table of contents for student, faculty, and … · student housing overview may 11, 2005 the...

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOR STUDENT, FACULTY, AND STAFF CAMPUS LIFE

COMMITTEE

Committee Meeting: 5/11/2005 Austin, Texas

Judith L. Craven, M.D., Chairman John W. Barnhill, Jr. Rita C. Clements Robert A. Estrada Woody L. Hunt Ms. Sandee Goertzen, Chair, Employee Advisory Council Dr. James Bartlett, Chair, Faculty Advisory Council Mr. Josh Warren, Chair, Student Advisory Council Committee

Meeting Board Meeting

Page

Convene 3:30 p.m. Chairman Craven

1.

U. T. System: Update on Faculty Advisory Council Recommendations

3:35 p.m. Report Dr. Sullivan

Not on Agenda

84

2.

U. T. System: Overview and discussion of undergraduate student housing

3:50 p.m. Discussion Dr. Sullivan, Ms. Rincón, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Remmers-Roebe, Mr. Parker

Not on Agenda

84

Adjourn

4:30 p.m.

84

1. U. T. System: Update on Faculty Advisory Council Recommendations

REPORT Dr. Teresa A. Sullivan, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, will provide an update on responses to the recommendations presented to the Board by the Faculty Advisory Council at the February 10, 2005 Board meeting. The Faculty Advisory Council presented the following recommendations for consideration:

a. bridge funding for "fundable", but non-funded research grants (as presented by Dr. James Bartlett),

b. creation of a System-wide database of research background and research

interests of faculty and graduate students (as presented by Dr. Robert Nelsen), and

c. issues concerning nursing education (as presented by Dr. Terese Verklan).

2. U. T. System: Overview and discussion of undergraduate student housing

PURPOSE Executive Vice Chancellor Sullivan will lead a discussion regarding undergraduate student housing focusing on programmatic initiatives, specific housing data, and building enhancements. Dr. Sullivan will be joined by Ms. Roberta Rincón, Research and Policy Analyst, U. T. System; Mr. Sid Sanders, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction, U. T. System; Ms. Dawn Remmers-Roebe, Director of Student Success Programs, U. T. Arlington; and Mr. Wylvan Parker, Director of Housing, U. T. Arlington for a PowerPoint presentation set forth on Pages 84.1 – 84.21.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Research shows that students who live on campus have a better retention and graduation rate than those who commute. A review of historical information showing student growth versus construction will identify challenges faced in defining housing types, the benefits of various types of housing, and associated costs.

Student Housing Overview

May 11, 2005

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM

2

Benefits of Living on Campus

• National Study of Living-Learning Programs (2004)• Higher campus involvement• Greater interaction with faculty• More time studying and attending classes

84.1

3

Benefits of Living on Campus, cont.

• Indiana State University (2002)• Residential learning communities:

0.16 points higher first semester GPA • First-year residence halls:

0.11 points higher first semester GPA• First-year residence halls increased first year

retention by 3.5% in two years

4

Compacts: Housing Goals

• Improve recruitment• Improve retention and enhance campus life• Expand housing options

84.2

5

U. T. System Housing Construction Over Time

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

GSF

6

U. T. System Beds versus Headcount

U. T. System Freshmen/Sophomore Headcounts versusTotal Number of Student Housing Beds Available

Fall 1999 to Fall 2003

14,044 14,931 16,238 17,358 18,025

43,07245,157 47,754

51,238 53,464

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of Beds Freshmen/Sophomore Headcount

5-yr Increase = 28%

2003 Diff = 35,439

5-yr Increase = 24%

1999 Diff = 29,028

84.3

7

Supply versus Demand

Current Housing Demand versus Beds Planned by Fall 2007

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Num

ber o

f Bed

s

Waiting List 375 5,000 - - - 500 -

Planned Construction 1,046 500 250 400 120 680 268

U. T. Arlington U. T. Austin U. T. El Paso

U. T. Pan American

U. T. Permian Basin

U. T. San Antonio U. T. Tyler

8

Marketing Trends

• Room layout• Greater demand for privacy and personal space

º More beds share private bath areasº More beds have private vanity area with a private shower

• Private beds often are part of suites with common living area and kitchenette

• Housing Complex amenities often include study halls, computer labs, lounge space and outdoor recreation such as basketball/volleyball courts

• Food service is typically handled separately at a central dining facility on campus

84.4

9

Marketing Trends

• Safety issues• Fire sprinklers in all new facilities, retrofitting of

existing facilities• Security card access in newer facilities,

retrofitting of existing facilities• Control access to immediate housing site

10

Housing Types

• 50 Year Institutional Dorm• (example: Almetris Duren Residence Hall at U. T.

Austin)

• Hybrid Dorm• (example: Kalpana Chawla Hall at U. T. Arlington)

• Apartment Style• (examples: Chaparral Village at U. T. San Antonio

and Student Housing Phase II at U. T. Permian Basin)

84.5

11

Housing Types: 50 Year Institutional

• 50 Year Institutional Dorm:• Almetris Duren Residence Hall• San Jacinto Hall

º 1,454 Beds (since 2000)º Average Cost per Bed = $67,303 (in 2005 dollars)

12


Almetris Duren Residence Hall at U. T. Austin

84.6

13


Almetris Duren Residence Hall – First Floor Plan

14


• 50 Year Institutional Dorm Attributes:• Intricate masonry exterior• Clay tile roof system• Concrete frame w/ metal stud wall framing• Institutional quality centralized HVAC systems• High quality and more durable materials• Greater level of architectural articulation• High level of site development fitting an urban

environment

84.7

15

Housing Types: Hybrid

• Hybrid Dorm:• Kalpana Chawla Hall at U. T. Arlington• Arlington Hall• Student Dormitory & Academic Excellence Center

at U. T. Tylerº 1,218 Beds (since 2000)º Average Cost per Bed = $48,508 (in 2005 dollars)

16


Kalpana Chawla Hall at U. T. Arlington

84.8

17


Kalpana Chawla Hall – First Floor Plan

18


• Hybrid Dorm Attributes:• Simple masonry exterior• Composition tile or metal roof systems• Wood frame w/ partial light steel/concrete framing• Durable but less robust HVAC systems• Durable but less robust finish materials

84.9

19

Housing Types: Apartment Style

• Apartment Style:• Miner Village at U. T. El Paso• University Village West Apartments at U. T.

Arlington• Chaparral Village at U. T. San Antonio• Student Housing – Phase II at U. T. Permian

Basinº 5,013 Beds (since 2000)º Average Cost per Bed = $36,132 (in 2005 dollars)

20


Student Housing Phase II at U. T. Permian Basin

84.10

21


Chaparral Village at U. T. San Antonio

22


Chaparral Village at U. T. San Antonio - Floor Plan of Bldg Units

84.11

23


• Apartment Attributes:• Wood frame• Masonry and wood exterior• Composition tile roof system• Multifamily/Residential quality HVAC• Multifamily/Residential quality finish materials• Budget conscious materials

24

Comparing: Housing Types

• 50 Year Institutional Dorm• 1,454 Beds• $67,303/Bed

• Hybrid Dorm• 1,218 Beds• $48,508/Bed

• Apartment Style• 5,013 Beds • $36,132/Bed

84.12

25

Factors Affecting Campus Housing

• Level of demand on campus• Household income of typical student on

campus• Growth in enrollment of campus• Amount (if any) of existing beds with no

outstanding debt• Marketability of existing inventory of

beds• Off-campus market competition

The University of Texasat Arlington

84.13

27

Our Changing Residential Community

28

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tota

l Hou

sing

Bed

s

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year Constructed

UTA Housing Construction Dates

RESIDENCE HALLS UTA APARTMENTS PRIVATE HOUSING

84.14

29

UTA Student Housing Beds Available

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Year

Tota

l Bed

s A

vaila

ble

UTA Apartments UTA Residence Halls UTA Houses Private Apartments

30

Age of Campus Residents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 28 33 36 70

Age

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al

1989

2004

84.15

31

Classification of Campus Residents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Freshman

Sophomore

Junio

r

Senior

Degree

d

Master

Doctoral

Classification

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al

19892004

32

Changing Amenities• Phone• Washer & Dryer• Future - Garages?

• Private Rooms• Ethernet• Cable TV

84.16

33

Changes Impacting Housing Assignments

• Virtual Tours replacing Physical Tours• On-Line Application and Assignment• Computerized Roommate Matching

34

Changes Impacting Campus Support Services

Increased SupportRequired from:

• Campus Police • Judicial Affairs• Health Center• Counseling

84.17

35

Changes Impacting Community Support Services

Increased Need for:• Local Grocery

Store• Retail

Development• Public

Transportation

36

Changes Impacting Academic Environment

84.18

Maverick Scholars Residential

Freshman Interest Groups(FIGs)

Imagine the Possibilities!

Student Success Programs

38

Kalpana Chawla Hall:UTA’s Living-Learning

CenterLearning Community I

Learning Community II

Learning Community III

FIG C

FIG A

FIG B

84.19

39

Types of Living-Learning Communities at UTA

General Learning Communities

Major and special interest themesAssigned room space based on learning community preferencesHall programming builds group sense of communityFacilitated study groups

Freshman Interest GroupsPlaced in small groups with students of similar major/interestLive within a learning community with a Peer CounselorCo-enroll in at least three coursesCollege adjustment courseFaculty mentor Social and academic programming in the hall

40

Why Learning Communities?Develop the

“whole” studentAcademic needs

engaged learning, support

Personal needs“traditional” experience,

community, adjustmentSocial Needs

friends with similar interests

84.20

41

Residential FIGs Fall 2004 Summary

FIG student Fall-Spr Retention 94%Non-FIG student Fall-Spr Retention 88%

FIG student Mean GPA 2.97Freshman Mean GPA 2004 2.64

Tracking student learning outcomes, retention, course performance, graduation rates of FIG students

84.21

table of contents for student, faculty, and … · student housing overview may 11, 2005 the...

Documents