 36 14 45 12 36

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE 6,736 7,007 6,789 7,007 6,736 7,007 6,776 7,013 6,655 6,974 6,409 6,688 6,883 7,164 6,866 7,147

GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL

Graduate School 730 850 730 850 730 850 729 838 662 914 695 927 789 1,016 819 1,035

Medicine 447 450 447 450 447 450 447 456 449 455 452 458 445 445 453 453

Dentistry 330 325 330 325 330 325 330 332 327 337 329 335 355 355 336 349

Law 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 405 404 423 392 399 431 431 476 480

Arts and Sciences 0 15 15 15 0 15 25 16 24 28 27 30 28 34 29 31

Business 110 108 110 108 110 108 110 108 98 115 104 122 80 97 85 98

Communications 22 40 22 40 22 40 22 41 24 32 26 34 25 32 20 27

Divinity 100 125 100 125 100 125 100 128 99 132 106 133 99 124 106 135

Education 0 160 134 160 0 160 123 159 118 182 142 197 159 214 100 146

Nursing & AHS 0 210 156 210 0 210 179 211 171 200 438 477 399 430 398 423

Pharmacy 0 320 153 320 0 320 317 318 304 307 0 0 0 0

Social Work 175 234 175 234 175 234 175 234 179 195 172 194 220 236 242 265

Consortium/Other 0 6 1 6 0 6 1 6 1 3 2 8 1 5 1 5

TOTAL GRAD. & PROF. 2,314 3,243 2,773 3,243 2,314 3,243 2,958 3,252 2,860 3,323 2,885 3,314 3,031 3,419 3,065 3,447

GRAND TOTAL 9,050 10,250 9,562 10,250 9,050 10,250 9,734 10,265 9,515 10,297 9,294 10,002 9,914 10,583 9,931 10,594

Fall 2010 (ACTUAL)Fall 2017 (GOAL) Fall 2016 (GOAL) Fall 2015 (GOAL)

FALL SEMESTER

Fall 2013 (ACTUAL) Fall 2012 (ACTUAL)Fall 2014 (GOAL) Fall 2011 (ACTUAL)

CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix H

Report of the Faculty Development Committee

Submitted to

Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick

Interim President

and

Dr. Michael R. Winston

Acting Provost

June 2014

Appendix I

ii

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………. vi

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 1

SECTION I: FINDINGS FROM FDC’S STUDIES………………………………. 2

Study I: Environmental Scan……………………………………………………… 2

Overview of Study I……………………………………………………….. 2

Study Methods and Procedures……………………………………………. 2

Findings……………………………………………………………………. 3

Recommendations from the Administrators………………………………. 8

Conclusions and Next Steps………………………………………………. 8

Study II: Faculty Needs Assessment……………………………………………... 8

Overview of Study II………………………………………….................. 8

Study Methods and Procedures…………………………………………... 8

Findings……………………………………………………………………. 9

Recommendations from the Faculty………………………………………. 18

SECTION II: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE

PROVOST………………………………………………………………………... 22

Structural-Related Recommendations……………………………………. 22

Programmatic-Related Recommendations………………………………. 23

Assessment/Evaluation-Related Recommendations……………………. 23

iii

Page

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………... 24

A. Environmental Scan Survey…………………………………………………........ 24

B. Faculty Needs Assessment Survey………………………………………….......... 35

C. Full Listing of Faculty Responses to the “Other Faculty

Development Topics/Programs, Services Recommended” ……………….......... 43

D. Full Listing of Faculty Additional Comments and Suggestions………….......... 48

iv

Table of Tables

Page

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Faculty Respondents (N=362)…………………….. 10

Table 2: Reported Main Source of Faculty Development at Howard

University over Past Two Years (N=332)……………………………………………. 11

Table 3: Reported Main Source of Faculty Development OUTSIDE

Howard University over Past Two Years (N=346)………………………………….. 12

Table 4: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge

and Understanding Related to Teaching and Learning (TL) (N=357)……………….. 15

Table 5: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge

and Understanding Related to Scholarship and Productivity (SP) (N=352)…………. 16

Table 6: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge

and Understanding Related to Personal Investments and Leadership

Development (PILD) (N=355)………………………………………………………. 17

v

Table of Figures

Page

Figure 1: Perception of Faculty Development within Their

Department/Academic Unit (N=356) …………………………………………………. 13

Figure 2: Perception of University’s Commitment to Faculty

Development (N=357) …………………………………………………………….….. 13

Figure 3: Rating of Faculty Mentoring and Renewal Programs at

Howard University (N=355)..……………………………………………………….... 14

vi

Executive Summary

In August 2013, (then) Provost Wayne A. Frederick established a University-wide Faculty

Development Committee (FDC). His charge to the Committee was to “create new mechanisms

and share successful models for faculty development in mentoring, career advancement and any

other strategies that support faculty in reaching their professional goals. The committee will

[also] inform the OPCAO regarding allocation of resources to fulfill these objectives.”

Membership in the FDC includes a diverse group of faculty from various units across the

University.

The FDC agreed on a twofold vision of faculty development including: (a) maximizing the

coherence of the faculty members’ individual career goals with the vision of the university in the

21st century and (b) maximizing the potential and capacity of the faculty both individually and

collectively.

The FDC met four times between August 2013 and April 2014. The Committee adopted a view

of faculty development that consisted of a broad range of programs and activities designed to

support faculty in their multiple responsibilities of teaching, research, and service, and to guide

their career advancement. The FDC identified a number of resources to be consulted during its

deliberations. Additionally, two sub-working groups, the Environmental Scan and Faculty

Needs Assessment, were formed. These sub-working groups met separately from the full FDC

to identify strategies to present to the full committee to achieve its mission.

To gather data to guide its work, the FDC conducted two studies. The Environmental Scan

documented the occurrence and perceived value of faculty development activities across the

campus from the perspective of the schools/colleges’ administrators. Data gathered from the

Environmental Scan survey represented a 100% response rate from the Deans or their designee.

The Needs Assessment Study surveyed the faculty to ascertain their perceptions regarding

faculty development at the University, including gaps, needs, and strengths. Data from this study

included responses from 362 faculty members, representing a 35% response rate, which was

above the average generally found in surveys of Howard University faculty. Below are selected

key results from these two studies.

Key Findings from the Environmental Scan (Study I)

Majority (69.6%) of the teaching and learning faculty development activities occurring in

the various schools/colleges relate to advising students

Most (65.2%) of academic administrators reported that their unit offers interdisciplinary

lectures and seminars as a faculty development activity

vii

Areas the academic administrators identified of highest importance for faculty

development included grantsmanship, publishing articles, and balancing teaching,

research and service opportunities

Largest proportion of the administrators (37.5%) reported that their unit provided 2-4

hours of faculty development over the past year

Some (17.4%) of the administrators reported that their unit spends no funds on faculty

development

Slightly over one-third of the academic administrators rated the University’s current

commitment to faculty development as “fair” (39.3%) or “good” (39.1%)

Academic administrators’ perception of current faculty development training offered by

the individual schools/colleges varied ranging from “it does not exist” to “our college is

committed to offering a strong faculty development program”

Majority of the academic administrators (60%) reported that their school/college does not

have a faculty development requirement outside of what is noted in the Faculty

Handbook

Recommendations for enhancing faculty development offered by the administrators

included the availability of more resources and incentives for faculty development,

inclusion of faculty development criteria in APT requirements, and continuing academic

staff support to further enhance faculty development within programs across the

University

Key Findings from Faculty Development Needs Assessment (Study II)

Majority (72.4%) of the faculty did not have their own written faculty development plan

Largest proportion (43.1%) of faculty reported CETLA as main source of development

within the University; professional associations were main source of development outside

the University

With regards to the amount of time, per month, that faculty would be willing to commit

to their own development, the largest portion of respondents (43.1%) indicated 3 – 4

hours

Slightly over one-third (37.4%) rated faculty development within their

department/academic unit as “poor” to “very poor”

viii

Slightly over one-half (51%) rated the University’s commitment to faculty development

as “fair” to “good”; 38% rated it as “poor” to “very poor”

About one-half (48%) rated faculty mentoring and renewal programs at Howard

University as “poor” to “very poor”

The faculty development area endorsed by the largest proportion (60%) of sample was

faculty development for new faculty; the area endorsed by the second largest proportion

(40.3%) was faculty development for academic administrators; and the area endorsed by

third largest proportion (39.4%) was faculty development for international faculty

Recommended development topics suggested by faculty included an Academy of Retired

Educators for the University, international collaboration, GIS (Geographic Information

System) training and facilities for using it, improving student/faculty interaction across

disciplines particularly inside the classroom, teaching and co-teaching opportunities

outside of one’s school/college, development of collegiality with more emphasis on the

common good

Faculty Development Committee (FDC) Recommendations to the President

This report offers recommendations for faculty development policies, practices, and initiatives.

These recommendations are based on the results from the Environmental Scan and the Faculty

Development Needs Assessment studies, consideration of the Howard University context, and a

review of the related literature on faculty development. The recommendations are organized

around three major areas: (a) structural-related recommendations, (b) programmatic-related

recommendations, and (c) assessment-related recommendations.

The recommendations sought to ensure formal and continuous support for faculty growth and

renewal in all realms of their professional lives and throughout the stages of their careers.

Additionally, the recommendations call for adequate resources and support that make it possible

for all faculty members to reach their fullest capacity. The FDC believes that addressing these

recommendations could represent a major step toward a comprehensive, inclusive, visible,

accountable, and ultimately effective program of faculty development at Howard University.

Structural-Related Recommendations

Create a (Provost-level) statement of purpose for faculty development that sets goals

supporting faculty consistent with University’s mission. This statement should be public

and widely shared. (Sample statement: The Office of the Provost supports the

ix

development of faculty throughout their career in their role as teachers, researchers,

practitioners, mentors, and members of a diverse community of scholars and citizens).

Provide sufficient resources for meaningful faculty development at the University

Identify all faculty development programs and activities on campus and create a

repository of information accessible to faculty

Create a comprehensive faculty development website dedicated to the needs of faculty

and linked to resources across the campus. The website should be easily accessible from

the University’s homepage and organized in a systematic manner

Create a central place for faculty development issues to be housed (e.g., a Faculty

Development Office that may be under the auspices of the Office of the Provost and/or

linked to CETLA)

Promote better communication and sharing of information across the campus related to

faculty development opportunities

Support the development of a faculty development structure (e.g., office, committee) at

the school/college/division level

Support the development of a Faculty Lounge or common meeting space to facilitate

interaction of faculty across units and academic ranks

Programmatic-Related Recommendations

Encourage all faculty members to create an individualized faculty development plan (at

department/division level); provide resources to assist faculty in this effort

Encourage units to develop faculty development plans aligned with performance

objectives and the strategic goals of the unit

Institute ongoing development activities for academic administrators (e.g., Chairs and

Directors’ Institute)

Provide new faculty orientation at least three weeks before classes begin and provide

ongoing support (e.g., New Faculty Institute)

Develop mentoring program at the school/college level for early-career and other faculty

Assessment/Evaluation-Related Recommendations

Create a formal structure for ongoing monitoring and review of faculty development

activities at the University; this may take place at the university, school/college, and/or

department level(s)

Ensure that information gleaned from ongoing assessment and evaluation of faculty

development is used for improvement

1

Report of the Howard University Faculty Development Committee

Introduction

Howard University continues in its commitment to recruit and retain a cadre of expert faculty to

lead its educational efforts in transforming young minds from a state of curiosity to discovery. In

that effort, opportunities must be offered for faculty to continuously develop their skills to ensure

success in their career endeavors and the work of the academy at large. In fall 2013, the Howard

University Faculty Development Committee was created by (then) Provost Wayne A. Frederick.

His Committee description and charge was as follows:

The Howard University Faculty Development Committee (FDC) was created by the

Provost and Chief Academic Officer (OPCAO) to develop and facilitate collaboration

and engagement among all Schools and Colleges for faculty development programs,

services and issues. The FDC will assist the Provost in promoting and coordinating

faculty educational and professional development activities. The FDC will create new

mechanisms and share successful models for faculty development in mentoring, career

advancement, and any other strategies that support faculty in reaching their professional

goals. The committee will inform the OPCAO regarding allocation of resources to fulfill

these objectives.

The FDC members, listed below, include a diverse group of faculty from various units across the

campus.

Renee Jenkins [Co-Chair, Medical School]

Mercedes Tibbits [Co-Chair, COAS, Humanities]

Daphne Bernard [Pharmacy]

Taft Broome [Engineering]

Howard Dodson [Libraries]

Cheryl Fryer [Dentistry]

Ivor Livingstone [COAS, Social Sciences / Health and Wellness Committee]

Mariela Olivares [Law School]

Teresa Redd [CETLA]

Joseph Reidy [Associate Provost]

Nathan Smith [COAS, Biology]

Veronica Thomas [Education]

Shelese Lyng [Office of the Provost] provided administrative support for the FDC.

The FDC met four times between August 2013 and April 2014. The Committee adopted a view

of faculty development that consisted of a broad range of programs and activities designed to

support faculty in their multiple responsibilities of teaching, research, and service, and to guide

their career advancement. The FDC identified a number of resources to be consulted during its

2

deliberations. Additionally, two sub-working groups, the Environmental Scan and Faculty

Needs Assessment, were formed. These sub-working groups met separately from the full FDC

to identify strategies to present to the full committee to achieve its mission.

To gather data to guide our work, the FDC conducted two studies. The Environmental Scan

documented the occurrence and perceived value of faculty development activities across the

campus from the perspective of the schools’/colleges’ administrators. Data gathered from the

Environmental Scan survey represented a 100% response rate from the Deans or their designee. 1

The Needs Assessment surveyed the faculty to ascertain their perceptions regarding faculty

development at the University, including gaps, needs, and strengths. Data from this study

included responses from 362 faculty members, representing a 35% response rate, which was

above the average generally found in surveys of Howard University faculty. We believe that this

response rate was positively influenced by the Provost’s generous contribution of three sets of

Charter Day tickets as a raffle prize for survey respondents.

The report is organized into two sections. Section I provides an overview and summary of the

findings from the FDC’s Environmental Scan and Faculty Needs Assessment. Section II,

includes a set of recommendations, based upon the results from the Environmental Scan and the

Faculty Development Needs Assessment surveys, as well as a discussion of the Howard

University context. These recommendations are organized across three major areas: (a)

structural-related recommendations, (b) programmatic-related recommendation, and (c)

assessment-related recommendations.

SECTION I: Findings from FDC’s Studies

Study I: Environmental Scan

Overview of Study I

The objectives of the Environmental Scan Study were twofold: (a) to document the occurrence

of faculty development activities across the campus and (b) to assess the perceived value of

faculty development activities among academic administrators within the schools/colleges.

Study Methods and Procedures

A twenty-three item survey was created and administered via Survey Monkey. Deans from all

thirteen schools and colleges across the university were contacted by the Associate Provost and

1 This excludes the Dean of the Graduate School since this Dean has no faculty independent of

faculty in the other schools/colleges.

3

asked to complete the survey between the months of November and December 2013. The core

faculty development areas that were evaluated were teaching and learning, scholarship and

productivity, and personal and leadership development. See Appendix B for study survey.

Findings

Descriptive Profile of Participants

Twenty-eight responses from academic administrators representing twelve of the thirteen schools

and colleges (Arts and Sciences; Business; Communications; Dentistry; Divinity; Education;

Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences; Law; Medicine; Nursing and Allied Health

Sciences; Pharmacy; and Social Work) were received. There were no responses from the

Graduate School.

The majority of respondents (64.3%) were Department Chairs and other division leaders; the

remaining 10 responses (35.7%) were from deans. Fifty percent of respondents were from the

College of Arts and Sciences. This is possibly due to the large number of deans and department

chairs found within the four departments of the college.

Faculty Development Related to Teaching and Learning

The respondents were asked to answer the following items about faculty development in their

unit related to teaching and learning.

In the areas of teaching and learning, please indicate which faculty development activities

or workshops your program has offered or sponsored within the past 12 months (from a

list of items).

In the areas of teaching and learning, please rate, on the 3-point scale provided, how

important it is for faculty to receive training in (from a list of items):

Survey findings indicate that the majority of the teaching and learning faculty development

activities occurring in the various schools and colleges relate to advising students (69.6 %),

faculty-student engagement beyond the classroom (52.2 %), student assessment and evaluation

(39.1 %), course management systems (39.1 %) and syllabus planning and design (39.1 %).

These results are somewhat reflective of the many development activities on the topics Syllabus

Design and training in Blackboard.com, which have been sponsored by the University’s Center

for Excellence in Teaching, Learning & Assessment (CETLA). It is noteworthy to see such a

significant focus on advising students as it demonstrates a priority to ensuring academic success.

The areas identified by the academic administrators as being of highest importance for faculty

development (based on the Mean=M score of a rating scale of 1 to 3) were use of assessment

data (M=2.63), advising students (M=2.59) and instructional technology (M=2.58). This

4

suggests that greater attention should be placed on training in use of assessment data since only

30.4% of the development activities were in that area within the past year. Areas rated of less

importance by the academic administrators included faculty development related to social

networking tools (M=1.89) and service learning (M=2.00).

Faculty Development Related to Scholarship and Productivity

The respondents were asked to answer the following items about faculty development in their

unit related to scholarship and productivity.

In the areas of scholarship and productivity, please indicate which faculty development

activities your program has offered or sponsored within the past 12 months (from a list of

items).

In the areas of scholarship and productivity, please rate, on the 3-point scale provided,

how important it is for faculty to receive training in (from a list of items):

Faculty development activities that occurred most frequently in the schools/colleges and/or

departments within the past year related to engaging in interdisciplinary work (59.1 %),

publishing articles (50 %), and grantsmanship (36.4 %). Similarly, areas identified by the

academic administrators as being of highest importance for faculty development were

grantsmanship (M=2.74), publishing articles (M=2.67) and balancing teaching, research and

service opportunities (M=2.67). This suggests that training efforts have been aligned with

program interests. The least interest was in statistical analysis of data (M=2.11) and IRB

certification (M=2.13)

Faculty Development Related to Personal Development and Leadership Development

The respondents were asked to answer the following items about faculty development in their

unit related to personal development and leadership development.

In the areas of personal development and leadership development, please indicate which

faculty development activities your program has offered or sponsored within the past 12

months (from a list of items)

In the areas of personal development and leadership development, please rate, on the 3-

point scale provided, how important it is for faculty to receive training in (from a list of

items)

The academic administrators reported that their programs have focused overwhelmingly on the

areas of tenure planning, preparation and review (65.2 %) followed by ethics in academic work

(43.5 %), and leadership development (39.1 %). Leadership development (M=2.61), aligning

work time with institutional priorities, personal values and long term goals (M=2.60), and tenure

planning, preparation and review (M=2.59) were identified as the most important areas for

5

faculty development. On the other hand, administrators reported least importance in faculty

development related to developing faculty in entrepreneurship (M=1.83) and steps to a

successful sabbatical (M=2.12).

Faculty Development in Other Areas

The respondents were asked to answer the following items about faculty development in their

unit related to a variety of other areas.

In the following other areas, please indicate which faculty development activities your

program has offered or sponsored within the past 12 months (from a list of items)

In following other areas, please rate, on the 3-point scale provided, how important it is for

faculty to receive training in (from a list of items)

Two of the other faculty development training areas offered within the past year by a large

proportion of the school/colleges and/or departments included orientation programs for new

faculty (76.5 %), junior-senior faculty mentoring programs (64.7 %), and fellowships for junior

faculty (35.3 %). Among the other faculty development items rated for their importance, the top

three items that emerged included - developing teaching skills (M=2.77), junior-senior faculty

mentoring programs (M=2.63), and orientation programs for new faculty (M=2.59).

Hours Devoted to Faculty Development Activities

The respondents were asked the following item in terms of time devoted to faculty development

in their unit.

How many faculty development training hours does your department or school provide

annually?

How many hours of faculty development training do you think your school or college

should provide annually?

The largest proportion of the sample (37.5%) reported that their unit provided 2 – 4 hours of

faculty development over the past year. The next highest proportion (29.2%) of academic

administrators reported their unit devoting more than 10 hours toward faculty development over

the past year. This suggests that some programs may have a more structured faculty

development program within their school (i.e., the College of Medicine). The largest proportion

of respondents (42.3 %) indicated that their school/college should offer more than 10 hours

annually in development opportunities. These findings suggest that there might be Based on

models within the university to use to create more robust development programs for other

schools and colleges to follow.

Budget Devoted to Faculty Development Activities

6

The academic administrators were asked the following:

Approximately how much does your department or school budget for providing faculty

development opportunities annually?

Findings revealed a tie between how much money departments and schools have committed to

development opportunities. That is, 21.7% of the academic administrators reported that their

unit annually budgets between $0 - $1,000 on faculty development activities; similarly, 21.7 %

of the respondents reported that their units budget more than $10,000 annually for faculty

development. Again, schools with established development programs likely have faculty

development as a budget priority and have such expenses factored in as part of their budget. It is

also noteworthy to find that 17.4 % of the academic administrators report that their unit spends

no funds on faculty development. Such programs might rely on having their faculty attend

programs offered on campus by CETLA which are free to attend or programs offered by

professional associations.

University’s Commitment to Faculty Development and Barriers

The following questions were asked related to the academic administrators’ perceptions of the

University’s commitment to faculty development and barriers to implementation.

Overall, how would you rate the commitment to faculty development at Howard

University at the present time?

Please rate the following on how much of a barrier each factor may have been on your

school or college providing adequate faculty development training up to this point.

Slightly over one-third of the academic administrators rated the current commitment by the

University overall to faculty development as “fair” (39.3 %) or “good” (39.1 %). This suggests

that administrators recognize that there is a need for further improvement in their efforts. The

respondents indicated that the most significant barriers to providing development opportunities

to faculty include a lack of funding (60.7 %), lack of incentives for faculty (55.6 %), and not

having a faculty development champion to organize training events (44.4 %).

Current and Future Directions and Recommendations for Faculty Development

In terms of the academic administrations’ perceptions of current faculty development activities

within their school/college and future directions, the following questions were asked.

What is your perception of faculty development training CURRENTLY offered by your

school or college?

What direction would you like to see faculty development go for your program in the

future?

7

Findings indicate that the academic administrators’ perception of current faculty development

training offered by individual schools varied from “it does not exist” to “our college is committed

to offering a strong faculty development program”. The majority of respondents note that their

school needs to improve in its training of faculty. A need for monetary incentives, a need for

stronger faculty development committee leadership, better planning, commitment and stronger

attendance to training events and more expertise (better quality) of presenters was reported in the

current impression of administrators. Several respondents noted that their faculty participate in

training and seminars offered by CETLA and by professional associations. In terms of the future

direction of faculty development, the academic administrators indicated a desire to have faculty

development programs that address specific school goals and needs and the need to increased

emphasis on faculty development with more support and incentives. They also suggested that

the school/college should offer one or two trainings annually, inclusion of faculty development

in the school’s/college’s Strategic Plan and Assessment Plan, better assessment of the impact of

school-sponsored development activities, and to the creation of a university faculty development

unit among several other suggestions.

When asked to rank order the faculty development programs/activities that are currently needed

at the University, the top two areas rated by the majority of the academic administrators included

faculty development and mentoring activities for new (81.5 %) and mid-career faculty (63.0 %).

Faculty Development Requirements

The academic administrators were asked to respond to the following items:

Does your school or department have a specific faculty development requirement

outside of the Faculty Handbook?

Does your accreditation body have a requirement for faculty development?

If your school or department has a faculty development requirement, how might

faculty fulfill the requirement?

Does your school or department have any of the following mechanisms for

connecting faculty across departments/divisions?

The majority of respondents (60. %) replied that their school or college does not have a faculty

development requirement outside of what is noted in the University’s Faculty Handbook.

However, 17.9 % of academic administrators report that their unit does have a specific

requirement, and 21.4 % were unsure of whether their school has a requirement or not. Most

(61.5 %) of respondents reported that faculty development is an accreditation requirement for

their program. For those programs with a faculty development requirement, the overwhelming

8

majority (90.5%) of those academic administrators reported that faculty in their unit meet school

or department development requirements by attending meetings offered by professional

associations. This was followed by attending HU CETLA programs (81.0 %) and/or attending

school or department programs to fulfill faculty development requirements (66.7%).

The vast majority (65.2%) of academic administrators report that their unit offers

interdisciplinary lectures and seminars as a faculty development activity. Slightly over one-third

(34.8%) offer interdisciplinary teaching circles and informal discussions while 26.1 % of

academic administrators report having a common faculty lounge in their unit to encourage inter-

professional activities. This is pertinent to assess because most schools and colleges have faculty

from various departments who could benefit from greater interaction to identify common

interests and promote more collaboration.

Recommendations from the Administrators

The academic administrators were given an opportunity to offer recommendations for enhancing

faculty development at the University. Collectively, they recommended the availability of more

resources and incentives for faculty development, inclusion of faculty development criteria in

APT requirements, and continuing academic staff support to further enhance faculty

development within programs across the University.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Responses from the Environmental Scan Survey provided meaningful insight into the current

state of faculty development activities through the perspective of twenty-eight academic

administrators from twelve of the thirteen schools and colleges across the university. These

results provide a foundation from which the University can use as a reliable framework to build a

solid development plan around. Commitment and investment from the “top-down” (university)

will help schools and colleges to better shape their own unique training endeavors to better meet

program specific needs. The next step (Study II) was to assess the status of current development

activities based on the perception of the ones at the heart of the discussion…the faculty.

Study II: Faculty Needs Assessment

Overview of Study II

In order to gather information to assist in planning and implementation of effective faculty

development programs and services at Howard University, a faculty needs assessment study was

undertaken. This needs assessment was designed to ascertain the faculty’s perceptions, attitudes,

and beliefs regarding faculty development at the University, including gaps, needs, and strengths.

Study Methods and Procedures

9

A web-based (SurveyMonkey) faculty needs assessment survey was created by the FDC and

administered to Howard University faculty in spring 2014. This survey was designed to assess

faculty members’ perceptions and attitudes regarding faculty development activities, programs,

and services at the University, as well as identify perceived gaps and strengths. The items asked

about faculty development across a variety of areas that were essentially classified under three

broad categories: (a) teaching and learning, (b) scholarship and productivity, and (c) personal

investments and leadership development. The survey was launched on February 14, 2014 and

remained opened until February 28, 2014. It was sent to the University faculty via HU

Communications. It took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. See Appendix B for study

survey.

Two mechanisms were implemented to increase faculty response rates. These included repeat

reminder emails to potential respondents and an incentive to faculty respondents in the form of a

drawing for two tickets for the University’s Charter Day Dinner awarded through a lottery.

Two tickets were awarded to the three faculty members whose names were randomly selected

via a computer program.

Findings

Descriptive Profile of Participants

A total of 362 faculty members completed the online needs assessment survey. This represents a

35% response rate, which is above the 20% - 26% average generally found in surveys of Howard

University faculty (HU Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation staff, personal

communication, 2013). The respondents represented a good cross-section of the faculty and they

were diverse in terms rank, gender, School/College, and years of University service.

As illustrated in the table, the largest proportion of the respondents was from the Colleges of

Arts and Sciences (39.8%, n= 105) and Medicine (16.6%, n=60). Approximately one-third of

the respondents were assistant (33.7%, n=122) or associate (31.5%, n=114) professors. Further,

24% (n=85) were full professors and 9.3% (n=34) were lecturers/instructors. Slightly over one-

half (55%, n=199) of the respondents were women.

The survey respondents were fairly evenly distributed across length of service as a faculty

member at the University with 32.3% (n=117) of the respondents reporting five of less years of

service; 32.9% (n=119) reported 6 - 15 years of service, and 34.6% (n=125) reported 16 or more

years of service. Additionally, the vast majorities of the faculty respondents do not presently

hold any administrative position (71%, n = 257) and most (92.4%) were full-time. See Table 1

for more detailed description of the sample.

10

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Faculty Respondents (N=362)

Variable n % Total

School/College

Arts & Sciences 105 39.8%

Business 14 3.9%

Communications 34 9.4%

Dentistry 33 9.1%

Divinity 5 1.4%

Education 23 6.4%

Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences 20 5.5%

Law 16 4.4%

Medicine 60 16.6%

Nursing & Allied Health Sciences 31 8.5%

Pharmacy 8 2.2%

Social Work 10 2.8%

Faculty rank

Lecturer 19 5.2%

Instructor 15 4.1%

Assistant Professor 122 33.7%

Associate Professor 114 31.5%

Full Professor 85 23.5%

Length of faculty service

0-2 years 60 16.6%

3-5 years 57 15.7%

6-10 years 77 21.3%

11-15 years 42 11.6%

16-30 years 65 18.0%

More than 30 years 60 16.6%

Gender

Male 159 43.9%

Female 199 55.0%

Hold administrative position

Yes 98 27.1%

No 257 71.0%

Note: The overwhelming majority (92.4%, n=330) of faculty completing this survey was full-time.

11

Faculty Development Plan, Sources, and Time Commitment

The survey respondents were asked about their individualized faculty development plan, sources

of faculty development, both within and outside Howard University, and the amount of time, per

month, they would be willing to commit to faculty development.

The overwhelming majority (72.4%, n= 257) of the faculty indicated that they do not have a

written individualized faculty development plan. Also, 44.2% (n=156) reported that their

academic department/unit does not have a written faculty development plan. Over one-third

(39.4%, n=139) of the faculty respondents indicated that they did not know whether their unit

had a written faculty development plan.

The respondents were asked to indicate their main source of faculty development, both inside

and outside the University, over the past two years. Examination of the findings illustrates that

the sources of faculty development do not vary substantially by faculty rank.

In terms of sources of faculty development within the University, the largest proportion of the

faculty reported that the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA)

(43.1%, n=143) was their main source with the next largest proportion (21.7%, n=72) reporting

School-College level activities as their main faculty development source (Table 2).

Table 2: Reported Main Source of Faculty Development at Howard University Over Past Two

Years (N=332)

________________________________________________________________________________

Source of Faculty Development % n

________________________________________________________________________________

Department-level activities 14.8% 49

School/College level activities 21.7% 72

CETLA 43.1% 143

Provost Faculty Forums 4.2% 14

PDLA 2.1% 7

None 14.2% 47

__________________________________________________________________________________

Note: CETLA (Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and assessment); PDLA (Professional,

Development Leadership Academy)

12

When asked specifically about the frequency of use of resources and services offered by

CETLA, 43.5% (n=155) of the faculty reported using CETLA “occasionally” (i.e., 2 – 4 times

per year) and 28.9% (n=103) reported “rarely” (i.e., once a year). On the other hand, 13.9%

(n=49) of the faculty reported utilizing CETLA’s resources “frequently” (i.e., 5 or more times a

year) and 13.9% (n=49) reported “never” utilizing CETLA’s resources.

In terms of faculty development outside the University over the past two years (Table 3), the

majority (61.8%, n=214) of the respondents indicated that professional associations were their

main source. Additionally, 23.1% (n=80) of the faculty reported non-federal workshops and

programs (e.g., other universities) as their main source of faculty development outside Howard

University.

Table 3: Reported Main Source of Faculty Development OUTSIDE Howard University

Over Past Two Years (N=346)

Source of Faculty Development % n

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Professional associations 61.8% 214

Workshops & programs sponsored 10.1% 35

at federal agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH)

Workshops & programs sponsored by 23.1% 80

non –Howard (non-federal) institutions

(e.g., other universities)

None 4.9% 17

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The faculty members were asked about the amount of time, per month, they would be willing to

commit to their own faculty development. Findings reveal that the largest proportion (43.1%,

n=156) of the faculty indicated 3 – 4 hours per month. Further, 22.4% (n=81) reported a

willingness to commit 8-10 hours per month; 21.8% (n=79) reported willingness to commit 1-2

hours per month. Only 9.4% (n=34) of the faculty respondents indicated a willingness to commit

more than 10 hours per month to their own faculty development.

Perceptions of Faculty Development at University

Results reveal that the faculty respondents’ perceptions of faculty development at the University

were mixed. In particular, slightly over one-third (37.4%, n=133) of the respondents rated

faculty development within their department/academic unit as “poor” to “very poor;” 46.7%

(n=166) rated faculty development within their academic unit/department as “fair” to “good” and

13

only 5.9% (n=21) provided a rating of “excellent.” Approximately 10% (n=36) reported that

they were “unable to judge” faculty development within their department/academic unit. (See

Figure 1 for greater details)

Figure 1: Perception of Faculty Development Within Their Department/Academic Unit

(N=356)

Note: 10.1% (36) faculty reported “unable to judge”

As illustrated in Figure 2, in terms of the respondents’ perception regarding the University’s

commitment to faculty development, slightly over one-half (51%, n=182) rated it as “fair” to

“good”; 38% (n=134) rated as “poor” to “very poor. Only 2.2% (n=8) of the faculty rated the

University’s commitment to faculty development as “excellent.” Approximately 9% (n=33)

reported that they were unable to judge the University’s commitment to faculty development.

Figure 2: Perception of University’s Commitment to Faculty Development (N=357)

Note: 9.2% (33) faculty reported “unable to judge”

When faculty members were asked to rate faculty mentoring and renewal programs at Howard

University at the present time, 48% (n=169) rated this as “poor” to “very poor”; 37% (n=131)

rated as “fair” to “good” and only 1.4% (n=5) rated this as “excellent.” Approximately 14%

14

(n=50) reported that they were unable to judge faculty mentoring and renewal programs at the

University. (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Rating of Faculty Mentoring and Renewal Programs at Howard University

(N=355)

Note: 14.1% (50) faculty reported “unable to judge”

Endorsement of Faculty Development Needs

Faculty members were asked to take all things into consideration and rank order, from among a

listing of several options, the top three faculty development programs/activities that they feel are

currently needed at the University. Because some respondents had difficulty with ranking the

items, a decision was made to evaluate their responses simply in terms of the three options

mostly endorsed by the faculty.

The item that was endorsed by the largest proportion (60%, n=210) of the respondents included

faculty development for new faculty (less than seven years). The item endorsed by the second

largest proportion (40.3%, n=141) of the respondents was faculty development for academic

administrators (e.g., department chairs/deans); and the item endorsed by the third largest

proportion (39.4%, n=138) of the respondents included faculty development for international

faculty.

Faculty Development Across Various Areas

The faculty members were asked to rate, on a 3-point scale how important (i.e., “not at all

important”, “important”, “extremely important”) it is to them to improve their knowledge and

understanding of various issues classified along three dimensions: (a) teaching and learning

(e.g., syllabus planning and design, use of assessment data, service learning), (b) scholarship and

productivity (e.g., interdisciplinary work, IRB certification, publishing peer-reviewed articles),

15

and (c) personal investments and leadership development (e.g., balancing work commitments

with personal responsibilities, health and wellness, retirement planning).

For reporting purposes, the results for these items were collapsed into two categories (i.e., “not

important”, “important/extremely important”). For each category, they were also given the

opportunity to specify other issues not included in the listing provided.

The majority of the faculty rated all the items within the teaching and learning category as

“important” to “extremely important “in terms of improving their knowledge and understanding.

(See Table 4). However, improving knowledge and understanding related to instructional

technology was rated as “important” to “extremely important” by the largest proportion of the

faculty (92.9%, n=326), followed by supporting diverse students’ learning needs (91.5%,

n=324), and student assessment and evaluation (91.1%, n=320).

Table 4: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and Understanding

Related to Teaching and Learning (TL) (N=357)

Selected TL Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Syllabus planning & design 20.1% 80.0%

Online and blended courses 15.3% 84.7%

Digital information sources (e.g., e-books) 11.8% 88.2%

Information literacy/library skills 18.6% 81.4%

Instructional technology 7.1% 92.9%

Course management systems (.e.g., Blackboard) 13.2% 86.8%

Classroom management techniques 26.7% 73.3%

Advising students 18.8% 81.2%

Social networking tools 31.2% 68.8%

Mobile technologies 21.2% 78.8%

Student assessment and evaluation 8.8% 91.1%

Use of assessment data 10.8% 89.3%

16

Table 4 (continues): Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and

Understanding Related to Teaching and Learning (TL) (N=357)

Selected TL Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Supporting diverse students’ learning needs 8.5% 91.5%

Teaching unprepared students 14.4% 85.5%

Student centered & active learning 10.3% 89.7%

Faculty-student engagement beyond classroom 25.2% 74.8%

Service learning 19.8% 80.1%

Teaching portfolios 21.0% 79.0%

Recognizing/address needs of 15.7% 84.3%

emotionally troubled students

___________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Total % may not equal 100.0 due to rounding. Missing cases = 5

In terms of scholarship and productivity, improving knowledge and understanding related to

balancing research, teaching, and service responsibilities was rated as “important” to “extremely

important” by the largest proportion of the faculty (92.3%, n=323), followed by interdisciplinary

work (91.7%, n=319), and grantsmanship (e.g., options, applying for and writing grants) (90%,

n=317). (Table 5)

Table 5: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and Understanding

Related to Scholarship and Productivity (SP) (N=352)

Selected SP Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

________________________________________________________________________________________

Interdisciplinary work 8.3% 91.7%

Community-based research 20.7% 79.3%

IRB certification 32.7% 67.3%

Statistical analysis of data 19.0% 91.0%

17

Table 5 (continues): Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and

Understanding Related to Scholarship and Productivity (SP) (N=352)

Selected SP Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

________________________________________________________________________________________

Using technology in your research (e.g., SPSS) 16.0% 84.0%

Writing and publishing textbooks 25.3% 74.7%

Publishing peer-reviewed articles 10.5% 89.5%

Grantsmanship (e.g., option, applying for 9.9% 90.0%

and writing grants)

Balance research, teaching, and 7.7% 92.3%

service responsibilities

Publicizing and/or marketing 14.3% 85.7%

scholarship & productivity

________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Total % may not equal 100.0 due to rounding. Missing cases = 10

In the category of personal investments and leadership development, improving knowledge and

understanding related to collaborations and work teams were rated as “important” to “extremely

important” by the largest proportion of the faculty (87.1%, n=304). Aligning work time with

institutional priorities, personal values, and long-term goals and connecting work to the broader

community were the two items under the personal investments and leadership development

category that was rated as “important” to “extremely important” (equally) by the second largest

proportion of the faculty (86.7%, n=306; 86.7%, n=306, respectively), followed by technical

skills (86.4%, n=305), and health and wellness (86%, n=301). (Table 6)

Table 6: Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and Understanding

Related to Personal Investments and Leadership Development (PILD) (N=355)

Selected PILD Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

________________________________________________________________________________________

Managing multiple faculty roles 13.5% 86.5%

and responsibilities

Balancing work commitment 16.4% 83.6%

with personal responsibility

18

Table 6 (continues): Faculty Ratings of Importance of Improving their Knowledge and

Understanding Related to Personal Investments and Leadership Development (PILD)

(N=355)

Selected PILD Areas Not Important Important/Extremely Important

________________________________________________________________________________________

Connecting work to 13.4% 86.7%

broader community issues

Ethics in academic work 15.9% 84.1%

Time management 15.1% 85.0%

Technical skills 13.6% 86.4%

Health and wellness 14.0% 86.0%

Leadership development (e.g., chairing 21.9% 78.1%

the department)

Collaboration and work teams 12.9% 87.1%

Aligning work time with institutional 13.3% 86.7%

priorities, personal values, & long-term goals

Creating and maintaining 16.8% 83.2%

a network of mentors

Tenure planning, 32.7% 67.4%

preparation, & review

Promotion to full professor 28.9% 71.1%

Steps to a successful sabbatical 30.4% 69.6%

Retirement planning 14.1% 85.8%

Entrepreneurship 34.6% 65.5%

Financial planning 16.9% 83.1%

Continuing education opportunities 19.9% 80.1%

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Total % may not equal 100.0 due to rounding. Missing cases = 7

Recommendations from the Faculty

The respondents were asked what other topics, programs, and/or services (outside those already

mentioned in the survey) would they like to see incorporated into a Howard University Faculty

19

Development Program. The full listing of their recommendations is provided in Appendix C.

The suggestions covered a broad range of activities, programs, and services. Below are a few of

the suggestions offered by the faculty respondents.

An Academy of Retired Educators for the University

Administration and staff professional development

Financial support for global exchange for teaching and research

Using technology effectively in the classroom

International collaboration

GIS training and facilities for using it

Leadership development

Junior faculty workshops around teaching, research, and interdisciplinary work

Training to teach online

Improving/increasing student and faculty interaction across the disciplines particularly

inside the classroom

Infrastructure support to accomplish research activities

Development of collegiality with more emphasis on the common good

At the end of the survey, faculty members were given an opportunity to provide any additional

comments or suggestions. Many of the responses were unenthusiastic and illustrated a level of

doubt about the possibility of positive outcomes from this faculty development initiative. Some

of the faculty comments most illustrative of this sentiment include:

“I am personally offended by this survey because it implies a negative bias towards faculty who have

committed their lives and careers to the generation of knowledge and teaching. Without increased faculty

morale, Howard University will not survive and all administrators will be out of work. Furthermore,

Howard University, for the last four years, continues to insult my intelligence, value, career, and

commitment. Perhaps, a survey should be given to administrative staff (from maintenance to president

and CFO) regarding their understanding of faculty goals and the mission of Howard University. Faculty

are repeatedly and habitually treated as ignoramuses and children. This survey is just another example.”

“Howard is currently not supportive of faculty development for two reasons, First, there is no

overarching system in place to help people deal with the challenges of different stages of their careers.

For example, rating one thing over another in #20 is fruitless, because the answer is going to depend on

who the responder is and what that person needs. Faculty development should not be a list of priorities,

but rather a systematic and incremental program that allows all faculty develop to their fullest potential

over the course of their Howard careers. The second reason that faculty development at Howard is

abysmal is that expectations of the faculty and support for them are not aligned. It is hard to do top-

quality research--a major criterion for personal advancement and satisfaction--where it is difficult to find

the time to do so, given teaching and committee loads. It is also hard to conduct research when library

resources, grant support, and other crucial elements universities should provide are threadbare to non-

20

existent. Despite the rosy current reassurances of the administration, money management at Howard

remains extremely problematic and often requires full-time attention by a PI on top of already full-time

load. The diminished number of support staff such as administrative assistants who traditionally helped

with grant management only increases that burden. Add to that low salaries and salary compression at

Howard, while well-paid administrative positions have increased, and it is clear that Howard is not really

interested in its faculty or its development. Money invested in people and support systems still remains the

best way to promote an atmosphere that fosters individual professional development.”

“Presently, there is little to no faculty development or support for faculty here. By not investing in the

faculty, the University/College demonstrates that it is not truly committed to the academy or its students.

Furthermore, underdeveloped faculty have little to no impact on their individual fields and thus cannot

represent Howard as a change agent to the world.”

“Please - if the University is not going to truly provide meaningful development efforts, why bother with

these surveys?”

Many comments related to the need for development of academic administrators. Examples include:

“A process to evaluate and assess Associate Deans and Deans needs to be established.”

“Our department is a mess and there is a serious leadership void. There is no plan for faculty

development, no support for innovative teaching and a fly by the seat of the pants approach to everything.

The students know that their development is not a priority for most faculty, the director, and the chair.

There is a lack of clear communication on important issues, like when a search will be initiated for a

Director.”

“I think our department chairs need more assistance on learning how they can best help their faculty.”

“In my department there is little or no leadership, Chair has not been evaluated in years and rarely do

we have faculty meetings and Chair often give A's to his students to obtain favoritism....It is terrible and

any work shop that would help this situation would be a great 1st step...Unfortunately, the Dean of COAS

cares little about academic leadership and has asked for 1 evaluation of the chair in over 6 yrs...Just

terrible and no one seems to care...this is destroying the University and idea of scholarship at this

University”

“Faculty productivity is hindered by administrative bottlenecks. Time which could be spent of improving

our teaching, research, and leadership is being spent on following up and following up on administrative

matters.”

Comments related to lack of adequate resources for faculty work were numerous, with a few examples as

follows:

“All the faculty development in the world will not be effective as long as the faculty don't have even the

minimum infrastructure (up to code buildings and research spaces) and staff support found at other

research institutions. As long as I can't go a single winter without losing heat in my building or summer

without losing air conditioning, and as long as my classrooms don't have the technology found in high

21

schools (projectors, etc.) or even chalk boards that are in reasonable condition, and as long as I have

next to zero staff support to help me develop new educational programs, improvements won't happen.

Right now innovations happen IN SPITE OF our circumstances. Like many of my fellow faculty I am

doing my best under very difficult conditions but it is an uphill climb.”

“Teaching is difficult when the physical facilities are in very poor conditions. It take entirely too long to

fix broken equipment and technology for classrooms are almost non-existence. Douglass Hall as a main

building for social science courses and the building is in bad shape. Rooms B-22 and B-23 have not been

in service for 2 years due to a mold problem. This totally unacceptable but no one seems to care. Multiple

requests to fix this problem have been ignored. How can our university be a research I university with

such a poor facility.”

“Really - in order to make any of these things meaningful, material resources and transparency within

the school and university cultural are critical”

“I do not have a lab space that was part of my start up. I was hired in 2013. I do not believe the BOT or

other administrators care about the faculty. I continue to be embarrassed w the unclean bathrooms,

buildings, and lack of transparency from administrators. I attended an HBCU for undergrad, not this one,

and am appalled by the conditions teachers and students must work under. I continue to lie to my

colleagues about the real HU that I experience as I feel like a failure working in this environment.”

“The moral environment at HU and the physical infrastructure in my department are at lowest level I

have seen in my 44 years at Howard”

“Development is one thing but what needs to seriously be examined is faculty culture (environment,

camaraderie/attitudes) and resources (from instruction to simply having a faculty lounge where coffee is

available) for faculty to perform jobs effectively.”

“So, does this mean that we pour more university resources into this new initiative with new

administrators that drain university resources that should be used to correct faculty salaries? Please say

no to this...”

“This survey is excellent except it does not get to the heart of the matter here at Howard University.

Faculty members, especially senior faculty, should have the right to choose what faculty development is

most helpful at a particular time. Moreover, remission of tuition should not be a struggle to obtain or

only given as a perk to those who will not speak out against the untrained, autocratic department

chairs/deans!!”

“Focus might well be better placed on implementation than on development. Faculty can and have made

lots of efforts in the past only to see the administration do nothing-- or worse, do the opposite. Good luck

with this.”

On the positive side, there were also some more optimistic/hopeful comments. Examples include:

“I would like to see the Provost Faculty Forum be reinstated”

22

“This is a very good survey. I hope more resources will be devoted to faculty development in the very

near future”.

“Glad this area is getting attention.”

“Hope as a result of this exercise appropriate resources will be committed by University to move

“forward.

All of their responses to this open-ended item are found in Appendix D.

SECTION II: Recommendations to the President and Provost

This section of the report offers recommendations for faculty development policies, practices,

and initiatives. These recommendations are based upon the results from the Environmental Scan

and the Faculty Development Needs Assessment studies, consideration of the Howard University

context, and a review of the related literature on faculty development. The recommendations are

organized around three major areas: (a) structural-related recommendations, (b) programmatic-

related recommendations, and (c) assessment-related recommendations.

The recommendations sought to ensure formal and continuous support for faculty growth and

renewal in all realms of their professional lives and throughout the stages of their careers.

Additionally, the recommendations call for adequate resources and support that make it possible

for all faculty members to reach their fullest capacity. The FDC believes that addressing these

recommendations could represent a major step toward a comprehensive, inclusive, visible,

accountable, and ultimately effective program of faculty development at Howard University.

Structural-Related Recommendations

Create a (Provost-level) statement of purpose for faculty development that sets goals

supporting faculty consistent with University’s mission. This statement should be public

and widely shared. (Sample statement: The Office of the Provost supports the

development of faculty throughout their career in their role as teachers, researchers,

practitioners, mentors, and members of a diverse community of scholars and citizens).

Provide sufficient resources for meaningful faculty development at the University

Identify all faculty development programs and activities on campus and create a

repository of information accessible to faculty

Create a comprehensive faculty development website dedicated to the needs of faculty

and linked to resources across the campus. The website should be easily accessible from

the University’s homepage and organized in a systematic manner

Create a central place for faculty development issues to be housed (e.g., a Faculty

Development Office that may be under the auspices of the Office of the Provost and/or

linked to CETLA);

23

Promote better communication and sharing of information across the campus related to

faculty development opportunities

Support the development of a faculty development structure (e.g., office, committee) at

the school/college/division level

Support the development of a Faculty Lounge or common meeting space to facilitate

interaction of faculty across units and academic ranks

Programmatic-Related Recommendations

Encourage all faculty members to create an individualized faculty development plan (at

department/division level); provide resources to assist faculty in this effort

Encourage units to develop faculty development plans aligned with performance

objectives and the strategic goals of the unit

Institute ongoing development activities for academic administrators (e.g., Chairs and

Directors’ Institute)

Provide new faculty orientation at least three weeks before classes begin and provide

ongoing support (e.g., New Faculty Institute)

Develop mentoring program at the school/college level for early-career and other faculty

Assessment/Evaluation-Related Recommendations

Create a formal structure for ongoing monitoring and review of faculty development

activities at the University; this may take place at the university, school/college, and/or

department level(s)

Ensure that information gleaned from ongoing assessment and evaluation of faculty

development is used for improvement

Discussion Topics for Meeting of FDC with President and Provost

Review and discuss results of Environmental Scan and Needs Assessment surveys

Discuss the feasibility of FDC recommendations

Prioritize the FDC recommendations

Review and discuss how faculty development goals/recommendations relate to Middle

States accreditation

Organize FDC recommendations in terms of short-term, long-term

Create a timeline for implementation of FDC recommendations

24

Appendix A: Environmental Scan Study Survey

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Appendix B: Faculty Needs Assessment Study Survey

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix C: Full Listing of Faculty Responses to the Other Faculty Development

Topics/Programs, Services Recommended

Open-Ended Item: What other topics, programs, and/or services (outside those already

mentioned in the survey) would they like to see incorporated into a Howard University

Faculty Development Program. (listing of “other” items specified by faculty)

Incorporating adjustment to decided career. making a career shift

All of the above

Funding for licensing, Annual Professional Society Meetings and book/publication stipend. 2. Career

development 3. Research training ( though I am aware efforts exist they are not supported with protected

time to take advantage of them.

ACGME Faculty Development Requirements

Support to attend professional association meetings and workshops.

Faculty Workshops of Ongoing Research Projects (Work-In-Progress)

Conference attendance sponsorship

An Academy of Retired Educators for the University

Administration and staff need professional development more than faculty at Howard University.

Furthermore, there needs to be a cultural shift at Howard University where faculty is respected by

administration and staff as important contributors to the main missions of the university.

More funding needs to be available for faculty to travel and present at at least 4 conferences per year.

Faculty should be awarded for promoting the university name at outside venues/conferences.

International collaboration

We need for INFRASTRUCTURE support to be able to accomplish research activities. This includes

physical facilities (laboratory spaces at modern standards, support facilities such as machine shops,

electronics, refrigeration, etc.,) and staff support such as secretarial support, grants management support,

purchasing support, among others.

Learning how to use technology effectively in the classroom.

Teaching and co-teaching opportunities outside of your school

Re-establishing the on-going development sessions that included a wide-range of teaching and

professional development topics.

44

Mentorship

Sufficient funding for conference/learning opportunities

Sports, Leisure

Financial support for global exchange for teaching and research

Collaboration on an international level.

Software training for classwork

Student advising/mentoring

I would like to see a staffed and fully functional (consolidated) general fabrication facility made available

for all programs requiring prototyping and shop support. I believe it would free me and others

(Architecture, Engineering, Fine Arts) to collaborate and build industrial design curricula that would

bring corporate support and allow us to recruit more creative students interested in the design of the

material culture. It would pay for itself in a matter of a few years.

Given that nothing effective exists, I'd like to see us NOT reinvent the wheel. If this is a real priority (over

the leadership void, history of poor resource allocation, and absence of faculty incentives program)

An occasional pay raise. Since I have been at Howard there has never been a merit pay increase despite

frequent promises and lots of paperwork. I have witnessed colleagues advance from Assistant to full

professor with total pay raises not exceeding 10%

More financial support for research project.

Leadership development

Grant writing and corporate funding for equipment acquisition and University real-estate property

development

How to manage and navigate the political structure of the university and schools.

Discussion of basic faculty services--such as access to buildings, library resources, technology services,

and health benefits-- and locations of such services.

Please reduce the degree of micromanagement in our teaching.

Greater access to (and user-friendly documentation for the use of the available: (1) scientific-based

research literature; (2) data archives; (3) technology in the classroom

Navigating the administrative side of faculty development.

GIS training and facilities for using it.

Mentoring and aligning young investigators with accomplished researchers, short courses on grant writing

45

Mentorship across faculty seniority; more funds for faculty development.

At this time, I feel the programs and services offered are comprehensive.

I am comfortable with the list already provided

Challenges and responsibilities of teaching at a HBCU.

Greater support for Instructors who are life-long learners by signing remission of tuition forms so that

future studying is not a financial burden!

Gender sensitivity training

Dealing with difficult people (Conflict resolution)

Risk Management and Safety Community Involvement and Outreach (i.e. ways to involve community in

special campus events, campus, education opportunities, etc.)

IT issues

Digital humanities development

Getting to Know Howard, building locations, and the resources available to faculty, staff, and students.

Funding for professional development and More funding for Graduate Assistants

Faculty development workshop for new faculty

Come on, we all know the answer to this - hire some professional people who are truly capable to do

these things and spend a little money on it. This University is CHEAP and treats faculty like dirt.

Public speaking

Managing difficult colleagues- poor and inaccurate communication skills; no respect for time; Managing

difficult interdisciplinary work environment i.e. nursing professional qualities (no orientation on

assignment) ethics and shortage; How to negotiate for salary increase and bonus- what are the measures

and standards of the market

Junior Faculty Workshops around teaching, research, and interdisciplinary work.

Writing goals and objectives that are measurable

Training to teach online courses

Contemplative Practices in Higher Education

Technology

Administrative training for field committees, curriculum & program committees, admissions & financial

aid; effective IT based office management, faculty assessment

46

How to deal effectively with the media - International collaborations and partnerships

International collaborations; i.e. faculty and student exchange, visiting professorships

Online Learning and Teaching Programs (both National and International)

Successful Grant Writing Steps to Successfully Implement a Grant at HU Workshops on Writing a

Budget when Pursuing a Grant

Would like for compensation to be covered, incentives, rewards, recognition for dedicated faculty

members who continue to serve despite the financial challenges. Would like for raises and promotions to

be a serious consideration, so type of advocacy service would be great.

I am not even sure what is being offered as there is no centralized place that serves as a conduit of

information. See additional comments.

A research agenda that takes a thorough look at the resources the University has in terms of men and

women power, what we can contribute, what are our hurdles, and how can we make the university not

take us for granted. 2. How not to disappear when you lose your funding.

Support for CEUs and other types of certifications to maintain current licenses and/or certifications

How to "manage up" effective public speaking

Mentoring junior faculty in the classroom

Professionals in the field come to university or provide funds for on line conferences and training.

The listed activities are great selection already.

Process improvement, patient safety and improving the patient experience

Development of collegiality, with more emphasis on the common good, rather than myopic selfish agenda

More emphasis on learning current stat programs.

More frequent informational sessions for early career faculty (both tenure track and non-tenure track)

regarding grants

Succession planning

Opportunity to complete preparation of Labs 402 & 403 in the Cancer Center so research will resume.

All my needs have been mentioned above

Appoint departmental chairperson for a specified period of time, not to exceed two terms.

International affiliations & assignments

How to negotiate raises in our salaries at Howard.

47

Workshops to improve attitudes of young faculty member who feel the need to give their students A to

gain favoritism...It is destroying the purpose of teaching and learning...Need workshops to address the

poor leadership skills of Chairs of Department and other administrators on the campus...They should be

assessed just like faculty members...

Successfully improving/increasing student and faculty interaction across the disciplines and particularly

inside of the classrooms. Strategies to minimize the acting solely in silos.

Networking within the DC consortium. Entrepreneurship.

Available HU funds to attend and present at National and International Conference. Grant an IPad to

faculty for an efficient implementation of technology in and out the classroom.

Summer Research training in NVIVO, SPSS and writing grants during the summer for 9th month faculty.

Enough actual equipment to provide a standardized teaching experience. We should have DVD players

and computer projectors in each classroom, for instance.

I believe that you have covered everything in the questions above.

Services directed towards female faculty members on the tenure track with small children

Why not address LOW faculty salaries instead of having us fill out costly forms such as this?

Significant increase faculty compensation at Howard University!

Activity with Academy of your particular area

How to successfully play politics and remain ethical in the current University environment. How to

successfully increase my salary to at least the 50th percentile in my rank and discipline. How to properly

position myself for administrative advancement. How to successfully highlight and sell my outcomes to

exceed my peers. How to navigate trepidation about the possible emergence of STEM as part of the

University's profile. How to organize groups of faculty achieve better outcomes in negotiations with the

University for better conditions. How to manage the psychological pressures of working in an

environment that is professionally and economically hostile. How to properly "handle" a management

system that acts as if a core tenet is the inadequacy of faculty as a whole by differentiating oneself from

those who are the "problem."

Board accessibility

Although I am not interested in leadership roles, I think it's important that part of Faculty Development

include creating from the faculty the next generation of HU leaders and administrators.

Research design

48

Appendix D: Full Listing of Faculty Additional Comments and Suggestions

Open-Ended Item. Please take this opportunity to provide any additional comments or

suggestions. (listing of responses)

Support for course development

Glad to see the University considering making some bold steps in the area of professional development

for the faculty.

I am personally offended by this survey because it implies a negative bias towards faculty who have

committed their lives and careers to the generation of knowledge and teaching. Without increased faculty

morale, Howard University will not survive and all administrators will be out of work. Furthermore,

Howard University, for the last four years, continues to insult my intelligence, value, career, and

commitment. Perhaps, a survey should be given to administrative staff (from maintenance to president

and CFO) regarding their understanding of faculty goals and the mission of Howard University. Faculty

are repeatedly and habitually treated as ignoramuses and children. This survey is just another example.

All the faculty development in the world will not be effective as long as the faculty don't have even the

minimum infrastructure (up to code buildings and research spaces) and staff support found at other

research institutions. As long as I can't go a single winter without losing heat in my building or summer

without losing air conditioning, and as long as my classrooms don't have the technology found in high

schools (projectors, etc.) or even chalk boards that are in reasonable condition, and as long as I have next

to zero staff support to help me develop new educational programs, improvements won't happen. Right

now innovations happen IN SPITE OF our circumstances. Like many of my fellow faculty I am doing my

best under very difficult conditions but it is an uphill climb.

Really - in order to make any of these things meaningful, material resources and transparency within the

school and university cultural are critical

Hope as a result of this exercise appropriate resources will be committed by University to move forward.

Development is one thing but what needs to seriously be examined is faculty culture (environment,

camaraderie/attitudes) and resources (from instruction to simply having a faculty lounge where coffee is

available) for faculty to perform jobs effectively.

Consideration of release time (standardized at HU) to allow for implementation of initiatives.

I do not have a lab space that was part of my start up. I was hired in 2013. I do not believe the BOT or

other administrators care about the faculty. I continue to be embarrassed w the unclean bathrooms,

buildings, and lack of transparency from administrators. I attended an HBCU for undergrad, not this one,

and am appalled by the conditions teachers and students must work under. I continue to lie to my

colleagues about the real HU that I experience as I feel like a failure working in this environment.

49

This survey is developed with a great number of leading questions and presumptions that limit the

responder to providing an unfettered view of "faculty development. All of the areas listed in questions 7-9

are important for any responsible faculty member to learn more about - even if one is already engaged in

most of them. Some might say that they are all extremely important. No one should say that they are not

important. However, to speak of faculty development in the absence of faculty incentives or rewards is

disingenuous. To survey faculty as if they might be ignorant of these obvious elements of the profession

is also insulting.

Improving technology teaching across faculty with high quality training mandatory workshop.

The moral environment at HU and the physical infrastructure in my department are at lowest level I have

seen in my 44 years at Howard

Faculty salaries need a MAJOR upgrade.

Being concerned about the treatment of new faculty is a very important task of senior faculty & chair of

the Faculty Senate

A process to evaluate and assess Associate Deans and Deans needs to be established.

Need more travel funds

I am very pleased with the programs and services provided by CETLA. Please continue to fund and

develop this very valuable service.

If the university values the commitment of faculty to work and advise students, there needs to be some

type of incentive for faculty to see its worth. Many of us spend an ordinate amount of time working to

help students deal with personal and emotional issues and there is no support for us. I would like for

Howard to recognize us in some way for the work.

Lack classroom IT to be highly successful.

Howard is currently not supportive of faculty development for two reasons, First, there is no overarching

system in place to help people deal with the challenges of different stages of their careers. For example,

rating one thing over another in #20 is fruitless, because the answer is going to depend on who the

responder is and what that person needs. Faculty development should not be a list of priorities, but rather

a systematic and incremental program that allows all faculty develop to their fullest potential over the

course of their Howard careers. The second reason that faculty development at Howard is abysmal is that

expectations of the faculty and support for them are not aligned. It is hard to do top-quality research--a

major criterion for personal advancement and satisfaction--where it is difficult to find the time to do so,

given teaching and committee loads. It is also hard to conduct research when library resources, grant

support, and other crucial elements universities should provide are threadbare to non-existent. Despite the

rosy current reassurances of the administration, money management at Howard remains extremely

problematic and often requires full-time attention by a PI on top of already full-time load. The diminished

number of support staff such as administrative assistants who traditionally helped with grant management

only increases that burden. Add to that low salaries and salary compression at Howard, while well-paid

50

administrative positions have increased, and it is clear that Howard is not really interested in its faculty or

its development. Money invested in people and support systems still remains the best way to promote an

atmosphere that fosters individual professional development.

If university can aid young investigators with some seed money to start their project

The administration and leadership has always been very clear on some issues. If you are not a Black you

don't deserve mentoring or faculty development. I have been told repeatedly faculty development is only

for Blacks.

A Dean's/Associate Deans or "HU Pathways to Leadership" Academy is needed for preparing leaders

within the HU system. I would like more opportunities to interface with other HU schools Associate

Deans.

This survey is excellent except it does not get to the heart of the matter here at Howard University.

Faculty members, especially senior faculty, should have the right to choose what faculty development is

most helpful at a particular time. Moreover, remission of tuition should not be a struggle to obtain or only

given as a perk to those who will not speak out against the untrained, autocratic department chairs/deans!!

Our department is a mess and there is a serious leadership void. There is no plan for faculty development,

no support for innovative teaching and a fly by the seat of the pants approach to everything. The students

know that their development is not a priority for most faculty, the director and the chair. There is a lack of

clear communication on important issues, like when a search will be initiated for a Director.

There is a great need for more full time faculty which would redistribute some of the teaching and faculty

responsibilities, which in turn would free each Instructor and faculty to do more toward their

development. Research shows the more the faculty are prepared and invested into the students benefits

most.

Please - if the University is not going to truly provide meaningful development efforts, why bother with

these surveys?

I look forward to the reporting out of this effort

Please provide the outcome of this survey for faculty to view. Thank you.

This is a very good survey. I hope more resources will be devoted to faculty development in the very near

future. G.L.B.

There should be more emphasis on improving teaching and learning than worthless publishing just for the

sake of publishing. The current emphasis appears to lead to poor service to the students who need

excellent teachers, first and publishing if it really relates to improved service delivery and teaching. The

students need and deserve more for their money.

I would like to see the Provost Faculty Forum be reinstated.

51

My main challenges since employment at HU are lack of mentorship, resources and time for scholarship

activities. Unfortunately lack of mentorship and insufficient human and material resources are not

considered during promotion/tenure. This is frustrating for many talented and innovative minded early

investigators who love what they do in this wonderful University. Some of us have already missed been

promoted or tenured due to the aforementioned concerns. No mentor to guide the young investigators on

the path to follow in order to be successful, e.g. promotion/tenure process and by the time it is revealed is

already too late for them to catch up. Some of the administrators-- Chair/Deans do not know better than

those they are leading because they are not trained, its really frustrating when you don't know where/how

to get the resources that are needed. Scholarship activities are not being encouraged in the department.

Hoping there will be a change this time around. Thank you!!!

Faculty is the life blood of an institution. Without them there is no institution. As such faculty should not

be devalued, overlooked and taken for granted. Financial development is as important as professional,

academic and scholarly development. Thank you for this effort. I am looking for positive outcomes on

every level. All the best to you and your department.

Many institutions have a center, office, or VP level position to lead faculty development. For example, at

NC State, "The Office of Faculty Development aims to connect all faculty members to vital information

and resources while providing knowledge and skills needed to grow, excel and succeed in all realms of

faculty responsibility." Obviously the mission of CETLA (Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning,

and Assessment) falls short of properly servicing faculty at a doctoral/research-extensive institution

(because there is no development of faculty research and scholarship). Thus, if this doesn't happen at the

department level, it doesn't happen at all. CETLA is very important and vital to Howard and should be a

part of the faculty development program, but, a REAL faculty development program actually needs to be

created. This is vital to recruitment, retention and success of faculty and should be a priority of the

university.

So much more can be done at the college/school level to organize faculty to help each other, to mentor

each other, to motivate each other. I perceive the faculty as a sleeping mass of independent silos, nobody

touching, nobody aware of the others, no body caring. We all walk around like zombies with no aim and

no hope. More social events are also necessary to promote camaraderie, networking, knowledge of what

others are doing. It is extremely hard to move forward and much more doing it solo...

Each dept should establish a mentoring committee with specific assignment of mentors for each junior

faculty member.

There is no financial incentive for faculty to write grants and conduct research. The release rule needs to

be changed.

Presently, there is little to no faculty development or support for faculty here. By not investing in the

faculty, the University/College demonstrates that it is not truly committed to the academy or its students.

Furthermore, underdeveloped faculty have little to no impact on their individual fields and thus can not

represent Howard as a change agent to the world.

52

Focus might well be better placed on implementation than on development. Faculty can and have made

lots of efforts in the past only to see the administration do nothing-- or worse, do the opposite. Good luck

with this.

Thank you for placing this very important area within reach to all faculty. It is very timely.

The questions 7, 8 and 9 posed in this survey are confusing in their objective. If, as a faculty person, I

believe I have achieved a level of success in a particular arena, faculty development in that arena would

not be important. Question 20 is ridiculous - faculty development is needed across disciplines, ranks and

schools and colleges. Finally, perhaps the most important part of faculty development is Faculty Support,

and without competitive levels of support for our faculty across the intellectual, infrastructural and

financial arenas, "faculty development" as conceptualized in this survey, will be unlikely to achieve the

outcomes sought.

I have found it a challenge to attend CETLA events, because of training through professional

organizations. Based on my research intensivity, CETLA has not yet become a priority.

I feel that the support and resources available for mid-career faculty are currently missing. This is

extremely important to maintain the enthusiasm and productivity of our faculty and university.

Faculty productivity is hindered by administrative bottlenecks. Time which could be spent of improving

our teaching, research, and leadership is being spent on following up and following up on administrative

matters.

Teaching is difficult when the physical facilities are in very poor conditions. It take entirely too long to

fix broken equipment and technology for classrooms are almost non-existence. Douglass Hall as a main

building for social science courses and the building is in bad shape. Rooms B-22 and B-23 have not been

in service for 2 years due to a mold problem. This totally unacceptable but no one seems to care. Multiple

requests to fix this problem have been ignored. How can our university be a research I university with

such a poor facility.

There are a few VERY SIMPLE things that can be done to improve morale, at little or no cost to the

University. I shall be glad to provide a list.

I think our department chairs need more assistance on learning how they can best help their faculty.

It is difficult to manage development the when the needs of the department are so great due to diminished

numbers of employees trying to run the department and produce same or better quality. We need help

desperately

So glad this committee is taking its charge seriously.

In light of the university's purchase of Blackboard, every faculty member should be required to be

certified in Bb.

I am trying so hard to establish a Research Presence in Cancer Center, Labs 402 & 403 . HELP

53

The major issues impeding faculty development at Howard are 1. the complete lack of start up support

from day one for new faculty and 2. the complete lack of administrative support for research activities on

the departmental level

In my department there is little or no leadership, Chair has not been evaluated in years and rarely do we

have faculty meetings and Chair often give A's to his students to obtain favoritism....It is terrible and any

work shop that would help this situation would be a great 1st step...Unfortunately, the Dean of COAS

cares little about academic leadership and has asked for 1 evaluation of the chair in over 6 yrs...Just

terrible and no one seems to care...this is destroying the University and idea of scholarship at this

University

All faculty development workshops, for instance, should take into account the specific frame time of the

faculty, or frame time recommended by the departments/units or programs

I am not able to access most university faculty development opportunities as a lecturer.

As for Howard University. Howard University, needs to just step-up its game when it comes to Faculty.

Without us, Howard University would not have a "product" to sell at a very high price to students. The

Administration seems to get all of the praise and trust me, the Administration is THE problem on campus!

As a product of Howard University (I received my MA here) I have experienced the backwardness of the

Administration and its tiresome constant attitude. Faculty members are always put in the back, and not

giving enough information on growing as a professor is one of the many examples. So, please. Review

your way of dealing with Howard University and give a little more credit to Students and Faculty. Your

vision should be as such: Students Faculty Staff Administration (LAST) Thank you for your time

I feel that question 20 could be phrased differently for more effect, and shorten the survey

See Faculty Focus blog for example of excellent approach. facultyfocus.com It provides weekly topical

brief emails with opportunities for additional information. HU should adopt similar "push" messages to

all faculty combined with online tutorials or brief lectures. I often cannot attend in person sessions and

frequent interruptions prevent use of longer (> 20 min) online talks. Plan for short focused resources with

frequent email updates on new content. The occasional networking session or conference would be good

perhaps once or twice per year

So, does this mean that we pour more university resources into this new initiative with new administrators

that drain university resources that should be used to correct faculty salaries? Please say no to this...

Junior faculty need mentoring. Senior faculty need time for professional retraining.

Glad this area is getting attention.

New faculty should be mentored and introduced to scholarship through a joint article with a senior faculty

member

54

7-10 years is a faulty designation of mid-career faculty at Howard University. At other universities, where

faculty are not underdeveloped professionally, 7-10 is a reasonable mark for mid-career personnel. Given

the complete failure to consistently develop faculty, this definition should be extended by several years to

account for the well-known drag on development caused by the failure of the university to properly invest

in its faculty.

Their needs to be a focus on collaboration in academe/higher education. We are too siloed even in my

own school

I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on research and an institutional commitment to supporting

faculty research, especially for junior faculty. The few "faculty development" opportunities I've seen

OVERWHELMINGLY focus on teaching, which is a lopsided attitude for professors at a research

university. Even this survey begins with and has too many questions about teaching.

Although I would love to fill out this survey, it seems that the Division of Fine Arts cannot even be

acknowledged. Good luck with your faculty development. It's unfortunate that the Fine Arts faculty is not

recognized as part of the HU faculty.

HOWARD UNIVERSITY FACULTY WORKLOAD POLICY

January 21, 2000

Purpose: This university-wide Faculty Workload Policy has been developed to fulfill an essential component of the Strategic Framework for Action, which was adopted by Howard University's Board of Trustees on September 28, 1996. Fully cognizant of the fact that many academic units within the University have workload policies, there is need for a general policy that establishes the principles of consistency, equity, and flexibility together with a process for determining workload responsibilities that is uniform across the various schools and colleges. The activities, duties, and responsibilities of the faculty must be determined in relation to (1) the mission, objectives and strategic plans of the University, and (2) the specific mission, goals, and objectives of the respective departments across the various schools and colleges. The workload obligation of an individual faculty member should reflect the proportion of faculty effort within each of the three areas of responsibility1 that best represents the interests and strengths of the faculty member, while simultaneously furthering the excellence of both the department's and the University's academic, research/scholarly, and service programs. This policy establishes a university-wide framework for each of the three workload categories, across which any individual faculty member's proportion of effort may vary. Additionally, this Faculty Workload Policy will provide a principled basis for the development of a policy that regulates performance evaluation of faculty contributions. Furthermore, the principles of this document are consistent with the policies contained in the Faculty Handbook.

Faculty Responsibilities: Appointment to the faculty of Howard University carries with it the responsibilities for excellence in teaching, the intellectual growth of students, high scholarship, and the improvement of society. In addition, faculty members have a responsibility to participate in the life and operation of the university and particularly the department and school or college of their appointment. Although the final authority for the conduct of university affairs is vested in the Board of Trustees, the academic judgements, recommendations, and policies of the faculty are central to the university’s general educational policy and in determining the shape and character of the university as an educational institution.

The primary responsibility of full-time faculty is dedication to the educational, research and service (institutional and public) goals of Howard University. Faculty devote substantially all of their professional work time and effort to carrying out the duties and the responsibilities of their faculty appointments, with the exception of limited consulting and other outside activities of a professional nature. Outside professional activities should not be allowed to interfere with a faculty member’s teaching, research, advising and University service obligations. In carrying out their academic and professional responsibilities, full-time faculty are expected to engage in the following: sustained

1 The three areas are teaching, research, and service. The area of professional development is included as part of any or all of the three. For further explanation see the definitions and tables in the appendix.

Appendix J

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 2

excellence in teaching, the intellectual growth of students, high scholarship, and the improvement of society. Faculty members have a responsibility to participate in the life and operation of the university and particularly the department and school or college of their appointment. Faculty are expected to give their best efforts to a) engage in effective teaching, b) make scholarly contributions in research or creative works, c) render service to the university, the profession, and the community, and d) exhibit evidence of professional development in any of the other three areas. In this policy, faculty workload is broadly conceived to refer to all faculty activities that are related to professional duties and responsibilities, and where faculty effort is distributed across three domains: instructional activities; research, scholarly and creative activities; and service activities. As a Research Level I University, it is essential that Howard University maintains, sustains and expands academic programs of excellence. To this end, the Board of Trustees’ Academic Excellence Committee has identified, among several performance goals, the assurance that all Howard University students “will receive a superior undergraduate, graduate and professional education” and that they “will meet the highest standards of academic performance.” This can only be accomplished by the active engagement of all full-time faculty in each of the areas of instruction, scholarly and creative activities, and service. Applicability: This workload policy applies, in its entirety, to all full-time career-status, probationary and tenured faculty members of Howard University. Part-time and temporary faculty may be employed for limited duties, such as teaching specific courses, engaging in research, or supervising students in clinical/practicum settings, and thus are obligated to perform responsibilities only in those areas that are explicitly identified in a special employment agreement and/or the approved personnel appointment document. Effective Date: This policy takes effect on July 1, 2000. Definitions: Definitions of the key terms used in this policy are found in Appendix I. WORKLOAD RESPONSIBILITIES GUIDELINES Howard University is a comprehensive research institution, committed to excellence in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Thus, all full-time faculty have an obligation to pursue professional duties and responsibilities in each of the three primary domains of intellectual activity. Stated another way, the primary responsibilities of full-time faculty are imparting knowledge to others (teaching or instructional activities), creating new knowledge (research, scholarship and creative activities) and facilitating the execution of the first two responsibilities (service). The faculty workload refers to the effort made in the execution of these three responsibilities.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 3

This policy establishes a university-wide framework for individual effort in each of the three-workload categories, across which any individual faculty member’s proportion of effort may vary.2 Within this context, the policy allows each college or school to establish minimal expectations for its entire faculty across the three domains of work responsibility, including professional development, while still granting sufficient flexibility to departments to allocate individual faculty work assignments in consideration of the priority accorded to departmental objectives. The percent of effort ranges for the three areas of responsibility are: Instructional Duties—at least 40%; Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities—at least 30%; and, Service Duties—at least 10%. While all Howard University faculty are expected to meet the responsibilities outlined above and earlier in this policy, outlined below are four patterns that describe the distribution of professional responsibilities, which is ordinarily expected of faculty. For the purposes of this discussion, and with the understanding that equivalencies need to be specified by the disciplines and departments for approval, courses are assumed to consist of lectures or seminars for three hours a week and are semester-long in duration. In addition, it is recognized that in certain disciplines instructional activities are not defined by semester hours, but rather by other parameters, e.g., contact hours, clinical rotations, research preceptorships, etc. In such cases, semester hour equivalencies should be defined by the faculty for determining appropriate faculty workload assignments in the context of standard practice within the discipline or profession.

1. Faculty participating in programs offering only undergraduate degrees or undergraduate instruction will teach at least 15 and at most 18 semester hours annually, and pursue professional growth through research, scholarly writing, advanced study, or original creative production appropriate to their disciplines, and engage in service. Faculty assigned the minimum teaching load are expected to have substantial participation in research, scholarly or creative activity, undergraduate research supervision, or honors program participation, etc. 2. Faculty participating in programs offering only undergraduate degrees and the Master's degree will teach at least 12 and at most 18 semester hours annually and

2 The length of the formal week is established at a minimum of 40 hours. Studies over many years consistently have shown that, irrespective of the type of institution, faculty spend over 40 hours per week on professional activities, and often exceed 50 hours per week. National data reported by the U.S. Department of Education (1991) indicate that the hours worked per week, as a function of institutional type, were as follows: public research, 57; private research, 56; public doctoral, 55; private doctoral, 53; public comprehensive, 52; private comprehensive, 51; liberal arts, 52; and public two-year, 47. U.S. Department of Education. 1991. Profiles of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions, 1988. Report No. NCES 91-389. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 4

pursue professional growth through research, scholarly writing, advanced study, or original creative production appropriate to their discipline. Further, it is assumed that faculty in these programs may be called upon to teach at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and must have significant involvement in the training and supervision of Masters students, and engage in service. 3. Faculty participating in programs offering doctoral degrees will teach at least 9 and at most 15 semester hours annually. In this case, they are expected to teach undergraduate (where appropriate) and graduate courses and to be engaged in substantial research that results in significant scholarly products or artifacts in the field, or significantly involved in doctoral education supervision and the training of doctoral students, and engage in service. 4. Faculty participating in professional programs will teach at least 9 and at most 15 semester hours annually. They will teach undergraduate courses, as appropriate, in additional to other courses. Also, they are expected to engage in substantial research that results in significant scholarly products or artifacts in the field, as appropriate. Further, they must be significantly involved in the training and supervision of students for professional degrees, and engage in service.

In those instances where the minimum teaching load is not achieved, e.g., in the event of courses with low enrollment or courses that must be cancelled due to insufficient enrollment, faculty will be assigned other duties in the department or in the School or College (such as additional student advising/counseling, involvement in recruitment or retention initiatives, accreditation preparation, departmental service, etc.). These assignments will be made by the department chairperson, after consultation with the individual faculty member, depending upon the amount of instructional activities in which the faculty member is engaged. Additionally, the chairperson, in consultation with the dean, and the approval of the Provost, may grant “released time” from teaching to faculty who have (1) significant externally-funded support, depending upon the award amount and the proportion of effort funded or (2) substantial administrative or service requirements3. In unusual circumstances, a faculty member, upon the recommendation of the department chairperson and the dean, may be permitted to teach a minimum of two courses annually, with the approval of the provost. In determining teaching load, a single course with both an undergraduate and graduate course number, meeting or scheduled concurrently, will count as one preparation. Individual instruction credits (such as reading courses, independent study courses, thesis/dissertation supervision) may be considered by the chairperson in determining 3 In addition, faculty members may, with concurrence of the chair and the dean, teach in excess of the credits described herein and “bank” the overload hours for a comparable amount of released time at a later date. The expenditure of “banked” hours must occur within one calendar year.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 5

whether a faculty member has a full workload, but the number of semester hours will not be assessed as equivalent to those of courses not involving one-on-one instruction. In the assignment of workload, consideration should be given to the following possible types of instruction: team teaching; graduate instruction; activity classes; laboratory courses; clinical supervision; directed study; and distance learning. Consideration for adjustments in workload should be given to at least the following: preparation for substantive changes in instructional methods, including the incorporation of new instructional technology; unusually large class sizes, especially in the absence of teaching or research assistants or an inadequate number of assistants; research productivity demands; student teacher supervision; thesis/dissertation supervision load; supervision of fieldwork; clinical student supervision; or extraordinary service on a university-wide committee. In the area of research and scholarly/creative activities, a minimum of 30% of faculty time will be devoted to this effort during each semester. This may vary, however, depending on the amount of research or scholarly involvement in which an individual faculty member is engaged, as well as the extent of participation in the supervision of thesis/dissertation research. Faculty Availability—All faculty members are required to have scheduled office hours that permit reasonable access by both full- and part-time students, and which must be approved by the department chairperson. In addition, this policy requires that office hours are conspicuously posted and filed with the department chairperson and the dean. Professional Development—The University requires all full-time probationary, tenured and career-status faculty to continue their professional development through research, scholarly writing, advanced study, or original creative production, as appropriate to their disciplines. The concept of professional development is reflected potentially in the activities of all three components of faculty work. Thus, this policy provides that in the case of an individual faculty member, the decision as to which of the three areas of faculty responsibility to credit a particular professional development activity will be determined in consultation with the department chairperson, and shall reflect the nature of the professional development activity.

Consulting—This policy acknowledges a faculty member’s right to outside consultancies, as long as these outside activities do not detract from the faculty member’s availability for usual academic duties or exceed in aggregate the equivalent of one day per week. The university requires written disclosure of all outside consulting activities and these activities may not be competitive with or adverse to the best interests of the university. In general, paid outside consultancies are not used to satisfy a faculty member's university responsibilities. However, in cases where such activities are determined, a priori, in conference with the Dean and Department Chair, to promote the objectives of the university, college/school or department, such activities may be used to

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 6

satisfy a component of faculty workload. Non-paid consulting that enhances the goals of the university, college/school or department may also be credited in assessing faculty workload. As a means of fostering greater productivity in faculty research, The Strategic Framework for Action (SFA) calls for consideration of a compensation plan for augmentation of academic year faculty salaries4 with income from grants. Consistent with this provision of the SFA, in lieu of the equivalent of the “one day per week outside paid consultancy,” this workload policy will permit full-time faculty to obtain approval from the Provost, upon the recommendation of the Department Chair and the Dean, for the equivalent of one day per week additional compensation from externally-funded grant, contract and cooperative agreement awards accepted by the University.5 Faculty may not receive both additional compensation and credit for released time from teaching for the same externally funded activity unless the award provides sufficient funds to employ another faculty member to assume that portion of the teaching load. The terms and conditions of a faculty member’s additional compensation for research shall be set forth in a supplemental income agreement, and must be consistent with OMB Circular A-110 (Revised). Also, as with all faculty employees of the university, fringe benefits shall be computed on the basis of the base faculty salary only.

WORKLOAD MEASURES The criteria and units that are identified in this section for the measurement of the instructional, research and scholarly/creative, and service workload categories are provided as examples of appropriate indicators and are not intended to be exhaustive. The departments and colleges/schools are expected to develop and recommend additional indicators for these three categories that are appropriate or unique to their disciplines. In addition, because professional development is embedded in each of these categories, and given the range and variability of professional development activities, both within and across disciplines, the departments are charged to identify and define metrics and indicators appropriate to the discipline for each of the three workload categories. Criteria and units for measurement of instructional activity The criteria for determining instructional activity include all activities directly related to teaching. The unit of measurement is time, which usually is quantified in clock hours. For example, among the indicators appropriately used are the following: Number of hours in class (laboratory, clinic, studio); 4 Faculty holding nine-month appointments retain eligibility for three months of extramural support during the summer. 5 For faculty in the College of Medicine, the limitation on additional compensation from extramural sources is guided by the Board-Approved “Faculty Agreement Regarding Supplemental Income.”

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 7

Number of hours required for preparation; Number of hours required for evaluation; Number of hours devoted to student consultation;

Number of hours devoted to individual instruction/tutoring, thesis/dissertation Advisement; and

Number of hours devoted to curriculum development. Criteria and units for measurement of research and scholarly/creative activity The criteria for determining “research activity” include all activities directly related to creative and scholarly endeavors. Examples of measurement and metrics include:

Number of productions (papers, books, grant proposals, grants funded, reviews, presentations, performances, exhibits); Number of memberships on dissertation/thesis research committees; Size (in $) of research grants or contracts; Numbers of research and/or training grant applications to funding agencies; and Numbers of grants received.

(Quality Metrics) Number of citations and references; Number of peer-reviewed papers, presentations, performances, exhibits; Number of awards, prizes, invited lectures or presentations; Number of dissertation/thesis committees chaired; Number of M.S./M.A. students trained/graduated in any given year; and Number of Ph.D. students trained/graduated.

Criteria and units for measurement of University and Public service activity University Service refers to university activities not related to instruction or research or professional development. The units of measurement will be number, quality, and time. Sample metrics include:

The number of department, school, or university committee memberships; The number of department, school, or university committees chaired; The time devoted to department, school, or university administration; and The time devoted to service as advisor to student organizations.

Public Service refers to faculty activities outside of the university. The units of measurement include number, quality, and time. Examples of metrics include:

The number of community, state, or national organizational committees; The number (and level) of offices/positions in professional organizations; and The number (and level) of public offices.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 8

IMPLEMENTATION A. FRAMEWORK/CONTEXT FOR INDIVIDUAL WORKLOAD ASSIGNMENTS Faculty work must be determined in relation to the mission, objectives and strategic plans of the University, as well as the mission, goals and objectives of the department and the school or college. The department’s overall instructional or course assignments shall be consistent with department and student needs. The faculty of each department is responsible for developing, offering and sustaining curricula that support simultaneously the mission of the university, the mission of the college/school in which the department is based, meet the goals and objectives of the departmental discipline(s) and, where applicable, fulfill accreditation standards. It is a paramount responsibility of each core departmental faculty—probationary, tenured and career-status members—to ensure the delivery of the department’s instructional program to its undergraduate majors and minors, its graduate degree candidates, and to undergraduate and graduate students from other university departments for whom its courses are requirements. Also, it is assumed that departments will take into account the level of student demand in making decisions about the degree of responsibilities for teaching, research, and service for each faculty member. In addition, the University encourages interdisciplinary collaboration in instruction, research/scholarship and service, where appropriate. Therefore, it is expected that as part of the implementation process for this Workload Policy, the departments and other academic units will promote, recognize and reward both interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaboration and participation. Further, it is recognized that “the responsibility profile” (i.e., the total of faculty contributions in the areas of instruction, scholarship/research and service) of each collective departmental faculty will be influenced by differences in the tasks and cultures of the various disciplines. Faculty assignments should embody the principles of consistency and flexibility. The University expects consistent high-quality performance from all faculty in the mutually supportive areas of instruction, research, scholarly and creative productivity, and service. Therefore, faculty assignments should not be designed to inhibit faculty members from contributing in all three areas over the terms of their employment. Appropriate effort should be extended to achieve flexibility in faculty assignments so that the changing needs of disciplines, departments and the University are recognized and so that, by giving faculty the latitude to explore academic and professional opportunities as they arise, faculty contributions to the University can be maximized.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 9

B. PROCESS FOR WORKLOAD ASSIGNMENTS The Role of the Faculty Member. The workload obligation of an individual faculty member should reflect the proportion of faculty effort within each of the three core areas of responsibility that best represents the interests and strengths of the faculty member, while simultaneously furthering the excellence of both the department’s and the university’s academic, research and scholarly, and service programs. This framework obviously must be applicable to individual departments and modified, as appropriate, to take into account a variety of elements such as practica, studios, clinics and laboratory sections, as well as to accommodate diverse learning technologies. The proposed policy incorporates the principle that the workload obligation of an individual faculty member should be made clear to the faculty member and be consistent with the principles stated above. Following are the time periods when workload assignments shall be established for an individual full-time faculty member:

At the time of negotiation of initial faculty appointment; At the time of each reappointment for a temporary faculty member; At the beginning of each probationary term for career-status or tenure-track faculty; At the time of award of tenure or career-status; Every two years following the award of tenure or career-status; Following the conclusion of sabbatical leave; At the time of promotion for tenured faculty; and At any other time when a departmental need arises.

Role of Department Chair: The Chair, in consultation with each individual faculty member who holds a probationary, career-status, or tenured appointment, determines the workload assignment distribution for each faculty member, including the assignment of teaching responsibilities. If the faculty member objects to the workload assignment, the faculty member may appeal to the Dean for relief. Responsibility for identification of the specific graduate students for whom an instructor will serve as the thesis/dissertation advisor is delegated to the faculty member. For each part-time and temporary faculty member, the Chair decides on the particular workload composition that is assigned. Role of the Dean: In colleges/schools that are organized by departments, the Dean is typically not involved in individual faculty workload assignments. However, when an individual faculty member objects to the workload assignment, the Dean shall review the case and render a final decision concerning the workload assignment. The Dean is also authorized to approve the recommendations of the Chair concerning “released time” for individual faculty. In cases where a faculty member is scheduled to offer courses in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences or is a member of several thesis/dissertation committees, the Dean should consult with the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In colleges/schools that are not organized by departments, the Dean determines

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 10

the workload assignment for each faculty member. Additionally, all requests for exceptions to the general university-wide workload policy must be reviewed by the Dean, who, in turn, generates a recommendation for consideration by the Provost, whose decisions regarding exceptions are final. This policy provides the Dean with the appropriate authority to resolve any issues of concern to the faculty member. However, the Chair’s proposed assignment of workload will stand during the process of review by the Dean, and the Dean will have the authority to make an adjustment in the schedule. The Dean will provide a fair review of the matters of concern to the faculty member, will allow the faculty member the opportunity to express his/her concerns, and will act expeditiously to resolve the matters of concern. Formalization of Workload Assignment: The workload assignment of each individual faculty member should be formalized in a memorandum from the Chair to the individual, with copies to the Departmental Executive Committee and the Dean. FEEDBACK AND REVIEW Faculty workload and faculty assessment and evaluation are clearly related, but appropriately are covered under separate policies. The faculty workload policy addresses the kind and amount of work to be undertaken by faculty during a particular period, while a faculty assessment and evaluation policy addresses the quality of work provided by the faculty during a given cycle. The faculty workload policy provides the formal process under which all faculty will understand and participate in formulation of the individualized responsibility distribution for which they are accountable for a specific period and against which their performance will be assessed. The Department Chair will review with each full-time faculty member, on an annual academic year basis, that individual’s progress and status with respect to fulfillment and performance of the assigned workload. Performance measured against the approved workload shall be considered in merit salary adjustment recommendations, promotion or tenure evaluations, and periodic performance evaluations. REVIEW OF WORKLOAD ASSIGNMENTS BY THE DEAN The Dean is responsible for ensuring that workload agreements are developed for all faculty in a timely manner and at the appropriate times, and that these individual agreements are appropriately documented and filed. The Dean exercises oversight to ensure that the collective, approved workload agreements within the college/school result in a distribution of effort among faculty members that promotes the efficient and timely completion of programs of study by students and facilitates compliance with accreditation requirements. Additionally, the Dean reviews and approves the workload implementation policies and procedures of the departments.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 11

ROLE OF THE PROVOST The Provost shall exercise the authority needed to ensure the fair and equitable implementation of workload policies throughout the Colleges and Schools of the University. The Provost approves all exceptions to the University-wide workload policy, and is the final arbiter for all matters pertaining to and arising out of the workload policy.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 12

Appendix A

Proposed Faculty Workload Policy DEFINITIONS AND KEY TERMS This section provides a set of definitions for the key terms used in this policy. Instruction includes teaching and preparation; preparing and revising syllabi; advising, supervising, mentoring and counseling students; assessing student outcomes; thesis and/or dissertation supervising and advising; supervising clinical, practicum, internship or student teaching experiences; preparing and grading assignments and examinations; assessing learning outcomes; review of current literature and research in the subject area, including instructional methodology; and developing curricula and courses. Teaching involves the totality of the structured academic experiences and activities that provide opportunities for faculty to present, impart, and critique knowledge in an attempt to advance understanding and competence in a field of study. Scholarly and/or Creative Activity (Research) refers to activity aimed at producing scholarly works, such as books, papers, paintings, plays, musical compositions, recitals, designs, exhibitions, or computer artifacts; creating new knowledge by scientific experimentation or applied/field research; supervising of research staff; developing proposals and applications for funding; preparing progress and final reports for extramural funders; rehearsing for dance, drama, or music performance; and discussing research with colleagues in formal venues such as conferences and symposia. Involves the totality of structured academic experiences and activities whereby faculty design and/or implement data gathering projects whose primary purpose is the production of new information, knowledge and skills that strengthen the scientific base and/or expand the potential contribution/application of a specific field of study. Service involves the totality of structured experiences and activities that provide opportunities for faculty to share their talents and expertise with professional and nonprofessional communities locally, nationally, and globally. It is acknowledged that the many and varied communities constituting our world have different needs, and that these respective communities often seek the kind of assistance and expertise [i.e., service], which faculty members are uniquely prepared to provide. Service, therefore, is viewed as the sum total of activities that faculty members render to varied communities, whose expressed needs encompass the solicited expertise or competencies that individual faculty members command. Institutional Service refers to a broad range of activities, including membership on departmental, college/school, divisional or university-wide committees; attendance at and

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 13

participation in departmental and college/school faculty meetings; working collaboratively and productively with faculty, administration and staff colleagues; leadership and committee responsibilities in the Faculty Senate; attendance at commencement and both regular and special university convocations; co-curricular activity advisement; participation in registration and other student services; as well as general administration responsibilities at the department or college/school level. Public Service includes activities that usually occur outside of the university, e.g., service to the community, local, state or federal government, foundations; ones professional disciplinary organizations, etc. Typically, this is work where either a faculty member’s professional expertise in her/his academic discipline or knowledge and competence acquired as a member of the higher education community is utilized to address societal needs for the benefit of the public and the wider community. It may also include activities not directly related to professional competencies; however, it must be related to the institutional mission to be counted in this domain. Professional Development refers to time devoted to activities that contribute to the professional knowledge of the faculty member. It includes the reviewing of material related to one’s discipline or profession; attending professional meetings, symposia and conventions; and completing continuing education courses and professional seminars that enhance one’s disciplinary expertise and improve one’s instructional or research competence and student advisement/counseling capability. Released Time refers to the reduction of a faculty member’s normal assigned duties (usually teaching load) in order to allow that faculty member to allocate additional effort towards some other area(s) of faculty responsibility. Refers also to instances where a faculty member is able to “buy out” some proportion of teaching responsibility because money is available from an extramural grant/contract that will support employment of an alternate instructor. Semester refers to the approximately 18 week periods beginning in late August and ending in late December (first or fall semester); and beginning in early January and ending in mid-May (second or spring semester). For some of the university’s 12-month professional programs, the first semester begins in July and extends until December, while the second semester runs from early January through late June. Summer Sessions refers to the approximately 6-week instructional sessions occurring from mid-May until the first week in August. Academic Year refers to the 9-month period beginning each year on or about August 16th and ending on approximately the 15th day of the following May.

Faculty Workload Policy Office of the Provost

(01-21-2000) Page 14

Contact Hour refers to the time spent in classroom instruction (or laboratory or studio instruction); for example, a class which meets from 9:10am – 10:00am MWF would constitute three contact hours. Semester Hour refers to the number of credits accorded to a unit of instruction, with one credit usually representing approximately 14 hours per semester of classroom instruction. Laboratory Hour refers to the time devoted to instruction in a laboratory, clinic or field-placement setting. Work Week refers to a minimum period of 40 hours devoted to responsibilities in the areas of instruction (knowledge transmission), research and scholarship (knowledge generation) and service (knowledge application).

Indirect Cost Recovery Expenditures

$313,177 (31%) has been spent using the Indirect Cost Recovery Program to date.

– 30 faculty presented research findings at national and international conferences.

– 17 research assistants hired to increase research output

– Over $30,000 of equipment was purchased, including: lab refrigerator (pharmacology),vacuum pump (pharmacy), digital stimulator (physiology), psychomotor vigilance taskmonitor (psychiatry), etc.

– Funds were also used to service existing equipment, including: microscopes (physiology),electrical servicing of instruments (mechanical engineering) and optical tables (physics)

Appendix K

Descriptions of Facilities Upgrades with Research Implications

The College of Medicine has a major renovation in core mechanical, electrical, and plumbing facilities over the period FY 2012 through 2015 at a cost of approximately $17 million. The Surgical Skills Center was also developed over the same time period at a total cost of $5.2 million. The Adams Building, which houses the College of Medicine, also received over $700,000 in upgrades as well. The Dental School had renovations in its clinical areas costing over $1.1 million.

In the natural sciences, significant progress has been made in upgrading key laboratories. Approximately, $1.52 million was used to renovate Chemistry labs in Rooms 205, 207, 208, and 209 of the Chemistry Building in FYs 2010 and 2011. Biology lab renovation was conducted in two phases in FY 2014 and 2015 at a cost of $1.18 million. The Pharmacy lab was modestly upgraded at a cost of over $37,000 in FY 2012 and 2013.

In Engineering, one of the major research centers in the University, $4.6 million was spent to improve its Chemical Engineering laboratories and classrooms. The School of Architecture, housed jointly with Engineering in the College of Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Science, also received a major upgrade to its facilities with $352,000 for building upgrades and $381,000 for research facility upgrades.

The University also spent substantial sums in areas not strictly related to research facilities but which are integrated with some research functions. The gymnasium, where exercise physiology and kinesiology research is carried out, was substantially upgraded in two phases between FY 2012 and FY 2015 at a cost of over $11.5 million. The School of Communication experienced a $3.3 million upgrade, including a renovation of its laboratory space. Locke Hall, which houses humanities departments including English, World Languages and Cultures, Classics, and Philosophy, experienced a renovation costing $642,478. Finally, the main library was also upgraded at a cost of $1.44 million.

Appendix L

FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT FTE HEADCOUNT # CAGR

UNDERGRADUATES

Arts and Sciences 3,228 3,351 3,475 3,601 3,487 3,605 3,373 3,478 3,176 3,315 52 0.4%

Business 942 978 1,028 1,063 1,071 1,104 1,202 1,239 1,273 1,312 (331) -7.3%

Communications 1,013 1,040 1,049 1,075 1,000 1,034 1,018 1,040 1,102 1,138 (89) -2.1%

Education 79 83 72 76 80 90 80 91 93 104 (14) -4.0%

Engineering/Arch/Comp Sci 565 586 594 611 543 562 508 532 548 569 17 0.8%

Pharmacy/Nursing/AHS 552 596 631 673 644 687 566 616 616 674 (64) -2.7%

Dental Hygiene 18 18 15 15 19 19 25 25 26 26 (8) -8.8%

Exchange Program 0 0 5 5 10 10 8 8 7 7 (7) -100.0%

Consortium 12 36 14 45 12 36 4 14 7 20 5 14.4%

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE 6,409 6,688 6,883 7,164 6,866 7,147 6,784 7,043 6,848 7,165 (439) -1.6%

CHANGE % (YoY) -6.89% -6.64% 0.25% 0.24% 1.21% 1.48% -0.93% -1.70% NM NM NM NM

GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL

Graduate School 695 927 789 1,016 819 1,035 812 1,034 812 1,033 (117) -3.8%

Medicine 452 458 445 445 453 453 447 447 467 467 (15) -0.8%

Dentistry 329 335 355 355 336 349 340 348 346 350 (17) -1.3%

Law 392 399 431 431 476 480 466 472 459 466 (67) -3.9%

Arts and Sciences 27 30 28 34 29 31 34 37 29 33 (2) -1.8%

Business 104 122 80 97 85 98 113 124 115 127 (11) -2.5%

Communications 26 34 25 32 20 27 18 27 26 32 0 0.0%

Divinity 106 133 99 124 106 135 132 178 148 192 (42) -8.0%

Education 142 197 159 214 100 146 111 156 121 163 21 4.1%

Pharmacy/Nursing/AHS 438 477 399 430 398 423 382 405 408 430 30 1.8%

Social Work 172 194 220 236 242 265 221 242 215 239 (43) -5.4%

Consortium 2 8 1 5 1 5 8 24 12 36 (10) -36.1%

TOTAL GRAD. & PROF. 2,885 3,314 3,031 3,419 3,065 3,447 3,084 3,494 3,158 3,568 (273) -2.2%

CHANGE % (YoY) -4.82% -3.07% -1.11% -0.81% -0.62% -1.35% -2.34% -2.07% NM NM NM NM

GRAND TOTAL 9,294 10,002 9,914 10,583 9,931 10,594 9,868 10,537 10,006 10,733 (712) -1.8%

CHANGE % (YoY) -6.25% -5.49% -0.17% -0.10% 0.64% 0.54% -1.38% -1.83% NM NM

STATISTICS (Year over Year) COUNT CHANGE COUNT CHANGE COUNT CHANGE COUNT CHANGE COUNT CHANGE COUNT CHANGE

First Time in College (FTIC)

Applications 11,687 29.64% 9,015 2.51% 8,794 -4.51% 9,209 -5.55% 9,750 NM 1,937 4.6%

Acceptances 5,762 18.63% 4,857 1.40% 4,790 -3.74% 4,976 5.18% 4,731 NM 1,031 5.1%

Enrollees 1,394 -9.83% 1,546 3.69% 1,491 -6.99% 1,603 6.87% 1,500 NM (106) -1.8%

Yield (%) Enrollees / Acceptances) 24% -7.64% 32% 0.70% 31% -1.09% 32% 0.51% 32% NM NM -6.5%

Acceptance Rate (Accepts / Apps) 49% -4.57% 54% -0.59% 54% 0.43% 54% 5.51% 49% NM NM 0.4%

SAT Verbal 549 0.92% 544 0.93% 539 0.37% 537 -1.29% 544 NM 5 0.2%

SAT Math 544 1.30% 537 1.70% 528 -0.38% 530 -1.49% 538 NM 6 0.3%

Total 1,093 1.11% 1,081 1.31% 1,067 0.00% 1,067 -1.39% 1,082 NM 11 0.3%

High School GPA's 3.54 8.92% 3.25 1.25% 3.21 0.94% 3.18 -1.85% 3.24 NM 0.30 2.2%

First Time Grad and Prof (FTGP)

Applications 13,486 0.39% 13,434 -0.46% 13,496 -1.52% 13,704 3.08% 13,294 NM 192 0.4%

Acceptances 1,915 21.90% 1,571 -16.48% 1,881 1.02% 1,862 -2.15% 1,903 NM 12 0.2%

Enrollees 974 0.93% 965 -4.27% 1,008 -1.75% 1,026 -1.91% 1,046 NM (72) -1.8%

Yield (%) Enrollees / Acceptances) 51% -10.56% 61% 7.84% 54% -1.51% 55% 0.14% 55% NM NM -1.9%

Acceptance Rate (Accepts / Apps) 14% 2.51% 12% -2.24% 14% 0.35% 14% -0.73% 14% NM NM -0.2%

Transfer Students

Applications 1,447 -5.92% 1,538 10.57% 1,391 -2.86% 1,432 4.30% 1,373 NM 74 1.3%

Acceptances 698 12.58% 620 4.20% 595 -18.83% 733 9.73% 668 NM 30 1.1%

Enrollees 348 7.08% 325 3.50% 314 -21.30% 399 9.32% 365 NM (17) -1.2%

Yield (%) Enrollees / Acceptances) 50% -2.56% 52% -0.35% 53% -1.66% 54% -0.21% 55% NM NM -2.3%

Acceptance Rate (Accepts / Apps) 48% 7.93% 40% -2.46% 43% -8.41% 51% 2.53% 49% NM NM -0.2%

5 YEAR FTE CHANGEFALL SEMESTER

AY 12-13 AY 11-12 AY 10-11 AY 09-10 AY 08-09

Appendix M

FULL-TIME PART-TIME F.T.E. TOTAL

M F T M F T M F T M F T

UNDERGRADUATES

% OF FTE

TOTAL

PROJECTED

FTE AY14-15

ENROLLMENT

DESIRED FTE

ENROLLMENT

INCREASE

% OF HC

TOTAL

PROJECTED HC

AY14-15

ENROLLMENT

DESIRED

ENROLLMENT

INCREASE

Arts and Sciences 12 HRS. 978 2,351 3,329 95 126 221 1,010 2,393 3,403 1,073 2,477 3,550 35.8% 3,552 149 34.5% 3,706 156

Business 12 HRS. 398 562 960 30 22 52 408 569 977 428 584 1,012 10.3% 1,020 43 9.8% 1,057 45

Communications 12 HRS. 219 737 956 11 38 49 223 750 973 230 775 1,005 10.2% 1,016 43 9.8% 1,049 44

Education 12 HRS. 18 75 93 1 2 3 18 76 94 19 77 96 1.0% 98 4 0.9% 100 4

Engineering/Arch/Comp Sci 12 HRS. 347 224 571 29 12 41 357 228 585 376 236 612 6.1% 611 26 5.9% 639 27

Nursing/Allied Health Sciences 12 HRS. 127 438 565 15 46 61 132 453 585 142 484 626 6.1% 611 26 6.1% 654 28

Dental Hygiene 12 HRS. 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 20 20 0.2% 21 1 0.2% 21 1

Exchange Program 12 HRS. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 1 0

Consortium 12 HRS. 0 0 0 20 32 52 7 11 18 20 32 52 0.2% 19 1 0.5% 54 2

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE 2,087 4,408 6,495 201 278 479 2,155 4,500 6,655 2,288 4,686 6,974 69.9% 6,947 292 67.7% 7,281 307

GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL

Graduate School 9 HRS. 186 351 537 148 229 377 235 427 662 334 580 914 7.0% 691 29 8.9% 954 40

Medicine 9 HRS. 227 219 446 5 4 9 229 220 449 232 223 455 4.7% 469 20 4.4% 475 20

Dentistry 9 HRS. 147 174 321 8 8 16 150 177 327 155 182 337 3.4% 341 14 3.3% 352 15

Law 9 HRS. 146 248 394 8 21 29 149 255 404 154 269 423 4.2% 422 18 4.1% 442 19

Arts and Sciences 9 HRS. 8 13 21 5 2 7 10 14 24 13 15 28 0.3% 25 1 0.3% 29 1

Business 9 HRS. 36 54 90 10 15 25 39 59 98 46 69 115 1.0% 102 4 1.1% 120 5

Communications 9 HRS. 11 9 20 5 7 12 13 11 24 16 16 32 0.3% 25 1 0.3% 33 1

Divinity 9 HRS. 32 51 83 18 31 49 38 61 99 50 82 132 1.0% 103 4 1.3% 138 6

Education 9 HRS. 17 69 86 31 65 96 27 91 118 48 134 182 1.2% 123 5 1.8% 190 8

Nursing/Allied Health Sciences 9 HRS. 36 120 156 8 36 44 39 132 171 44 156 200 1.8% 179 8 1.9% 209 9

Pharmacy 9 HRS. 151 151 302 3 2 5 152 152 304 154 153 307 3.2% 317 13 3.0% 321 14

Social Work 9 HRS. 30 142 172 10 13 23 33 146 179 40 155 195 1.9% 187 8 1.9% 204 9

Consortium 9 HRS. 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 3 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 3 0

TOTAL GRAD. & PROF. 1,027 1,601 2,628 261 434 695 1,115 1,745 2,860 1,288 2,035 3,323 30.1% 2,986 126 32.3% 3,469 146

GRAND TOTAL 3,114 6,009 9,123 462 712 1,174 3,270 6,245 9,515 3,576 6,721 10,297 100.0% 9,933 418 100.0% 10,750 453

ACADEMIC UNITF/T

LOAD

Appendix N

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

2400 Sixth Street, NW • Suite 402 (202) 806-2500 Washington, DC 20059 Fax (202) 806-9243

February 25, 2015

Howard University Community,

Howard University today announced an important plan, with unanimous support from the Board of Trustees, to freeze tuition for all undergraduate and select graduate programs for the 2015-2016 academic year. Additionally, to incentivize completion, Howard will begin offering tuition rebates to graduates who earn their degree early or on-time.

Howard is committed to addressing the academic needs of our nation, in particular the needs of the African American community and underserved populations. A large part of this commitment includes ensuring that the cost of attendance is not a barrier for students to turn their highest dreams into reality.

This innovative tuition rebate establishes Howard as one of the leading private-research universities committed to college affordability and on-time completion. The rebate – 50% off of the final semester’s tuition – will be offered on direct payments (cash, credit card or installment plan) made by any on-time or early graduate. The rebate, applicable to direct payments toward the final semester’s tuition, will be payable to eligible May 2016 graduates on or after May graduation.

The University is also leveraging financial aid resources to support students with high financial need. Howard launched the Graduation & Retention Access to Continued Excellence (GRACE) Grant to pay the remaining tuition and selected mandatory fees for highest need students who are on track for graduation. This provides a direct incentive for progress toward a degree and removes financial barriers, while leveraging resources for those most in need. Over $2 million was awarded directly to students this fall through the GRACE Grant program.

The chart below outlines tuition rates for the 2015-2016 academic year. The only exception to the tuition freeze is the College of Pharmacy’s traditional PharmD program, which will increase by 4%. The Board of Trustees has also approved the removal of excess tuition rates for Masters of Business Administration, Divinity, Education, Pharmacy and Social Work programs.

Appendix O

Program AY2015-2016 Tuition Increase Undergraduate $22,737 $0 0% Graduate $30,545 $0 0% MBA $33,167 $0 0% Dentistry $42,631 $0 0% Divinity $18,990 $0 0% Education $29,090 $0 0% Law $31,148 $0 0% Medicine $44,150 $0 0% Nursing & Allied Health Sciences (Graduate) $29,963 $0 0% Pharmacy (traditional PharmD. program) $30,842 $1,186 4% Social Work $29,963 $0 0% A team of professionals in the Office of Student Financial Services is available to provide further guidance and answer questions about the 2015-2016 tuition and fees, need-based and merit-based financial aid, tuition rebate and payment options. For more information, visit http://www.howard.edu/financialaid. In Truth and Service, Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., M.B.A. President

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is thenation’s core postsecondary education data collection program. It is asingle, comprehensive system designed to encompass all institutions andeducational organizations whose primary purpose is to providepost secondary educat ion . Fo r add i t iona l in fo rmat ion seeht tp : //nces .ed.gov/ ipeds .

Appendix P

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

October, 2009

Dear Institutional Executive:

The National Center for Education Statistics is pleased to provide you with your institution’s annual IPEDS Data Feedback Report. Thereport compares data provided by your institution in 2008-09 through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to datafor a similar group of institutions. Like last year, your institution was given the opportunity to select its own comparison group. We stronglyencourage institutions to take advantage of the opportunity to select the other institutions to which they want to be compared in the report, asthey generally find the report more informative. If your institution did not submit its own group, IPEDS identified a comparison group for you(see the list toward the back of this report for the institutions in your comparison group).

I also encourage you to visit the IPEDS Executive Peer Tool (ExPT) at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/. Not only can you download aPDF of this report as it was sent to you, you can also select a different comparison group and recreate the full report in PDF format. Inaddition, there are a number of extra figures available in the ExPT that are not included in your original report.

Thank you for supporting IPEDS throughout the data collection process. Without your support and the high quality data that your institutionprovides, these reports would not be possible. If you have any comments on how we can improve the Data Feedback Report or the ExPT,please send them to ipedsdatafeedback@ed.gov.

Best regards,

Elise S. MillerIPEDS Program Director

What Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is asystem of survey components that collects data from nearly 6,700institutions across the United States whose primary purpose is to providepostsecondary education. IPEDS collects institution-level data on students(enrollment and graduation rates), student charges, program completions,faculty, staff, and finances.

These data are used at the federal and state level for policy analysis anddevelopment; at the institutional level for benchmarking and peer analysis;and by students and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), to aid in the college search process. Formore information about IPEDS, see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provide institutions a context forexamining the data they submitted to IPEDS. Our goal is to produce areport that is useful to institutional executives and that may help improvethe quality and comparability of IPEDS data.

What Is in This Report?

The figures provided in this report are those suggested by the IPEDSTechnical Review Panel. They were developed to provide selectedindicators and data elements for your institution and a comparison groupof institutions. The figures are based on data collected during the 2008-09IPEDS collection cycle and are the most recent data available. Additionalinformation about these indicators is provided in the Methodological Notesat the end of the report. Following the figures is a list of the institutions inyour comparison group and the criteria used for their selection. Pleaserefer to "Comparison Group" in the Methodological Notes for moreinformation.

How Can I Use This Report?

Upon receiving your Data Feedback Report (DFR), we strongly encourageyou to discuss its contents with your institution’s IPEDS keyholder, or otherinstitutional research professionals. Keyholders, appointed by institutionalexecutives, coordinate the institution’s IPEDS data submission, frequentlyworking with colleagues across the institution to ensure timely andaccurate reporting. Your keyholder can answer questions about howIPEDS data are submitted, how individual indicators are defined, and howto interpret differences between your institution and the group to which itwas compared. She or he can also assist you in identifying moreappropriate comparison groups, if needed. After discussing the DFR withyour keyholder, we encourage you to share it with your campus leadershipteam. With their assistance, other ways to make use of the DFR can beconsidered, including how to appropriately incorporate the DFR intoexisting strategic planning efforts and whether to share parts of the DFRwith on- and off-campus stakeholders, including students, staff, faculty,governance board members, community leaders, media, and state andlocal officials. We are committed to ensuring the DFR is useful to campusexecutives. If after working with the DFR you have suggestions for futureimprovements, please send them to ipedsdatafeedback@ed.gov.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT), available through the IPEDS Data Center(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter), is designed to provide campusexecutives easy access to institutional and comparison group data. Usingthe ExPT, you can produce reports using different comparison groups andaccess a wider range of IPEDS variables.

 Howard University 2

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 11593.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 10353.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7587.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 5190.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 11460.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 8153.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9305.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 7436.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 1015.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 2114. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of studentHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students who are women.Group 1, All students (N=26).Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 52.Group 2, Undergraduate (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 66.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 52.Group 3, Graduate (N=26).Item 1, Your institution 62.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 52. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01.Group 2, Asian/Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 53.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 5.Group 5, White.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 60.Group 6, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01.Group 7, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 39.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 9.Group 8, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 5.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 8.Enrollment by race/ethnicity Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students, total FTE enrollment (academicyear 2007-08), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2008)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

2,114

1,015

7,436

9,305

8,153

11,460

5,190

7,587

10,353

11,593

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see CalculatingFTE in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Total headcount, FTE, and full-and part-time fall enrollment include both undergraduate and postbaccalaureate students,when applicable. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2009, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Percent of students enrolled who are women, by level ofstudent: Fall 2008

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students who are women

Graduate (N=26)

Undergraduate (N=24)

All students (N=26)

52

62

52

66

52

65

Level of student

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Fall Enrollmentcomponent.

Figure 3. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien

0 0 16

53

61

51

60

0 0

39

95

8

Enrollment by race/ethnicity

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: For this survey year, institutions could report race and ethnicity using both 1977 (old) and 1997 (new) Office of Management and Budget categories. Categories shown in this figure arederived by adding comparable categories from both old and new; however, the "Two or more races" category appears only in the 1997 version. For more information about disaggregation ofdata by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Median values for the comparison group may not add to 100 percent. See "Use of Median Values forComparison Group" in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for how median values are determined. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Fall Enrollment component.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Horizontal Bar chart with 2 items.X scale titled FTE students per FTE instructional staff.Item 1, Your institution 8.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=25) 15. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=25) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Admissions measureHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Admitted.Item 1, Your institution 49.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 57.Group 2, Enrolled full time.Item 1, Your institution 31.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 25.Group 3, Enrolled part time.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $14685.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $30869.Group 2, 2007-08.Item 1, Your institution $14020.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $29113.Group 3, 2006-07.Item 1, Your institution $12985.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $27490. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Horizontal Bar chart with 2 items.X scale titled Percent of students.Item 1, Your institution 36.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 14. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Student-to-faculty ratio: Fall 2008

0 5 10 15 20

FTE students per FTE instructional staff

Student-to-facultyratio

15

8

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=25)

NOTE: Student-to-faculty ratio data is presented only for institutions that haveundergraduate students; graduate only institutions are not included. For details on how theratio is calculated, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Fall Enrollmentcomponent.

Figure 5. Percent of applicants admitted, and percent ofadmissions enrolled by full- and part-time status: Fall2008

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Enrolled part time

Enrolled full time

Admitted

0

0

25

31

57

49

Admissions measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Admissions data are presented only for institutions that do not have an openadmission policy, and apply to first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduatestudents only. For more information, see the Methodological Notes. Median values for thecomparison group may not add to 100 percent. See "Use of Median Values forComparison Group" for how median values are determined. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 6. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2006-07–2008-09

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Tuition and fees

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

$27,490

$12,985

$29,113

$14,020

$30,869

$14,685

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 7. Percent of students receiving Pell grants: 2007-08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Pell Grants

14

36

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of grant aidHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Total grants.Item 1, Your institution 80.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 91.Group 2, Federal.Item 1, Your institution 42.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 16.Group 3, Pell.Item 1, Your institution 38.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 16.Group 4, Other Federal.Item 1, Your institution 3.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 14.Group 5, State and local.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 21.Group 6, Institutional.Item 1, Your institution 38.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 90. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of grant aidHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Grant dollars.Group 1, Total grants (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $6825.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $15613.Group 2, Federal (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $3319.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4771.Group 3, Pell (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $3202.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $2981.Group 4, Other Federal (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $4676.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $2106.Group 5, State and local (N=22).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $3332.Group 6, Institutional (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $10638.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $13692. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of loanHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any loan.Item 1, Your institution 72.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 56.Group 2, Federal.Item 1, Your institution 69.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 55.Group 3, Non-federal.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of loanHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Loan dollars.Group 1, Any loan (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $12971.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $6784.Group 2, Federal (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $12853.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4306.Group 3, Non-federal (N=20).Item 1, Your institution $16378.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $13594. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students receiving Federal, State/local,and Institutional grant aid, by type of grant: 2007-08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Institutional

State andlocal

Other Federal

Pell

Federal

Total grants

9038

210

143

1638

1642

9180

Type of grant aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Pell Grants and Other Federal Grants are included in Federal Grants above. Fordetails on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort Determinationfor Reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Rates in the Methodological Notes atthe end of this report. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amounts of Federal, State/local, and institutionalgrant aid received by full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by type ofgrant: 2007-08

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Grant dollars

Institutional (N=24)

State andlocal

(N=22)

Other Federal (N=24)

Pell (N=24)

Federal (N=24)

Total grants (N=24)

$13,692$10,638

$3,332

$2,106$4,676

$2,981$3,202

$4,771$3,319

$15,613$6,825

Type of grant aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Pell Grants and Other Federal Grants are included in Federal Grants above.Average grant values were calculated by dividing the total grants awarded by the totalnumber of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the comparisongroup.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Percent of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students receiving loans, by type of loan:2007-08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Non-federal

Federal

Any loan

11

2

55

69

56

72

Type of loan

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For details on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, see CohortDetermination for Reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Rates in theMethodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 11. Average amounts of loans received by full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by typeof loan: 2007-08

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Loan dollars

Non-federal (N=20)

Federal (N=24)

Any loan (N=24)

$13,594

$16,378

$4,306

$12,853

$6,784

$12,971

Type of loan

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average loan values were calculated by dividing the total loans awarded by thetotal number of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Enrollment status of studentHorizontal Bar chart with 2 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Retention rate.Group 1, Full-time (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 85.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 87.Group 2, Part-time (N=19).Item 1, Your institution 71.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 67. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of undergraduates (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 21.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 23.Group 2, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 98.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 84.Group 3, Graduation rate, overall (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 74.Group 4, Transfer-out rate (N=5).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 23. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Bar chart with 9 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate, overall (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 74.Group 2, American Indian or Alaska Native (N=21).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 60.Group 3, Asian/ Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 43.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 73.Group 4, Black or African American (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 64.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 63.Group 5, Hispanic /Latino (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 33.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 67.Group 6, White (N=23).Item 1, Your institution 100.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 75.Group 7, Two or more races (N=0).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median No data.Group 8, Race/ethnicity unknown (N=22).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 73.Group 9, Nonresident alien (N=23).Item 1, Your institution 83.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 68.Graduation rates by race/ethnicity Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Retention rates of first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students, by enrollment status: Fall 2008

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention rate

Part-time (N=19)

Full-time (N=24)

67

71

87

85

Enrollment status of student

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for students seeking a bachelor's degree. For moreinformation, see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Fall Enrollmentcomponent.

Figure 13. Graduation rate cohort as a percent of allundergraduates and as a percent of total enteringstudents (Fall 2008); graduation rate and transfer-out rate(2002 cohort)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Transfer-out rate (N=5)

Graduation rate,overall

(N=24)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of

total entering students (N=24)

Graduation rate cohort as a percent of

undergraduates (N=24)

23

74

65

84

98

23

21

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to the institution forthe first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students to transfer are requiredto report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Knowrates. For more information, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, GraduationRates component and Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 14. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to programcompletion, by race/ethnicity: 2002 cohort

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

Graduation rate,overall (N=24)

American Indian orAlaska Native

(N=21)

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

(N=24)

Black or African

American (N=24)

Hispanic/Latino (N=24)

White (N=23)

Two ormore races

(N=0)

Race/ethnicityunknown (N=22)

Nonresidentalien

(N=23)

65

74

60

43

73

64 63

33

67

100

75 73

83

68

Graduation rates by race/ethnicity

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: For this survey year, institutions could report race and ethnicity using both 1977 (old) and 1997 (new) Office of Management and Budget categories. Categories shown in this figure arederived by adding comparable categories from both old and new; however, the "Two or more races" category appears only in the 1997 version. For more information about disaggregation ofdata by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. The graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rates. For more information see theMethodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. At least three values in the comparison group are required to calculate the median.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 6

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 46.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 57.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 67.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 73.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 70.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 74. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's.Item 1, Your institution 540.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 348.Group 2, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 384.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 761.Group 3, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1400.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 1097.Group 4, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Instruction/ research/ public service.Item 1, Your institution 1295.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 795.Group 2, Executive/ administrative/ managerial.Item 1, Your institution 484.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 169.Group 3, Other professional.Item 1, Your institution 552.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 508.Group 4, Non-professional.Item 1, Your institution 1880.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 509. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $52034.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $86650.Group 2, Professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $83199.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $112676.Group 3, Associate professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $60129.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $83411.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $56021.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $72364.Group 5, Instructor (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $23743.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $51432.Group 6, Lecturer (N=17).Item 1, Your institution $23878.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $54269.Group 7, No academic rank (N=12).Item 1, Your institution $22135.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $63693. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 15. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2000 cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

74

70

73

67

57

46

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The 4-year and 6-year graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know (SRK)rates; the 8-year rate is calculated using the same methodology. For more information seethe Methodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, GraduationRates component.

Figure 16. Number of degrees awarded, by level: Academic year2007-08

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's

0

0

1,097

1,400

761

384

348

540

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, Completionscomponent.

Figure 17. Full-time equivalent staff, by assigned position: Fall 2008

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Number of staff

Non-professional

Other professional

Executive/administrative/

managerial

Instruction/ research/

public service

509

1,880

508

552

169

484

795

1,295

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included in this figure. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2008-09, HumanResources component.

Figure 18. Average salaries of full-time instructional staff equatedto 9-month contracts, by academic rank: Academic year2008-09

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=12)

Lecturer (N=17)

Instructor (N=22)

Assistant professor (N=26)

Associate professor (N=26)

Professor (N=26)

All ranks (N=26)

$63,693$22,135

$54,269$23,878

$51,432$23,743

$72,364$56,021

$83,411$60,129

$112,676$83,199

$86,650$52,034

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average full-time instructional staff salaries for 11/12-month contracts wereadjusted to 9-month average salaries by multiplying the 11/12-month salary by .8182.Salaries based on less than 9-month contracts are not included. Medical school staffsalaries are not included. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2008-09, HumanResources component.

 Howard University 7

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 29.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 63.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 15.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 13.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 15.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution -15.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) -3.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 70.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution $10237.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $18439.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution $5273.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $3448.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution $349.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $4011.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution $-5303.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $-462.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution $24638.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $1533. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution 42.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 45.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution 8.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 11.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 1.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution 8.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 13.Group 5, Institutional suport.Item 1, Your institution 34.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 17.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution 6.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 9.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $17563.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $12897.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $3373.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $3276.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $1036.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $228.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $3308.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $4002.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $14142.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $4899.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $2442.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $2729.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 19. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2008

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants, and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

670

-3-15

151

1315

6329

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the focusinstitution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see the Methodological Notes. N isthe number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Financecomponent.

Figure 20. Core revenues per FTE enrollment, by source: Fiscalyear 2008

-$10,000 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000

Dollars per FTE

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants,and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

$1,533$24,638

-$462-$5,303

$4,011$349

$3,448$5,273

$18,439$10,237

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the focusinstitution. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of corerevenues, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparisongroup.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2009, Finance component.

Figure 21. Percent distribution of core expenses, by function: Fiscalyear 2008

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional suport

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

00

96

1734

138

12

118

4542

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the focusinstitution. For a detailed definition of core expenses, see the Methodological Notes. N isthe number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2009, Financecomponent.

Figure 22. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2008

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$0

$2,729$2,442

$4,899$14,142

$4,002$3,308

$228$1,036

$3,276$3,373

$12,897$17,563

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the focusinstitution. Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, particularly instruction, maybe inflated because finance data includes all core expenses while FTE reflects creditactivity only. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of coreexpenses, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparisongroup.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2008, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2009, Finance component.

 Howard University 8

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUPUsing some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 26institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark Atlanta University (Atlanta, GA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Florida Institute of Technology (Melbourne, FL)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)George Washington University (Washington, DC)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University-Main Campus (Saint Louis, MO)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)University of Tulsa (Tulsa, OK)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 9

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2008-09 survey year. Response rates exceeded 99 percent for mostsurveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Look reports,which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Comparison Groups

Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpretingyour institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 14, NCES selected a comparisongroup for you based on the institutional characteristics detailed immediatelyabove the listing of the comparison group institutions. (If the CarnegieClassification of Institutions of Higher Education was used as aninstitutional characteristic in the definition of a comparison group, the 2005Basic version was used.) The comparison group used in this report may notreflect your institution’s peer group, or you may wish to compare yourinstitution to other groups. The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT)(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can be used to reproduce the figuresin this report using different peer groups.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the focus institution is compared to the median value for thecomparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If more than onestatistic is presented in a figure, the median values are determinedseparately for each indicator or statistic. Where percentage distributions arepresented, median values may not add to 100 percent. Through the ExPT,users have access to all of the data used to create the figures included inthis report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. As such, not all notes listed below may be applicable to yourreport.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity.Between survey years 2008-09 and 2010-11, the categories used for thecollection and reporting of race/ethnicity data in IPEDS are transitioning tothose developed in 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget, andinstitutions may report using either those categories, the older (1977)categories, or a mixture of both. Therefore, during the transition, onlyderived categories that present comparable data will be displayed. Detailedinformation about these changes can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Postbaccalaureate Degree Categories

In 2008-09 IPEDS, new postbaccalaureate degree categories wereintroduced as optional. The new categories are Doctor’s degree-Research/scholarship, Doctor’s degree-Professional practice, and Doctor’sdegree-Other. In addition, the First-professional degree and certificatecategories and the single Doctor’s degree category are being phased out.During the transition period, all First-professional students are reflected asgraduate students, all First-professional degrees awarded are reflected asDoctor’s degrees, and all Doctor’s degrees reported under the newcategories are aggregated under a single Doctor’s degree category, so thatdata reported by all institutions are comparable.

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Core Expenses

Core expenses for public institutions using the Governmental AccountingStandards Board (GASB) standards include expenses for instruction,research, public service, academic support, institutional support, studentservices, operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, scholarshipsand fellowships, other expenses, and nonoperating expenses. Coreexpenses for private, not-for-profit and public institutions reporting underthe Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) standards includeexpenses for instruction, research, public service, academic support,student services, institutional support, net grant aid to students, and otherexpenses. For all institutions, core expenses exclude expenses forauxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, andindependent operations. Expenses for operation and maintenance of plantfor GASB institutions are included in other core expenses, but are allocatedto each of the other functions for FASB institutions.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state, andlocal); government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, andcontracts; investment income; other operating and nonoperating sources;and other revenues and additions. Core revenues for private, not-for-profitinstitutions (and a small number of public institutions) reporting underFASB include tuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state,and local); government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, andcontracts; investment return; sales and services of educational activities;and other sources. Core revenues for private, for-profit institutionsreporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees; governmentappropriations (federal, state, and local); government grants and contracts;private grants and contracts; net investment income; sales and services ofeducational activities; and other sources. In general, core revenuesexclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores, dormitories),hospitals, and independent operations.

 Howard University 10

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Endowment Assets

Endowment assets, for public institutions under GASB standards, andprivate, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards, include grossinvestments of endowment funds, term endowment funds, and fundsfunctioning as endowment for the institution and any of its foundations andother affiliated organizations. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB donot hold or report endowment assets.

Equated Instructional Staff Salaries

Total salary outlays for full-time instructional staff on 11/12-month contractswere equated to 9/10-month outlays by multiplying the outlay for 11/12-month contracted instructional staff by 0.8182. The equated outlays werethen added to the outlays for 9/10-month instructional staff to determine anaverage salary for each rank. Salaries for staff on less-than-9-monthcontracts are not included.

FTE for Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 2007-08 12-monthEnrollment component) plus the estimated FTE of first-professionalstudents. Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-monthinstructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). If applicable, first-professional FTE is estimated by calculating the ratio of full-time to part-time first-professional students from the 2007 fall counts and applying thisratio to the 2007-08 12-month unduplicated headcount of first-professionalstudents. The estimated number of full-time students is added to one-thirdof the estimated number of part-time students. See “Calculation of FTEStudents (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE for Staff

The full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff from the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP)section of the Human Resources component and adding one-third of thetotal number of part-time staff.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know and Higher Education Opportunity Acts and aredefined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time (for the degreeor certificate) before the ending status date of August 31, 2008, divided bythe entire cohort of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permittedto exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally andpermanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forces orwere called to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aid serviceof the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and those who left toserve on an official church mission. Transfer-out rate is the total number ofstudents from the cohort who are known to have transferred out of thereporting institution within the same time period, divided by the sameadjusted cohort. Only institutions with a mission that includes preparingstudents to transfer are required to report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates are defined as the number of full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who enter the institutionfor the first time in the fall and who return to the same

institution the following fall (as either full- or part-time), divided by the totalnumber of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates inthe fall of first entrance. Part-time retention rates are similarly defined. For 4-year institutions offering a bachelor’s degree, this rate is reported only forthose students seeking a bachelor’s degree. For less than 4-yearinstitutions, the rate is calculated for all degree/certificate-seeking students.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employeesregardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

An institution’s student-to-faculty ratio is calculated by determining thenumber of FTE students (using Fall Enrollment data) divided by the totalFTE instructional staff (using the total Primarily instruction +Instruction/research/public service staff reported on the EAP section of theHuman Resources component). For this calculation, FTE for students isequal to the number of full-time students plus one-third the number of part-time students; FTE for instructional staff is similarly calculated. Studentsenrolled in "stand-alone" graduate or professional programs andinstructional staff teaching in these programs are excluded from the FTEcalculations. "Stand-alone" graduate or professional programs are thoseprograms such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, or publichealth, in which faculty teach virtually only graduate-level students (alsoreferred to as "independent" programs).

Total Entering (Undergraduate-Level) Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, coming into the institution for the first time in the fall term (orthe prior summer term who returned again in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduate students, students transferring into the institution at theundergraduate level, and non-degree/certificate seeking undergraduatesentering in the fall. Only degree-granting institutions report total enteringstudents.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services; required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge isan exception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

 Howard University 11

www.ed.gov

Institute for Education Sciencesies.ed.gov

National Center for Education Statisticsnces.ed.gov

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systemnces.ed.gov/ipeds

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau, PresidentHoward University (ID: 131520)

2400 Sixth St NWWashington, DC 20059-0001

Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSWhat Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) is a system of survey componentsthat collects data from nearly 6,700 institutions thatprovide postsecondary education across the UnitedStates. IPEDS collects institution-level data onstudents (enrollment and graduation rates), studentcharges, program completions, faculty, staff, andfinances.

These data are used at the federal and state level forpolicy analysis and development; at the institutionallevel for benchmarking and peer analysis; and bystudents and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), to aid in the collegesearch process. For more information about IPEDS,see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provideinstitutions a context for examining the data theysubmitted to IPEDS. Our goal is to produce a reportthat is useful to institutional executives and that mayhelp improve the quality and comparability of IPEDSdata.

What Is in This Report?

The figures provided in this report are thosesuggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel.They were developed to provide selected indicatorsand data elements for your institution and acomparison group of institutions. The figures arebased on data collected during the 2009-10 IPEDScollection cycle and are the most recent dataavailable. Additional information about theseindicators is provided in the Methodological Notes atthe end of the report. On the next page is a list of theinstitutions in your comparison group and the criteriaused for their selection. Please refer to "ComparisonGroup" in the Methodological Notes for moreinformation.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT) is designed toprovide campus executives easy access toinstitutional and comparison group data. Using theExPT, you can produce reports using differentcomparison groups and access a wider range ofIPEDS variables. The ExPT is available through theIPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter).

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

Appendix Q

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUPComparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 14, NCES selected a comparison group for you based on the institutional characteristics detailedimmediately above the listing of the comparison group institutions. (If the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education was usedas an institutional characteristic in the definition of a comparison group, the 2005 Basic version was used.) The comparison group used in thisreport may not reflect your institution’s peer group, or you may wish to compare your institution to other groups. The Executive Peer Tool(ExPT) (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can be used to reproduce the figures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 26institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark Atlanta University (Atlanta, GA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Florida Institute of Technology (Melbourne, FL)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)George Washington University (Washington, DC)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University-Main Campus (Saint Louis, MO)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)University of Tulsa (Tulsa, OK)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 2

Image description.Bar chart with 9 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01.Group 2, Asian/Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 51.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 5.Group 5, White.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 60.Group 6, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01.Group 7, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 41.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 11.Group 8, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 5.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 9.Group 9, Women.Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 52.Race/ethnicity or gender Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 11503.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 11815.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7922.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 6448.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 10955.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 8265.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9608.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 7564.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 965.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 2152. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's.Item 1, Your institution 560.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 347.Group 2, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 387.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 857.Group 3, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1402.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 1261.Group 4, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity and percent of students who are women: Fall 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien Women

0 0 26

51

61

51

60

0 0

41

115

9

65

52

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: For this survey year, institutions could report race and ethnicity using both 1977 (old) and 1997 (new) Office of Management and Budget categories. Categories shown inthis figure are derived by adding comparable categories from both old and new; however, the "Two or more races" category appears only in the 1997 version. For moreinformation about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Median values for the comparison group will not addto 100 percent. See "Use of Median Values for Comparison Group" in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for how median values are determined. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, Fall Enrollmentcomponent.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students (2008-09), total FTE enrollment(2008-09), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2009)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

2,152

965

7,564

9,608

8,265

10,955

6,448

7,922

11,815

11,503

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, seeCalculating FTE in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Totalheadcount, FTE, and full- and part-time fall enrollment include both undergraduateand postbaccalaureate students, when applicable. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2009, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2010, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 3. Number of degrees awarded, by level: 2008-09

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's

0

0

1,261

1,402

857

387

347

560

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: For additional information about postbaccalaureate degree levels, see theMethodology Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2009, Completionscomponent.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16075.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $32400.Group 2, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $15010.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $30869.Group 3, 2007-08.Item 1, Your institution $14020.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $29113.Group 4, 2006-07.Item 1, Your institution $12985.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $27490. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Net price.Group 1, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $14131.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $25665.Group 2, 2007-08.Item 1, Your institution $14313.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $24792.Group 3, 2006-07.Item 1, Your institution $12848.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $24073. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 62.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 88.Group 2, Federal grants.Item 1, Your institution 36.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 16.Group 3, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 36.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 16.Group 4, State/local grants.Item 1, Your institution 3.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 23.Group 5, Institutional grants.Item 1, Your institution 43.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 87.Group 6, Any loans.Item 1, Your institution 86.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 55.Group 7, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 76.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 55.Group 8, Other loans.Item 1, Your institution 10.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $11415.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $16709.Group 2, Federal grants (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $4128.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5605.Group 3, Pell grants (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $3614.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $3461.Group 4, State/local grants (N=23).Item 1, Your institution $1107.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $2998.Group 5, Institutional grants (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $12904.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $14576.Group 6, Any loans (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $11958.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $7688.Group 7, Federal loans (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $11968.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5424.Group 8, Other loans (N=20).Item 1, Your institution $11884.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $14391. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2006-07--2009-10

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Tuition and fees

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

$27,490

$12,985

$29,113

$14,020

$30,869

$15,010

$32,400

$16,075

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2009, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 5. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate studentsreceiving grant or scholarship aid: 2006-07--2008-09

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

Net price

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

$24,073

$12,848

$24,792

$14,313

$25,665

$14,131

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount offederal, state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from thetotal cost of attendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuitionand required fees, books and supplies, and the weighted average room and boardand other expenses. For more information, see the Methodological Notes at the endof this report. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2009, InstitutionalCharacteristics component; Spring 2010, Student Financial Aid component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students who received grant orscholarship aid from the federal government, state/localgovernment, or the institution, or loans, by type of aid:2008-09

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of students

Other loans

Federalloans

Any loans

Institutionalgrants

State/localgrants

Pellgrants

Federalgrants

Any grantaid

1110

5576

5586

8743

233

1636

1636

8862

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pellgrants and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans tostudents. For details on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, seeCohort Determination in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. N is thenumber of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 7. Average amounts of grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or theinstitution, or loans received, by full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, bytype of aid: 2008-09

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Other loans (N=20)

Federalloans (N=24)

Any loans (N=24)

Institutionalgrants (N=24)

State/localgrants (N=23)

Pellgrants (N=24)

Federalgrants (N=24)

Any grantaid (N=24)

$14,391$11,884

$5,424$11,968

$7,688$11,958

$14,576$12,904

$2,998$1,107

$3,461$3,614

$5,605$4,128

$16,709$11,415

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pellgrants and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans tostudents. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awardedby the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 86.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 75.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 33.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 16.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 51. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution $19446.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $15745.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution $3600.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3409.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution $11926.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $6854. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of undergraduates (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 22.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 23.Group 2, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 79.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 82.Group 3, Graduation rate, overall (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 62.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 75.Group 4, Transfer-out rate (N=5).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 23.Group 5, Full-time retention rate (N=24).Item 1, Your institution 83.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 86.Group 6, Part-time retention rate (N=19).Item 1, Your institution 57.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 67. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 51.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 55.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 69.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 75.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 71.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 76. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of all undergraduates receiving aid by type ofaid: 2008-09

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of students

Federalloans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

51

65

16

33

75

86

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loansincludes only federal loans to students. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amount of aid received by all undergraduates,by type of aid: 2008-09

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Federal loans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

$6,854

$11,926

$3,409

$3,600

$15,745

$19,446

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loansincludes federal loans to students. Average amounts of aid were calculated bydividing the total aid awarded by the total number of recipients in each institution. Nis the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation rate cohort as a percent of allundergraduates and as a percent of total enteringstudents (Fall 2009); graduation rate and transfer-out rate(2003 cohort); and retention rates (Fall 2009)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Part-time retentionrate (N=19)

Full-time retention rate (N=24)

Transfer-out rate (N=5)

Graduation rate,overall (N=24)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of total

entering students (N=24)

Graduation rate cohort as a percent of

undergraduates (N=24)

6757

8683

23

7562

8279

2322

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to theinstitution for the first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students totransfer are required to report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates arethe Student Right-to-Know rates. Retention rates are measured from the fall of firstenrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for studentsseeking a bachelor's degree. Median values for the comparison group will not addto 100 percent. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, GraduationRates component and Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 11. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2001 cohort

0 20 40 60 80

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

76

71

75

69

55

51

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The 6-year graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rate; the 4-and 8-year rates are calculated using the same methodology. For more informationsee the Methodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, 200%Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Instruction/ research/ public service.Item 1, Your institution 1195.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 830.Group 2, Executive/ administrative/ managerial.Item 1, Your institution 228.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 175.Group 3, Other professional (support/service).Item 1, Your institution 1055.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 511.Group 4, Non-professional.Item 1, Your institution 908.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 517. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $63093.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $87939.Group 2, Professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $97241.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $114283.Group 3, Associate professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $72667.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $84463.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=26).Item 1, Your institution $60887.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $73829.Group 5, Instructor (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $50195.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $56042.Group 6, Lecturer (N=14).Item 1, Your institution $29146.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $54137.Group 7, No academic rank (N=13).Item 1, Your institution $29734.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $59975. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 35.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 92.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 16.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 19.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 16.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution -23.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) -37.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 72.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 9. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $20416.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $13479.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $2888.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $3539.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $900.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $281.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $3571.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $4162.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $16908.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $5344.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $2312.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $2771.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $16340.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Full-time equivalent staff, by assigned position: Fall 2009

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250

Number of staff

Non-professional

Other professional(support/service)

Executive/administrative/

managerial

Instruction/ research/

public service

517

908

511

1,055

175

228

830

1,195

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included in this figure. For information on thecalculation of FTE of staff, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2009-10, HumanResources component.

Figure 13. Average salaries of full-time instructional staff equatedto 9-month contracts, by academic rank: Academic year2009-10

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=13)

Lecturer (N=14)

Instructor (N=22)

Assistant professor (N=26)

Associate professor (N=26)

Professor (N=26)

All ranks (N=26)

$59,975$29,734

$54,137$29,146

$56,042$50,195

$73,829$60,887

$84,463$72,667

$114,283$97,241

$87,939$63,093

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average full-time instructional staff salaries for 11/12-month contracts wereequated to 9-month average salaries by multiplying the 11/12-month salary by .8182.Salaries based on less than 9-month contracts are not included. Medical schoolsalaries are not included. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2009-10, HumanResources component.

Figure 14. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2009

-50 0 50 100

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants, and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

972

-37-23

160

1916

9235

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of thecomparison group that report finance data using the same accounting standards asthe comparison institution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see theMethodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2010, Financecomponent.

Figure 15. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2009

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$16,340

$2,771$2,312

$5,344$16,908

$4,162$3,571

$281$900

$3,539$2,888

$13,479$20,416

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of thecomparison group that report finance data using the same accounting standards asthe comparison institution. Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment,particularly instruction, may be inflated because finance data includes all coreexpenses while FTE reflects credit activity only. For details on calculating FTEenrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses, see the MethodologicalNotes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2009, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2010, Finance component.

 Howard University 6

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2009-10 survey year. Response rates exceeded 99 percent for mostsurveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Look reports,which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the comparison institution is compared to the median valuefor the comparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If morethan one statistic is presented in a figure, the median values aredetermined separately for each indicator or statistic. Medians are notreported for comparison groups with less than three values. Wherepercentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to 100percent. Through the ExPT, users have access to all of the data used tocreate the figures included in this report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. As such, not all notes listed below may be applicable to yourreport.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity.Between survey years 2008-09 and 2010-11, the categories used for thecollection and reporting of race/ethnicity data in IPEDS are transitioning tothose developed in 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget, andinstitutions may report using either those categories, the older (1977)categories, or a mixture of both. Therefore, during the transition, onlyderived categories that present comparable data will be displayed. Detailedinformation about these changes can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Postbaccalaureate Degree Categories

In 2008-09 IPEDS, new postbaccalaureate degree categories wereintroduced as optional. The new categories are Doctor’s degree-Research/scholarship, Doctor’s degree-Professional practice, and Doctor’sdegree-Other. In addition, the First-professional degree and certificatecategories and the single Doctor’s degree category are being phased out.During the transition period, all First-professional students are reflected asgraduate students, all First-professional degrees awarded are reflected asDoctor’s degrees, and all Doctor’s degrees reported under the newcategories are aggregated under a single Doctor’s degree category, so thatdata reported by all institutions are comparable.

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Average Net Price of Attendance

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who received grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or the institution anytimeduring the full aid year. Other sources of grant aid are excluded. Averagenet price is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal,state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from thetotal cost of attendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of publishedtuition and required fees (lower of in-district or in-state for publicinstitutions), books and supplies, and the weighted average room andboard and other expenses.

Core Expenses

Core expenses for public institutions using the Governmental AccountingStandards Board (GASB) standards include expenses for instruction,research, public service, academic support, institutional support, studentservices, operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, interest,scholarships and fellowships, other expenses, and nonoperating expenses.Core expenses for private, not-for-profit and for-profit, and a small numberof public institutions reporting under the Financial Accounting StandardsBoard (FASB) standards include expenses for instruction, research, publicservice, academic support, student services, institutional support, net grantaid to students, and other expenses. For all institutions, core expensesexclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores, dormitories),hospitals, and independent operations. Expenses for operation andmaintenance of plant, depreciation, and interest for GASB institutions areincluded in other core expenses, but are allocated to each of the otherfunctions for FASB institutions.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state, andlocal); government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, andcontracts; investment income; other operating and nonoperating sources;and other revenues and additions. Core revenues for private, not-for-profitinstitutions (and a small number of public institutions) reporting underFASB include tuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state,and local); government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, andcontracts; investment return; sales and services of educational activities;and other sources. Core revenues for private, for-profit institutionsreporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees; governmentappropriations (federal, state, and local); government grants and contracts;private grants and contracts; net investment income; sales and services ofeducational activities; and other sources. In general, core revenuesexclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores, dormitories),hospitals, and independent operations.

Equated Instructional Staff Salaries

Total salary outlays for full-time instructional staff on 11/12-month contracts

 Howard University 7

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

were equated to 9-month outlays by multiplying the outlay for 11/12-monthcontracted instructional staff by 0.8182. The equated outlays were thenadded to the outlays for 9/10-month instructional staff to determine anaverage salary for each rank. Salaries are not included for medical schoolstaff or staff on less-than-9-month contracts.

FTE for Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollmentcomponent) plus the estimated FTE of first-professional students, ifapplicable. Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). All doctor’sdegree students are reported as graduate students. First-professional FTEis estimated by calculating the ratio of full-time to part-time first-professional students from the fall enrollment counts and applying this ratioto the 12-month unduplicated headcount of first-professional students. Theestimated number of full-time first-professional students is added to one-third of the estimated number of part-time students. See “Calculation ofFTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE for Staff

The full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff from the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP)section of the Human Resources component and adding one-third of thetotal number of part-time staff.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know and Higher Education Opportunity Acts and aredefined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time (for the degreeor certificate) before the ending status date of August 31, 2009, divided bythe entire cohort of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permittedto exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally andpermanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forcesor were called to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aidservice of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and thosewho left to serve on an official church mission. Transfer-out rate is the totalnumber of students from the cohort who are known to have transferred outof the reporting institution within the same time period, divided by the sameadjusted cohort. Only institutions with a mission that includes preparingstudents to transfer are required to report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates are defined as the number of full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who enter the institutionfor the first time in the fall and who return to the same institution thefollowing fall (as either full- or part-time), divided by the total number of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in the fall of firstentrance. Part-time retention rates are similarly defined. For 4-yearinstitutions offering a bachelor’s degree, this rate is reported only for thosefirst-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree. For less than 4-yearinstitutions, the rate is calculated for all first-time degree/certificate-seekingstudents.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employees

regardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

The guidance provided to institutions for calculating their student-to-facultyratio is as follows: the number of FTE students (using Fall Enrollment data)divided by the total FTE instructional staff (using the total Primarilyinstruction + Instruction/research/public service staff reported on the EAPsection of the Human Resources component and adding any not primarilyinstructional staff that are teaching a credit course). For this calculation,FTE for students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one-thirdthe number of part-time students; FTE for instructional staff is similarlycalculated. Students enrolled in "stand-alone" graduate or professionalprograms (such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, orpublic health) and instructional staff teaching in these programs areexcluded from the FTE calculations.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summerterm who returned again in the fall). This includes all first-timeundergraduate students, students transferring into the institution at theundergraduate level, and nondegree/certificate-seeking undergraduatesentering in the fall. Only degree-granting, academic year reportinginstitutions provide total entering student data.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services; required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge is anexception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau, PresidentHoward University (ID: 131520)

2400 Sixth St NWWashington, DC 20059-0001

 Howard University 

Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSWhat Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) is a system of survey componentsthat collects data from nearly 7,000 institutions thatprovide postsecondary education across the UnitedStates. IPEDS collects institution-level data onstudents (enrollment and graduation rates), studentcharges, program completions, faculty, staff, andfinances.

These data are used at the federal and state level forpolicy analysis and development; at the institutionallevel for benchmarking and peer analysis; and bystudents and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), to aid in the collegesearch process. For more information about IPEDS,see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provideinstitutions a context for examining the data theysubmitted to IPEDS. Our goal is to produce a reportthat is useful to institutional executives and that mayhelp improve the quality and comparability of IPEDSdata.

What Is in This Report?

The figures provided in this report are thosesuggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel.They were developed to provide selected indicatorsand data elements for your institution and acomparison group of institutions. The figures arebased on data collected during the 2010-11 IPEDScollection cycle and are the most recent dataavailable. Additional information about theseindicators is provided in the Methodological Notes atthe end of the report. On the next page is a list of theinstitutions in your comparison group and the criteriaused for their selection. Please refer to "ComparisonGroup" in the Methodological Notes for moreinformation.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT) is designed toprovide campus executives easy access toinstitutional and comparison group data. Using theExPT, you can produce reports using differentcomparison groups and access a wider range ofIPEDS variables. The ExPT is available through theIPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter).

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

Appendix R

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUP

Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 15, NCES selected a comparison group for you. (In this case, the characteristics used to define thecomparison group appears below.) The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT)(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can be used to reproduce thefigures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 24institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University-Provo (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University-Chicago (Chicago, IL)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University-Main Campus (Saint Louis, MO)Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 2

Image description.Bar chart with 10 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 2, Asian.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 92.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6.Group 5, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 6, White.Item 1, Your institution 1.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 62.Group 7, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1.Group 8, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8.Group 9, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 5.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8.Group 10, Women.Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 53.Race/ethnicity or gender Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 11037.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 12902.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7405.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6514.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 11485.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 9821.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9443.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8808.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 936.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1966. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's Research/ Scholarship.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 92.Group 2, Doctor's Professional Practice.Item 1, Your institution 373.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 261.Group 3, Doctor's Other.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 4, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 395.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1178.Group 5, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1163.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1281.Group 6, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity and percent of students who are women: Fall 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander

White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien Women

0 0 26

92

61

60 0 1

62

0 1 0

8 5 8

65

53

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For this survey year, institutions were required to report race and ethnicity using the 1997 (new) Office of Management and Budget categories. For more informationabout disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100percent. See "Use of Median Values for Comparison Group" in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for how median values are determined. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, Fall Enrollmentcomponent.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students (2009-10), total FTE enrollment(2009-10), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2010)

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

1,966

936

8,808

9,443

9,821

11,485

6,514

7,405

12,902

11,037

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, seeCalculating FTE in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Totalheadcount, FTE, and full- and part-time fall enrollment include both undergraduateand postbaccalaureate students, when applicable. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2010, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2011, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 3. Number of degrees awarded, by level: 2009-10

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's Other

Doctor's Professional

Practice

Doctor's Research/

Scholarship

00

1,2811,163

1,178395

00

261373

920

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For additional information about postbaccalaureate degree levels, see theMethodology Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2010, Completionscomponent.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $18120.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $35522.Group 2, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16075.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $33665.Group 3, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $15010.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $31827.Group 4, 2007-08.Item 1, Your institution $14020.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $30020. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Net price.Group 1, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16403.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $26275.Group 2, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $14188.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $25905.Group 3, 2007-08.Item 1, Your institution $14883.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $24740. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 67.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 93.Group 2, Federal grants.Item 1, Your institution 43.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 19.Group 3, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 43.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 19.Group 4, State/local grants.Item 1, Your institution 4.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 20.Group 5, Institutional grants.Item 1, Your institution 57.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 91.Group 6, Any loans.Item 1, Your institution 84.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 58.Group 7, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 84.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 58.Group 8, Other loans.Item 1, Your institution 4.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 8. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $11057.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $18615.Group 2, Federal grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4937.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $6002.Group 3, Pell grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4369.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4130.Group 4, State/local grants (N=21).Item 1, Your institution $1890.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $3057.Group 5, Institutional grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $9186.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $16834.Group 6, Any loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $10307.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $7318.Group 7, Federal loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $9702.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5815.Group 8, Other loans (N=18).Item 1, Your institution $13780.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $13579. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2007-08--2010-11

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Tuition and fees

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

$30,020

$14,020

$31,827

$15,010

$33,665

$16,075

$35,522

$18,120

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2010, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 5. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate studentsreceiving grant or scholarship aid: 2007-08--2009-10

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

Net price

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

$24,740

$14,883

$25,905

$14,188

$26,275

$16,403

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount offederal, state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from thetotal cost of attendance. For public institutions, this includes only students whopaid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Total cost of attendance is the sum ofpublished tuition and required fees, books and supplies, and the weighted averageroom and board and other expenses. For more information, see the MethodologicalNotes at the end of this report. N is the number of institutions in the comparisongroup.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2010, InstitutionalCharacteristics component; Spring 2011, Student Financial Aid component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students who received grant orscholarship aid from the federal government, state/localgovernment, or the institution, or loans, by type of aid:2009-10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Other loans

Federalloans

Any loans

Institutionalgrants

State/localgrants

Pellgrants

Federalgrants

Any grantaid

84

5884

5884

9157

204

1943

1943

9367

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pellgrants and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans tostudents. For details on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, seeCohort Determination in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. N is thenumber of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 7. Average amounts of grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or theinstitution, or loans received, by full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, bytype of aid: 2009-10

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Other loans (N=18)

Federalloans (N=22)

Any loans (N=22)

Institutionalgrants (N=22)

State/localgrants (N=21)

Pellgrants (N=22)

Federalgrants (N=22)

Any grantaid (N=22)

$13,579$13,780

$5,815$9,702

$7,318$10,307

$16,834$9,186

$3,057$1,890

$4,130$4,369

$6,002$4,937

$18,615$11,057

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pellgrants and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans tostudents. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awardedby the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 67.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 77.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 40.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 19.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 76.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 54. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution $11637.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $17717.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution $1556.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $4122.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution $7165.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $6960. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate, overall (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 91.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 75.Group 2, Transfer-out rate (N=5).Item 1, Your institution 3.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 17.Group 3, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 80.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 84.Group 4, Full-time retention rate (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 83.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 88.Group 5, Part-time retention rate (N=15).Item 1, Your institution 58.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 53. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 45.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 58.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 74.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 66.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 74. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of all undergraduates receiving aid by type ofaid: 2009-10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Federalloans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

54

76

19

40

77

67

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loansincludes only federal loans to students. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amount of aid received by all undergraduates,by type of aid: 2009-10

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Federal loans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

$6,960

$7,165

$4,122

$1,556

$17,717

$11,637

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federalgovernment, state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loansincludes federal loans to students. Average amounts of aid were calculated bydividing the total aid awarded by the total number of recipients in each institution. Nis the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation rate and transfer-out rate (2004 cohort);graduation rate cohort as a percent of total enteringstudents and retention rates of first-time students (Fall2010)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Part-time retentionrate (N=15)

Full-time retention rate (N=22)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of total

entering students (N=22)

Transfer-out rate (N=5)

Graduation rate,overall (N=22)

53

58

88

83

84

80

17

3

75

91

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to theinstitution for the first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students totransfer are required to report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates arethe Student Right-to-Know rates. Retention rates are measured from the fall of firstenrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for studentsseeking a bachelor's degree. Median values for the comparison group will not addto 100 percent. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, GraduationRates component and Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 11. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2002 cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

74

66

74

65

58

45

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The 6-year graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rate; the 4-and 8-year rates are calculated using the same methodology. For more informationsee the Methodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, 200%Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Instruction/ research/ public service.Item 1, Your institution 1164.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 876.Group 2, Executive/ administrative/ managerial.Item 1, Your institution 425.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 262.Group 3, Other professional (support/service).Item 1, Your institution 575.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 581.Group 4, Non-professional.Item 1, Your institution 1037.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 541. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $72409.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $90410.Group 2, Professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $102152.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $118174.Group 3, Associate professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $76975.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $86849.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $67928.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $76965.Group 5, Instructor (N=19).Item 1, Your institution $28330.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $56315.Group 6, Lecturer (N=16).Item 1, Your institution $46186.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $56160.Group 7, No academic rank (N=14).Item 1, Your institution $8533.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $58849. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 25.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 59.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 12.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 10.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 3.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution 10.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 50.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 4. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $18772.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $13231.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $2943.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3031.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $706.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $280.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $2864.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3754.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $13941.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $4099.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $1917.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $2657.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $5678.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Full-time equivalent staff, by assigned position: Fall 2010

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Number of staff

Non-professional

Other professional(support/service)

Executive/administrative/

managerial

Instruction/ research/

public service

541

1,037

581

575

262

425

876

1,164

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included in this figure. For information on thecalculation of FTE of staff, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2010-11, HumanResources component.

Figure 13. Average salaries of full-time instructional staff equatedto 9-month contracts, by academic rank: Academic year2010-11

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=14)

Lecturer (N=16)

Instructor (N=19)

Assistant professor (N=24)

Associate professor (N=24)

Professor (N=24)

All ranks (N=24)

$58,849$8,533

$56,160$46,186

$56,315$28,330

$76,965$67,928

$86,849$76,975

$118,174$102,152

$90,410$72,409

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average full-time instructional staff salaries for 11/12-month contracts wereequated to 9-month average salaries by multiplying the 11/12-month salary by .8182.Salaries based on less than 9-month contracts are not included. Medical schoolsalaries are not included. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2010-11, HumanResources component.

Figure 14. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants,and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

450

1110

113

1012

5925

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of thecomparison group that report finance data using the same accounting standards asthe comparison institution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see theMethodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2011, Financecomponent.

Figure 15. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2010

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$5,678

$2,657$1,917

$4,099$13,941

$3,754$2,864

$280$706

$3,031$2,943

$13,231$18,772

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of thecomparison group that report finance data using the same accounting standards asthe comparison institution. Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment,particularly instruction, may be inflated because finance data includes all coreexpenses while FTE reflects credit activity only. For details on calculating FTEenrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses, see the MethodologicalNotes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2010, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2011, Finance component.

 Howard University 6

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2010-11 survey year. Response rates exceeded 99 percent for mostsurveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Look reports,which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the comparison institution is compared to the median valuefor the comparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If morethan one statistic is presented in a figure, the median values aredetermined separately for each indicator or statistic. Medians are notreported for comparison groups with less than three values. Wherepercentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to 100percent. Through the ExPT, users have access to all of the data used tocreate the figures included in this report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. As such, not all notes listed below may be applicable to yourreport.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Datadisaggregated by race/ethnicity have been reported using the 1997 (new)Office of Management and Budget categories. Detailed information aboutthe recent race/ethnicity changes can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Postbaccalaureate Degree Categories

The use of new postbaccalaureate degree categories was mandatory in the2010-11 collection year. These categories are: doctor’s degree-research/scholarship, doctor’s degree-professional practice, and doctor’sdegree-other. (The first-professional degree and certificate categories andthe single doctor’s degree category have been eliminated.)

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Average Institutional Net Price

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were awarded grant or scholarship aid fromthe federal government, state/local government, or the institution anytimeduring the full aid year. For public institutions, this includes only studentswho paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Other sources of grant aidare excluded. Average net price is generated by subtracting the averageamount of federal, state/local government, and institutional grant andscholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendanceis the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, andthe weighted average room and board and other expenses.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid received refers to financial aidthat was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differfrom the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service,academic support, institutional support, student services, scholarships andfellowships (reported under FASB standards as net grant aid to students),and other expenses. Expenses for operation and maintenance of plant,depreciation, and interest are allocated to each of the other functions. Coreexpenses exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores,dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state, andlocal); government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, andcontracts; sales and services of educational activities; investment income;other operating and non-operating sources; and other revenues andadditions (capital appropriations and grants and additions to permanentendowments). Core revenues for private, not-for-profit institutions (and asmall number of public institutions) reporting under FASB include tuitionand fees; government appropriations (federal, state, and local);government grants and contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts(including contributions from affiliated entities); investment return; salesand services of educational activities; and other sources. Core revenuesfor private, for-profit institutions reporting under FASB standards includetuition and fees; government appropriations (federal, state, and local);government grants and contracts; private grants and contracts; netinvestment income; sales and services of educational activities; and othersources. In general, core revenues exclude revenues from auxiliaryenterprises (e.g., bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independentoperations.

 Howard University 7

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Equated Instructional Staff Salaries

Total salary outlays for full-time instructional staff on 11/12-monthcontracts were equated to 9-month outlays by multiplying the outlay for11/12-month contracted instructional staff by 0.8182. The equated outlayswere then added to the outlays for 9/10-month instructional staff todetermine an average salary for each rank. Salaries are not included formedical school staff or staff on less-than-9-month contracts.

FTE for Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollmentcomponent). Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). See “Calculationof FTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE for Staff

The full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff from the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP)section of the Human Resources component and adding one-third of thetotal number of part-time staff.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know and Higher Education Opportunity Acts and aredefined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time (for the degreeor certificate) before the ending status date of August 31, 2010, divided bythe entire cohort of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permittedto exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally andpermanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forcesor were called to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aidservice of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and thosewho left to serve on an official church mission. Transfer-out rate is the totalnumber of students from the cohort who are known to have transferred outof the reporting institution within the same time period, divided by the sameadjusted cohort. Only institutions with a mission that includes preparingstudents to transfer are required to report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates are defined as the number of full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who enter the institutionfor the first time in the fall and who return to the same institution thefollowing fall (as either full- or part-time), divided by the total number of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in the fall of firstentrance. Part-time retention rates are similarly defined. For 4-yearinstitutions offering a bachelor’s degree, this rate is reported only for thosefirst-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree. For less than 4-yearinstitutions, the rate is calculated for all first-time degree/certificate-seekingstudents.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employees

regardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summerterm who returned in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduatestudents, students transferring into the institution at the undergraduatelevel, and nondegree/certificate-seeking undergraduates entering in the fall.Only degree-granting, academic year reporting institutions provide totalentering student data.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services; required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge is anexception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau, PresidentHoward University (ID: 131520)

2400 Sixth St NWWashington, DC 20059-0001

 Howard University 

Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSWhat Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) is a system of survey componentsthat collects data from about 7,500 institutions thatprovide postsecondary education across the UnitedStates. IPEDS collects institution-level data onstudents (enrollment and graduation rates), studentcharges, program completions, faculty, staff, andfinances.

These data are used at the federal and state level forpolicy analysis and development; at the institutionallevel for benchmarking and peer analysis; and bystudents and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), to aid in the collegesearch process. For more information about IPEDS,see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provideinstitutions a context for examining the data theysubmitted to IPEDS. Our goal is to produce a reportthat is useful to institutional executives and that mayhelp improve the quality and comparability of IPEDSdata.

What Is in This Report?

The figures provided in this report are thosesuggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel.They were developed to provide selected indicatorsand data elements for your institution and acomparison group of institutions. The figures arebased on data collected during the 2011-12 IPEDScollection cycle and are the most recent dataavailable. Additional information about theseindicators is provided in the Methodological Notes atthe end of the report. On the next page is a list of theinstitutions in your comparison group and the criteriaused for their selection. Please refer to "ComparisonGroup" in the Methodological Notes for moreinformation.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT) is designed toprovide campus executives easy access toinstitutional and comparison group data. Using theExPT, you can produce reports using differentcomparison groups and access a wider range ofIPEDS variables. The ExPT is available through theIPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter).

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

Appendix S

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUP

Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 15, NCES selected a comparison group for you. (In this case, the characteristics used to define thecomparison group appears below.) The Executive Peer Tool (ExPT)(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can be used to reproduce thefigures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 24institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University-Provo (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University-Main Campus (Saint Louis, MO)Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 2

Image description.Bar chart with 10 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 2, Asian.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 92, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 5, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 6, White.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 60, hover text on image.Group 7, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 2, hover text on image.Group 8, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 9, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 5, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8, hover text on image.Group 10, Women.Item 1, Your institution 65, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 53, hover text on image.Race/ethnicity or gender Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 11115.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 12519.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7496.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6525.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 10954.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 10187.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9579.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8732.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 1004.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1978. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's Research/ Scholarship.Item 1, Your institution 68.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 107.Group 2, Doctor's Professional Practice.Item 1, Your institution 433.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 269.Group 3, Doctor's Other.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 4, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 355.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1174.Group 5, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1023.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1303.Group 6, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity and percent of students who are women: Fall 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander

White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien Women

0 0 16

92

61

60 0 1

60

0 2 06 5 8

65

53

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Median values for the comparison groupwill not add to 100 percent. See "Use of Median Values for Comparison Group" in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for how median values are determined. N is thenumber of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2012, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students (2010-11), total FTE enrollment(2010-11), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2011)

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

1,978

1,004

8,732

9,579

10,187

10,954

6,525

7,496

12,519

11,115

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see CalculatingFTE in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Total headcount, FTE, and full-and part-time fall enrollment include both undergraduate and postbaccalaureate students,when applicable. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2011, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2012, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 3. Number of degrees awarded, by level: 2010-11

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's Other

Doctor's Professional

Practice

Doctor's Research/

Scholarship

00

1,3031,023

1,174355

00

269433

10768

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For additional information about postbaccalaureate degree levels, see theMethodology Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2011, Completionscomponent.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2011-12.Item 1, Your institution $20171.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $37065.Group 2, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $18120.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $35522.Group 3, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16075.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $33665.Group 4, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $15010.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $31827. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Net price.Group 1, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $16771.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $27432.Group 2, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16403.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $25861.Group 3, 2008-09.Item 1, Your institution $14188.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $25783. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 68.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 92.Group 2, Federal grants.Item 1, Your institution 44.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 22.Group 3, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 43.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 20.Group 4, State/local grants.Item 1, Your institution 4.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 18.Group 5, Institutional grants.Item 1, Your institution 53.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 90.Group 6, Any loans.Item 1, Your institution 70.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 59.Group 7, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 69.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 59.Group 8, Other loans.Item 1, Your institution 5.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 7. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $13356.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $19408.Group 2, Federal grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4867.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5885.Group 3, Pell grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4383.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4109.Group 4, State/local grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $1233.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $2702.Group 5, Institutional grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $13020.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $17878.Group 6, Any loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $7361.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $7315.Group 7, Federal loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $6423.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5536.Group 8, Other loans (N=18).Item 1, Your institution $15049.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $14229. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2008-09--2011-12

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Tuition and fees

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

$31,827

$15,010

$33,665

$16,075

$35,522

$18,120

$37,065

$20,171

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2011, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 5. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate studentsreceiving grant or scholarship aid: 2008-09--2010-11

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

Net price

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

$25,783

$14,188

$25,861

$16,403

$27,432

$16,771

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal,state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from the total cost ofattendance. For public institutions, this includes only students who paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and requiredfees, books and supplies, and the average room and board and other expenses. For moreinformation, see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2011, InstitutionalCharacteristics component; Winter 2011-12, Student Financial Aid component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students who received grant orscholarship aid from the federal government, state/localgovernment, or the institution, or loans, by type of aid:2010-11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Other loans

Federalloans

Any loans

Institutionalgrants

State/localgrants

Pellgrants

Federalgrants

Any grantaid

75

5969

5970

9053

184

2043

2244

9268

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. For details onhow students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort Determination in theMethodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 7. Average amounts of grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or theinstitution, or loans received, by full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, bytype of aid: 2010-11

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Other loans (N=18)

Federalloans (N=22)

Any loans (N=22)

Institutionalgrants (N=22)

State/localgrants (N=22)

Pellgrants (N=22)

Federalgrants (N=22)

Any grantaid (N=22)

$14,229$15,049

$5,536$6,423

$7,315$7,361

$17,878$13,020

$2,702$1,233

$4,109$4,383

$5,885$4,867

$19,408$13,356

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. Averageamounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awarded by the total number ofrecipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 70.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 79.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 44.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 22.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 73.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 56. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution $12985.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $18727.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution $4375.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $4084.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution $7652.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $6811. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate, overall (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 63.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 76.Group 2, Transfer-out rate (N=3).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 21.Group 3, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 77.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 84.Group 4, Full-time retention rate (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 83.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 87.Group 5, Part-time retention rate (N=13).Item 1, Your institution 21.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 63. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 47.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 56.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 62.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 75.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 64.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 76. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of all undergraduates receiving aid by type ofaid: 2010-11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Federalloans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

56

73

22

44

79

70

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes onlyfederal loans to students. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amount of aid received by all undergraduates,by type of aid: 2010-11

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Federal loans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

$6,811

$7,652

$4,084

$4,375

$18,727

$12,985

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes federalloans to students. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aidawarded by the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation rate and transfer-out rate (2005 cohort);graduation rate cohort as a percent of total enteringstudents and retention rates of first-time students (Fall2011)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Part-time retentionrate (N=13)

Full-time retention rate (N=22)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of total

entering students (N=22)

Transfer-out rate (N=3)

Graduation rate,overall (N=22)

63

21

87

83

84

77

21

76

63

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to the institution forthe first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students to transfer are requiredto report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Knowrates. Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for students seeking a bachelor's degree. Medianvalues for the comparison group will not add to 100 percent. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2012, GraduationRates component and Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 11. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2003 cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

76

64

75

62

56

47

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The 6-year graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rate; the 4- and 8-year rates are calculated using the same methodology. For more information see theMethodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2012, 200%Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Instruction/ research/ public service.Item 1, Your institution 1110.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 882.Group 2, Executive/ administrative/ managerial.Item 1, Your institution 419.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 259.Group 3, Other professional (support/service).Item 1, Your institution 561.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 585.Group 4, Non-professional.Item 1, Your institution 1005.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 534. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $78845.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $92517.Group 2, Professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $105207.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $121718.Group 3, Associate professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $76084.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $90424.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $68981.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $77330.Group 5, Instructor (N=19).Item 1, Your institution $57530.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $56795.Group 6, Lecturer (N=16).Item 1, Your institution $45516.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $64248.Group 7, No academic rank (N=14).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $57930. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 24.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 53.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 10.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 9.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 10.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution 15.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 15.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 49.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 4. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $19623.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $13540.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $3143.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3157.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $900.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $237.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $3545.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3833.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $13000.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $4075.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $2148.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $2750.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Full-time equivalent staff, by assigned position: Fall 2011

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Number of staff

Non-professional

Other professional(support/service)

Executive/administrative/

managerial

Instruction/ research/

public service

534

1,005

585

561

259

419

882

1,110

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included in this figure. For information on thecalculation of FTE of staff, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, HumanResources component.

Figure 13. Average salaries of full-time instructional staff equatedto 9-month contracts, by academic rank: Academic year2011-12

$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=14)

Lecturer (N=16)

Instructor (N=19)

Assistant professor (N=24)

Associate professor (N=24)

Professor (N=24)

All ranks (N=24)

$57,930

$64,248$45,516

$56,795$57,530

$77,330$68,981

$90,424$76,084

$121,718$105,207

$92,517$78,845

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average full-time instructional staff salaries for 11/12-month contracts wereequated to 9-month average salaries by multiplying the 11/12-month salary by .8182.Salaries based on less than 9-month contracts are not included. Medical school salariesare not included. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2011-12, HumanResources component.

Figure 14. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2011

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants,and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

449

1515

102

910

5324

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the comparisoninstitution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see the Methodological Notes. N isthe number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2012, Financecomponent.

Figure 15. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2011

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$0

$2,750$2,148

$4,075$13,000

$3,833$3,545

$237$900

$3,157$3,143

$13,540$19,623

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, particularly instruction, may beinflated because finance data includes all core expenses while FTE reflects credit activityonly. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses,see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2011, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2012, Finance component.

 Howard University 6

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2011-12 survey year. Response rates exceeded 99 percent for mostsurveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Look reports,which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the comparison institution is compared to the median valuefor the comparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If morethan one statistic is presented in a figure, the median values aredetermined separately for each indicator or statistic. Medians are notreported for comparison groups with less than three values. Wherepercentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to 100percent. Through the ExPT, users have access to all of the data used tocreate the figures included in this report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. As such, not all notes listed below may be applicable to yourreport.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Datadisaggregated by race/ethnicity have been reported using the 1997 (new)Office of Management and Budget categories. Detailed information aboutthe recent race/ethnicity changes can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Postbaccalaureate Degree Categories

The use of new postbaccalaureate degree categories was mandatory in the2011-12 collection year. These categories are: doctor’s degree-research/scholarship, doctor’s degree-professional practice, and doctor’sdegree-other. (The first-professional degree and certificate categories andthe single doctor’s degree category have been eliminated.)

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Average Institutional Net Price

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were awarded grant or scholarship aid fromthe federal government, state/local government, or the institution anytimeduring the full aid year. For public institutions, this includes only studentswho paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Other sources of grant aidare excluded. Average net price is generated by subtracting the averageamount of federal, state/local government, and institutional grant andscholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendanceis the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, andthe average room and board and other expenses.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid received refers to financial aidthat was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differfrom the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; state and local appropriations; government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts; sales and services ofeducational activities; investment income; other operating and non-operating sources; and other revenues and additions (federal and capitalappropriations and grants and additions to permanent endowments). Corerevenues for private, not-for-profit institutions (and a small number of publicinstitutions) reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations (federal, state, and local); government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts (including contributionsfrom affiliated entities); investment return; sales and services ofeducational activities; and other sources. Core revenues for private, for-profit institutions reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations, grants, and contracts (federal, state, andlocal); private grants and contracts; investment income; sales and servicesof educational activities; and other sources. At degree-granting institutions,core revenues exclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g.,bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting instituions do no report revenue from auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore revenues from other sources.

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service,academic support, institutional support, student services, scholarships andfellowships (net of discounts and allowances), and other expenses.Expenses for operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, andinterest are allocated to each of the other functions. Core expenses atdegree-granting institutions exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises(e.g., bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting institutions do not report expenses for auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore expenses as other expenses.

 Howard University 7

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Equated Instructional Staff Salaries

Total salary outlays for full-time instructional staff on 11/12-monthcontracts were equated to 9-month outlays by multiplying the outlay for11/12-month contracted instructional staff by 0.8182. The equated outlayswere then added to the outlays for 9/10-month instructional staff todetermine an average salary for each rank. Salaries are not included formedical school staff or staff on less-than-9-month contracts.

FTE for Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollmentcomponent). Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). See “Calculationof FTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE for Staff

The full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff from the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP)section of the Human Resources component and adding one-third of thetotal number of part-time staff.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know and Higher Education Opportunity Acts and aredefined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time (for the degreeor certificate) before the ending status date of August 31, 2011, divided bythe entire cohort of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permittedto exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally andpermanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forcesor were called to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aidservice of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and thosewho left to serve on an official church mission. Transfer-out rate is the totalnumber of students from the cohort who are known to have transferred outof the reporting institution within the same time period, divided by the sameadjusted cohort. Only institutions with a mission that includes preparingstudents to transfer are required to report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates are defined as the number of full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who enter the institutionfor the first time in the fall and who return to the same institution thefollowing fall (as either full- or part-time), divided by the total number of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in the fall of firstentrance. Part-time retention rates are similarly defined. For 4-yearinstitutions offering a bachelor’s degree, this rate is reported only for thosefirst-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree. For less than 4-yearinstitutions, the rate is calculated for all first-time degree/certificate-seekingstudents.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employees

regardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summerterm who returned in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduatestudents, students transferring into the institution at the undergraduatelevel, and nondegree/certificate-seeking undergraduates entering in the fall.Only degree-granting, academic year reporting institutions provide totalentering student data.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services; required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge is anexception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau, PresidentHoward University (ID: 131520)

2400 Sixth St NWWashington, DC 20059-0001

 Howard University 

Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSWhat Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) is a system of survey componentsthat collects data from about 7,500 institutions thatprovide postsecondary education across the UnitedStates. IPEDS collects institution-level data onstudents (enrollment and graduation rates), studentcharges, program completions, faculty, staff, andfinances.

These data are used at the federal and state level forpolicy analysis and development; at the institutionallevel for benchmarking and peer analysis; and bystudents and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), to aid in the collegesearch process. For more information about IPEDS,see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provideinstitutions a context for examining the data theysubmitted to IPEDS. Our goal is to produce a reportthat is useful to institutional executives and that mayhelp improve the quality and comparability of IPEDSdata.

What Is in This Report?

The figures provided in this report are thosesuggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel.They were developed to provide selected indicatorsand data elements for your institution and acomparison group of institutions. The figures arebased on data collected during the 2012-13 IPEDScollection cycle and are the most recent dataavailable. Additional information about theseindicators is provided in the Methodological Notes atthe end of the report. On the next page is a list of theinstitutions in your comparison group and the criteriaused for their selection. Please refer to "ComparisonGroup" in the Methodological Notes for moreinformation.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

The Customize Data Feedback Report functionalityof the IPEDS Data Center is designed to providecampus executives easy access to institutional andcomparison group data. Using this functionality, youcan produce reports using different comparisongroups and access a wider range of IPEDSvariables. The Data Center can be accessed athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter.

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

Appendix T

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUP

Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 15, NCES selected a comparison group for you. (In this case, the characteristics used to define thecomparison group appears below.) The Customize DFR functionality on the IPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can beused to reproduce the figures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 24institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University-Provo (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University-Main Campus (Saint Louis, MO)Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 2

Image description.Bar chart with 10 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 2, Asian.Item 1, Your institution 4, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 87, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 7, hover text on image.Group 5, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 6, White.Item 1, Your institution 3, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 58, hover text on image.Group 7, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 2, hover text on image.Group 8, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 9, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 4, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11, hover text on image.Group 10, Women.Item 1, Your institution 65, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 54, hover text on image.Race/ethnicity or gender Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 11087.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 13046.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7498.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6524.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 10815.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 10421.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 8941.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8788.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 1061.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1876. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's Research/ Scholarship.Item 1, Your institution 86.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 106.Group 2, Doctor's Professional Practice.Item 1, Your institution 430.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 253.Group 3, Doctor's Other.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 4, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 398.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1167.Group 5, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1321.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1408.Group 6, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity and percent of students who are women: Fall 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander

White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien Women

1 04 6

87

61

7

0 03

58

0 2 06 4

11

65

54

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, please see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Median values for the comparison groupwill not add to 100 percent. See "Use of Median Values for Comparison Group" in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for how median values are determined. N is thenumber of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2013, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students (2011-12), total FTE enrollment(2011-12), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2012)

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

1,876

1,061

8,788

8,941

10,421

10,815

6,524

7,498

13,046

11,087

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see CalculatingFTE in the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. Total headcount, FTE, and full-and part-time fall enrollment include both undergraduate and postbaccalaureate students,when applicable. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2012, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2013, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 3. Number of degrees awarded, by level: 2011-12

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's Other

Doctor's Professional

Practice

Doctor's Research/

Scholarship

00

1,4081,321

1,167398

00

253430

10686

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For additional information about postbaccalaureate degree levels, see theMethodology Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2012, Completionscomponent.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2012-13.Item 1, Your institution $22683.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $38530.Group 2, 2011-12.Item 1, Your institution $20171.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $37065.Group 3, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $18120.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $35522.Group 4, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16075.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $33665. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Net price.Group 1, 2011-12.Item 1, Your institution $24202.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $28508.Group 2, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $16771.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $27432.Group 3, 2009-10.Item 1, Your institution $16403.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $25861. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 76.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 93.Group 2, Federal grants.Item 1, Your institution 46.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 21.Group 3, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 46.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 21.Group 4, State/local grants.Item 1, Your institution 4.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 17.Group 5, Institutional grants.Item 1, Your institution 64.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 90.Group 6, Any loans.Item 1, Your institution 69.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 60.Group 7, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 64.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 59.Group 8, Other loans.Item 1, Your institution 5.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 7. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $15035.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $20789.Group 2, Federal grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4484.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5282.Group 3, Pell grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4437.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4211.Group 4, State/local grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $990.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $2849.Group 5, Institutional grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $14549.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $19012.Group 6, Any loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $7205.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $7698.Group 7, Federal loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $6368.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5667.Group 8, Other loans (N=20).Item 1, Your institution $17525.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $15667. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2009-10--2012-13

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Tuition and fees

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

$33,665

$16,075

$35,522

$18,120

$37,065

$20,171

$38,530

$22,683

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2012, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 5. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate studentsreceiving grant or scholarship aid: 2009-10--2011-12

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

Net price

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

$25,861

$16,403

$27,432

$16,771

$28,508

$24,202

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal,state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from the total cost ofattendance. For public institutions, this includes only students who paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and requiredfees, books and supplies, and the average room and board and other expenses. For moreinformation, see the Methodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2012, InstitutionalCharacteristics component; Winter 2012-13, Student Financial Aid component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students who received grant orscholarship aid from the federal government, state/localgovernment, or the institution, or loans, by type of aid:2011-12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Other loans

Federalloans

Any loans

Institutionalgrants

State/localgrants

Pellgrants

Federalgrants

Any grantaid

75

5964

6069

9064

174

2146

2146

9376

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. For details onhow students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort Determination in theMethodological Notes at the end of this report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 7. Average amounts of grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or theinstitution, or loans received, by full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, bytype of aid: 2011-12

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Aid dollars

Other loans (N=20)

Federalloans (N=22)

Any loans (N=22)

Institutionalgrants (N=22)

State/localgrants (N=22)

Pellgrants (N=22)

Federalgrants (N=22)

Any grantaid (N=22)

$15,667$17,525

$5,667$6,368

$7,698$7,205

$19,012$14,549

$2,849$990

$4,211$4,437

$5,282$4,484

$20,789$15,035

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. Averageamounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awarded by the total number ofrecipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 70.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 80.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 45.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 22.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 68.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 56. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution $14539.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $19617.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution $4364.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $4013.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution $7413.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $6945. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate, overall (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 63.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 77.Group 2, Transfer-out rate (N=5).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 13.Group 3, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 78.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 85.Group 4, Full-time retention rate (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 81.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 88.Group 5, Part-time retention rate (N=11).Item 1, Your institution 22.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 50. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 48.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 57.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 69.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 75.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 72.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 75. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of all undergraduates receiving aid by type ofaid: 2011-12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Federalloans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

56

68

22

45

80

70

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes onlyfederal loans to students. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amount of aid received by all undergraduates,by type of aid: 2011-12

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

Aid dollars

Federal loans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

$6,945

$7,413

$4,013

$4,364

$19,617

$14,539

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes federalloans to students. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aidawarded by the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation rate and transfer-out rate (2006 cohort);graduation rate cohort as a percent of total enteringstudents and retention rates of first-time students (Fall2012)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Part-time retentionrate (N=11)

Full-time retention rate (N=22)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of total

entering students (N=22)

Transfer-out rate (N=5)

Graduation rate,overall (N=22)

50

22

88

81

85

78

13

77

63

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to the institution forthe first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students to transfer are requiredto report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Knowrates. Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for students seeking a bachelor's degree. Medianvalues for the comparison group will not add to 100 percent. N is the number of institutionsin the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2013, GraduationRates component and Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 11. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2004 cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

75

72

75

69

57

48

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The 6-year graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rate; the 4- and 8-year rates are calculated using the same methodology. For more information see theMethodological Notes at the end of the report. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2013, 200%Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Postsecondary Teachers and staff.Item 1, Your institution 1123.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 891.Group 2, Instructional support occupations.Item 1, Your institution 73.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 90.Group 3, Management.Item 1, Your institution 348.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 293.Group 4, Business and financial operations.Item 1, Your institution 38.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 161.Group 5, Computer, engineering, and science.Item 1, Your institution 12.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 164.Group 6, Community service, legal, arts, and media.Item 1, Your institution 67.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 103.Group 7, Healthcare.Item 1, Your institution 215.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 14.Group 8, Other.Item 1, Your institution 1262.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 531. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $76626.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $90131.Group 2, Professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $105192.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $125352.Group 3, Associate professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $75762.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $90486.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $67356.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $77310.Group 5, Instructor (N=20).Item 1, Your institution $58428.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $56165.Group 6, Lecturer (N=15).Item 1, Your institution $45522.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $60777.Group 7, No academic rank (N=15).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $59805. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 44.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 68.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 18.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 12.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 3.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 13.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution -35.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 71.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 5. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $19811.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $13406.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $3705.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3513.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $919.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $226.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $3571.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3958.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $12928.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $4517.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $2485.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3012.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Full-time equivalent staff, by occupational category: Fall2012

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of staff

Other

Healthcare

Community service, legal,arts, and media

Computer, engineering,and science

Business and financialoperations

Management

Instructional supportoccupations

Postsecondary Teachersand staff

5311,262

14215

10367

16412

16138

293348

9073

8911,123

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included in this figure. For information on thecalculation of FTE of staff, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions inthe comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, HumanResources component.

Figure 13. Average salaries of full-time instructional non-medicalstaff equated to 9-month contracts, by academic rank:Academic year 2012-13

$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=15)

Lecturer (N=15)

Instructor (N=20)

Assistant professor (N=24)

Associate professor (N=24)

Professor (N=24)

All ranks (N=24)

$59,805

$60,777$45,522

$56,165$58,428

$77,310$67,356

$90,486$75,762

$125,352$105,192

$90,131$76,626

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average salaries of full-time instructional non-medical staff equated to 9-monthcontracts was calculated by multiplying the average monthly salary by 9. The averagemonthly salary was calculated by dividing the total salary outlays by the total number ofmonths covered by staff on 9, 10, 11 and 12-month contracts.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2012-13, HumanResources component.

Figure 14. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2012

-50 -25 0 25 50 75

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants,and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

571

0-35

133

1218

6844

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the comparisoninstitution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see the Methodological Notes. N isthe number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2013, Financecomponent.

Figure 15. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2012

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$0

$3,012$2,485

$4,517$12,928

$3,958$3,571

$226$919

$3,513$3,705

$13,406$19,811

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, particularly instruction, may beinflated because finance data includes all core expenses while FTE reflects credit activityonly. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses,see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2012, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2013, Finance component.

 Howard University 6

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2012-13 data collection year. Response rates exceeded 99 percent formost surveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Lookreports, which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the comparison institution is compared to the median valuefor the comparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If morethan one statistic is presented in a figure, the median values aredetermined separately for each indicator or statistic. Medians are notreported for comparison groups with fewer than three values. Wherepercentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to 100percent. The IPEDS Data Center provides access to all of the data used tocreate the figures included in this report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. Not all notes listed below may be applicable to your report.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Datadisaggregated by race/ethnicity have been reported using the 1997 Officeof Management and Budget categories. Detailed information about therace/ethnicity categories can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Average Institutional Net Price

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were awarded grant or scholarship aid fromthe federal government, state/local government, or the institution anytimeduring the full aid year. For public institutions, this includes only studentswho paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Other sources of grant aidare excluded. Average net price is generated by subtracting the averageamount of federal, state/local government, and institutional grant andscholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendanceis the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, andthe average room and board and other expenses.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid received refers to financial aidthat was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differfrom the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; state and local appropriations; government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts; sales and services ofeducational activities; investment income; other operating and non-operating sources; and other revenues and additions (federal and capitalappropriations and grants and additions to permanent endowments). Corerevenues for private, not-for-profit institutions (and a small number of publicinstitutions) reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations (federal, state, and local); government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts (including contributionsfrom affiliated entities); investment return; sales and services ofeducational activities; and other sources. Core revenues for private, for-profit institutions reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations, grants, and contracts (federal, state, andlocal); private grants and contracts; investment income; sales and servicesof educational activities; and other sources. At degree-granting institutions,core revenues exclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g.,bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting instituions do no report revenue from auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore revenues from other sources.

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service,academic support, institutional support, student services, scholarships andfellowships (net of discounts and allowances), and other expenses.Expenses for operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, andinterest are allocated to each of the other functions. Core expenses atdegree-granting institutions exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises(e.g., bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting institutions do not report expenses for auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore expenses as other expenses.

 Howard University 7

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Equated Instructional Non-Medical Staff Salaries

Institutions reported total salary outlays by academic rank and the numberof staff by academic rank and contract length (9-, 10-, 11-, and 12-monthcontracts). Total number of months covered by salary outlays wascalculated by multiplying the number of staff by the number of months ofthe contract and summing across all contracts length periods. Weightedaverage monthly salary was calculated by dividing the total salary outlaysby the total number of months covered. The weighted average monthlysalary was then multiplied by 9 to determine an average salary for eachrank.

FTE Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollmentcomponent). Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). See “Calculationof FTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE Staff

The full-time-equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff and adding one-third of the total number of part-time staff. Graduate assistants are not included.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know and Higher Education Opportunity Acts and aredefined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time,first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time (for the degreeor certificate) before the ending status date of August 31, 2012, divided bythe entire cohort of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permittedto exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally andpermanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forcesor were called to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aidservice of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and thosewho left to serve on an official church mission. Transfer-out rate is the totalnumber of students from the cohort who are known to have transferred outof the reporting institution within the same time period, divided by the sameadjusted cohort. Only institutions with a mission that includes preparingstudents to transfer are required to report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates are defined as the number of full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who enter the institutionfor the first time in the fall and who return to the same institution thefollowing fall (as either full- or part-time), divided by the total number of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in the fall of firstentrance. Part-time retention rates are similarly defined. For 4-yearinstitutions offering a bachelor’s degree, this rate is reported only for thosefirst-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree. For less than 4-yearinstitutions, the rate is calculated for all first-time degree/certificate-seekingstudents.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employees

regardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summerterm who returned in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduatestudents, students transferring into the institution at the undergraduatelevel, and nondegree/certificate-seeking undergraduates entering in the fall.Only degree-granting, academic year reporting institutions provide totalentering student data.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services; required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge is anexception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau, PresidentHoward University (ID: 131520)

2400 Sixth St NWWashington, DC 20059-0001

 Howard University 

Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSWhat Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) is a system of survey componentsthat collects data from about 7,500 institutions thatprovide postsecondary education across the UnitedStates. IPEDS collects institution-level data onstudent enrollment, graduation rates, studentcharges, program completions, faculty, staff, andfinances.

These data are used at the federal and state level forpolicy analysis and development; at the institutionallevel for benchmarking and peer analysis; and bystudents and parents, through the College Navigator(http://collegenavigator.ed.gov), an online tool to aidin the college search process. For more informationabout IPEDS, see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provideinstitutions a context for examining the data theysubmitted to IPEDS. The purpose of this report is toprovide institutional executives a useful resource andto help improve the quality and comparability ofIPEDS data.

What Is in This Report?

As suggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel,the figures in this report provide selected indicatorsfor your institution and a comparison group ofinstitutions. The figures are based on data collectedduring the 2013-14 IPEDS collection cycle and arethe most recent data available. This report provides alist of pre-selected comparison group institutions andthe criteria used for their selection. Additionalinformation about these indicators and the pre-selected comparison group are provided in theMethodological Notes at the end of the report.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

Institutions have the opportunity to create itscomparison group instead of using the IPEDS pre-selected comparison group through the CustomizeData Feedback Report functionality located in theIPEDS Data Center. Customized comparison groupsallow institutional executives to quickly producecustomizable reports using different comparisongroups and accessing a wider range of IPEDSvariables. The Data Center can be accessed athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter.

Howard UniversityWashington, DC

Appendix U

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

COMPARISON GROUP

Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s statistics. If your institution did not define a CustomComparison Group for this report by July 15, NCES selected a comparison group for you. (In this case, the characteristics used to define thecomparison group appears below.) The Customize Data Feedback Report functionality on the IPEDS Data Center(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/) can be used to reproduce the figures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include CarnegieClassification of Research Universities (high research activity), private not-for-profit. This comparison group includes the following 24institutions:

Baylor University (Waco, TX)Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)Brigham Young University-Provo (Provo, UT)Catholic University of America (Washington, DC)Claremont Graduate University (Claremont, CA)Clark University (Worcester, MA)Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA)Fordham University (Bronx, NY)Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)Northeastern University (Boston, MA)Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL)Polytechnic Institute of New York University (Brooklyn, NY)Saint Louis University (Saint Louis, MO)Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY)University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)University of Denver (Denver, CO)Wake Forest University (Winston Salem, NC)

 Howard University 2

Image description.Bar chart with 10 groups with 2 items per group.Y scale titled Percent.Group 1, American Indian or Alaska Native.Item 1, Your institution 2, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 2, Asian.Item 1, Your institution 3, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 3, Black or African American.Item 1, Your institution 86, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6, hover text on image.Group 4, Hispanic/Latino.Item 1, Your institution 1, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 7, hover text on image.Group 5, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01, hover text on image.Group 6, White.Item 1, Your institution 3, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 57, hover text on image.Group 7, Two or more races.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 2, hover text on image.Group 8, Race/ethnicity unknown.Item 1, Your institution 0.01, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 5, hover text on image.Group 9, Nonresident alien.Item 1, Your institution 5, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11, hover text on image.Group 10, Women.Item 1, Your institution 65, hover text on image.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 53, hover text on image.Race/ethnicity or gender Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Enrollment measureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of students.Group 1, Unduplicated headcount - total.Item 1, Your institution 10637.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 13037.Group 2, Unduplicated headcount - undergraduates.Item 1, Your institution 7142.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 6428.Group 3, Total FTE enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9278.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 10225.Group 4, Full-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 9123.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 8775.Group 5, Part-time fall enrollment.Item 1, Your institution 1174.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1787. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Level of degreeHorizontal Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of degrees.Group 1, Doctor's Research/ Scholarship.Item 1, Your institution 101.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 103.Group 2, Doctor's Professional Practice.Item 1, Your institution 408.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 246.Group 3, Doctor's Other.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01.Group 4, Master's.Item 1, Your institution 377.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1104.Group 5, Bachelor's.Item 1, Your institution 1225.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 1421.Group 6, Associate's.Item 1, Your institution 0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity and percent of students who are women: Fall 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

American Indian orAlaska Native

Asian Black orAfrican American

Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander

White Two or more races Race/ethnicityunknown

Nonresident alien Women

2 03 6

86

61

7

0 03

57

0 2 05 5

11

65

53

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, see the Methodological Notes. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100%. See "Use ofMedian Values for Comparison Group" for how median values are determined. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2014, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount of all students and ofundergraduate students (2012-13), total FTE enrollment(2012-13), and full- and part-time fall enrollment (Fall2013)

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Number of students

Part-timefall enrollment

Full-timefall enrollment

Total FTEenrollment

Unduplicatedheadcount -

undergraduates

Unduplicatedheadcount - total

1,787

1,174

8,775

9,123

10,225

9,278

6,428

7,142

13,037

10,637

Enrollment measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see CalculatingFTE in the Methodological Notes. Total headcount, FTE, and full- and part-time fallenrollment include both undergraduate and postbaccalaureate students, when applicable.N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2013, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2014, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 3. Number of degrees awarded, by level: 2012-13

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

Number of degrees

Associate's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctor's Other

Doctor's Professional

Practice

Doctor's Research/

Scholarship

00

1,4211,225

1,104377

00

246408

103101

Level of degree

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: For additional information about postbaccalaureate degree levels, see theMethodology Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2013, Completionscomponent.

 Howard University 3

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Tuition and fees.Group 1, 2013-14.Item 1, Your institution $22683.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $40288.Group 2, 2012-13.Item 1, Your institution $22683.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $38530.Group 3, 2011-12.Item 1, Your institution $20171.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $37065.Group 4, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $18120.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $35522. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic yearHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Net price.Group 1, 2012-13.Item 1, Your institution $21981.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $29780.Group 2, 2011-12.Item 1, Your institution $24202.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $28792.Group 3, 2010-11.Item 1, Your institution $16784.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $27432. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 76.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 93.Group 2, Federal grants.Item 1, Your institution 47.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 19.Group 3, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 47.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 19.Group 4, State/local grants.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 15.Group 5, Institutional grants.Item 1, Your institution 63.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 91.Group 6, Any loans.Item 1, Your institution 66.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 54.Group 7, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 66.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 54.Group 8, Other loans.Item 1, Your institution 6.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 8. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $18148.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $22043.Group 2, Federal grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4881.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5120.Group 3, Pell grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $4567.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $4208.Group 4, State/local grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $889.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $3053.Group 5, Institutional grants (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $18094.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $20113.Group 6, Any loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $8509.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $8006.Group 7, Federal loans (N=22).Item 1, Your institution $6872.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $5913.Group 8, Other loans (N=20).Item 1, Your institution $19758.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $16603. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 4. Academic year tuition and required fees for full-time,first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates:2010-11 to 2013-14

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000

Tuition and fees

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

$35,522

$18,120

$37,065

$20,171

$38,530

$22,683

$40,288

$22,683

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from thecategories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2013, InstitutionalCharacteristics component.

Figure 5. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate studentsreceiving grant or scholarship aid: 2010-11 to 2012-13

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

Net price

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

$27,432

$16,784

$28,792

$24,202

$29,780

$21,981

Academic year

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal,state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from the total cost ofattendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and required fees,books and supplies, and the average room and board and other expenses. For details,see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2013, InstitutionalCharacteristics component; Winter 2013-14, Student Financial Aid component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students who received grant orscholarship aid from the federal government, state/localgovernment, or the institution, or loans, by type of aid:2012-13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Other loans

Federalloans

Any loans

Institutionalgrants

State/localgrants

Pellgrants

Federalgrants

Any grantaid

86

5466

5466

9163

152

1947

1947

9376

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. For details onhow students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort Determination in theMethodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 7. Average amounts of grant or scholarship aid from thefederal government, state/local government, or theinstitution, or loans received, by full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, bytype of aid: 2012-13

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Aid dollars

Other loans (N=20)

Federalloans (N=22)

Any loans (N=22)

Institutionalgrants (N=22)

State/localgrants (N=22)

Pellgrants (N=22)

Federalgrants (N=22)

Any grantaid (N=22)

$16,603$19,758

$5,913$6,872

$8,006$8,509

$20,113$18,094

$3,053$889

$4,208$4,567

$5,120$4,881

$22,043$18,148

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and otherfederal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans to students. Averageamounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awarded by the total number ofrecipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, StudentFinancial Aid component.

 Howard University 4

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent of students.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution 72.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 80.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution 45.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 20.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution 63.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 55. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Type of aidHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Aid dollars.Group 1, Any grant aid.Item 1, Your institution $15608.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $20341.Group 2, Pell grants.Item 1, Your institution $4370.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $4025.Group 3, Federal loans.Item 1, Your institution $9047.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) $6970. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.MeasureHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Graduation rate, Overall (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 61.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 78.Group 2, Transfer-out rate (N=4).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 16.Group 3, Graduation rate cohort as a percent of total entering students (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 81.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 84.Group 4, Full-time retention rate (N=22).Item 1, Your institution 82.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 88.Group 5, Part-time retention rate (N=13).Item 1, Your institution 22.Item 2, Comparison Group Median 76. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Time to program completionHorizontal Bar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Graduation rate.Group 1, 4 years.Item 1, Your institution 45.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 60.Group 2, 6 years.Item 1, Your institution 63.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 75.Group 3, 8 years.Item 1, Your institution 65.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=22) 76. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=22) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 8. Percent of all undergraduates receiving aid by type ofaid: 2012-13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students

Federalloans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

55

63

20

45

80

72

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes onlyfederal loans to students. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 9. Average amount of aid received by all undergraduates,by type of aid: 2012-13

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Aid dollars

Federal loans

Pell grants

Any grant aid

$6,970

$9,047

$4,025

$4,370

$20,341

$15,608

Type of aid

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid from the federal government,state/local government, the institution, or other sources. Federal loans includes federalloans to students. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aidawarded by the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number ofinstitutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, StudentFinancial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation rate and transfer-out rate (2007 cohort);graduation rate cohort as a percent of total enteringstudents and retention rates of first-time students (Fall2013)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Part-time retentionrate (N=13)

Full-time retention rate (N=22)

Graduation rate cohortas a percent of total

entering students (N=22)

Transfer-out rate (N=4)

Graduation rate,Overall (N=22)

76

22

88

82

84

81

16

78

61

Measure

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduate students. Entering class includes all students coming to the institution forthe first time. Only institutions with a mission to prepare students to transfer are requiredto report transfers out. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Knowrates. Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. 4-yr institutions report retention rates for students seeking a bachelor's degree. Medianvalues for the comparison group will not add to 100%. N is the number of institutions in thecomparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, GraduationRates component and Spring 2014, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 11. Bachelor's degree graduation rates of full-time,first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduateswithin 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years: 2005 cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduation rate

8 years

6 years

4 years

76

65

75

63

60

45

Time to program completion

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=22)

NOTE: The 6-year graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rate; the 4- and 8-year rates are calculated using the same methodology. For details, see theMethodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2013-14, 200%Graduation Rates component.

 Howard University 5

Image description.Staff categoryHorizontal Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Number of staff.Group 1, Postsecondary Teachers and staff.Item 1, Your institution 1100.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 916.Group 2, Instructional support occupations.Item 1, Your institution 67.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 86.Group 3, Management.Item 1, Your institution 346.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 285.Group 4, Business and financial operations.Item 1, Your institution 120.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 174.Group 5, Computer, engineering, and science.Item 1, Your institution 39.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 164.Group 6, Community service, legal, arts, and media.Item 1, Your institution 51.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 104.Group 7, Healthcare.Item 1, Your institution 175.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 14.Group 8, Other.Item 1, Your institution 1080.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 541. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Academic rankHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Average salary.Group 1, All ranks (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $77094.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $90833.Group 2, Professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $105084.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $121230.Group 3, Associate professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $75006.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $91647.Group 4, Assistant professor (N=24).Item 1, Your institution $65583.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $76190.Group 5, Instructor (N=18).Item 1, Your institution $57735.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $54342.Group 6, Lecturer (N=16).Item 1, Your institution $45720.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $59873.Group 7, No academic rank (N=14).Item 1, Your institution No data.Item 2, Comparison Group Median $51390. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Revenue sourceHorizontal Bar chart with 5 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Percent.Group 1, Tuition and fees.Item 1, Your institution 23.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 59.Group 2, Government grants and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 8.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 9.Group 3, Private gifts, grants, and contracts.Item 1, Your institution 2.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 11.Group 4, Investment return.Item 1, Your institution 33.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 12.Group 5, Other core revenues.Item 1, Your institution 34.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) 4. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

Image description.Expense functionHorizontal Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group.X scale titled Dollars per FTE.Group 1, Instruction.Item 1, Your institution $22191.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $14080.Group 2, Research.Item 1, Your institution $3803.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3018.Group 3, Public service.Item 1, Your institution $883.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $298.Group 4, Academic support.Item 1, Your institution $4375.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $4219.Group 5, Institutional support.Item 1, Your institution $15240.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $4609.Group 6, Student services.Item 1, Your institution $2927.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $3174.Group 7, Other core expenses.Item 1, Your institution $0.01.Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=24) $0.01. Shapeline, Label: ShapeInstitutionLegend, Label: Your institution ShapeComparisonGroupLegend, Label: Comparison Group Median (N=24) ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine1, Label: ShapeComparisonGroupLegendLine2, Label: End of image description.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Figure 12. Full-time equivalent staff, by occupational category: Fall2013

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Number of staff

Other

Healthcare

Community service, legal,arts, and media

Computer, engineering,and science

Business and financialoperations

Management

Instructional supportoccupations

Postsecondary Teachersand staff

5411,080

14175

10451

16439

174120

285346

8667

9161,100

Staff category

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included. For calculation details, see theMethodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2014, HumanResources component.

Figure 13. Average salaries of full-time instructional non-medicalstaff equated to 9-month contracts, by academic rank:Academic year 2013-14

$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000

Average salary

No academic rank (N=14)

Lecturer (N=16)

Instructor (N=18)

Assistant professor (N=24)

Associate professor (N=24)

Professor (N=24)

All ranks (N=24)

$51,390

$59,873$45,720

$54,342$57,735

$76,190$65,583

$91,647$75,006

$121,230$105,084

$90,833$77,094

Academic rank

Your institution Comparison Group Median

NOTE: Average salaries of full-time instructional non-medical staff equated to 9-monthcontracts was calculated by multiplying the average monthly salary by 9. The averagemonthly salary was calculated by dividing the total salary outlays by the total number ofmonths covered by staff on 9, 10, 11 and 12-month contracts.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2014, HumanResources component.

Figure 14. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscalyear 2013

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other corerevenues

Investment return

Private gifts, grants,and contracts

Government grantsand contracts

Tuition and fees

434

1233

112

98

5923

Revenue source

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparisongroup that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the comparisoninstitution. For a detailed definition of core revenues, see the Methodological Notes. N isthe number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2014, Financecomponent.

Figure 15. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscalyear 2013

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Dollars per FTE

Other coreexpenses

Student services

Institutional support

Academic support

Public service

Research

Instruction

$0$0

$3,174$2,927

$4,609$15,240

$4,219$4,375

$298$883

$3,018$3,803

$14,080$22,191

Expense function

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=24)

NOTE: Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, particularly instruction, may beinflated because finance data includes all core expenses while FTE reflects credit activityonly. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses,see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2013, 12-monthEnrollment component and Spring 2014, Finance component.

 Howard University 6

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during the2013-14 data collection year. Response rates exceeded 99% for mostsurveys. Detailed response tables are included in IPEDS First Look reports,which can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

The value for the comparison institution is compared to the median valuefor the comparison group for each statistic included in the figure. If morethan one statistic is presented in a figure, the median values aredetermined separately for each indicator or statistic. Medians are notreported for comparison groups with fewer than three values. Wherepercentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to100%. The IPEDS Data Center provides access to all of the data used tocreate the figures included in this report.

Missing Statistics

If a statistic is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates thatthe statistic is not relevant to your institution and the data were notcollected. Not all notes may be applicable to your report.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial(item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepareyour report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some statistics are disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Datadisaggregated by race/ethnicity have been reported using the 1997 Officeof Management and Budget categories. Detailed information about therace/ethnicity categories can be found athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/resource.asp.

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid andGraduation Rates

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Ratesdata are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions thatreport based on an academic year (those operating on standard academicterms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Studentcounts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate onstandard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of studentsenrolled during a full 12-month period.

Description of Statistics Used in the Figures

Admissions and Test Score DataAdmissions and test score data are presented only for institutions that donot have an open admission policy, and apply to first-time,degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students only. Applicants includeonly those students who fulfilled all requirements for consideration foradmission and who were notified of one of the following actions:admission, non-admission, placement on a wait list, or applicationwithdrawn (by applicant or institution). Admitted applicants (admissions)include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission.Early decision, early action, and students who began studies during thesummer prior to the fall reporting period are included. Institutions reporttest scores only if they are required for admission.

Average Institutional Net Price

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were awarded grant or scholarship aid fromthe federal government, state/local government, or the institution anytimeduring the full aid year. For public institutions, this includes only studentswho paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Other sources of grant aidare excluded. Average net price is generated by subtracting the averageamount of federal, state/local government, and institutional grant andscholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendanceis the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, andthe average room and board and other expenses.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid received refers to financial aidthat was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differfrom the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standardsinclude tuition and fees; state and local appropriations; government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts; sales and services ofeducational activities; investment income; other operating and non-operating sources; and other revenues and additions (federal and capitalappropriations and grants and additions to permanent endowments). Corerevenues for private, not-for-profit institutions (and a small number of publicinstitutions) reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations (federal, state, and local); government grantsand contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts (including contributionsfrom affiliated entities); investment return; sales and services ofeducational activities; and other sources. Core revenues for private, for-profit institutions reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees;government appropriations, grants, and contracts (federal, state, andlocal); private grants and contracts; investment income; sales and servicesof educational activities; and other sources. At degree-granting institutions,core revenues exclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g.,bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting institutions do no report revenue from auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore revenues from other sources.

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service,academic support, institutional support, student services, scholarships andfellowships (net of discounts and allowances), and other expenses.Expenses for operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, andinterest are allocated to each of the other functions. Core expenses atdegree-granting institutions exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises(e.g., bookstores, dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations.Nondegree-granting institutions do not report expenses for auxiliaryenterprises in a separate category. These amounts may be included in thecore expenses as other expenses.

 Howard University 7

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 

Endowment Assets

Endowment assets, for public institutions under GASB standards, andprivate, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards, include grossinvestments of endowment funds, term endowment funds, and fundsfunctioning as endowment for the institution and any of its foundations andother affiliated organizations. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB donot hold or report endowment assets.

Equated Instructional Non-Medical Staff Salaries

Institutions reported total salary outlays by academic rank and gender, andthe number of staff by academic rank, contract length (9-, 10-, 11-, and 12-month contracts), and gender. The total number of months covered bysalary outlays was calculated by multiplying the number of staff reportedfor each contract length period by the number of months of the contract,and summing across all contract length periods. The weighted averagemonthly salary for each academic rank and gender was calculated bydividing the total salary outlays by the total number of months covered. Theweighted average monthly salary was then multiplied by 9 to determine anequated 9-month salary for each rank.

FTE Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum ofthe institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduateenrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollmentcomponent). Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). See “Calculationof FTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary athttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

FTE Staff

The full-time-equivalent (FTE) of staff is calculated by summing the totalnumber of full-time staff and adding one-third of the total number of part-time staff. Graduate assistants are not included.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of theStudent Right-to-Know Act and Higher Education Act, as amended, andare defined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed adegree or certificate within a given percent of normal time to complete allrequirements of the degree or certificate program before the ending statusdate of August 31, 2013; divided by the total number of students in thecohort of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduatesminus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permitted to exclude fromthe cohort students who died or were totally and permanently disabled;those who left school to serve in the armed forces or were called up toactive duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aid service of the federalgovernment, such as the Peace Corps; and those who left to serve on anofficial church mission. Transfer-out rate is the total number of studentsfrom the cohort who are known to have transferred out of the reportinginstitution (without earning a degree/award) and subsequently re-enrolledat another institution within the same time period; divided by the sameadjusted cohort (initial cohort minus allowable exclusions) as describedabove. Only institutions with a mission that includes providing substantialpreparation for students to enroll in another eligible institution are requiredto report transfers out.

Retention Rates

Full-time retention rates is a measure of the rate at which students persistin their educational program at an institution, expressed as a percentage.For four-year institutions, this is the percentage of first-time bachelors (orequivalent) degree-seeking undergraduates from the previous fall who areagain enrolled in the current fall. For all other institutions this is the

percentage of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students from theprevious fall who either re-enrolled or successfully completed their programby the current fall. The full-time retention rate is calculated using thepercentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seekingundergraduates, while the part-time rate is calculated using the percentageof part-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits

Salaries, wages, and benefits, for public institutions under GASBstandards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards,include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employeesregardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf ofan individual over and above that received in the form of a salary or wage.Frequently, benefits are associated with an insurance payment. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB standards do not report salaries.

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

The guidance provided to institutions for calculating their student-to-facultyratio is as follows: the number of FTE students (using Fall Enrollment data)divided by the total FTE instructional staff (using the total Primarilyinstruction + Instruction/research/public service staff reported on the EAPsection of the Human Resources component and adding any not primarilyinstructional staff that are teaching a credit course). For this calculation,FTE for students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one-thirdthe number of part-time students; FTE for instructional staff is similarlycalculated. Students enrolled in "stand-alone" graduate or professionalprograms (such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, orpublic health) and instructional staff teaching in these programs areexcluded from the FTE calculations.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full-and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summerterm who returned in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduatestudents, students transferring into the institution at the undergraduatelevel, and non-degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates entering in thefall. Only degree-granting, academic year reporting institutions provide totalentering student data.

Tuition and Required Fees

Tuition is defined as the amount of money charged to students forinstructional services, and required fees are those fixed sum charges tostudents for items not covered by tuition that are required of such a largeproportion of all students that the student who does not pay the charge isan exception. The amounts used in this report are for full-time, first-timedegree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and are those used by thefinancial aid office to determine need. For institutions that have differentialtuition rates for in-district or in-state students, the lowest tuition rate is usedin the figure. Only institutions that operate on standard academic terms willhave tuition figures included in their report.

Additional Methodological Information

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can befound in the publications available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in theIPEDS online glossary available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.

 Howard University 8

INTERNAL  ASSESSMENT  TOOLS  USED  IN  HOWARD  UNIVERSITY’S  ASSESSMENT  PORTFOLIO  (Compiled  by  the  Office  of  Institutional  Assessment  and  Evaluation)  

INTERNAL  ASSESSMENT  TOOLS   TYPE  &  PURPOSE   TARGET  

AUDIENCE  SCHEDULE  OF  

ADMINISTRATION   MAJOR  FINDINGS   USE  OF  ASSESSMENT  RESULTS  

General  Education  Competencies  in  the  Core  Curriculum:  

Focus  on  Mathematics  

Departmental  Final  Exams:  To  assess  students’  level  of  proficiency  with  respect  to  the  acquisition  of    knowledge  or  development  of  skill  for  specific  competencies  in  lower  division  mathematics  courses  

All  students  enrolled  in  College  Algebra  I,  College  Algebra  II,  Pre-­‐calculus,  Applied  Calculus,  and  Calculus  I  

Spring  Semester  

An  increase,  from  49%  to  61%  (2010-­‐2014),  in  percentage  of  students  reaching  benchmark  on  MAA  competency:  “Interpret  models  such  as  formulas,  graphs,  and  tables”  in  College  Algebra  I.  High  percentages  of  attrition  (e.g.,  44%  (2013)  and  32%  (2014))  from  College  Algebra  I  course,  especially  among  freshmen.  

-­‐Instituted  cooperative  teaching  assignments  with  the  mathematics  faculty  in  the  Center  for  Academic  Excellence  –  Office  of  Undergraduate  Studies.    -­‐Implemented  the  ALEKS  placement  system  for  more  effective  assessment  of  readiness  for  college-­‐level  mathematics  among  freshman  students.  

General  Education  Competencies  in  the  Core  Curriculum:  Focus  on  English  

Essay  w/  Scoring  Rubric:  To  assess  students’  level  of  proficiency  in  5  areas  with  respect  to  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  or  development  of  skill  in  writing  (argument)  in  lower  division  courses.  Areas  include:  organization;  supports  main  features  of  argument;  explains  and  refutes  opposition;  style;  and  grammar/mechanics.  

All  students  enrolled  in  English  003  –  Writing;  Mostly  Freshmen  and  Sophomores  

Fall  and    Spring  Semesters  

In  2010,  2  of  5  areas  had  90%  of  students  exceeding  minimum  competency  -­‐-­‐  in  2014,  4  of  5  areas.  Performance  in  the  areas  of  “grammar/mechanics”  and  “explains  and  refutes  opposition”  increased  by  15%  and  18%,  respectively,  from  2010  to  2014.  

-­‐A  redesign  of  the  First  Year  Writing  and  Writing  Programs  using  a  multi-­‐tiered  approach  to  placement.  Course  options  will  consider  disciplinary  approaches  to  writing  and  wider  communicative  settings  (e.g.,  op-­‐eds,  legal  briefs,  memos,  case  studies,  professional  presentations).    -­‐Reduction  of  class  size  in  writing  courses  to  a  maximum  of  15.  

Capstone  Experience1

1Senior  Comprehensive  Exam;  Recital;  Research  Paper;  Internship  Evaluation  

Various  Direct  Assessment  Tools:  To  assess  whether  at  the  point  of  graduation,  students  have  the  knowledge,  skills  and  competencies  consistent  with  program,  institutional  and  higher  education  goals.  

Seniors;  Candidates  for  Graduation  

Fall  and  Spring  Semesters  

Pass  rates  on  comprehensive  exams  are  high  since  a  passing  score  is  required  for  graduation.  Programs  must  also  examine  pass  rates  on  important  subscales.  Analyses  of  the  cognitive  demand  of  comp  questions  reveal  levels  of  higher-­‐  or  lower-­‐order  thinking  is  required.  

Used  to  make  improvements  in  the  quality  of  the  educational  experience  for  students  at  the  program  and  institutional  levels,  and  to  meet  standards  of  excellence  and  competence  as  set  by  the  institution  or  professional  associations.  

HU  Graduating  Student  Exit  Survey  

(GSES)  

Survey:  To  measure  student  satisfaction  with  and  feedback  on  an  array  of  developmental  and  learning  and  outcomes,  the  overall  HU  experience,  and  institutional  and  programmatic  characteristics.  

All  graduating  seniors;  both  undergraduate  and  graduate/professional  students  using  separate,  but  similar  instruments  

Annually  at  the  end  of  the  Spring  Semester    

From  2009  to  2014,  graduates  have  consistently  reported  high  ratings  of  satisfaction  with  academic  programs,  faculty  performance  and  student  affairs  experiences.  Large  proportion  reports  the  need  for  better  advising,  and  improvements  in  some  customer  services  and  academic  supports.    

HU  staff  and  faculty  use  this  information  to  evaluate  specific  aspects  of  their  program  areas,  for  planning  and  continual  improvement.  Findings  have  contributed  to  decisions  to  consolidate  advising  for  first  two  years  in  the  Office  of  Undergraduate  Studies.  Units  use  data  from  the  GSES  in  reports  to  discipline-­‐specific  accreditors.    

Appendix V

EXTERNAL  ASSESSMENT  TOOLS  USED  IN  HOWARD  UNIVERSITY’S  ASSESSMENT  PORTFOLIO  (Compiled  by  the  Office  of  Institutional  Assessment  and  Evaluation)  

EXTERNAL  ASSESSMENT  TOOLS   TYPE  &  PURPOSE   TARGET  

AUDIENCE  SCHEDULE  OF  

ADMINISTRATION   MAJOR  FINDINGS   USE  OF  ASSESSMENT  RESULTS  

Cooperative  Institutional  Research  Program  (CIRP)  

Survey:  The  CIRP  is  a  national  longitudinal  study  of  the  American  higher  education  system.  The  annual  report  of  the  CIRP  Freshman  Survey  provides  normative  data  on  each  year's  entering  college  students.  

Freshman  (census)  

Annually:  During  freshman  orientation,  Fall  Semester    2010,  2011,  2012,  2013,  2014  

A  sample  of  major  findings  includes:  Emotional  self-­‐  assessments  correlate  with  national  statistics  longitudinally;  there  are  needs  for  supports  in  mathematics  and  writing;  students  enter  with  considerable  service  learning  and  cooperative  learning  experiences,  etc.  

-­‐Used  to  build  a  profile  of  the  expectations,  aspirations  and  strengths  of  the  freshman  class  and  establish  trend  data  on  incoming  students.      -­‐Used  for  planning  academic  supports.    -­‐Used  to  provide  normative  data  for  comparisons  with  peer  and  aspirational  peer  institutions.  

College  Students’  Needs  Assessment  Survey    

(CSNAS)  

Survey:  The  CSNAS  helps  identify  the  perceived  personal  and  educational  needs  of  students  enrolled  at  your  institution  

Freshman  (Census)    

 Occasionally  during  the  first  few  weeks  of  semester  in  freshman  seminar  courses  -­‐  2008  

CSNAS  results  were  supported  in  identifying  freshman  student  self-­‐reported  needs  for  remediation  in  mathematics,  writing,  and  counseling.  

Used  to  help  faculty  and  administrators  to  identify,  recommend  or  develop  specific  programs,  instructional  strategies  and  support  services  to  address    students'  needs;  especially,  more  availability  to  tutoring  in  math.  

National  Survey  of  Student  Engagement  (NSSE)  

Survey:  The  NSSE  gathers  information  about  collegiate  quality  focusing  attention  on  educational  practices  that  are  empirically  proven  to  be  effective  at  producing  high  levels  of  learning  and  development  in  students.  

Freshmen  and  Seniors  (Random  sample  from  each  population)  

Spring  Semester  2009,  2012,  2014      

NSSE  administered  (2009,  2012,  2013,  2014,  2015)  A  sample  of  findings  include  that  in  2012,  39%  of  first  year  (FY)  students  reported  planning  to  do  research  with  a  faculty  member;  32%  of  them  had  not  decided.    Half  of  the  FYs  and  seniors  reported  receiving  “quite  a  bit”  to  “very  much”  academic  support.    72%  of  FYs  and  seniors  report  studying  “quite  a  bit”  to  “very  much.”  

-­‐Used  by  faculty,  administrators  and  Student  Affairs  staff  in  designing,  and  modifying  instructional  and  co-­‐curricular  programs,  courses  and  activities  based  on  levels  of  engagement.  NSSE  data  supplements  other  measures  used  by  assessors  in  determining  the  “value-­‐added”  by  attending  Howard  University.    -­‐Enables  national  comparisons  with  peer  and  aspirant  institutions  and  other  Historically  Black  Colleges  and  Universities  (HBCUs).  

Faculty  Survey  of  Student  Engagement  (FSSE)  

Survey:  The  FSSE  was  designed  to  complement  the  NSSE.    It  focuses  on  Faculty  perceptions  of  how  often  students  engage  in  different  activities.  

Undergraduate  Faculty  

Spring  Semester  2009,  2012,  2014  

In  2012,  100%  of  FSSE  lower  division  respondents  reported  structuring  their  classes  to  provide  critical  and  analytical  thinking;  77%  of  NSSE  first  year  students  reported  that  happening  very  much  to  quite  a  bit.  

-­‐Used  by  faculty  and  the  Center  for  Teaching  Learning  and  Assessment  (CETLA)  in  monitoring  and  evaluating  instructional  content,  practices,  including  refinement  of  syllabi  and  faculty-­‐student  interactions.      -­‐Compares  student  and  faculty  perceptions  and  reports.    

 

.

2013-14 Assessment of General Education Outcomes

Quantitative Reasoning (Full Report)

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

July, 2014

“Working together to create a culture of evidence-based decision making…”

Appendix W

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii

The Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning ................................................................................ 1

College Algebra I........................................................................................................................... 3 RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender ............................ 3 Results by School/College: College Algebra I .............................................................................................. 5 Results by Student Classification: College Algebra I ................................................................................... 5

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra I ......................................................... 8 Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra I .......................................................... 9

Results by Gender: College Algebra I ........................................................................................................ 10

College Algebra II ....................................................................................................................... 12 RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender .......................... 12 Results by School/College: College Algebra II ........................................................................................... 14 Results by Student Classification: College Algebra II ................................................................................ 14

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra II ..................................................... 17 Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra II ....................................................... 18

Results by Gender: College Algebra II ....................................................................................................... 19

Pre-Calculus ................................................................................................................................ 22 RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender .......................... 23 Results by School/College: Pre-calculus .................................................................................................... 23 Results by Student Classification: Pre-Calculus ........................................................................................ 24

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Pre-calculus ............................................................... 27 Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Pre-calculus ................................................................ 28

Results by Gender: Pre-Calculus ................................................................................................................ 28

Calculus I ..................................................................................................................................... 30 RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender .......................... 30 Results by School/College: Calculus I ........................................................................................................ 32 Results by Student Classification: Calculus I ............................................................................................. 32

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Calculus I ................................................................... 35 Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Calculus I .................................................................... 36

Results by Gender: Calculus I .................................................................................................................... 36

Applied Calculus ......................................................................................................................... 38 RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender .......................... 39 Results by School/College: Applied Calculus ............................................................................................. 39 Results by Student Classification: Applied Calculus .................................................................................. 41

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Applied Calculus ........................................................ 42 Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Applied Calculus ......................................................... 43

Results by Gender: Applied Calculus ......................................................................................................... 44

The Economics of Student Drop-Out in Mathematics Courses.............................................. 45

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A. College Algebra I .................................................................................................. 50

Appendix B. College Algebra II ................................................................................................. 56

Appendix C. Pre-calculus ........................................................................................................... 64

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

ii

Appendix D. Calculus I............................................................................................................... 71

Appendix E. Applied Calculus ................................................................................................... 78

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

iii

Executive Summary

n the Spring Semester of 2014, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE)

consulted with chairs of the departmental final examination committees for College Algebra I,

College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, Calculus I, and Applied Calculus for the purpose of deciding

which questions on the final examinations would be used to measure the general education

learning outcome, quantitative reasoning (QR). To aid in the identification of questions that

would be used to measure quantitative reasoning, committee chairs were given the general

education competencies for quantitative reasoning as defined by the Mathematical Association of

America (MAA).

Methodology

Committee chairs were asked to match each question on their respective exams with one of

the following four competencies which define students’ ability to: (1) interpret mathematical

models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and schematics, and draw inferences from them; (2)

represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and verbally; (3) use

arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve problems; and (4) estimate and

check answers to mathematical problems in order to determine reasonableness, identify

alternatives, and select optimal results. Problems were selected based on two criteria: (a) the

number of problems available to measure a particular competency; and (b) whether or not the

item was similar to or identical to problems measured in previous years. Thus, seven (7), eight

(8), seven (7), eight (8), and six (6) questions were used to collect information on student

performance on the aforementioned competencies for College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-

Calculus, Calculus I, and Applied Calculus, respectively. The final decision on matching items

with their respective competencies was based solely on the recommendation from the

examination chairs. Each professor received an Excel spreadsheet on which to report their

students’ question and final examination scores. In addition to students’ names, the spreadsheets

contained the students’ school/college, gender, and classification. "Competent" performance was

defined as earning a question or final examination score of at least 60%. The response rate

among professors was 95.2% (40 out of 42).

Key Findings

Across all courses – College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus , Calculus and

Applied Calculus -- the competency with the highest percentage of students (valid cases only) to

meet or exceed 60% was competency 3, which required students to use arithmetical, algebraic,

geometric and statistical methods to solve problems (procedural knowledge). The competency

with the lowest percent of students (valid cases only) who met or exceeded 60% was competency

1, which required students to interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw inferences from them (higher order and critical thinking skills).

The analyses of the final examination scores by student classification reveal that freshmen

outperformed their peers on QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3 on the College Algebra I final

examination. Student performance on the quantitative reasoning competencies for College

Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus I were mixed. In regards to gender, females outperformed

males on each quantitative reasoning competency on the College Algebra I, College Algebra II,

and Calculus I final examination. Males outperformed females on each quantitative reasoning

competency on the Pre-Calculus final examination.

The results also show that large percentages of students either withdrew or had no final

examination score reported for them in their respective courses. For example, 32.2% of females,

I

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

iv

39.5% of males, and 30.9% of freshmen who originally enrolled in College Algebra I either

withdrew or had no final exam score. If all freshmen, sophomores and juniors re-enrolled in the

mathematics courses from which they withdrew or had no final examination score, the cost in

AY2014-15 dollars would be $863,380. This estimate is based on 95 of 535 students (17.8%) re-

enrolling in College Algebra I (3 credits), 67 of 424 students (15.8%) re-enrolling in College

Algebra II, 28 of 159 students (17.6%) re-enrolling in Pre-calculus (4 credits), 28 of 131 students

(21.4%) re-enrolling in Calculus I, and 26 of 178 students (14.6%) re-enrolling in Applied

Calculus at the undergraduate part-time rate of $980 per credit hour. The attrition rates by

student classification and gender are a major cause for concern.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. Approximately 47% of the students who took the final examinations in College

Algebra I, College Algebra II, and Pre-calculus were able to demonstrate

mathematical competency on questions that measured procedural knowledge (e.g.,

solving mathematical problems); and approximately 41% of students were able to

demonstrate competency in areas that measured more higher order or critical

thinking skills, such as drawing inferences, determining reasonableness, identifying

alternatives or selecting optimal results.

Recommendation 1: The University community should set performance expectations for

quantitative reasoning competencies. These expectations should be based, in part, on the

measures that are used to assess student learning. Faculty and students should strive to meet

these expectations.

2. The high attrition rate in College Algebra I, especially among freshmen (30.9%),

females (32.2%), and males (39.5%) is an indication that students lack the necessary

prerequisite skills (e.g., mathematical, study or personal) to persist and succeed in

the entry-level college credit-bearing mathematics course that leads to a degree.

Recommendation 2: Re-institute integrity into the placement testing system by ensuring that test

security is adequate and that placement recommendations that provide students with the greatest

probability of success are followed.

3. The rates of attrition in College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus,

Calculus I, and Applied Calculus result in higher institutional costs and possibly

more student debt or time-to-degree.

Recommendation 3: Faculty and students must set realistic retention goals for College Algebra I,

College Algebra II and Pre-calculus and strive to attain them.

4. Students place themselves at a high probability of failing to meet minimum

competency levels in College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, Calculus I,

and Applied Calculus if they postpone their (re-)enrollment in these courses until

their senior year.

Recommendation 3: Academic advisors in the schools and colleges should collaborate with

enrollment management personnel (and faculty) to carefully monitor students’ performance

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

v

(grades) in entry-level degree credit-bearing courses so that students’ course-taking behaviors

lead to successful completion of these courses, and students are able to apply what they have

learned in upper division courses.

This list of recommendations is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, the list is intended to be a

starting point from which to develop and implement a strategic plan that results in successful

learning outcomes and exceptional educational experiences for all Howard University students.

Gerunda B. Hughes, Director

July, 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

1

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation “Working together to create a culture of evidence-based decision making…”

2013-14 Assessment of General Education Outcomes

Quantitative Reasoning

The Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning

n the Spring Semester of 2014, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE)

consulted with chairs of the departmental final examination committees for College Algebra I,

College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, Calculus I, and Applied Calculus for the purpose of deciding

which questions on the final examinations would be used to measure the general education

learning outcome, quantitative reasoning (QR). To aid in the identification of questions that

would be used to measure quantitative reasoning, committee chairs were given the general

education competencies for quantitative reasoning as defined by the Mathematical Association of

America (MAA). Chairs were asked to identify at least two questions on their respective final

examination that measured students’ ability to:

Quantitative Reasoning Competency 1 (QRC1): Interpret mathematical models such as

formulas, graphs, tables, and schematics, and draw inferences from them

Quantitative Reasoning Competency 2 (QRC2): Represent mathematical information

symbolically, visually, numerically, and verbally

Quantitative Reasoning Competency 3 (QRC3): Use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric

and statistical methods to solve problems

Quantitative Reasoning Competency 4 (QRC4): Estimate and check answers to

mathematical problems in order to determine reasonableness, identify alternatives, and

select optimal results

The assessment of quantitative reasoning occurs each spring semester; therefore, the OIAE

set four goals for this assessment activity for AY 2013-2014: (1) to improve the measurement –

reliability and validity – of quantitative reasoning as defined by the four competencies, (2) to

glean information about student performance in mathematics based on student classification and

gender so that appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented, (3) to increase the

response rate among professors who report their students’ performance data, and (4) to assesses

student quantitative reasoning competency in higher level mathematics courses. To improve the

measurement of the competencies, OIAE continued the tradition of collecting data on multiple

questions for each competency. This decision to collect more information has the effect of

increasing the validity of inferences about the level of students’ competency in quantitative

reasoning.

In most instances, OIAE was able to (1) improve the measurement of quantitative reasoning

by collecting more data on student performance without increasing the level of reporting effort

required from participating professors; and (2) disaggregate the student performance data by

I

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

2

student classification and gender so that the results could be used to improve student learning.

The College Algebra II, Applied Calculus, and Calculus I final examinations gave students to

option to solve problems on a particular part/section of the exam. For example, the Applied

Calculus final examination consisted of 15 problems, however, students were instructed to

“answer any 10 problems”. As a result, some quantitative reasoning competencies were either (1)

only measured by one problem (if that particular problem was located in a section of the

examination where student responses were required) or (2) not measured at all (if the problems

measuring a particular competency were located in a section where student responses were

optional). In spring 2014, there were a total of 18 sections of College Algebra I. Of these 18

sections, data from 2 of the sections were not submitted to the OIAE, which accounted for 12.1%

(65 of 535) of the original students enrolled in College Algebra I. There were a total of 14

sections of College Algebra II, 5 sections of Pre-Calculus, 5 sections of Calculus I, and 5

sections of Applied Calculus. Data from all sections of College Algebra II, Pre-Calculus,

Calculus I, and Applied Calculus were submitted to the OIAE.

The question number, the point value, the statement of the question, and the related

competency are presented in Tables 1, 8, 16, 21, and 27 for College Algebra I, College Algebra

II, Pre-calculus, Calculus I, and Applied Calculus, respectively. “Competent” performance was

defined as earning a question or final examination score of at least 60%.

Key Terms and Definitions

A valid case is any student who sat for the departmental final exam and have a

question and/or exam score that was reported to the OIAE

An original enrollee is any student who was enrolled in a mathematics course at the

start of the spring 2014 semester

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

3

College Algebra I

he final examination for College Algebra I for Spring Semester 2014 consisted of 13

questions and a total possible score of 200 points. Table 1 presents the questions that were

selected to measure each of three competencies (QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3). Questions 2 and 5

were selected to measure QRC1. Questions 1 and 4 were selected to measure QRC2. Questions

3, 7, and 8 were selected to measure QRC3. A copy of the College Algebra I final examination is

in Appendix A.

RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender

Table 2 presents the results of student performance on the College Algebra I final

examination for all sections by school or college. The results indicate that 65.6% (351 of 535) of

the enrollees had a final exam score and, therefore, were considered “valid cases” for these

analyses. Thus, 22.2% (119 of 535) of the students who did not have a final exam score either

withdrew from the course, remained in the course but did not take the final exam, or took a

different final exam because they were prospective graduates (seniors). Final exam scores for 65

students enrolled in College Algebra I were not submitted to the OAIE, accounting for 30.2%

(65 of 215) of the missing data. Still, the retention rate for College Algebra I was above 50%

across all schools and colleges, ranging for 60% to 81.3%. Across all sections of College

Algebra I, the results of data analyses on student performance indicate that for:

• (QRC1): interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw inferences from them, 33.1% (106 of 320) of the valid cases

earned a competency score of 60% or higher, and 19.8% (106 of 535) of the original

enrollees earned a competency score of 60% or higher.

• (QRC2): represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and

verbally, 44.4% (154 of 347) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 28.8% (154 of 535) of the original enrollees earned a competency score of

60% or higher.

(QRC3): use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problems, 64.8% (225 of 347) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 42.1% (225 of 535) or of the original enrollees earned a competency score of

60% or higher.

T

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

4

Table 1. Questions and QR Competencies for College Algebra I Final Examination

Question #

(Points) Question Description QR Competency Measured

2.

(10pts)

Find the domain of f (x) = √𝑥2 − 4.

(1) Interpret mathematical models

such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw inferences from

them.

5.

(20pts)

(a) Factor a polynomial x3 – 9x2 + x – 9 and find its zeroes.

(b) Find the x and y-intercepts of the graph of the equation

y = x3 – 9x2 + x – 9

1.

(20pts)

The function f (x) is a piecewise defined function given by

𝑓 (𝑥) {2𝑥 𝑖𝑓 𝑥 < 0

𝑥 + 2 𝑖𝑓 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 2

𝑥2 𝑖𝑓 𝑥 > 2

(a) Find f(-1), f(0), f(1), f(2) and f(10).

(b) Draw the graph of f.

(2) Represent mathematical

information symbolically, visually,

numerically, and verbally.

4.

(20pts)

Given that f(x) = 2x2 + 3x +1 find the following:

(a) The vertex, axis of symmetry and the intercepts of the

parabola that is the graph of the function.

(b) The graph of the function.

3.

(20pts)

Given that f(x) = 2x + 1, g(x) = (x – 1)/2 find the following:

(a) f(0), f(1/2).

(b) (f ∘ f) (x) and (f ∘ g) (x).

(3) Use arithmetical, algebraic,

geometric and statistical methods to

solve problems

7.

(10pts)

Solve 41 – z = 1/8z for x.

8.

(10pts) Solve the equation 3x + 2 = 6x – 7.

For the final exam score, 43% (151 of 351) of the valid cases earned a final exam score of

60% or higher, and 28.2% (151 of 535) or of the original enrollees earned a final exam score of

60% or higher.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

5

Results by School/College: College Algebra I

Among students enrolled in College Algebra I, the largest representation of students was

from the College of Arts and Sciences (N=323 of 535, 60.4%) and the smallest representation

was from the School of Education (N=10 of 535, 1.9%).

The results indicate that the School of Education had the highest percentage of valid cases

who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=3 of 6, 50%). The School of Communications had

the lowest percentage of students of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=20

of 55, 36.4%). The results for the other schools and colleges were as follows: College of Arts and

Sciences (N=94 of 211, 44.5%), School of Business (N=16 of 36, 44.4%), College of Nursing

and Allied Health Sciences (N=13 of 30, 43.3%), and College of Engineering, Architecture &

Computer Science (N=5 of 13, 38.5%). At the institutional level, the percent of valid cases who

earned a score of 60% or higher was 43%. This does not mean that only 43% of students who

took the test earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in College Algebra I. Rather, these results

indicate that about 43% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their College Algebra I final examination.

Table 2 also presents the percentage of original enrollees in College Algebra I who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination. Across all schools and colleges,

the percentages ranged from 22.2% to 31.3%. At the institutional level, the percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher was 28.2%. This does not mean that only 28.2%

of the original enrollees earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in College Algebra I. Rather,

these results indicate that 28.2% of the original enrollees were able to demonstrate the minimum

level of competency on their College Algebra I final examination.

Results by Student Classification: College Algebra I

Table 3 presents the results of student performance on the College Algebra I final

examination for all classifications of students. Of the 535 students enrolled in the course,

freshmen had the largest representation (N=330 of 535, 61.7%), while seniors had the smallest

representation (N=45 of 535, 8.4%). The results also indicate that juniors had the highest

percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=23 of 44, 52.3%).

Seniors had the lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=3

of 15, 20.0%).

The results also indicate that retention rates for College Algebra I varied across all

classifications and decreased as classification level increased (See “valid cases”): freshmen

(N=228 of 330, 69.1%); sophomores (N=64 of 95, 67.4%); juniors (N=44 of 65, 66.7%); and

seniors (N=15 of 45 33.3%). Essentially, about a third all freshmen, sophomores, and juniors

who were enrolled in College Algebra I did not have a departmental final examination score

reported for them. The retention rate for seniors, however, may be somewhat underestimated

since seniors who were prospective graduates took a final examination approximately one week

before the departmental final examination was administered or was excused from the final

altogether.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

6

Table 2. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by School and College

Algebra I Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number of

Cases

Withdrew or

No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees Scoring

60% or Higher

College of Arts &

Sciences

323 129 194 2 & 5 (QRC1) 61 31.4% 18.9%

323 113 210 1 & 4 (QRC2) 91 43.3% 28.2%

323 113 210 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 136 64.8% 42.1%

323 112 211 Total Exam 94 44.5% 29.1%

College of

Engineering,

Architecture & Computer Science

16 3 13 2 & 5 (QRC1) 4 30.8% 25.0%

16 3 13 1 & 4 (QRC2) 7 53.8% 43.8%

16 3 13 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 10 76.9% 62.5%

16 3 13 Total Exam 5 38.5% 31.3%

School of Education

10 4 6 2 & 5 (QRC1) 2 33.3% 20.0%

10 4 6 1 & 4 (QRC2) 5 83.3% 50.0%

10 4 6 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 5 83.3% 50.0%

10 4 6 Total Exam 3 50.0% 30.0%

College of Nursing and

Allied Health

Sciences

44 17 27 2 & 5 (QRC1) 11 40.7% 25.0%

44 16 28 1 & 4 (QRC2) 14 50.0% 31.8%

44 16 28 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 20 71.4% 45.5%

44 14 30 Total Exam 13 43.3% 29.5%

School of

Business

52 21 31 2 & 5 (QRC1) 12 38.7% 23.1%

52 16 36 1 & 4 (QRC2) 14 38.9% 26.9%

52 16 36 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 26 72.2% 50.0%

52 16 36 Total Exam 16 44.4% 30.8%

School of Communications

90 41 49 2 & 5 (QRC1) 16 32.7% 17.8%

90 36 54 1 & 4 (QRC2) 23 42.6% 25.6%

90 36 54 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 28 51.9% 31.1%

90 35 55 Total Exam 20 36.4% 22.2%

Institutional

Results

535 215 320 2 & 5 (QRC1) 106 33.1% 19.8%

535 188 347 1 & 4 (QRC2) 154 44.4% 28.8%

535 188 347 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 225 64.8% 42.1%

535 184 351 Total Exam 151 43.0% 28.2%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Education, Allied Health Sciences, School of

Business, and School of Communications. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes

situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including prospective graduating students), or did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

7

Table 3. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Student Classification College Algebra I Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number

of Cases

Withdrew or

No Score

Valid

Cases Item #

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Freshman

330 111 219 2 & 5 (QRC1) 75 34.2% 22.7%

330 104 226 1 & 4 (QRC2) 104 46.0% 31.5%

330 104 226 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 153 67.7% 46.4%

330 102 228 Total Exam 100 43.9% 30.3%

Sophomore

95 37 58 2 & 5 (QRC1) 17 29.3% 17.9%

95 31 64 1 & 4 (QRC2) 27 42.2% 28.4%

95 32 63 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 38 60.3% 40.0%

95 31 64 Total Exam 25 39.1% 26.3%

Junior

65 34 31 2 & 5 (QRC1) 12 38.7% 18.5%

65 22 43 1 & 4 (QRC2) 19 44.2% 29.2%

65 22 43 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 29 67.4% 44.6%

65 21 44 Total Exam 23 52.3% 35.4%

Senior

45 33 12 2 & 5 (QRC1) 2 16.7% 4.4%

45 31 14 1 & 4 (QRC2) 4 28.6% 8.9%

45 30 15 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 5 33.3% 11.1%

45 30 15 Total Exam 3 20.0% 6.7%

Institutional

Results

535 215 320 2 & 5 (QRC1) 106 33.1% 19.8%

535 188 347 1 & 4 (QRC2) 154 44.4% 28.8%

535 188 347 3, 7, & 8 (QRC3) 225 64.8% 42.1%

535 184 351 Total Exam 151 43.0% 28.2%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, and Nursing and Allied Health Sciences.

(2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations in

which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did not answer the particular item.

(4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

Figure 1 presents the percentage of original enrollees in College Algebra I who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination by student classification -- the

percentages ranged from 6.7% for seniors to 35.4% for juniors.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

8

Figure 1

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra I

Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for the 351 valid cases who took the department final

examination in College Algebra I in Spring Semester 2014. Valid cases are those students for

whom a question or final examination score is reported. Observed scores on the final

examination ranged from 0 to 185. The highest mean score and the lowest variability occurred

among juniors (M=110.59, SD=37.38). The lowest mean score and highest variability occurred

among seniors (M=64.53, SD=56.57).

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Algebra I by Student Classification

Spring Semester 2014

Classification Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Freshman 228 0 185 107.23 40.98

Sophomore 64 0 178 92.95 51.63

Junior 44 0 163 110.59 37.38

Senior 15 0 148 64.53 56.57

Institutional Results 351 0 185 103.23 44.37

30.3%

26.3%

35.4%

6.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Per

cen

t o

f E

nro

llee

s S

cori

ng

60

% o

r H

igh

er

Percent of Original Enrollees Scoring 60% or Higher in

College Algebra I by Student Classification, Spring 2014

Note: Data reflect students who withdrew or had no score. Some seniors who were propspective graduates had no score because they took an earlier examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

9

Figure 2 presents the mean score percentages on the College Algebra I final examination by

student classification for valid cases only. Overall, the mean score percentage for all student

classifications -- freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors – were all below the minimum mean

criterion performance 60% or a D grade (120 of 200).

Figure 2

Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra I

F-Test: An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess mean differences in

total exam score by student classification. As indicated in Table 5, there is a statistically

significant difference in the mean exam scores by classification on the departmental final

examination for College Algebra I, F(3,347)=6.236, p=<.001.

Table 5. ANOVA for Final Exam Score by Student Classification in College Algebra I

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups 35257.310 3 11752.437 6.236 <.001

Within Groups 653937.909 347 1884.547

Total 689195.219 350

107.2

93.0

110.6

64.5

0

50

100

150

200

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Mea

n S

core

(%

) o

n F

ina

l E

xa

m

Mean Scores of College Algebra I

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

10

A post hoc analysis was performed to examine pair-wise differences in mean performances

by student classification. Table 6 shows that the mean score for juniors is significantly higher

than the mean score for seniors. Thus, compared to seniors, juniors had significantly higher exam

scores on the College Algebra I. There were no other statistically significant differences in total

exam score between any other group means. There was, however, a significant difference in

QRC1 scores based on classification F(3,316)=3.73, p=<.05. Both freshman and juniors had

significantly higher scores on QRC1 than their senior counterparts. Lastly, there was a

significant difference in QRC3 scores based on classification F(3,343)=8.03, p=<.001. Freshmen

had significantly higher scores on QRC3 than sophomores.

Table 6. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Final Exam Score

by Student Classification in College Algebra I

(I) Classification (J) Classification Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound Upper

Bound

Junior

Freshman 3.3585 6.2546 .995 -13.617 20.334

Sophomore 17.6378 8.5675 .227 -5.334 40.609

Senior 46.0576 15.6553 .050 -.066 92.181

Note: Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc test is used, and equal variances are not assumed.

Results by Gender: College Algebra I

Of the 535 students enrolled in College Algebra I, 69.7% (N=373 of 535) were female and

30.3% (N=162 of 535) were male, thereby reflecting a ratio of females to males of more than

2:1. Table 7 shows that of the three competencies measured, females and males performed better

on (QRC3). Males performed slightly better than females on QRC3, however, the difference was

not statistically significant. Overall, females performed slightly better than males on the Algebra

I final examination, however, this difference was not statistically significant. Attrition rates were

moderate among females (N=120 of 373 or 32.2%) and males (N=64 of 162 or 39.5%). Table 7

shows that only 30% of females (N=112 of 373) and 24.1% of males (N=39 of 162) who

originally enrolled in College Algebra I earned a score of 60% or higher on the final

examination.

An independent t-test was conducted to assess gender differences in total final exam scores

and in each of the quantitative reasoning competencies. The t-test for the total exam score,

QRC2, and QRC3 did not yield any significant results. However, the t-test for QRC 1 was

statistically significant, t(318) = 2.60, p=.01. Females scored significantly higher on QRC1 than

their male counterparts.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

11

Table 7. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Gender

College Algebra I Final Examination

Gender No. of

Cases

Withdrew

or No

Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Female

373 141 232 2 & 5 (QRC1) 83 35.8% 22.3%

373 124 249 1 & 4 (QRC2) 118 47.4% 31.6%

373 124 249 3, 7, & 8

(QRC3) 159 63.9% 42.6%

373 120 253 Total Exam 112 44.3% 30.0%

Male

162 74 88 2 & 5 (QRC1) 23 26.1% 14.2%

162 64 98 1 & 4 QRC2) 36 36.7% 22.2%

162 64 98 3, 7, & 8

(QRC3) 66 67.3% 40.7%

162 64 98 Total Exam 39 39.8% 24.1%

Institutional

Results

535 215 320 2 & 5 (QRC1) 106 33.1% 19.8%

535 188 347 1 & 4 (QRC2) 154 44.4% 28.8%

535 188 347 3, 7, & 8

(QRC3) 225 64.8% 42.1%

535 184 351 Total Exam 151 43.0% 28.2%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Education,

Nursing and Allied Health Sciences, Business, and Communications. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of

students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the

class, students did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or students did not answer the particular

item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

12

College Algebra II

he final examination for College Algebra II for Spring Semester 2014 consisted of 16

questions. Questions 1 & 2 were worth 10 points each, questions 3 & 5-7 were worth 20

points each, questions 4 & 10-16 were worth 15 points each, and questions 8 & 9 were worth 5

points each. Students were instructed to answer questions 1-10 and any (4) of questions 11-16.

There was a total possible score of 200 points. Table 8 presents the questions that were selected

to measure each of four competencies. Questions 1 and 7 were selected to measure QRC1,

questions 6 and 10 to measure QRC2, questions 2 and 3 to measure QRC3, and questions 4 and

11 to measure QRC4. A copy of the College Algebra II final examination is in Appendix B.

RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender

Table 9 presents the results of student performance on the College Algebra II final

examination for all sections by school or college. The results indicate that 75% (318 of 424) of

the original enrollees had a final examination score and were considered “valid cases” for these

analyses. Thus, 25% (106 of 424) of the students who did not have a final exam score either

withdrew from the course, remained in the course but did not take the final exam, or took a

different final exam because they were prospective graduates (seniors). The retention rate for

College Algebra II varied across schools and colleges, ranging from 25% among students

enrolled in the College of College Engineering, Architecture & Computer Science to 100%

among students enrolled in the School of Education. Across all sections of College Algebra II,

the results of data analyses on student performance indicate that for:

• (QRC1): to interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw inferences from them, 43.8% (137 of 313) of the valid cases

earned a competency score of 60% or higher, and 32.3% (137 of 424) of the original

enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher.

• (QRC2): to represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically,

and verbally, 34.2% (102 of 298) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 24.1% (102 of 424) or of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or

higher.

• (QRC3): to use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problem, 34.8% (109 of 313) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 25.7% (109 of 424) or of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or

higher.

(QRC4): to recognize that mathematical and statistical methods have limits, 29.1% (83

of 285) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or higher, and 19.6% (83 of

424) or of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher.

For all questions on the final exam, 32.7% (104 of 318) od the valid cases earned a score of

60% or higher, and 24.5% (124 of 424) of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher.

T

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

13

Table 8. Questions and QR Competencies for College Algebra II Final Examination

Item #

(Points) Item Description Competency Measured

1.

(10pts)

Solve the following equations for part I.

log5 𝑥 + log5(𝑥 + 1) = log5 20

(1) Interpret mathematical

models such as formulas,

graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw

inferences from them. 7.

(20pts)

Find the center, foci, and vertices of the following ellipse and sketch its

graph.

(𝑥 + 5)2 + 4(𝑥 − 4)2 = 16

6.

(20pts)

Graph the feasible region defined by the following constraints, and

maximize the objective function 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) = 2𝑥 + 𝑦 over this region.

x ≥ 0, y ≥ 0, 𝑥 + 𝑦 ≤ 3, 𝑥 + 𝑦 ≥ 1, 2𝑥 + 𝑦 ≤ 4

(2) Represent mathematical

information symbolically,

visually, numerically, and

verbally. 10.

(15pts)

Use the indicated matrices to compute; (a) 3𝐴 + 𝐵, (b) AC, and (c) 𝐵2

𝐴 = [0 3 −51 2 6

] , 𝐵 = [4 1 10

−2 3 −2] , 𝐶 = [

4 16 2

−2 3]

2.

(10pts)

Write the following expression as a sum and/or difference of logarithms,

express all powers as factors.

ln[√𝑥2+4

(𝑥2+1)(𝑥3−7)2]

(3) Use arithmetical,

algebraic, geometric and

statistical methods to solve

problems 3.

(20pts)

For the rational function

𝑅(𝑥) =𝑥3 + 1

𝑥2 + 2𝑥

Find

(a) The Domain (interval or set notation)

(b) The x- and y- intercept (if any)

(c) The Vertical asymptotes (if any)

(d) The Horizontal or slant asymptotes (if any)

4.

(15pts)

Solve the following system using Cramer’s Rule, if applicable. If

Cramer’s Rule is not applicable, say so.

{4𝑥 = 𝑦 − 0

2𝑥 + 7𝑦 = 1

(4) Recognize that

mathematical and statistical

methods have limits

11.

(15pts)

Find all rational zeros of the polynomial, and write the polynomial in

factored form.

H(x) = x3 + 2x2 – 5x – 6

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

14

Results by School/College: College Algebra II

Of the 424 students enrolled in College Algebra II, the largest representation of students was

from the College of Arts and Science (N=252 of 424 or 59.4%) and the smallest representation

was from the School of Education (N=1 of 424 or 0.2%).

The results indicate that the College of Engineering, Architecture & Computer Science and

the School of Education had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of

60% or higher (N=1 of 1 or 100% for both). For the College of Arts and Sciences which had a

much larger representation, 33.3% (64 of 192) of the valid cases earned a total score of 60% or

higher. The School of Business had the lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score

of 60% or higher (N=20 of 83, 24.1%). The results for the other schools and colleges were as

follows: College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences (N=11 of 21, 52.4%), and School of

Communications (N=7 of 20, 35%). At the institutional level, 32.7% percent of the valid cases

earned a score of 60% or higher on the College Algebra II final examination. This does not mean

that only 32.7% of students who took the test earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in

College Algebra II. Rather, these results indicate that about 32.7% of the students were able to

demonstrate the minimum level of competency on their College Algebra II final examination.

Table 9 also presents the percentage of original enrollees in College Algebra II who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination. Across all schools and colleges,

the percentages ranged from 19.4% to 100%. At the institutional level, the percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher was 24.5%. This does not mean that only 24.5%

of the original enrollees earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in College Algebra II. Rather,

these results indicate that 24.5% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their College Algebra II final examination.

Results by Student Classification: College Algebra II

Table 10 presents the results of student performance on the College Algebra II final

examination for all classifications of students. Of the 424 students enrolled in the course,

freshmen had the largest representation (N=257 of 424 or 60.6%) and juniors had the smallest

representation (N=39 of 424 or 9.2%). The results also indicate that freshmen had the highest

percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=81 of 219 or 37%).

Seniors had the lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=2

of 15 or 13.3%).

The results also indicate that retention rates for College Algebra II were moderately high,

with the exception of seniors (See “valid cases”). The retention rates were as follows: freshmen

(N=219 of 257 or 85.2%); sophomores (N=58 of 74 or 78.4%); juniors (N=26 of 39 or 66.7%);

and seniors (N=25 of 54 or 46.3%).

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

15

Table 9. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by School and College

Student

Classification

Number of

Cases

Withdrew or No

Score Valid Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid Cases

Scoring 60% or

Higher

Percent of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees Scoring

60% or Higher

College of Arts &

Sciences

252 62 190 1 & 7 (QRC1) 87 45.8% 34.5%

252 70 182 6 & 10 (QRC2) 66 36.3% 26.2%

252 63 189 2 & 3 (QRC3) 64 33.9% 25.4%

252 77 175 4 & 5 (QRC4) 51 29.1% 20.2%

252 60 192 Total Exam 64 33.3% 25.4%

College

Engineering,

Architecture &

Computer Science

4 3 1 1 & 7 (QRC1) 0 0.0% 0.0%

4 3 1 6 & 10 (QRC2) 0 0.0% 0.0%

4 3 1 2 & 3 (QRC3) 1 100.0% 25.0%

4 3 1 4 & 5 (QRC4) 0 0.0% 0.0%

4 3 1 Total Exam 1 100.0% 25.0%

School of

Education

1 0 1 1 & 7 (QRC1) 0 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 1 6 & 10 (QRC2) 1 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 2 & 3 (QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 1 4 & 5 (QRC4) 1 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 Total Exam 1 100.0% 100.0%

College of Nursing

and Allied Health

Sciences

32 12 20 1 & 7 (QRC1) 9 45.0% 28.1%

32 12 20 6 & 10 (QRC2) 11 55.0% 34.4%

32 12 20 2 & 3 (QRC3) 9 45.0% 28.1%

32 13 19 4 & 5 (QRC4) 6 31.6% 18.8%

32 11 21 Total Exam 11 52.4% 34.4%

School of Business

103 20 83 1 & 7 (QRC1) 35 42.2% 34.0%

103 28 75 6 & 10 (QRC2) 18 24.0% 17.5%

103 21 82 2 & 3 (QRC3) 23 28.0% 22.3%

103 32 71 4 & 5 (QRC4) 18 25.4% 17.5%

103 20 83 Total Exam 20 24.1% 19.4%

School of

Communications

32 14 18 1 & 7 (QRC1) 6 33.3% 18.8%

32 13 19 6 & 10 (QRC2) 6 31.6% 18.8%

32 12 20 2 & 3 (QRC3) 12 60.0% 37.5%

32 14 18 4 & 5 (QRC4) 7 38.9% 21.9%

32 12 20 Total Exam 7 35.0% 21.9%

Institutional

Results

424 111 313 1 & 7 (QRC1) 137 43.8% 32.3%

424 126 298 6 & 10 (QRC2) 102 34.2% 24.1%

424 111 313 2 & 3 (QRC3) 109 34.8% 25.7%

424 139 285 4 & 5 (QRC4) 83 29.1% 19.6%

424 106 318 Total Exam 104 32.7% 24.5%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering & Architecture, Education, Allied Health Sciences, School of Business, and

School of Communications and exclude one student from Continuing Education. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the

official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for

which there is a question or exam score (5) Items 8, 9, and 11 were optional, which may have decreased to the number of valid cases.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

16

Table 10. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Student Classification

College Algebra II Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number

of Cases

Withdrew or

No Score

Valid

Cases Item #

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Freshman

257 39 218 1 & 7 (QRC1) 102 46.8% 39.7%

257 52 205 6 & 10 (QRC2) 70 34.1% 27.2%

257 40 217 2 & 3 (QRC3) 80 36.9% 31.1%

257 61 196 4 & 5 (QRC4) 57 29.1% 22.2%

257 38 219 Total Exam 81 37.0% 31.5%

Sophomore

74 20 54 1 & 7 (QRC1) 23 42.6% 31.1%

74 21 53 6 & 10 (QRC2) 19 35.8% 25.7%

74 17 57 2 & 3 (QRC3) 22 38.6% 29.7%

74 21 53 4 & 5 (QRC4) 20 37.7% 27.0%

74 16 58 Total Exam 17 29.3% 23.0%

Junior

39 13 26 1 & 7 (QRC1) 7 26.9% 17.9%

39 14 25 6 & 10 (QRC2) 9 36.0% 23.1%

39 15 24 2 & 3 (QRC3) 7 29.2% 17.9%

39 17 22 4 & 5 (QRC4) 4 18.2% 10.3%

39 13 26 Total Exam 4 15.4% 10.3%

Senior

54 39 15 1 & 7 (QRC1) 5 33.3% 9.3%

54 39 15 6 & 10 (QRC2) 4 26.7% 7.4%

54 39 15 2 & 3 (QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

54 40 14 4 & 5 (QRC4) 2 14.3% 3.7%

54 39 15 Total Exam 2 13.3% 3.7%

Institutional

Results

424 111 313 1 & 7 (QRC1) 137 43.8% 32.3%

424 126 298 6 & 10 (QRC2) 102 34.2% 24.1%

424 111 313 2 & 3 (QRC3) 109 34.8% 25.7%

424 139 285 4 & 5 (QRC4) 83 29.1% 19.6%

424 106 318 Total Exam 104 32.7% 24.5%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, and Nursing and Allied Health

Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes

situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did not answer the

particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

17

Figure 3 presents the percentage of original enrollees in College Algebra II who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination by classification -- the percentages

ranged from 3.7% for seniors to 31.5% for freshmen.

Figure 3

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra II

Table 11 provides descriptive statistics for the 273 valid cases who took the department final

examination in College Algebra II in Spring Semester 2014. Valid cases are those students for

whom a question or final examination score is reported. Observed scores on the final

examination ranged from 0 to 200. The highest mean score occurred among freshmen

(M=103.54; SD=44.93). The lowest mean score occurred among seniors (M=70.45, SD=48.40).

Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for College Algebra II by Student Classification

Spring Semester 2014

Classification Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Freshman 189 0 200 103.54 44.93

Sophomore 48 0 200 92.00 50.14

Junior 22 0 180 81.55 42.50

Senior 14 0 143 70.45 48.40

Institutional Results 273 0 200 98.08 46.61

31.5%

23.0%

10.3%

3.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Per

cen

t o

f E

nro

llee

s S

cori

ng

60

% o

r H

igh

er

Percent of Original Enrollees Scoring 60% or Higher in

College Algebra II by Student Classification, Spring 2014

Note: Data reflect students who withdrew or had no score. Some seniors who were propspective graduates had no score because they took an earlier examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

18

Figure 4 presents the mean score percentages on the College Algebra II final examination by

student classification for valid cases only. The graph shows that neither student classification met

the minimum mean criterion performance of at least 60% (120 of 200).

Figure 4

Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: College Algebra II

F-Test and Post Hoc Analyses: An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare

final exam scores by student classification. The results of the F-test in Table 12 show that there

is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores by student classification on the

departmental final examination for College Algebra II, F(3,314)=4.31, p<.01.

Table 12. ANOVA for Final Exam Scores

by Student Classification in College Algebra II

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 27219.897 3 9073.299 4.307 .005

Within Groups 661432.143 314 2106.472

Total 688652.040 317

103.5

92.081.6

70.5

0

50

100

150

200

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Mea

n S

core

on

Fin

al

Exa

m

Mean Scores of College Algebra II

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

19

A post hoc analysis was performed to examine pair-wise differences in mean performances

by student classification. Table 13 shows that the mean score for freshmen is significantly higher

than the mean score for seniors. There were no other statistically significant differences between

any other group means.

Table 13. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Final Exam Scores

by Student Classification in College Algebra II

(I) Classification (J) Classification Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound Upper

Bound

Freshman

Sophomore 11.5386 6.7777 .324 -5.9670 29.0443

Junior 21.9843 9.5203 .098 -2.6052 46.5738

Senior 33.0869 12.2495 .036 1.4484 64.7254

Note: Tukey’s honest significant difference (Tukey HSD) Post Hoc test is used, and equal variances are assumed.

Results by Gender: College Algebra II

Of the 424 students enrolled in College Algebra II, 66.5% (N=282 of 424) were female and

33.5% (N=142 of 424) were male, thereby reflecting a ratio of females to males of almost 2:1.

Table 14 shows that of the four competencies measured, both females and males performed

better on (QRC1). Attrition rates among females (N=61 of 282 or 21.6%) and males (N=45 of

142 or 31.7%) were moderate. Only 28.7% of females (N=81 of 282) and 16.2% of males (N=23

of 142) who originally enrolled in College Algebra II earned a score of 60% or higher on the

final examination.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare final exam scores across gender.

The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 15.1 – 15.4. Females performed significantly

better than their male counterparts on QRC2, QRC3, and QRC4. Additionally, females

performed significantly better than males on the Algebra II final examination, overall. The t-test

for QRC1 was not significant.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

20

Table 14. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Gender

College Algebra II Final Examination

Gender No. of

Cases

Withdrew

or No

Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Female

282 68 214 1 & 7 (QRC1) 97 45.3% 34.4%

282 79 203 6 & 10 (QRC2) 77 37.9% 27.3%

282 67 215 2 & 3 (QRC3) 82 38.1% 29.1%

282 87 195 4 & 5 (QRC4) 60 30.8% 21.3%

282 61 221 Total Exam 81 36.7% 28.7%

Male

142 43 99 1 & 7 (QRC1) 40 40.4% 28.2%

142 47 95 6 & 10 (QRC2) 25 26.3% 17.6%

142 44 98 2 & 3 (QRC3) 27 27.6% 19.0%

142 52 90 4 & 5 (QRC4) 23 25.6% 16.2%

142 45 97 Total Exam 23 23.7% 16.2%

Institutional

Results

424 111 313 1 & 7 (QRC1) 137 43.8% 32.3%

424 126 298 6 & 10 (QRC2) 102 34.2% 24.1%

424 111 313 2 & 3 (QRC3) 109 34.8% 25.7%

424 139 285 4 & 5 (QRC4) 83 29.1% 19.6%

424 106 318 Total Exam 104 32.7% 24.5%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Education, Nursing and

Allied Health Sciences, Business, and Communications. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class

roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, students did not take the final

(including perspective graduating students), or students did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of

cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

Table 15.1 Mean Comparison of QRC2 by Gender for College Algebra II, Spring Semester 2014

Gender Valid N Mean of QRC2 Std. Dev. t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Female 208 17.59 10.60 2.032 302 .043

Male 96 14.91 10.90

Table 15.2 Mean Comparison of QRC3 by Gender for College Algebra II, Spring Semester 2014

Gender Valid N Mean of QRC3 Std. Dev. t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Female 215 13.90 8.81 2.466 311 .014

Male 98 11.25 8.85

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

21

Table 15.3 Mean Comparison of QRC4 by Gender for College Algebra II, Spring Semester 2014

Gender Valid N Mean of QRC4 Std. Dev. t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Female 195 17.11 11.53 2.201 283 .029

Male 90 13.80 12.31

Table 15.4 Mean Comparison of Total Exam Score by Gender for College Algebra II,

Spring Semester 2014

Gender Valid N Mean of

Total Exam Std. Dev. t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Female 221 102.40 47.40 2.516 316 .012

Male 97 88.23 43.41

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

22

Pre-Calculus

he final examination for Pre-calculus for Spring Semester 2014 consisted of 12 questions

and a total score of 200 points. Table 16 presents the questions that were identified to

measure each of three competencies. Questions 11 and 12 were selected to measure QRC1,

questions 1 and 2 to measure QRC2, and questions 3, 5, and 8 to measure QRC3. A copy of the

final examination is in Appendix C.

Table 16. Questions and QR Competencies for Pre-calculus Final Examination

Item #

(Points) Item Description

Competency

Measured

11. (20 pts)

Suppose that $12,000 is invested in a savings account paying 5% interest per year.

(a) Write the formula for that amount in the account after t years if the interest is compounded monthly. (b) Find the amount in the account after 3 years if the interest in compounded daily.

(c) How long will it take for the amount in the account to grow to 20,000 if the interest is compounded

continuously?

(1) Interpret

mathematical models

such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and

draw inferences from them.

12.

(20 pts)

Graph the feasible region described by the following constraints:

1. (20 pts)

For the rational function:

𝐺 (𝑥) = 3𝑥3 + 6𝑥2

𝑥2 + 𝑥 − 2

(a) Find the domain. (b) Find the x intercept(s) and the y intercepts of f if any.

Find all the vertical and horizontal or slant (oblique) asymptote(s) of the graph of f if any.

(2) Represent mathematical

information

symbolically, visually,

numerically, and

verbally. 2.

(15 pts)

Let F(𝑥) = 𝑥2 + 1

(a) What is the range of F, if the domain is [0,1]?

(b) What is the range F, if the domain is [-1,1]?

(c) Sketch the graph F for both domains. (d) Does F have an inverse function if the domain is [-1,1]? Why or why not? If it does find its inverse

sketch, its graph and find the range of the inverse?

(e) Does F have an inverse function if the domain is [0,1]? Why or why not? If it does find its inverse sketch, its graph and find the range of the inverse?

3

(20 pts)

(a) Solve the equation: log2 𝑥 + log2(𝑥 − 2) = log3 27

(b) Use laws of logarithms to expand log: log(𝑥5√x−1

2𝑥−3)

(3) Use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric

and statistical

methods to solve problems. 5.

(15 pts)

Find all solutions of following system of linear equations:

8. (10 pts)

Find all solutions of the trigonometric equation 4 cos2 𝜃 − 4 cos 𝜃 + 1 = 0 for θ

T

x ≥ 1, y ≥ 0,

x + y ≤ 6,

2x – 3y ≥ -3

x + y +z = 1

x + 2y +3z = 4

-4x + 5y +6z = -7

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

23

RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender

Table 17 presents the results of student performance on the Pre-calculus final

examination for all sections by school or college. The results indicate that 124 of 159 or 78% of

the original enrollees had a final examination score and were considered “valid cases” for these

analyses. Thus, 35 of 159 or 25.2% of the students who did not have a final exam score either

withdrew from the course, remained in the course but did not take the final exam, or took a

different final exam because they were prospective graduates (seniors). The retention rate for

Pre-calculus varied across the schools and colleges represented, ranging from 50.0% (N=1 of 2)

among students enrolled in the School of Business to 100% (N=1 of 1) among students enrolled

in the School of Communications. Across all sections of Pre-calculus, the results of data analyses

on student performance indicate that for:

• (QRC1): interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw inferences from them, 45.9% (56 of 122) of the valid cases earned

a competency score of 60% or higher.

• (QRC2): represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and

verbally, 66.7% (82 of 123) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher.

• (QRC3): use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problems, 61.0% (75 of 123) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher.

For all questions on the final examination, 51.6% (64 of 124) of the valid cases earned a final

exam score of 60% or higher, and 40.3% (64 of 159) of the original enrollees earned a final exam

score of 60% or higher.

Results by School/College: Pre-calculus

Of the 159 students enrolled in Pre-calculus, the largest representation of students was from

the College of Arts and Science (N=125 of 159 or 78.6%) and the smallest representation was

from the School of Communications (N=1 of 159 or 0.6%).

The results indicate that the School of Communications had the highest percentage of valid

cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=1 of 1 or 100%). The College of Nursing and

Allied Health Sciences followed with the second highest percentage of valid cases to earn a total

score of 60% or higher, 75% (N= 6 of 8). The School of Business had the lowest percentage of

valid cases to earn a total score of 60% or higher (N=0 of 1 or 0%). No students from the School

of Education were enrolled in Pre-calculus.

At the institutional level, the percent of valid cases to earn a score of 60% or higher was

51.6%. This does not mean that only 51.6% of students who took the test earned a passing grade

(grade D or better) in Pre-Calculus. Rather, these results indicate that about 51.6% of the

students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of competency on their Pre-Calculus final

examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

24

Table 17 also presents the percentage of original enrollees in Pre-calculus who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination. Across all schools and colleges,

the percentages ranged from 0% to 100%. At the institutional level, the percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher was 40.3%. This does not mean that only 40.3%

of the original enrollees earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in Pre-calculus. Rather, these

results indicate that 40.3% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their Pre-calculus final examination.

Results by Student Classification: Pre-Calculus

Table 18 presents the results of student performance on the Pre-calculus final examination

for all classifications of students. Of the 159 students enrolled in the course, freshmen had the

largest representation (N=110 of 159 or 69.2%), while juniors had the smallest representation

(N=12 of 159 or 7.5%). The results also indicate that freshmen had the highest percentage of

valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=49 of 92 or 53.3%). Juniors had the

lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=4 of 9 or 44.4%).

The results also indicate that retention rates for Pre-calculus decreased as student

classification increased with the exception of juniors: freshmen (N=92 of 110 or 83.6%),

sophomores (N=15 of 22 or 68.2%), juniors (N=9 of 12 or 75.0%), and seniors (N=8 of 15 or

53.3%) (See “valid cases”). The retention rate for seniors, however, may be somewhat

underestimated since seniors who were prospective graduates took a final examination

approximately one week before the departmental final examination was administered or was

excused from the final altogether.

Figure 5 presents the percentage of original enrollees in Pre-calculus who earned a score of

60% or higher on the departmental final examination by student classification -- the percentages

ranged from 26.7% for seniors to 44.5% for freshmen.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

25

Table 17. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by School and College Pre-calculus Final Examination

Student

School/College

Number

of Cases

Withdrew or

No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

College of Arts &

Sciences

125 28 97 11 & 12

(QRC1) 42 43.3% 33.6%

125 28 97 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 63 64.9% 50.4%

125 28 97 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 57 58.8% 45.6%

125 28 97 Total Exam 47 48.5% 37.6%

College

Engineering,

Architecture &

Computer Science

21 4 17 11 & 12

(QRC1) 9 52.9% 42.9%

21 4 17 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 13 76.5% 61.9%

21 4 17 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 11 64.7% 52.4%

21 4 17 Total Exam 10 58.8% 47.6%

College of Nursing

and Allied Health

Sciences

10 3 7 11 & 12

(QRC1) 5 71.4% 50.0%

10 3 7 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 5 71.4% 50.0%

10 3 7 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 6 85.7% 60.0%

10 2 8 Total Exam 6 75.0% 60.0%

School of Business

2 1 1 11 & 12

(QRC1) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 1 1 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 1 1 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 1 1 Total Exam 0 0.0% 0.0%

School of

Communications

1 1 0 11 & 12

(QRC1) 0 - 0.0%

1 0 1 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 1 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 1 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 Total Exam 1 100.0% 100.0%

Institutional

Results

159 37 122 11 & 12

(QRC1) 56 45.9% 35.2%

159 36 123 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 82 66.7% 51.6%

159 36 123 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 75 61.0% 47.2%

159 35 124 Total Exam 64 51.6% 40.3%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Communication, Business, and Allied

Health Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations

in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including prospective graduating students), or did not answer the particular

item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score. (5) The five (5) students

enrolled in the School of Business did not have valid exam scores.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

26

Table 18. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Student Classification

Pre-calculus Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number

of Cases

Withdrew

or No

Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR

Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Freshman

110 18 92 11 & 12

(QRC1) 44 47.8% 40.0%

110 18 92 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 62 67.4% 56.4%

110 18 92 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 56 60.9% 50.9%

110 18 92 Total

Exam 49 53.3% 44.5%

Sophomore

22 7 15 11 & 12

(QRC1) 5 33.3% 22.7%

22 7 15 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 8 53.3% 36.4%

22 7 15 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 9 60.0% 40.9%

22 7 15 Total

Exam 7 46.7% 31.8%

Junior

12 4 8 11 & 12

(QRC1) 4 50.0% 33.3%

12 3 9 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 7 77.8% 58.3%

12 3 9 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 6 66.7% 50.0%

12 3 9 Total

Exam 4 44.4% 33.3%

Senior

15 8 7 11 & 12

(QRC1) 3 42.9% 20.0%

15 8 7 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 5 71.4% 33.3%

15 8 7 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 4 57.1% 26.7%

15 7 8 Total

Exam 4 50.0% 26.7%

Institutional

Results

159 37 122 11 & 12

(QRC1) 56 45.9% 35.2%

159 36 123 1 & 2

(QRC 2) 82 66.7% 51.6%

159 36 123 3, 5, & 8

(QRC3) 75 61.0% 47.2%

159 35 124 Total

Exam 64 51.6% 40.3%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences,

and Education. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes

situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did not answer the

particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

27

Figure 5

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Pre-calculus

Table 19 provides descriptive statistics for the 124 valid cases who took the department final

examination in Pre-calculus in Spring Semester 2014. Valid cases are those students for whom a

final examination score is reported. Observed scores on the final examination ranged from 0 to

183. The highest mean score and lowest variability occurred among juniors, M=124.88;

SD=33.46. The lowest mean score occurred among sophomores, M=109.87, while the highest

variability occurred among seniors, SD=64.64.

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-calculus by Student Classification

Spring Semester 2014

Classification Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Freshman 92 1 183 115.58 51.29

Sophomore 15 1 180 109.87 53.71

Junior 8 83 168 124.88 33.46

Senior 7 28 178 113.14 64.64

Institutional Results 124 0 183 114.77 51.72

44.5%

31.8%

33.3%

26.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Per

cen

t o

f E

nro

llee

s S

cori

ng

60

% o

r H

igh

er

Percent of Original Enrollees Scoring 60% or Higher in Pre-

Calculus by Student Classification, Spring 2014

Note: Data reflect students who withdrew or had no score. Some seniors who were propspective graduates had no score because they took an earlier examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

28

Figure 6 presents the mean scores on the Pre-calculus final examination by student

classification for valid cases only. The graph shows that juniors were the only classification of

students to meet the minimum mean criterion score of 60% (120 out of 200). Freshmen,

sophomores, and seniors did not meet the minimum mean criterion performance of at least 60%.

Figure 6

Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Pre-calculus

F-Test: An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare final exam scores

across student classification. The results of the F-test were not significant F(3, 120)=.511,

p=0.676. There is no statistically significant difference in the mean final exam scores by

classification on the departmental final examination for Pre-calculus.

Results by Gender: Pre-Calculus

Of the 159 students enrolled in Pre-Calculus, 70.4% (N=112 of 159) were female and 29.6%

(N=47 of 159) were male. Table 20 shows that of the three competencies measured, males

performed their best on (QRC2) and (QRC3), whereas females performed their best on QRC2

only.

A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare male and females scores

on the three quantitative reasoning competencies, and the total final exam score. The t-tests did

not reveal any significant findings. There were no gender differences on QRC1, QRC2, QRC3,

or total exam score.

115.6109.9

124.9

113.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Mea

n S

core

on

Fin

al

Exa

m

Mean Scores of Pre-Calculus

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

29

Table 20. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Gender Pre-Calculus Final Examination

Gender No. of

Cases

Withdrew

or No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Female

112 27 85 11 & 12 (QRC1) 39 45.9% 34.8%

112 27 86 1 & 2 (QRC 2) 57 66.3% 50.9%

112 27 86 3, 5, & 8 (QRC3) 50 58.1% 44.6%

112 27 87 Total Exam 46 52.9% 41.1%

Male

47 10 37 11 & 12 (QRC1) 17 45.9% 36.2%

47 10 37 1 & 2 (QRC 2) 25 67.6% 53.2%

47 10 37 3, 5, & 8 (QRC3) 25 67.6% 53.2%

47 10 37 Total Exam 18 48.6% 38.3%

Institutional

Results

159 37 122 11 & 12 (QRC1) 56 45.9% 35.2%

159 36 123 1 & 2 (QRC 2) 82 66.7% 51.6%

159 36 123 3, 5, & 8 (QRC3) 75 61.0% 47.2%

159 35 124 Total Exam 64 51.6% 40.3%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, Nursing and Allied Health

Sciences, and Education. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or

No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating

students), or did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is

a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

30

Calculus I

he final examination for Calculus I for Spring Semester 2014 consisted of 13 questions and

a total score of 200 points. Table 21 presents the questions that were identified to measure

two competencies. Questions 3, 9 and 12 to measure QRC2, questions 1,2,4,5 and 6 to

measure QRC3. Students were instructed to solve all problems in part 1 (Questions 1-6) and to

solve any (4) of the problems in Part 2 (questions 7-13). Questions 9 and 12 were excluded from

the analysis because they were optional. A copy of the Calculus I final examination is in

Appendix D.

RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender

Table 22 presents the results of student performance on the calculus final examination for all

sections by school or college. The results indicate that 74.8% (98 of 131) of the original enrollees

had a final examination score and were considered “valid cases” for these analyses. Thus, 33 of

131 or 25.2% of the students who did not have a final exam score either withdrew from the

course, remained in the course but did not take the final exam, or took a different final exam

because they were prospective graduates (seniors). The retention rate for Calculus I varied across

the schools and colleges represented, ranging from 66.7% (N=2 of 3) among students enrolled in

the School of Communications to 100% (N=2 of 2) among students enrolled in the School of

Education and the College of Allied Health Sciences. Across all sections of Calculus I, the

results of data analyses on student performance indicate that for:

• (QRC2): represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and

verbally, 21.8% (19 of 87) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 14.5% (19 of 131) of the original enrollees earned a competency score of

60% or higher.

• (QRC3): use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problems, 26.7% (23 of 86) of the valid cases earned a competency score of 60% or

higher, and 17.6% (23 of 131) of the original enrollees earned a competency score of

60% or higher.

For all questions on the final examination, 58.6% (82 of 140) of the valid cases earned a final

exam score of 60% or higher, and 46.1% (82 of 178) of the original enrollees earned a final exam

score of 60% or higher.

T

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

31

Table 21. Questions and QR Competencies for Calculus I Final Examination

Item #

(Points) Item Description Competency Measured

3. (20 pts)

A small balloon is released at a point 150 feet away from an observer, who is on level ground. If the

balloon goes straight up at a rate of 6 feet per second, how fast is the distance from the observer to the

balloon increasing when the balloon is 50 feet high?

(2) Represent

mathematical information symbolically, visually,

numerically, and verbally.

9.

(20 pts)

A closed rectangular container with a square base is to have a volume of 2250 cubic inches. The material

for the top and bottom of the container will cost $2 per square inch, and the sides will cost $3 per square inch. Find the dimensions of the container of least cost.

12.

(20 pts)

Let 𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑥 + sin 𝑥 , 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝜋

(a) Find the area under the graph of g and over the interval [0, 𝜋].

(b) Find the average value of g(x) on the interval 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝜋.

1.

(20 pts)

Find each limit that exists (a finite limit or +∞ 𝑜𝑓 − ∞). Otherwise, give reason(s) why the limit does not

exist.

(a) limx→0

(x2−4𝑥+4

𝑥3−5𝑥2+14𝑥)

(b) limx→𝜋−

csc 𝑥

(c) limℎ→0

((𝑥−ℎ)2−𝑥2

ℎ)

(d) lim𝑥→∞

(3𝑥2−4𝑥+10

2𝑥2−1)

(3) Use arithmetical,

algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problems.

2

(20 pts)

Find the derivate 𝑦𝚤 = 𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑥⁄ for the following explicitly or implicitly defined functions 𝑦 = 𝑦(𝑥)

(c) 𝑦 = 𝑥 tan−1 𝑥 − ln √𝑥2 + 1

(d) 𝑦 = cos(cos(𝑒𝑥))

(e) 𝑥𝑦 = 𝑥 − 𝑒𝑦

(f) 𝑦 = 𝑥𝑥2

4.

(20 pts)

Let 𝑓(𝑥) = 6𝑥4/3 − 3𝑥1 3⁄ , -1 ≤ x ≤ 1.

(a) Find the two critical points of f in the interval [-1,1]. (b) Find the absolute minimum and maximum values of f on the interval [-1,1].

5.

(20 pts)

Sketch a graph of the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥4 − 4𝑥3 + 27 = (𝑥 − 3)2(𝑓2 + 2𝑥 + 3) using the following steps:

(a) Identify where the local extrema and inflection points of f occur. (b) Determine the intervals on which f is increasing and the intervals on which f is decreasing.

(c) Determine the open interval where f is concave up and where f is concave down.

(d) Plot the x-intercept(s), y-intercept, local maxima, local minima, and inflection points of f. Then sketch the curve.

6.

(20 pts)

Evaluate the following integrals.

(a) ∫ sin2 𝑥 cos 𝑥 𝑑𝑥

(b) ∫1−2𝑡3

𝑡3𝑑𝑡

(c) ∫1

1+𝑥2𝑑𝑥

1

0

(d) ∫ (𝑥2 − 𝑥 − 2) 𝑑𝑥2

−1

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

32

Results by School/College: Calculus I

Of the 131 students enrolled in Calculus I, the largest representation of students was from the

College of Arts and Science (N=66 of 131 or 50.4%) and the smallest representations came from

the School of Education and the College of Allied Health Sciences (N=2 of 131 or 1.5%).

The results indicate that the School of Business had the highest percentage of valid cases

who earned a final exam score of 60% or higher (N=2 of 2 or 100%). The results for the College

of Arts and Sciences, which had a much larger representation in Calculus I, was 33.3% (15 of

45). The School of Education had the lowest percentage of valid students who earned a total

score of 60% or higher (N=0 of 2 or 0%). No students from the School of Communications were

enrolled in Calculus I during Spring 2014. At the institutional level, the percent of valid students

who earned a score of 60% or higher was 26.5%. This does not mean that only 26.5% of students

who took the test earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in Calculus. Rather, these results

indicate that about 26.5% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their Calculus final examination.

Table 22 also presents the percentage of original enrollees in Calculus I who earned a score

of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination. Across all schools and colleges, the

percentages ranged from 0% to 100%. At the institutional level, the percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher was 19.8%. This does not mean that only 19.8%

of the original enrollees earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in Calculus. Rather, these

results indicate that 19.8% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their Calculus I final examination.

Results by Student Classification: Calculus I

Table 23 presents the results of student performance on the Calculus I final examination for all

classifications of students. Of the 131 students enrolled in the course, freshmen had the largest

representation (N=79 of 131 or 60.3%) and seniors had the smallest representation (N=8 of 131

or 6.1%). The results also indicate that sophomores had the highest percentage of valid cases

who earned a final exam score of 60% or higher (N=10 of 23 or 43.5%). Freshmen had the

lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a final exam score of 60% or higher (N=14 of 69 or

20.3%).

The results also indicate that retention rates for Calculus I decreased as student classification

increased with the exception of seniors: freshmen (N=69 of 79 or 87.3%), sophomores (N=23 of

35 or 65.7%), juniors (N=3 of 9 or 33.3%), and seniors (N=3 of 8 or 37.5%) (See “valid cases”).

The retention rate for seniors, however, may be somewhat underestimated since seniors who

were prospective graduates took a final examination approximately one week before the

departmental final examination was administered or was excused from the final altogether.

Figure 7 presents the percentage of original enrollees in Calculus I who earned a score of

60% or higher on the departmental final examination by student classification -- the percentages

ranged from 11.1% for juniors to 28.6% for sophomores.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

33

Table 22. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by School and College

Calculus Final Examination

Student

School/College

Number

of Cases

Withdrew

or No

Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring

60% or

Higher

College of Arts

& Sciences

66 24 42 3 (QRC2) 10 23.8% 15.2%

66 24 42 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 12 28.6% 18.2%

66 21 45 Total Exam 15 33.3% 22.7%

College

Engineering,

Architecture &

Computer

Science

58 19 39 3 (QRC2) 7 17.9% 12.1%

58 19 39 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 9 23.1% 15.5%

58 11 47 Total Exam 8 17.0% 13.8%

School of

Education

2 0 2 3 (QRC2) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 2 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 2 Total Exam 0 0.0% 0.0%

College of

Nursing and

Allied Health

Sciences

2 0 2 3 (QRC2) 2 100.0% 100.0%

2 1 1 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 2 Total Exam 1 50.0% 50.0%

School of

Business

3 1 2 3 (QRC2) 0 0.0% 0.0%

3 1 2 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 2 100.0% 66.7%

3 1 2 Total Exam 2 100.0% 66.7%

Institutional

Results

131 44 87 3 (QRC2) 19 21.8% 14.5%

131 45 86 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 23 26.7% 17.6%

131 33 98 Total Exam 26 26.5% 19.8%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Education, Business, and Allied

Health Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations

in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including prospective graduating students), or did not answer the particular

item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

34

Table 23. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Student Classification

Calculus Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number

of Cases

Withdrew

or No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Freshman

79 17 62 3 (QRC2) 11 17.7% 13.9%

79 18 61 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 16 26.2% 20.3%

79 10 69 Total Exam 14 20.3% 17.7%

Sophomore

35 16 19 3 (QRC2) 6 31.6% 17.1%

35 14 21 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 6 28.6% 17.1%

35 12 23 Total Exam 10 43.5% 28.6%

Junior

9 6 3 3 (QRC2) 1 33.3% 11.1%

9 7 2 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 0 0.0% 0.0%

9 6 3 Total Exam 1 33.3% 11.1%

Senior

8 5 3 3 (QRC2) 1 33.3% 12.5%

8 6 2 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 1 50.0% 12.5%

8 5 3 Total Exam 1 33.3% 12.5%

Institutional

Results

131 44 87 3 (QRC2) 19 21.8% 14.5%

131 45 86 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 23 26.7% 17.6%

131 33 98 Total Exam 26 26.5% 19.8%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences,

and Education. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes

situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did not answer the

particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

35

Figure 7

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Calculus I

Table 24 provides descriptive statistics for the 98 valid cases who took the department final

examination in Calculus I in Spring Semester 2014. Valid cases are those students for whom a

final examination score is reported. Observed scores on the final examination ranged from 0 to

173. The highest mean score and lowest variability occurred among seniors, M=104.67;

SD=23.00. The lowest mean score and highest variability occurred among juniors, M=66.33;

SD=73.07.

Table 24. Descriptive Statistics for Calculus I Final Exam Score

by Student Classification Spring Semester 2014

Classification Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Freshman 69 0 165 71.23 43.50

Sophomore 23 7 173 88.26 52.20

Junior 3 15 150 66.33 73.07

Senior 3 82 128 104.67 23.00

Institutional Results 98 0 173 76.10 46.32

17.7%

28.6%

11.1%12.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Per

cen

t o

f E

nro

llee

s S

cori

ng

60

% o

r H

igh

er

Percent of Original Enrollees Scoring 60% or Higher in Calculus I

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

Note: Data reflect students who withdrew or had no score. Some seniors who were propspective graduates had no score because they took an earlier examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

36

Figure 8 presents the mean scores on the Calculus I final examination by student

classification for valid cases only. The graph shows that the minimum mean criterion

performance of at least 60% (120 of 200) was not met by any classification of students.

Figure 8

Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Calculus I

F-Test: An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine differences in final exam

scores based on student classification. The results of the F-test were not significant F (3, 94) =

1.215, p=.309. There were no differences in Calculus I final exam scores based on student

classification. A post hoc analysis was not performed because the ANOVA was not significant.

Results by Gender: Calculus I

Of the 131 students enrolled in Calculus I, 60.3% (N=79 of 131) were female and 45.0%

(N=59 of 131) were male. Table 25 shows that of the two competencies measured, females

performed better on (QRC3), whereas males performed the same on both (QRC2) and (QRC3).

Most likely because of the high attrition rates among females (N=37 of 72 or 51.4%) and males

(N=24 of 46 or 52.2%), Table 7 shows that only 15.3% of females (N=11 of 72) and 6.5% of

males (N=3 of 46) who originally enrolled in Calculus earned a score of 60% or higher on the

final examination.

71.2

88.3

66.3

104.7

0

50

100

150

200

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Mea

n S

core

on

Fin

al

Exa

mMean Scores of Calculus I

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

37

Table 25. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Gender

Calculus I Final Examination

Gender No. of

Cases

Withdrew

or No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of

Valid

Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent

of Valid

Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Female

72 24 48 3 (QRC2) 11 22.9% 15.3%

72 25 47 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 15 31.9% 20.8%

72 20 52 Total Exam 17 32.7% 23.6%

Male

59 20 39 3 (QRC2) 8 20.5% 13.6%

59 20 39 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 8 20.5% 13.6%

59 13 46 Total Exam 9 19.6% 15.3%

Institutional

Results

131 44 87 3 (QRC2) 19 21.8% 14.5%

131 45 86 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6

(QRC3) 23 26.7% 17.6%

131 33 98 Total Exam 26 26.5% 19.8%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Education, and Nursing

and Allied Health Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No

Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, students did not take the final (including perspective graduating

students), or students did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for

which there is a question or exam score.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare Calculus I final exam scores

across gender. As Table 26 indicates, there was a significant difference in Calculus I final exam

scores by gender, t(96) = 1.99, p=.049. Females performed significantly better than males on the

Spring 2014 Calculus I final examination.

Table 26. Mean Comparison by Gender for Calculus I Final Examination, Spring Semester 2014

Gender Valid N Mean of

Total Exam Std. Dev. t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Female 52 84.73 6.11 1.990 96 0.049

Male 46 66.35 6.99

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

38

Applied Calculus

he final examination for Applied Calculus for Spring Semester 2014 consisted of 15

questions and a possible total score of 200 points. Each problem was worth 20 points.

Students were instructed to answer any (10) problems. Table 27 presents the questions that

were identified to measure three competencies (QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3). Questions 5 and 6

measured QRC1, questions 4 and 12 measured QRC2, and questions 1, 2, 3, and 7 measured

QRC3. Individual QRC analysis were not conducted due to variability of items answered by each

student. Only results based on the total exam score are reported. A copy of the Applied Calculus

final examination is in Appendix E.

Table 27. Questions and QR Competencies for Applied Calculus Final Examination

Item #

(Points) Item Description Competency Measured

5.

(20 pts)

Determine the intervals on which the function g(x) = x2ex is concave up.

(1) Interpret mathematical

models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and

schematics, and draw

inferences from them.

6.

(20 pts)

A total cost function, in thousands of dollars, is given by C(q) = q3 – 6q2 + 15q, where q is in

thousands and 0 ≤ q ≤ 5.

(a) Graph C(q).

(b) Graph the average cost function a(q) = 𝐶(𝑞)

𝑞

(c) Determine the exact value of q at which average cost is minimized.

4.

(20 pts)

The perimeter of a rectangular filed has a perimeter of 320 feet. Express the area of the filed as a

function of the length of one of its sides (call it L). Find the L that maximizes the area? What is the corresponding area?

(2) Represent mathematical

information symbolically, visually, numerically, and

verbally. 12.

(20 pts) Evaluate ∫ (6𝑥2 + 2𝑥 − 10) 𝑑𝑥.

2

−1

1

(20 pts)

(a) Find an equation of the line through (1, -2) with slope 3. (b) Find an equation of the line through the points (3, 1) and (2, 1).

(c) Find the slope-intercept form of the line through the points (-2, 1) and (4, 5).

(3) Use arithmetical,

algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve

problems.

2. (20 pts)

Find the derivative of the following functions:

(a) f (x) = 𝑒2𝑥2−5𝑥−3

(b) f(x) = ln(5x2 – 6x – 2).

3.

20 pts

Consider the curve whose equation is given by

2y3x3 – 6x2 + 3x + 8 = 4y.

(a) Use implicit differentiation to find y’ (0). (b) Find the equation of the tangent line to the graph passing through the point (0, 2).

7.

(20 pts)

(a) Write the equation of the line that is parallel to the line x – y = 5 and goes through the point (-2, 1).

(b) Write the equation of a line that contains the point (1, 5) and is perpendicular to the

line y = 2x – 6.

T

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

39

RESULTS: Across All Sections, by School/College, Student Classification, and Gender

Table 28 presents the results of student performance on the Applied Calculus final

examination for all sections by school or college. The results indicate that 78.7% (140 of 178) of

the original enrollees had a final examination score and were considered “valid cases” for these

analyses. Thus, 21.4% (38 of 178) of the students who did not have a final exam score either

withdrew from the course, remained in the course but did not take the final exam, or took a

different final exam because they were prospective graduates (seniors). The retention rate for

Applied Calculus varied across the schools and colleges represented, ranging from 61.11%

(N=22 of 36) among students enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences to 100% (N=2 of 2)

among students enrolled in the College Engineering, Architecture & Computer Science, the

College of Allied Health Sciences, and the School of Communications. Across all sections of

Applied Calculus, the results of data analyses on student performance indicate that for all

questions on the final examination, 57.7% (79 of 137) of the valid cases earned a final exam

score of 60% or higher, and 44.4% (79 of 178) of the original enrollees earned a final exam score

of 60% or higher.

Results by School/College: Applied Calculus

Of the 178 students enrolled in Applied Calculus, the largest representation of students was

from the School of Business (N=133 of 178 or 74.72%) and the smallest representations were

from the College Engineering, Architecture & Computer Science, the College of Allied Health

Sciences, and the School of Communications. (N=2 of 178 or 1.1%).

The results indicate that the School of Communications had the highest percentage of valid

cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=2 of 2 or 100%). The results for the School

of Business, which had a much larger representation in Applied Calculus, were 59.6% (65 of

109). The College of Arts and Sciences had the lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a

total score of 60% or higher (N=10 of 22 or 45.5%). No students from the School of Education

were enrolled in Applied Calculus during Spring 2014. At the institutional level, the percent of

valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher was 58.6%. This does not mean that only 58.6%

of students who took the test earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in Applied Calculus.

Rather, these results indicate that about 58.6% of the students were able to demonstrate the

minimum level of competency on their Applied Calculus final examination.

Table 28 also presents the percentage of original enrollees in Applied Calculus who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination. Across all schools and colleges,

the percentages ranged from 27.8% to 100%. At the institutional level, the percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher was 46.1%. This does not mean that only 46.1%

of the original enrollees earned a passing grade (grade D or better) in Applied Calculus. Rather,

these results indicate that 46.1% of the students were able to demonstrate the minimum level of

competency on their Applied Calculus final examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

40

Table 28. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by School and College

Applied Calculus Final Examination

Student

School/College

Number

of Cases

Withdrew

or No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

College of Arts

& Sciences 36 14 22 Total Exam 10 45.5% 27.8%

College

Engineering,

Architecture &

Computer

Science

2 0 2 Total Exam 1 50.0% 50.0%

College of

Nursing and

Allied Health

Sciences

2 0 2 Total Exam 1 50.0% 50.0%

School of

Business

133 24 109 Total Exam 65 59.6% 48.9%

School of

Communications 2 0 2 Total Exam 2 100.0% 100.0%

Institutional

Results 178 38 140 Total Exam 82 58.6% 46.1%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Communication, Business, and Allied

Health Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations

in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including prospective graduating students), or did not answer the particular

item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

41

Results by Student Classification: Applied Calculus

Table 29 presents the results of student performance on the Applied Calculus final

examination for all classifications of students. Of the 178 students enrolled in the course,

freshmen had the largest representation (N=82 of 178 or 46.1%) and seniors had the smallest

representation (N=16 of 178 or 9%). The results also indicate that freshmen had the highest

percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=47 of 69 or 68.1%).

Seniors had the lowest percentage of valid cases who earned a total score of 60% or higher (N=1

of 4 or 25%).

The results also indicate that retention rates for Applied Calculus decreased as student

classification increased with the exception of seniors: freshmen (N=69 of 82 or 84.1%),

sophomores (N=43 of 51 or 84.3%), juniors (N=21 of 26 or 80.8%), and seniors (N=4 of 16 or

25%) (See “valid cases”). The retention rate for seniors, however, may be somewhat

underestimated since seniors who were prospective graduates took a final examination

approximately one week before the departmental final examination was administered or was

excused from the final altogether.

Figure 9 presents the percentage of original enrollees in Applied Calculus who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the departmental final examination by student classification -- the

percentages ranged from 6.3% for seniors to 57.3% for freshmen.

Table 29. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Student Classification

Applied Calculus Final Examination

Student

Classification

Number

of Cases

Withdrew

or No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of Valid

Cases Scoring

60% or Higher

Percent of

Valid Cases

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring 60%

or Higher

Freshman 82 13 69 Total Exam 47 68.1% 57.3%

Sophomore 51 8 43 Total Exam 19 44.2% 37.3%

Junior 26 5 21 Total Exam 12 57.1% 46.2%

Senior 16 12 4 Total Exam 1 25.0% 6.3%

Institutional

Results 178 38 140 Total Exam 82 58.6% 46.1%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture & Computer Sciences, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences,

Business, and Communications. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of “original enrollees” on the official class roster. (3) Withdrew or

No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, did not take the final (including perspective graduating students), or did

not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

42

Figure 9

Descriptive Statistics by Student Classification: Applied Calculus

Table 30 provides descriptive statistics for the 140 valid cases who took the department final

examination in Applied Calculus in Spring Semester 2014. Valid cases are those students for

whom a final examination score is reported. Observed scores on the final examination ranged

from 18 to 200. The highest mean score occurred among freshmen, M=134.32; the lowest mean

score and highest variability occurred among seniors, M=86.50; SD=71.23. The lowest

variability occurred among sophomores, SD=32.03.

Table 30. Descriptive Statistics for Applied Calculus Final Exam Score

by Student Classification Spring Semester 2014

Classification Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Freshman 69 62 200 134.32 32.67

Sophomore 43 18 170 110.42 32.03

Junior 21 31 178 116.00 40.00

Senior 4 46 193 86.50 71.23

Institutional Results 140 18 200 123.64 37.14

57.3%

37.3%

46.2%

6.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Per

cen

t o

f E

nro

llee

s S

cori

ng

60

% o

r H

igh

er

Percent of Original Enrollees Scoring 60% or Higher in Applied Calculus by

Student Classification, Spring 2014

Note: Data reflect students who withdrew or had no score. Some seniors who were propspective graduates had no score because they took an earlier examination.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

43

Figure 10 presents the mean scores on the Applied Calculus final examination by student

classification for valid cases only. The graph shows that the minimum mean criterion

performance of at least 60% (112 exam points) was met by freshmen students, only. All other

student classification did not meet the minimum mean criterion performance of at least (60%).

Figure 10

Inferential Statistics by Student Classification: Applied Calculus

F-Test: An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine differences in final

exam scores based on student classification. The results of the F-test in Table 31 show that there

is a statistically significant difference in the mean exam scores by classification on the

departmental final examination for Applied Calculus, F(3,133)=5.984, p=<.01.

Table 31. ANOVA for Final Exam Score by Student Classification in Applied Calculus

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups 21984.046 3 7328.015 5.984 .001

Within Groups 162874.451 133 1224.620

Total 184858.496 136

134.3

110.4116.0

86.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Mea

n S

core

on

Fin

al

Exa

m

Mean Scores of Applied Calculus

by Student Classification, Spring 2014

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

44

A post hoc analysis was performed in order to examine pair-wise differences in mean

performances by student classification. Table 32 shows that the mean score for freshmen was

significantly higher than both the mean score for sophomores and seniors. Thus, compared to

sophomores and seniors, freshmen had significantly higher exam scores on the Applied Calculus

final. There were no other statistically significant differences between any other group means.

Table 32. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Final Exam Score

by Student Classification in Applied Calculus

(I) Classification (J) Classification Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound Upper

Bound

Freshmen

Sophomore 23.9002 6.7991 .003 6.210 41.590

Junior 18.3188 8.7214 .158 -4.373 41.010

Senior 47.8188 17.9973 .043 .993 94.644

Results by Gender: Applied Calculus

Of the 178 students enrolled in Applied Calculus, 55.6% (N=99 of 178) were female and

44.4% (N=82 of 178) were male. Table 33 shows that females and males performed similarly on

the Applied Calculus final examination. Among the valid cases, 58.5% of females (N=48 of 82)

and 58.6% of males (N=34 of 58) earned a score of 60% or higher on the Applied Calculus final

examination whereas 48.5% of females (N=48 of 99) and 43.3% of males (N=34 of 79) who

originally enrolled in Applied Calculus earned a score of 60% or higher.

Table 33. Quantitative Reasoning for Spring Semester 2014 by Gender

Applied Calculus Final Examination

Gender No. of

Cases

Withdrew or

No Score

Valid

Cases

Item #

&

(QR Comp)

No. of

Valid

Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent

of Valid

Cases

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Percent of

Original

Enrollees

Scoring

60% or

Higher

Female 99 17 82 Total Exam 48 58.5% 48.5%

Male 79 21 58 Total Exam 34 58.6% 43.3%

Institutional

Results 178 38 140 Total Exam 82 58.6% 46.1%

Note: (1) Institutional Results include Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Architecture and Computer Sciences, Communications,

Business, and Nursing and Allied Health Sciences. (2) Number of Cases indicates the number of students on the official class roster.

(3) Withdrew or No Score includes situations in which students withdrew from the class, students did not take the final (including

perspective graduating students), or students did not answer the particular item. (4) Valid Cases indicate the number of cases

included in the analysis for which there is a question or exam score.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare Applied Calculus Final Exam

scores by gender. The t-test did not reveal any significant findings. There were no gender

differences in Applied Calculus final exam scores.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

45

The Economics of Student Drop-Out in Mathematics Courses

uring the 2009-10 year, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation began to

estimate the cost of student drop-out in mathematics courses in terms of dollars and cents

and in extended time-to-degree. In the 2010-11 report we noted, “There are costs to students and

to the institution when students drop out of courses, fail to meet certain competencies or earn

failing grades… oftentimes students have to re-enroll in a course and pay for it again…the cost

to the institution is in additional salaries for professors and perhaps lower four-year graduation

rates.”

For spring semester 2012, (if these students had to re-enroll in these courses) we estimated

that the potential cost in AY2012-2013 dollars would be $242,097 for College Algebra I,

$131,036 College Algebra II, $95,880 for Pre-calculus, and $469,013 for a total cost to students.

For Spring semester 2013, (if these students had to re-enroll in these courses) we estimated that

the potential cost in AY2013-2014 dollars would be $316,830 for College Algebra I, $146,780

College Algebra II, $71,600 for Pre-calculus, and $535,210 for a total cost to students.

The Spring Semester 2014 estimated costs (for students whose grades were reported to OIAE

and data were submitted in time and followed report requirements), in terms of tuition dollars for

freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who either officially withdrew from a mathematics course or

did not have a final examination score reported for them, are presented in Table 34. The table

presents the cost for retaking the courses in AY2014-15.

Summary

or Spring 2014, the general education competency, quantitative reasoning, was assessed by

examining student performance on the departmental final examinations in College Algebra I,

College Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, Calculus I, and Applied Calculus. Competent performance was

defined by a QRC score or final examination score of 60% or higher. Professors were asked to

report student performance on selected items on the final which measure one of the following

quantitative reasoning competencies as defined by the Mathematical Association of America.

(QRC1): Interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and schematics,

and draw inferences from them

(QRC2): Represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and

verbally

(QRC3): Use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve problems

(QRC4): Estimate and check answers to mathematical problems in order to determine

reasonableness, identify alternatives, and select optimal results

D

F

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

46

Table 34. Cost for Retaking College Algebra I, College Algebra II, and Pre-calculus

Course

No. of Students

who Withdrew or

did not have a

final exam score

Number of

Credit

Hours per

Course

Cost per Credit

Hour* Total Cost

College Algebra I

Freshmen 62 3 $980 $182,280

Sophomores 18 3 $52,920

Juniors 15 3 $44,100

Sub-Total for CAI 95 $279,300

College Algebra II

Freshmen 38 4 $980 $148,960

Sophomores 16 4 $62,720

Juniors 13 4 $50,960

Sub-Total for CAII 67 $262,640

Pre-calculus

Freshmen 18 4 $980 $70,560

Sophomores 7 4 $27,440

Juniors 3 4 $11,760

Sub-Total for Pre-cal 28 $109,760

Calculus I

Freshmen 10 4 $980 $39,200

Sophomores 12 4 $47,040

Juniors 6 4 $23,520

Sub-Total for Calculus I 28 $109,760

Applied Calculus

Freshmen 13 4 $980 $50,960

Sophomores 8 4 $31,360

Juniors 5 4 $19,600

Sub-Total for Applied Calculus 26 $101,920

TOTAL COST $863,380

*Undergraduate part-time rate per credit hour for AY2014-15.

**Data missing due failure of submission was not used to calculate the economics statistics.

For College Algebra I, 33.1% of the valid cases earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC 1,

whereas 19.8% of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC 1; 44.4%

versus 28.8% on QRC2; and 64.8% versus 42.1% on QRC3. Among the different schools and

colleges, the college of nursing and Allied health sciences (CNAHS) had the highest percentage

of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC1. The School of Education (SOE)

had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2 and

QRC3. The College of engineering, architecture, and computer science (CEACS) had the highest

percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on competency 1 and 3,

whereas the SOE had the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or

higher on competency 2. In regards to student classification, juniors had the highest percentage

of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC1, whereas freshmen had the highest

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

47

percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2 and QRC3. Freshmen

also had the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on

competency 1, 2, and 3. The gender based results revealed that females had the highest

percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on competency 1 and 2, while

males had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on

competency 3. Females did have the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score

of 60% or higher on competency 1, 2, and 3.

For College Algebra II, 43.8% of the valid cases earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC 1,

whereas 32.3% of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC 1; 34.2%

versus 24.1% on QRC2; 34.8% versus 25.7% on QRC3; and 29.1% versus 19.6% on QRC4.

Among the different schools and colleges, the College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) had the

highest percentage of valid cases and original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on

QRC1. The School of Education (SOE) had the highest percentage of valid cases and original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2 and QRC4. College of Engineering,

Architecture, and Computer Science (CEACS) had the highest percentage of valid cases who

earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC3, however, the School of Communications (SOC) had

the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC3. In

regards to student classification, freshmen had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned

a competency score of 60% or higher on QRC1, and the highest percentage of original enrollees

who earned a competency score of 60% or higher on QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3. Sophomores had

the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a competency score of 60% or higher on QRC3

and QRC4, and the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a competency score of

60% or higher on QRC4. Juniors had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a

competency score of 60% or higher on QRC2. The gender based results revealed that females

had the highest percentage of valid cases and original enrollees who earned a competency score

of 60% or higher on QRC1, QRC2, QRC3, and QRC4

For Pre-Calculus, 45.9% of students who took the final examination earned a score of 60% or

higher on QRC1, whereas 35.2% of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher on

QRC1; 66.7 versus 51.6% on QRC2; and 61% versus 47.2% on QRC3. Among the different

schools and colleges, the college of nursing and Allied health sciences (CNAHS) had the highest

percentage of valid cases and original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC1.

The School of Communications had the highest percentage of valid cases and original enrollees

who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2 and QRC3. In regards to student classification,

juniors had the highest percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC1,

QRC2, and QRC3. Juniors also had the highest percentage of original enrollees who earned a

score of 60% or higher on QRC2. Freshmen had the highest percentage of original enrollees who

earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC1 and QRC3. The gender based results revealed that

females and males had an equal number of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on

QRC1. Males had a higher percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on

QRC2 and QRC3. Males also had a higher percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of

60% or higher on QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3.

For Calculus I, 21.8% of students who took the final examination earned a competency score

of 60% or higher on QRC2, whereas 14.5% of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or

higher on QRC2. Additionally, 26.7% of students who took the final examination earned a

competency score of 60% or higher on QRC3, whereas 17.6% of the original enrollees earned a

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

48

score of 60% or higher on QRC3. Among the different schools and colleges, the college of

nursing and Allied health sciences (CNAHS) had the highest percentage of valid cases and

original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2. The School of Business (SOB)

had the highest percentage of valid cases and original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or

higher on QRC3. In regards to student classification, juniors and seniors had an equal percentage

of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2, however, seniors had the highest

percentage of valid cases who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC3. Sophomores had the

largest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on QRC2, whereas,

freshmen had the largest percentage of original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on

QRC3. The gender based results revealed that females had the largest percentage of valid cases

and original enrollees who earned a competency score of 60% or higher on QRC2 and QRC3.

For Applied Calculus, analysis of student performance data on individual quantitative

reasoning competencies was not possible. Only analyses based on students’ total score on the

Applied Calculus final examination were conducted. The institutional results indicate that 58.6%

of the valid cases and 46.1% of the original enrollees earned a score of 60% or higher on the

final exam. Among the different school and colleges, the School of Communications (SOC) had

the largest percentage of valid cases and original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher

on the final exam. In regards to student classification, freshmen had the largest percentage of

valid cases and original enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on the final exam. The

gender based results revealed that males had the largest percentage of valid cases who earned a

score of 60% or higher on the final exam, whereas females had the largest percentage of original

enrollees who earned a score of 60% or higher on the final exam.

Despite their low enrollment, students in the School of Education performed better on QRC2,

whereas students in the School of Communications performed better on QRC3. Freshmen

outperformed their peers on QRC1, QRC2, and QRC3 on the College Algebra I final

examination. Student performance by classification on the quantitative reasoning competencies

for College Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus I were mixed. Females outperformed males

on each quantitative reasoning competency on the College Algebra I, College Algebra II, and

Calculus I final examination. Males outperformed females on each quantitative reasoning

competency on the Pre-Calculus final examination.

The improvement of students’ competencies in quantitative reasoning, as defined by

performance in College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, Calculus I, and Applied

Calculus, must begin with strategies to reduce the attrition rates in these courses. Students who

officially withdrew from the courses, stop attending without officially withdrawing, or failed the

courses (earn a grade of F) will have to re-take the courses in order to fulfill degree requirements

and graduate. The estimated costs to the university in real dollars and cents for students to re-

take these courses are cumulative and prohibitive. The costs are cumulative because each year

the university must provide instructional resources for new entrants as well as for those returning

students who must retake the courses. The costs are prohibitive because (1) they are high and

could lead to increased student debt and time-to-degree, and (2) each year the university invests

generously in professional developmental/remediation programs that are designed to prepare

underprepared students for college level mathematics and reduce the rates of recidivism in the

general education mathematics courses. Hence, while the awarding degrees is important,

institutions are increasingly placing an equally important premium on student learning outcomes;

that is, what students know and are able to do when they graduate. In fact, institutional

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

49

effectiveness is being defined, in part, by the extent to which institutions are able to provide

credible evidence that students are achieving the learning goals that institutions have set for

themselves.

Disaggregating student performance data by school/college, student classification and gender

allows university personnel to develop specific strategies for targeted student groups. Doing so

demonstrates that a ‘one size fits all’ may not be an effective approach for improving student

learning outcomes or achieving institutional goals. The data clearly show that too many students

(males in particular) are failing to persist and succeed in their mathematics courses.

Analyzing student performance data by competency also reveals areas of strength or

weakness in the university’s instructional programs. The analyses of student performance data

for College Algebra I, College Algebra II, Pre-calculus, Calculus, and Applied Calculus suggest

that overall, students performed better on items requiring them to use arithmetical, algebraic,

geometric and statistical methods to solve problems (procedural knowledge). Students were less

successful on problems that required them to interpret mathematical models such as formulas,

graphs, tables, and schematics, and draw inferences from them (higher order and critical thinking

skills.

Faculty, academic advisors, peer counselors, student affairs personnel, university

administrators, and most importantly, students themselves must work collaboratively to do what

is necessary to improve students’ competencies in quantitative reasoning (See Conclusions and

Recommendations in the “Executive Summary).

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

50

Appendix A. College Algebra I

3

5

16

13

20

94

151

3

8

20

17

35

17

200

4

3

16

14

35

112

184

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Education

Engineering &

Architecture

School of Business

Allied Health

Sciences

School of

Communications

Arts & Sciences

Institution

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra I Final Examination

by School/College, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

36.4%

38.5%

43.0%

43.3%

44.4%

44.5%

50.0%

0% 20% 40% 60%

School of Communications

Engineering & Architecture

Institution

Allied Health Sciences

School of Business

Arts & Sciences

Education

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra I Final Examination by School/College, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

51

3

23

25

100

12

21

39

128

30

21

31

102

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra I Final Examination

by Classification, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

20.0%

52.3%

39.1%

43.9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra I Final Examination by Classification, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

52

39

112

59

38

64

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Male

Female

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra I Final Examination

by Gender, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

39.8%

44.3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Male

Female

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra I Final Examination by Gender, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

53

Figure A1 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra I by school/college. The horizontal line in each plot represents the median or

middle raw score distribution. There is minimum variability among the median scores. The

School of Education had the highest median score, whereas, the School of Communications has

the lowest median score.

Figure A1. Exam Score by School/College: College Algebra I

Figure A2 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra I by student classification. The median score for freshmen, sophomores, and

juniors are noticeably higher than the median score for seniors

Figure A2. Exam Score by Student Classification: College Algebra I

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

54

Figure A3 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra I by gender. The medians for females and males are almost identical, however,

the median score for females is slightly lower.

Figure A3. Exam Score by Gender: College Algebra I

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

55

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

56

Appendix B. College Algebra II

1

1

11

7

20

64

104

0

0

10

13

63

128

214

0

3

11

12

20

60

106

0 100 200 300 400 500

Education

Engineering &

Architecture

Allied Health

Sciences

School of

Communications

School of Business

Arts & Sciences

Institution

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra II Final Examination

by School/College, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

24.1%

32.7%

33.3%

35.0%

52.4%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

School of Business

Institution

Arts & Sciences

School of Communications

Allied Health Sciences

Education

Engineering & Architecture

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra II Final Examination by School/College, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

57

2

4

17

81

13

22

41

138

39

13

16

38

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra II Final Examination

by Classification, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

13.3%

15.4%

29.3%

37.0%

0% 20% 40%

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra II Final Examination by Classification, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

58

23

81

74

140

45

61

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Male

Female

Number of Students

Student Performance on College Algebra II Final Examination

by Gender, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

23.7%

36.7%

0% 20% 40%

Male

Female

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on College

Algebra II Final Examination by Gender, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

59

Figure B1 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra II by school/college. The median for the School of Education is the highest,

whereas, the School of Business has the lowest median scores.

Figure B1. Exam Score by School/College: College Algebra II

Figure B2 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra II by student classification. There is minimum median variation across

classification, however freshmen had the highest median score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

60

Figure B2. Exam Score by Student Classification: College Algebra II

Figure B3 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

College Algebra II by Gender. The median for males and females are almost identical, however,

the median for females was slightly higher.

Figure B3. Exam Score by Gender: College Algebra II

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

61

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

62

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

63

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

64

Appendix C. Pre-calculus

1

0

6

10

47

64

0

1

2

7

50

60

0

1

2

4

28

35

0 50 100 150 200

School of

Communications

School of Business

Allied Health

Sciences

Engineering &

Architecture

Arts & Sciences

Institution

Number of Students

Student Performance on Precalculus Final Examination

by School/College, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

0.0%

48.5%

51.6%

58.8%

75.0%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

School of Business

Arts & Sciences

Institution

Engineering & Architecture

Allied Health Sciences

School of Communications

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Precalculus

Final Examination by School/College, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

65

4

4

7

49

4

5

8

43

7

3

7

18

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Number of Students

Student Performance on Precalculus Final Examination

by Classification, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

50.0%

44.4%

46.7%

53.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Precalculus

Final Examination by Classification, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

66

Figure C1 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Pre-Calculus by School/College. Health Sciences has the highest median score, whereas the

School of Business has the lowest median score.

18

46

19

4

10

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female

Number of Students

Student Performance on Precalculus Final Examination

by Gender, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

48.6%

52.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Male

Female

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Precalculus

Final Examination by Gender, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

67

Figure C1. Exam Score by School/College Pre-Calculus

Figure C2 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Pre-Calculus by student classification. Seniors had the highest median score, whereas

sophomores had the lowest median score.

Figure C2. Exam Score by student classification: Pre-Calculus

Figure C3 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Pre-Calculus by gender. The median for males and females are almost identical, however, the

female median score was slightly higher than the male median score.

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

68

Figure C3. Exam Score by Gender: Pre-Calculus

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

69

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

70

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

71

Appendix D. Calculus I

0

1

2

8

15

26

2

1

0

39

30

72

0

0

1

11

21

33

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Education

Allied Health

Sciences

School of Business

Engineering &

Architecture

Arts & Sciences

Institution

Number of Students

Student Performance on Calculus I Final Examination

by School/College, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

0.0%

17.0%

26.5%

33.3%

50.0%

100.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Education

Engineering & Architecture

Institution

Arts & Sciences

Allied Health Sciences

School of Business

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Calculus I

Final Examination by School/College, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

72

1

1

10

14

2

2

13

55

5

6

12

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Number of Students

Student Performance on Calculus I Final Examination

by Classification, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

33.3%

33.3%

43.5%

20.3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Calculus I

Final Examination by Classification, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

73

9

17

37

35

13

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Male

Female

Number of Students

Student Performance on Calculus I Final Examination

by Gender, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

19.6%

32.7%

0% 20% 40%

Male

Female

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Calculus I

Final Examination by Gender, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

74

Figure D1 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Calculus I by School/College. The School of Business had the highest median score, whereas the

School of Education had the lowest median score.

Figure D1. Exam Score by School/College Pre-Calculus

Figure D2 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Calculus I by student classification. Sophomores have the highest median score, whereas juniors

have the lowest median score.

Figure D2. Exam Score by student classification: Pre-Calculus

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

75

Figure D3 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Calculus I by gender. The female median score was higher than the male median score.

Figure D3. Exam Score by Gender: Pre-Calculus

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

76

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

77

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

78

Appendix E. Applied Calculus

1

1

2

10

65

79

1

1

0

12

44

58

0

0

0

14

24

38

0 50 100 150 200

Engineering &

Architecture

Allied Health

Sciences

School of

Communications

Arts & Sciences

School of Business

Institution

Number of Students

Student Performance on Applied Calculus Final Examination

by School/College, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

45.5%

50.0%

50.0%

58.6%

59.6%

100.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Arts & Sciences

Allied Health Sciences

Engineering & Architecture

Institution

School of Business

School of Communications

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Applied

Calculus Final Examination by School/College, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

79

3

23

25

100

12

21

39

128

30

21

31

102

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Number of Students

Student Performance on Applied Calculus Final Examination

by Classification, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

20.0%

52.3%

39.1%

43.9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Senior

Junior

Sophmore

Freshman

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Applied

Calculus Final Examination by Classification, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

80

39

112

59

38

64

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Male

Female

Number of Students

Student Performance on Applied Calculus Final Examination

by Gender, Spring 2014

Scored 60% or higher Score lower than 60% Withdrew or No Score

39.8%

44.3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Male

Female

Percent of Students That Scored 60% or Higher on Applied

Calculus Final Examination by Gender, Spring 2014

Pass Rate (60% or higher)

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

81

Figure E1 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Applied Calculus by School/College. The School of Communications had the highest median

score, whereas the College Engineering, Architecture & Computer Science had the lowest

median score.

Figure E1. Exam Score by School/College Pre-Calculus

Figure E2 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Applied Calculus by student classification. Freshmen had the highest median score, whereas

seniors had the lowest median score.

Figure E2. Exam Score by student classification: Pre-Calculus

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

82

Figure E3 presents a “Box-and-Whiskers Plot” of the total score on the final examination for

Applied Calculus by gender. The female median score was slightly higher than the male median

score.

Figure E3. Exam Score by Gender: Pre-Calculus

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

83

2013-14 Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning: Full Report

84

2013-14 Assessment of General Education Outcomes Written Communication

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation

July, 2014

“Working together to create a culture of evidence-based decision making…”

Appendix X

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 1

Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation “Working together to create a culture of evidence-based decision making…”

2013-14 Assessment of General Education Outcomes

Written Communication

The Assessment of Written Communication

n Spring Semester 2014, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation collected data on

student performance in English 003 from the English Department for the purpose of determining

the extent to which students demonstrated competence in the general education outcome, written

communication.

During the semester, students were required to compose essays in the areas of Style Analysis,

Definition, Investigative, and Solution. A descriptive analytic rubric was used for grading each

essay based on five criteria: (1) Organization, (2) Development A, (3) Development B, (4) Style,

and (5) Grammar/Mechanics. A copy of the analytic rubric is in the Appendix.

he descriptions of each of the five criteria are as follows:

Organization: Organizes ideas and connects them with clear transitions.

Development A: Identifies and analyzes important features of the argument and supports

the main points of the argument.

Development B: Explains opposition and refutes it; uses documentation.

Style: Control of language, including diction and syntactic variety.

Grammar/Mechanics: Facility with conventions (grammar, usage, and mechanics).

For each criterion, a score is earned on one of six levels. The maximum number of points for

each criterion is 20. The first/highest level is Strong, which has a score range of 18-20 points. The

second level is Satisfactory, which has a score range of 16-17 points. The third level is

Passing/Acceptable, which has a score range of 14-15 points. A score that is lower than 14 is

considered a failing score. Failing scores fall into three levels: Failing, Inadequate (12-13 pts),

Failing, Seriously Flawed (1-11 pts), and Total Failure (0 pts). A student’s total score on an essay

is the sum of all criterion scores. The total score on an essay can range from 0 to 100.

Studies on the Development of Students' Writing Skills in English 003

Scoring rubrics have become widely used in educational settings as a tool for assessing

students’ writing skills (Andrade, 2000). When descriptive analytic rubrics are used, students

receive a score on their performance on each writing criterion as well as a description of what that

score means. The results can be used to make improvement in areas of weakness. Rubrics can also

be used for purposes of evaluation and accountability. The analyses of students’ performances

across multiple sections of a course can inform the attainment of departmental and institutional

level goals and objectives.

I

T

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 2

For Spring Semester 2014, two studies were conducted on the English 003 essay data. Study 1

focused on the effects of writing revisions of essays on the improvement of students' writing skills.

Study 2 focused on the effects of writing multiple essays, without revisions, on the improvement

of students' writing skills.

Study 1

The literature on formative assessment provides guidance on the characteristics of effective

assessment and feedback (Sadler, 1989; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Hughes, 2010). Two

important components of formative assessment and feedback include: (1) articulate clear criteria

for assessing writing, and (2) provide opportunities for improvement through revision (Andrade,

2000).

Procedure and Results: During the course of the semester, students in one section of English

003 were assigned to revise one of the essays. Students submitted a first version and then a

revision of the same essay after the first version was scored using a descriptive analytic rubric.

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of criterion scores for the two essays before

and after the revision. The valid "N" consists of the number of observations; that is, the number of

criterion scores for all participating students who submitted the essay and the revision. The

average total score on the essay increased from M = 73.73, SD = 11.82 to M = 84.26, SD = 9.95.

The results also show that the development of students' writing skills improved for each criterion,

the variability (e.g. the standard deviation) of students’ scores decreased for each criterion, and

that the minimum competency score of at least 14 or 70% was achieved. Paired correlations

between before and after revision ranged from .44 for Grammar/Mechanics to .94 for Style.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Before and After Revision by Grading Criteria

Criterion Valid N

Mean Standard Deviation

Paired

Samples

Correlation Before

Revision After

Revision Before

Revision After

Revision

Organization 33 15.40 17.46 3.60 2.20 0.72**

Development A 33 14.80 17.60 3.12 2.44 0.76**

Development B 33 14.93 16.93 2.58 2.37 0.69*

Style 33 14.33 16.26 1.63 1.67 0.94**

Grammar/Mechanics 33 14.40 15.86 2.23 2.23 0.44**

Total Score 33 73.73 84.26 11.82 9.95 0.88**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 3

Figure 1 shows that the mean score on each criterion increased between before and after

revision. The largest increase in before and after revision scores was for Development A, Mean

Difference = 2.80, and the smallest increase was for Grammar/Mechanics, Mean Difference =

1.46.

Figure 1

Table 2 presents the results of paired-sample t-tests that were conducted to compare mean

criterion scores on essays before and after revisions. Specifically, there was a significant difference

in the mean criterion scores for Development A, (Mean Difference=2.80; SE=.52); t(14)=5.31,

p<.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in the mean criterion scores for

Grammar/Mechanics, (Mean Difference=1.46; SE=.60); t(14)=2.41; p<.05).

Table 2. Paired t-test Before and After Revision by Grading Criteria

Criterion

Mean

Difference Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval t

Sig. (2-tailed) (After - Before

Revision ) Lower Upper

Organization 2.06 0.65 0.67 3.46 3.17 <0.001

Development A 2.80 0.52 1.66 3.93 5.31 <0.001

Development B 2.00 0.50 0.91 3.08 3.94 <0.01

Style 1.93 0.15 1.60 2.26 12.61 <0.001

Grammar/Mechanics 1.46 0.60 0.16 2.77 2.41 <0.05

Total Score 10.53 1.46 7.39 13.67 7.20 <0.001

0

5

10

15

20Organization

Development A

Development BStyle

Grammar/Mechanics

Before Revision

After Revision

Mean Performance on English 003 Essay by Grading Criteria: Before and After Revision

Spring 2014

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 4

Study 2

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics by each criterion for Study 2 in which students wrote

essays without submitting revisions. There were a total of 1705 valid observations. The scores of

the original essay (e.g. “before revision”) used in Study 1 are also included in Study 2, but scores

of the revised essays from Study 1 are excluded. A mean score for each criterion was calculated

across all valid observations. Organization has the highest mean score, M=16.97, SD=2.97 and

Grammar/Mechanics has the lowest mean score, M=15.94, SD=2.80.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics by Each Criterion

Criterion Valid N Mean Std. Dev.

Organization 1630 16.97 2.97

Development A 1630 16.66 4.00

Development B 1630 16.01 3.18

Style 1630 16.53 2.73

Grammar/Mechanics 1630 15.94 2.80

Total Score + 1705 80.60 17.38

The Valid N for Total Score exceeds the Valid N for each criterion score because some English professors reported the “Total Score” only and no criterion scores.

Figure 2 shows the mean score for each criterion on English 003 essays. The rankings for the mean

are as follows: Organization > Development A > Style > Development B > Grammar/Mechanics.

Figure 2

15.94

16.53

16.01

16.66

16.97

15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18

Grammar/Mechanics

Style

Development B

Development A

Organization

MEAN SCORE

Mean Criterion Scores for English 003 EssaysSpring 2014

Study 2N= 1630

Score range for each criterion: 0-20

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 5

Figure 3 shows the comparison of mean criterion scores for English 003 essays from 2010 – 2014.

Figure 3

Table 4 presents the bivariate correlation coefficients between pairs of criterion scores and the

Total Score. All correlation coefficients are positive and significant at the 0.01 level. The

correlation between Grammar/Mechanics and Development B is the smallest with a value of .712.

The correlation between Development A and Total Score is the largest with a value of 0.957.

Table 4. Pearson Correlations for Five Criteria and Total Score

Organization Development

A

Development

B Style

Grammar/

Mechanics

Total

Score

Organization 1 .932** .843** .868** .770** .949**

Development A .932** 1 .866** .879** .771** .957**

Development B .843** .866** 1 .806** .712** .913**

Style .868** .879** .806** 1 .881** .949**

Grammar/Mechanics .770** .771** .712** .881** 1 .883**

Total Score .949** .957** .913** .949** .883** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

15.9

16.5

16

16.6

16.9

16.2

16.9

16.2

16.8

17.1

15.1

16.5

16

17.0

17.3

15.2

15.5

14.5

15.4

15.9

14.9

16.4

15.4

16.3

16.9

13 14 15 16 17 18

Grammar/Mechanics

Style

Development B

Development A

Organization

MEAN SCORE

Mean Criterion Scores for English 003 EssaysSpring 2010-2014

2010N=7942011N=21352012N=1872013N=25992014N=1630

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 6

F-test and Post Hoc Analysis

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on the five criterion means to determine if

students performed equally across all criteria. The F-test shows that the means for the five criteria

are not equal and the overall difference is significant, F(4,8145)=36.629, p<.001 The results of the

F-test are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. ANOVA for Five Criteria Used in the Grading Rubric

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1253.922 4 313.481 36.63 p<.001

Within Groups 69707.341 8145 8.558

Total 70961.263 8149

In order to compare the mean differences between criteria, a Post Hoc analysis was performed.

The test of Homogeny of Variances revealed a significant Levene Statistic, which indicates

unequal variances. Therefore, equal variances are not assumed. Tamhane's T2 Post Hoc test was

used. The results are shown in Table 6.

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 7

In Table 6, the mean differences are shown in the third column. The mean differences between

Development A and Style (MD =.131, p=.871) and between Grammar/Mechanics and

Development B (MD= -.075, p=.998) are not significant. The largest mean difference is between

Organization and Grammar/Mechanics (MD=1.031, p<.001)

Table 6. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons

(I) Criterion (J) Criterion

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Organization

Development A .309* .103 .027 .02 .60

Development B .956* .108 <.001 .65 1.26

Style .440* .100 <.001 .16 .72

Grammar/Mechanics 1.031* .101 <.001 .75 1.31

Development A

Organization -.309* .103 .027 -.60 -.02

Development B .647* .107 <.001 .35 .95

Style .131 .099 .871 -.15 .41

Grammar/Mechanics .722* .100 <.001 .44 1.00

Development B

Organization -.956* .108 <.001 -1.26 -.65

Development A -.647* .107 <.001 -.95 -.35

Style -.516* .104 <.001 -.81 -.23

Grammar/Mechanics .075 .105 .998 -.22 .37

Style

Organization -.440* .100 <.001 -.72 -.16

Development A -.131 .099 .871 -.31 .15

Development B .516* .104 <.001 .23 .81

Grammar/Mechanics .591* .097 <.001 .32 .86

Grammar/Mechanics

Organization -1.031* .101 <.001 -1.31 -.75

Development A -.722* .100 <.001 -1.00 -.44

Development B -.075 .105 .998 -.37 .22

Style -.591* .097 <.001 -.86 -.32

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Note: "Tamhane's T2" Post Hoc test is used, and equal variances are not assumed.

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 8

Passing Rate by Criterion and Total Score

The passing competency requires a score of 70% or higher, (i.e., 14 out of total 20 points for

criterion scores and 70 out of 100 for Total Scores). The results are shown in Table 7. The

criterion with the highest passing rate is the Style, which has a passing rate of 96%. Development

B has the lowest passing rate at 89.0%. The ranking for passing rates is Style > Organization >

Development A > Grammar/Mechanics > Development B. Furthermore, 93% of all essays included

in this analysis earned a Total Score that met the passing competency score of 70%.

Table 7. Passing Rate by Criterion

Criteria Status Frequency Percent

Organization

Fail 83 5.1%

Pass 1547 95%

Total 1630 100%

Development A

Fail 93 5.7%

Pass 1537 94%

Total 1630 100%

Development B

Fail 179 11.0%

Pass 1451 89%

Total 1630 100%

Style

Fail 69 4.2%

Pass 1561 96%

Total 1630 100%

Grammar/Mechanics

Fail 144 8.8%

Pass 1486 91%

Total 1630 100%

Total Score

Fail 122 7.2%

Pass 1583 93%

Total 1705 100%

Note: Based on descriptive analytic rubric, the passing grade requires a score of 70% (i.e.,

14 out of total 20 points for criterion score and 70 out of 100 for the Total Score)..

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 9

Figure 4

Figure 5 shows the comparison of passing rates for English 003 essays from 2010 – 2014.

Figure 5

91%

96%

89%

94%

95%

84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98%

Grammar/Mechanics

Style

Development B

Development A

Organization

Passing Rate

Passing Rate by Criterion for English 003 EssaysSpring 2014

Passing cut score for each criterion: 70% (14 of 20 points)

Study 2N=1630

91%

96%

89%

94%

95%

93%

97%

90%

94%

96%

87%

89%

85%

88%

90%

84%

90%

71%

83%

86%

76%

95%

71%

88%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Grammar/Mechanics

Style

Development B

Development A

Organization

MEAN SCORE

Mean Passing Rates for English 003 Essays Spring 2010-2014

2010 N=794

2011 N=2135

2012 N=187

2013 N=2599

2014 N=1630

Passing cut score for each criterion: 705 (14 of 20 pts)

Figure 4 shows the passing rate by criterion for English 003 essays.

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 10

Summary

he ultimate goal for outcomes assessment is to use the results of assessment to improve

student learning and performance. This report embraces this goal by emphasizing student

performance at the criterion level. The disaggregation of scores at the criterion level provides an

advantage in implementing strategies for improvement. First, it informs the instructors in the

Department of English about the strengths and weaknesses of students enrolled in English 003 in

the aggregate. Second, student performance data at the criterion level provide instructors with

specific targets for improvement in the teaching and learning process. Third, analysis at the

criterion level provides information about students’ relative strengths and weaknesses among

different types of essays (e.g., Style Analysis, Definition, Investigative and Solution). This

information can help instructors balance time and effort devoted to helping students develop

competency in each criteria and for each essay type.

For Spring Semester 2014, students enrolled in English 003 met the minimum performance

criterion of 70% in all criterion areas. For four criterion areas, Organization, Development A, Style

and Grammar/Mechanics, passing rates exceeds 90%; only Development B has a passing rate of

89%.

It is also instructive to note that when students were allowed to revise their essays and were

given feedback on their performance, their scores increased significantly and the variability in their

performance decreased.

Similar to the results from Spring Semester 2011, 2012, and 2013, Development B and

Grammar/Mechanics have the lowest mean scores (See Table 3) and passing rates (Table 7).

Enhanced training in these two areas can effectively improve students’ writing competencies in

English 003. Furthermore, the results for Spring Semester 2014 were less than or equal to the

results for Spring Semester 2013 for each criterion. The Office of Institutional Assessment and

Evaluation (OIAE) will continue to monitor student learning outcomes in written communications

to identify discernible trends.

References

Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership,

57(5), 13-18.

Hattie, J. A., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81-112.

Hughes, G. (2010). Formative assessment practices that maximize learning for students at risk. In.

H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 212-232). New

York: Routledge.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional

Science, 18, 119-144.

T

Written Communication – Spring Semester 2014 11

Appendix

Case Study – Howard University Counseling Service (HUCS) Ayana Watkins-Northern, Ph.D., Director

HUCS used a Client Satisfaction Survey to identify strengths and weaknesses of the service delivery system. The survey was administered to HUCS clientele and provided information about clinical services, environment, and suggestions for disseminating information about the agency. Implementation of survey suggestions has led to upgrades in environmental aesthetics, service provision and utilization, and outreach efforts to increase awareness of services available to the university community.

Background and Purpose: HUCS has continued to be an integral agency within the university community. HUCS provides

valuable interventions when students are in crisis, sometimes coordinating efforts between agencies and departments within the university to facilitate student safety. Other times, HUCS provides a source of comfort and support in the aftermath of trying situations. Our service is primarily given through crisis intervention services, offering individual and group psychotherapy and counseling, providing consultation and outreach services to the university community, and psychiatric consultations for students in need.

Although some of the feedback from clients requested greater availability for walk-in hours, increasing clinical demands and a shortage of senior level staff has resulted in a reduction of HUCS’ walk-in hours from 10 am through 4 pm daily, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. In order to accommodate those students that are not able to utilize HUCS during those hours, intake sessions can also be scheduled by appointment on other days and times. Appointments for individual and group services are scheduled with our staff of licensed and license-eligible psychologists, and our trainees (psychology interns, externs, and practicum students.

Method: HUCS developed the Client Satisfaction Survey, a brief survey consisting of 34 items that clients

can respond to, rating their experiences with different elements of the service, and providing qualitative responses as well. The scale is designed to be completed anonymously and starts with basic demographic information about the respondent. Ratings are provided by clients on issues of location and environment, the intake and scheduling process, therapist characteristics, and their overall experience with counseling. Surveys are collected on an ongoing basis, although clients are asked to complete the survey only once per year. Specific information about the findings are reported in the Annual Report for Counseling Services.

Use of Findings: Consistent with the previous case study, HUCS was rated positively on a number of dimensions

by its clientele. There were still some concerns regarding the aesthetics of HUCS and some frustration about the amount of paperwork, but other substantive factors such as responsiveness to scheduling and therapist characteristics were evaluated positively by the majority of client respondents. Client Satisfaction Survey data was gathered from a sample of clients reporting to HUCS (2009-2010 n=45; 2010-2011 n=46). The anonymous survey was voluntarily completed by clients utilizing HUCS’ services.

Approximately 659 students presented to HUCS during the 2010-2011 academic year, a number comparable to the 2009-2010 (n=624) and 2008-2009 (n=661) academic years. The challenge previously alluded to is that the students are presenting with more severe problems and pathology, requiring increasingly skilled care from the senior staff at HUCS, either through direct service provision or more intense supervision of predoctoral interns and graduate-level trainees. In order to accommodate the increasing severity of client problems, the restricted times presented by clients, and the limitations

Appendix Y

associated with staff and trainee availability, HUCS has had to shift its intake times to walk-in hours of 10 am – 4 pm on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Intakes-by-appointment can be scheduled at other times in order to accommodate the students that were not able to come to HUCS during the walk-in hours.

Data from the Client Satisfaction Survey for the last 2 years indicated that the intake process was rated positively by the majority of clients, with ratings of “average” or higher by approximately 93% or 87% of respondents for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, respectively. Some of the concerns expressed by clients about the intake process included the amount of paperwork. Thus, an effort has been made to set the foundation for completion of some of the intake materials electronically. HUCS is in the process of having 2 computer stations installed in the waiting room area to allow clients to register with HUCS and check-in for appointments electronically. This project is expected to be implemented and refined during the 2011-2012 academic year.

Across both years, clients rated their experiences with their therapists positively, with ratings no lower than “average” for the 2009-2010 academic year, and ratings of only “good” or “excellent” for the 2010-2011 academic year. Clients ratings reflect the effort that HUCS puts into training its therapeutic staff to do more than simply provide compassion and understanding in the counseling sessions. HUCS staff and trainees are available in many ways far beyond business hours to their clients and put forth a concerted effort to address clients’ needs, psychological, emotional, and practical. Consistent with our previous case study, there is still a call for more long-term treatment options by clients. We continue to address client needs for longer term services on a case by case basis, but to make longer term therapy (i.e. more than 8 sessions) available to all clients would require a larger staff.

HUCS has tried to address the clients’ desires for longer-term therapy by increasing the number of groups available to students, with up to 10 different groups being run during the Spring semester. Unfortunately, some of the challenges with running groups included staff accommodating scheduling of group sessions, and availability of sufficient longer term psychotherapy groups and diversity of group topics.

Additional staffing changes have forced HUCS to prioritize services in-keeping with the “Students First” mission of the university. Respondents to the Client Satisfaction Survey generally felt that HUCS did a good job of informing the university community about out services, with approximately 80% and 73% of clients from the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, respectively, rating our outreach efforts as “average,” “good,” or “excellent.” The fact that our usage numbers have remained fairly consistent over the last 3-4 years suggests that our message of destigmatizing mental health treatment is continuing to be disseminated and received. Nonetheless, HUCS will continue to put forth efforts in multiple forums to let the community know what services we provide and how we can support the inter- and intrapersonal development of our students. Implications: HUCS remains committed to the ideal of ensuring that students continue to receive high quality mental health services that will help them successfully matriculate through the university system. The results from our evaluative survey indicate that we have not strayed far from the path, in spite of the challenges we’ve faced around staffing and changes in service provision, particularly psychiatric services. Nonetheless, we are painfully aware of the need to continue with outreach activities and to streamline some of the administrative tasks to reduce the burden on students and staff, and allow both staff and students the freedom to serve and be served.

FINAL COPY

State of the University Address

Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library

Howard University

October 30, 2014, 11:00 a.m.

Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., MBA

President

1��

Appendix Z

OPENING

Faculty Colleagues and Members of the University Community:

Thank you for joining me today for the Fall 2014 State of the

University address. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the

Board of Trustees for entrusting me with the leadership of the

University, and the community at large for the support that you have

since provided. I also want to thank Dr. Lorenzo Morris and the

Faculty Senate for their continued cooperation and support. As a

result of the success of these State of the University addresses, there

has been growing interest from the University community to open

these events to students and staff. Therefore, I would like to petition

the Faculty Senate Council to open these State of the University

addresses to all and propose that I host one address in October, during

the Friday of homecoming, in an effort to engage students, faculty,

staff and alumni and to host a second address during the Spring

semester to engage all members of the community.

I’d like to begin by noting that today marks the 100th day of my

service as Howard University president. While this is a significant

milestone in the 20+ year journey that has brought me to this point, I

know that this is not a destination, but rather the next step in our

journey—a journey upon which I am very excited to embark.

2��

In studying the presidencies of two of my predecessors, who stepped

into the office at a similar age, I note some of the challenges that they

faced in their initial 100 days.

In the case of Dr. Mordecai Johnson, who served from 9/1/1926 –

6/30/1960:

x Only two of the University’s schools were accredited

x The physical facilities were grossly inadequate and there was

no plan to secure the financial resources to build modern

facilities to replace those from the nineteenth century

x There was no legal foundation for the University’s annual

appropriation

x Post World War I racial consciousness and the racial

paternalism of the preceding white president were alive and

well

x There was great doubt that a nonwhite president could be

successful

Similarly, when Dr. Cheek, whose tenure spanned two decades from

7/1/1969 – 6/30/1989, came aboard he faced substantial issues:

x The University had experienced more than a year of campus

unrest

x There were mass rallies that burned the former president in

effigy

x Almost daily national press coverage about a campus in

turmoil.

3��

While our challenges differ from those present in 1926 and 1969, the

challenges that Howard now faces are great, and the beginning of our

new academic year is a continuation of an institution-wide journey not

a destination. Time is short and we must continually focus on moving

forward. Today, our immediate priorities include:

x The creation of an administrative infrastructure designed to

enable efficient and effective operations;

x Improvement of graduation and retention rates for all categories

of students;

x Enhancement of pedagogy informed by data regarding the

assessment of student learning;

x Stabilization of the hospital;

x Diversification of revenue streams; and

x Building the fiscal and physical foundation for Howard’s

future. �I am committed to addressing these priorities in a manner that allows

us to be better, continue and further our mission and continue to

attract the best and brightest students, faculty and staff from across the

world.

LEADERSHIP UPDATES

As we continue to build our talented workforce, I am pleased to

introduce a few key cabinet appointees: Ms. Florence Prioleau,

General Counsel; Ms. Gracia Hillman, Vice President for External

Affairs; Mr. Eric Coard, Assistant Vice President for Facilities and

4��

Renovations; and Mr. Anthony Freeman, Assisant Vice President for

Real Estate.

Additionally, in furtherance of the University’s commitment to

excellence and opportunity, an Executive Search Support office under

the direction of JoAnn Fax, has been opened, to lead the recruitment

for a number of senior level positions.

Provost Search

This semester, we will begin our search for a permanent Provost and

Chief Academic Officer and we are seeking your input. The search

will be managed by the executive recruitment firm Witt/Kieffer. Dr.

Michael R. Winston has agreed to serve as Provost until a permanent

choice is named. He also will chair the Provost Search Committee. I

have received nominations from key stakeholder groups for

individuals to serve as members of the Search Committee, who will

work in concert with the chair and Witt/Kieffer to identify the best

candidates. Once a group of finalists is identified, they will participate

in campus visits to meet with various stakeholders, including faculty,

students, staff and alumni.

Other executive searches include:

x Chief Financial Officer

x Chief Operating Officer

x Vice President for Development & Alumni Relations

5��

Deans’ Searches

As you know, we successfully completed the search for a new dean of

the School of Law, and it is with great pleasure that I introduce Dean

Danielle Holley Walker. We are excited to welcome her as a member

of the Howard University family.

We are also actively engaged in searches to fill the deanships of the

College of Arts & Sciences, the School of Social Work and now the

College of Medicine. As you are aware, Dean Mark Johnson will be

stepping down as Dean of the College of Medicine on November 1st

and Dr. Edward E. Cornwell III, Chair of Surgery, will be stepping in

to serve as Interim Dean. We have already launched a national search

to secure a permanent Dean of the College of Medicine and Dr.

Cornwell has agreed to serve as chair of that committee. We thank Dr.

Johnson for his years of service and look forward to engaging the

students, faculty, staff and alumni as we seek new leadership for the

College of Medicine.

FACULTY MATTERS

Faculty Salary Increases. I’ve often heard the sayings that no good

deed goes unpunished and the road to hell is paved with good

intentions. With that in mind, despite the self-inflicted wound of

providing deans with an opportunity to increase faculty salaries by

6%, I have received regrets from some faculty; however, the wounds

bleed blue blood nevertheless and I am glad that we were able to

provide our faculty with these increases. In terms of the distribution of

6��

the 6%, each Dean was provided with a 6% pool. Upon receipt, the

deans determined how that money would be allocated. Therefore, all

decisions affecting faculty salaries were and continue to be handled by

the Deans, while the Provost provides oversight to these decisions;

these decisions are not made or based upon any recommendation from

the Office of the President. My only role was to get the 6% increase

approved by the Board of Trustees.

The Board approved this increase because they understand our needs.

For that reason, this salary increase serves as a down payment on a

progressive but sustained effort to bring salaries to competitive levels.

As we move forward, I hope that our faculty will be ambitious not

only about having competitive salaries but also about offering stellar

learning options for our students.

As a result, I expect that all faculty will participate in and engage the

Faculty Performance Evaluation System (FPES). I have been assured

by all the Deans that FPES is ready to launch so this will be the

system going forward. To promote an easy transition, I will ensure

that all Chairs and Deans are adequately and appropriately trained so

they can implement and participate in the FPES process.

Adjunct Faculty Union: Recently, the SEIU presented a proposal for

the unionization of adjunct faculty. The proposal is currently under

review and we are putting a team together in preparation for collective

bargaining; as we continue through this process, we welcome input

from faculty. To that end, I have asked Dr. Greg Carr and Dean

7��

Lawson Borders to provide input from the faculty perspective. I have

also asked each of the deans to assess the impact of the proposal on

academic program operations. (Adjunct faculty in the School of Law

and all Health Science schools and colleges are excluded from this

proposal)

Faculty Handbook Revision Process: The presentation of the revised

Faculty Handbook to the Board of Trustees was tabled in light of the

new adjunct union. Based upon the union’s formation and their initial

proposal, we need to revisit the proposed Faculty Handbook revision.

To that end, I am going to re-engage some members of the Faculty

Handbook Revision Committee. Additionally, I have already asked

the Governance Committee of the Faculty Senate Council to review

my input, which was not included in the draft that was prepared for

the handbook committee’s review last year, and to discuss any

changes that may be needed after the SEIU Local 500 Collective

Bargaining Agreement is signed between that union (adjuncts) and the

University.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

x Research Administrative Services (RAS) and the Office of

Research Development have been merged and placed under the

oversight of the Associate Provost for Research and Graduate

Studies. We have made a number of improvements in these

offices such as minimizing the administrative burdens on

researchers, whenever possible, through the provision of

enhanced services, training and communication; increasing

8��

awareness of faculty research contributions to both internal and

external constituencies; increasing faculty awareness of

available research opportunities; and reviewing and updating

policies and procedures that govern sponsored programs to

ensure benchmarks for administration that are in line with peer

institutions

x External sponsored funding received in FY 2014 increased by

$7.5 million over FY 2013. �

�x I want to acknowledge the 50 faculty researchers from a cross

section of disciplines who participated in the Research Retreat

held July 7-9, 2014. This was an initial effort to enable faculty

and staff to discuss issues related to their research experiences,

as well as offer an opportunity for the University’s most

productive researchers to discuss their respective projects. It is

my understanding that several proposals are being developed by

participants.

x Howard University Interdisciplinary Research Building

(HUIRB) is scheduled to be fully operational in spring 2015.

The grand opening will be during Research Week in April 13-

17, 2015.

The HUIRB will be a silver certified LEED (Leadership in Energy &

Environmental Design) building; it is part of a green building

certification program that recognizes best-in-class building strategies

9��

and practices.

The building is a user-based facility, which will provide “state of the

art” laboratories to many of the research faculty as well as graduate

and undergraduate students in a large number of disciplines.

The programmatic areas that will be located in the HUIRB include:

1. Nanotechnology/ Nanofabrication

2. Natural Products Research

3. Microbial Ecology, Diversity, and Immunology

4. Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences

5. Developmental Biology/STEM Cell Research

6. Drug Development

7. Core Labs

The Associate Provost for Research, Dr. Gary Harris, has held

numerous meetings with key research faculty to map out plans,

specifications, and equipment choices. Faculty from over 25

departments have had input into this process.

�THE PHYSICAL CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

x Note progress of notable capital improvements (chem labs)

x Aging Physical Facilities—we need an estimated $727

million to address deferred maintenance and facility

upgrades in order to provide an optimal physical

environment

10��

x Divinity School Move to Law School campus

x Dining Facilities

x Residence Halls

x Change in the Towers Management—As of tomorrow,

Howard will assume management of the Howard Plaza

Towers.

x College Hall North and South

Outsourcing of PFM

The University has decided to outsource the management of physical

facilities to Thompson Facilities Management. We have engaged the

PFM union members about this issue and kept them informed

throughout the process. We have spoken very openly about

absenteeism and our expectations regarding work attendance and

performance. We have also grandfathered in tuition remission to

ensure that dependents may still have access to our University.

Despite our efforts, it has been brought to my attention that people are

speaking against their own interests as it relates to this new transition,

which is problematic. As we move forward, my expectation is that

affected PFM staff will comply with the changes when they become

effective on January 1st and the University is willing to do whatever

we need to ensure that this is a smooth transition

HOSPITAL

Effective October 6, Howard University entered into a Management

Services Agreement (MSA) with Paladin Healthcare. The

11��

collaboration with Paladin brings to Howard University Hospital

(HUH) a team of highly experienced senior executives and other

hospital managers who have assumed responsibility for the day-to-day

operations of the hospital under the oversight of a joint Howard

University and Paladin Healthcare Management Committee. Howard

University will continue to be the licensed operator of HUH.

The Paladin relationship is the latest and most intensive of a series of

proactive and deliberate steps taken by the University over the past 18

months to enhance our Hospital's operational efficiency, achieve fiscal

viability, advance our historical academic health sciences mission, and

continue to provide vital access to care for the thousands of District of

Columbia's residents who depend upon us and whom we are

privileged to serve.

An explicit goal of the collaboration between Howard and Paladin is

to advance the University's vision for establishing a comprehensive

and integrated community health, ambulatory care, and in-patient

delivery system.

THE 2014-2015 STUDENT BODY

We have enrolled a promising class of new students this fall with over

1500 freshmen representing 44 states and 17 countries. The average

SAT score for the incoming class is 1180. A total of 867 students have

enrolled via our Freshman Scholarship program. Enrollment in our

graduate and professional programs is comparable to previous years.

x Final Fall 2014 enrollment is 10,265

12��

x Retention and Graduation Rates are being closely monitored

by OUS/EM on an on-going basis

x Financial Aid is being leveraged to support high need

students and we have introduced the GRACE Grant

programto promote on-time graduation, retention and reduce

indebtedness.

x The University continues to enroll a very high number (59%) of

Federal Pell Grant recipients. This indicates that the ability to

pay is severely diminished which adversely impacts student

account receivables, retention and on-time graduation.

x The average Adjusted Gross Income (AG) for the majority of

our undergraduates is $60K with three (3) members in the

household and one (1) in college. The average annual costs for

tuition, fees, room, meals and books is approximately $37.5K

(62.5% of the AGI).

x The University is leveraging financial aid resources to support

students with high financial need (as opposed to its historical

model which historically focused only on academic

achievement)

x The Graduation and Retention Access to Continued Excellence

(GRACE) Grant is designed to help remove financial barriers to

academic success and promote on-time graduation for students

who have successfully completed their freshman year, are on

track for graduation and demonstrate the highest financial need.

The grant program is a real incentive for these students to

continue their successful progress and leverages institutional

13��

resources to align with our retention and on-time graduation

goals. Effective Fall 2014, the University will pay 100% of the

remaining tuition and mandatory fee charges for full-time

sophomore through senior students who 1) receive the

maximum Federal Pell Grant, 2) have a cumulative GPA of 2.5

or higher, and 3) are on-track for graduation as determined by

their school/college. The University will develop metrics to

monitor the success of this program. �x More than 210 students were awarded over $2M this fall in the

GRACE Grant.

Graduation and Retention Rates

A review of retention and graduation rates for students who entered as

freshmen in Academic Year 2009-2010 revealed that about 60% of

Howard’s first-time-in-college students continue to their third year.

Further, 40% of students in their third year meet the requirement for

minimum credits earned to be considered juniors. In direct response to

these findings, we have launched the Office of Undergraduate Studies

and a new financial aid option (the GRACE grant program) to help

our students stay in school and achieve on-time degree completion.

Launched in February 2014, the Office of Undergraduate Studies

(OUS) is led by the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies to

provide oversight for all enrollment management functions, including

the Office of Admissions and Registrar. OUS houses four sub-units:

x Center for Academic Excellence

14��

x Office of Student Success & Transition

x Office of Honors & Scholar Development

x Center for Career Education, Development, and Research.

In order to proactively identify and reduce barriers that negatively

impact retention and graduation rates, key areas of focus for OUS are

to:

x Align overall course capacity with enrollment demand.

x Increase capacity of staff and faculty advisers through a

comprehensive professional development program.

x Leverage technology (Elucian Pilot and DegreeWorks) to

enhance academic monitoring and retention interventions.

x Increase the number of students who register for at least 15

credit hours per semester and satisfactorily complete 30

hours per year.

x Decrease number of students with GPAs of 2.3 or less.

x Decrease number of students who are SAP eligible.

x Decrease number of students on academic probation.

Office of Honors and Scholar Development: With the goal of

enhancing the overall quality of the student experience, the Office of

Undergraduate Studies has also been charged with providing oversight

to honors and scholar development and career services. The Office of

Honors and Scholar Development will coordinate and support college

and discipline-based honor programs, and maintain a clearinghouse

for fellowship and scholarship opportunities.

15��

The Center for Career Education, Development and Research

provides career services and programs that augment classroom

instruction to produce career-ready graduates. Selected programs

include: Bison Careers Online, weekly career coaching services,

individual career consultations, and career fairs.

FUTURE ENDEAVORS WITH STUDENTS

x Dual Enrollment Programs:

x Professional School Entrance Exam Preparatory Programs

x Education of DC AP Teachers

x Faculty-Student Lunch Program

US News and World Report Ranking

US News and World Report ranked Howard University 145th among

national universities, and 2nd among HBCUs. Over the course of the

past year, we have taken several steps to improve many of the key

performance indicators assessed in the U.S. News and World Report

rankings, which include:

x Launching the Office of Undergraduate Studies (mentioned

earlier) to monitor the all facets of our undergraduate academic

experience, including an evaluation of the general education

requirements, course offering models and class sizes which will

compliment other ‘Faculty Resources’ with regards to class size

(20% of the overall score).

16��

x The Office of Undergraduate Studies also includes the Center

for Academic Excellence. This Center’s focus will be holistic

advising and mentoring services for at-risk students in an effort

to improve retention and graduation rates. The success in this

area will result in improvements in our ‘Retention and

Graduation Rates and Graduation Performance’ (30% of overall

score).

x Improving fundraising efforts, including ‘Alumni Giving’ (5%

of overall score).

DEVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI RELATIONS

With the anticipated retirement of Ms. Nesta Bernard, a search firm

has begun the process of recruiting and identifying candidates for the

position of Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations. In

addition, efforts are underway to review the current structure of the

department and identify strategic changes that will enhance our

fundraising capacity. This will include installing a new data base

program that will increase the University’s capacity to reach its vast

alumni base and other potential donors with more tailored and

consistent solicitations.

FUNDRAISING

One of my key objectives is to increase financial donations to the

University. I have tasked our Development Team with devising

strategic initiatives that will facilitate even more gifts from alumni and

friends of the University as well as corporations and foundations. The

17��

student stories of challenges and triumphs have been most compelling

when speaking with donors and they want to help.

x During the past fiscal year, my goal of increasing donations to

the University by $5 million was surpassed with 2014 Charter

Day donations exceeding $10 million.

x The number of strategic meetings and collaborative endeavors

with members of Congress, federal agencies, and local

government officials has been increased, and contacts are

ongoing through External Affairs.

x The new 1867 campaign to encourage giving by younger

alumni successfully launched via social media.

x Ground work for the capital campaign is being developed.

ALUMNI ENGAGEMENT

As part of a strategy to increase alumni giving and advocacy for the

University, I will also continue to meet with and engage alumni in a

number of areas nationwide to ensure they have a better understanding

of the University and its needs. Outreach to alumni and external

constituencies have been ongoing and robust. Presidential visits with

alumni chapters in Baltimore, North Carolina, Chicago, and California

have resulted in enhanced interaction with and contributions from

alumni in these target areas.

We are having measurable success in alumni engagement and

willingness to volunteer time and resources to alma mater, especially

in support of our students.

18�

�

A few of the most recent responses to the call to alumni has come

from alumna Dr. Danette Howard, the Lumina Foundation’s Vice

President for Policy and Mobilization. She responded to the Howard

Giving Challenge by supplying a $100,000 donation and challenged

her fellow Bison from the Classes of the 1990s to match her gift.

Another recent contribution came from one of our trustees, Robert

Lumpkins, who donated $500,000 for scholarships. In conjunction

with our Board Chairman Stacey Mobley, we are seeking matching

funds of $250,000 from the Board of Trustees, $125,000 from the

alumni of the School of Law and $125,000 from the alumni of the

School of Business, to be raised by June 30, 2015. The matching

funds also will support the Bridging the Gap Campaign, whose goal is

to raise $25 million in current-use and endowed scholarship and

fellowship assistance that will directly address the gaps in financial

aid for our students.

Mobile Giving Station Launch at Homecoming:

Throughout the homecoming weekend, the Division of Development

and Alumni Relations (DAR) engaged alumni by utilizing 6 mobile

“Give Now” teams and 2 alumni pavilions. Across campus, “Give

Now” teams were equipped with iPads preloaded with 5 engagement

options in an effort to solicit support from alumni and friends. I am

proud to announce that the University received approximately

$10,000 in donations towards the main online giving page, We Are

Howard Campaign, and Bridging the Gap. Additionally, we garnered

19��

$1,825 in online HUAA memberships and sold 42 bricks for a total of

$5,915 for the Founders Walk Brick Project.

SPENDING CONTROL

Despite our best efforts to raise funds, we will still have cash flow

challenges during the next year or two that we must carefully

manage. Increasing revenue and tightening spending controls are the

bookends to our plans for increased academic excellence and research

at the Capstone. As you know, the across the board spending cuts

imposed by Congress through sequestration resulted in a reduced

appropriation to our beloved University. Compounding those

difficulties are the fluctuations imposed when, like right now, our

appropriation is dispersed under a continuing resolution. Essentially,

this means that we currently are not receiving our full appropriation

on a regular cycle. Therefore, we all will need to tighten our belts

during the next few months as we weather the uncertainties of our

federal payments.

The tone and tenor of discourse and interactions among members

of our University community

In my State of the University address last April, I spoke about the

need for the maintenance of respect and civility in public and private

discourse among all members of the University community. As I

continue to invite engagement via personal contact, email and social

media, I must continue to emphasize the importance of respect and

civility. I receive many emails with inaccurate information where the

20��

tone and tenor are disrespectful and therefore problematic. Some of

these emails contain so much nasty and obnoxious language or vitriol

that a simple apology by the sender is not sufficient to remove the

impact. It has also been brought to my attention that some faculty and

staff have taken the liberty of using profane language during

conversations with students, fellow staff and faculty to express

discontent and this is utterly and completely unacceptable.

We have enough forces against us; therefore, negative behavior is

counterproductive when we need to discuss things to make us better. I

call upon the entire University community to commit to exercising

civil tone and tenor in all discourse, including public forums and

social media.

Notable Achievements

Congratulations to the following departments and faculty on recently

receiving notable grants:

�x Dr. Dennis Davenport and his fellow PIs, Drs. Marcus Alfred,

Talitha Washington, and Dan Williams in the College of Arts

and Sciences, received a grant through NSF’s Scholarships in

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM)

program for $617,000.00. The project will provide

approximately 18 scholarships for first-year or second-year

students majoring in Chemistry, Mathematics or Physics.�

�x Dr. Katherine Gurski, College of Arts and Sciences, received a

National Science Foundation (NSF) grant in the amount of 21�

�

$273,146.00 for a project titled Focus Research Group (FRG):

Collaborative Research: Developing Mathematical Algorithms

for Adaptive, Geodesic Mesh MHD for use in Astrophysics and

Space Physics.�Collaborators are the University of Notre Dame

& the University of Alabama in Huntsville.�

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPCOMING EVENTS

150th Anniversary of Howard University

150th Anniversary committee is being organized and our planning for

this illustrious event will soon be underway.

The Inauguration & Charter Day Convocation will take place on

Friday, March 6, 2015

Inauguration and Charter Day Gala will be held on Saturday, March 7,

2015.

Faculty Development Committee and Initiative

I must also take a moment to publicly thank Dr. Renee Jenkins and

Dr. Mercedes Tibbits for their hard work with the Faculty

Development Council. Upon their recommendation, I will be creating

an office that will be charged with developing and implementing

initiatives to facilitate an ongoing insertion of pedagogical principles

in faculty life.

22��

CLOSING REMARKS

We will continue responding to our challenges as we embrace a

number of significant opportunities that will enable Howard

University to grow stronger, remain competitive among institutions of

higher education and further our mission.

As we move forward, this is my vision for the University. First, that

we promote excellence and truth in service. To that end, we must

provide our students with an excellent education; this will be

accomplished by ensuring that we promote technical competency

across all programs and creating an environment where students will

receive the best teaching and learning opportunities. Therefore

pedagogy needs to become more prominent in terms of orientation

and day-to-day activities.

Our charter opens with the phrase:

That there be established, and is hereby established, in

the District of Columbia, a University for the education

of youth in the liberal arts and sciences, under the name,

style, and title of “Howard University.”

Howard must lead in the way of giving students a better mechanism

by which to achieve their educational goals. With a vision of

continued access for those most in need, the University is providing

more need-based aid than ever before. This academic year’s financial

aid budget approaches close to $100M.

23��

Over 59% of our students are Federal Pell Grant eligible and we are

committed to assisting them. The University also offers a robust

financial literacy and debt management program that will become

even more present over the next few months, in dormitories,

classrooms and through extra-curricular activities.

I also want to assist students with getting a greater return on their

educational investment. Therefore, I will be proposing to the Board of

Trustees a program that provides a rebate for any students wishing to

graduate early in an effort to incentivize students who desire to finish

early or on time.

Similarly, at present, student performance is not linked to faculty

performance in FPES. This needs to change. Therefore, I am

considering the implementation of a program that provides incentives

to faculty if the University graduation rate gets above or stays at a

certain level so that student success can be directly tied to faculty

performance and we can affirm our dedication to excellence and truth

in service.

Second, we must improve our physical infrastructure by leveraging a

fiscal plan that will have us solvent for many years to come.

Finally, the University must provide an atmosphere that enables it to

be a “go to” institution when external events occur (particularly those

related to our mission). Throughout Howard’s history, we have been

known for immediately addressing the disparities and social ills that

24��

25��

affect our city, our nation, and our world. For example, Inabel

Lindsay, the founding dean of our School of Social Work was a key

figure in the development of the modern social work profession and

worked tirelessly to ensure that Howard was at the forefront of social

issues. We need to get back to that paradigm so that when major

events occur, such as the Ferguson shooting of Mike Brown and the

appearance of Ebola in U.S. hospitals, we are at the forefront of that

response; we must be in the national discussion. Therefore, we need to

ensure that the strategic initiatives from my office are aligned with the

academic initiatives put forth by the Office of the Provost, the schools

and colleges, and all academic support units, to enable a quick

response that will allow us to be at the forefront of these

discussions—examples: create symposia, create white papers and

influence the direction of the conversations around such events.

I firmly believe that Howard bends the arc of the impossible toward

the arc of the possible by providing opportunity. Let’s create that

opportunity.

In truth and service.