|
Issue
I:2
In the past few years, the University of Florida has placed a significant emphasis on the faculty's productivity and quality in teaching. This has included programs to improve quality through peer review and a major program funded by the state legislature that rewards faculty with base salary increases for excellent performance in the quality and productivity of their teaching over a period of years. These initiatives plus the continuing commitment of the faculty to the improvement of the university's degree programs have produced exemplary results, some of which are illustrated in these charts. While we pursue the quality and productivity of our undergraduate teaching with great enthusiasm and conviction we also must continue the strong tradition of research growth that has characterized this university for the past decade or more. On some dimensions we do well at this activity, as reflected in the growth of sponsored research expenditures, but on others we lag behind our peers, such as the number of Ph.D. degrees relative to the number of bachelor's degrees. The following charts provide a clear indication of our success and of the areas requiring continued improvement. As enrollment grew throughout the six years represented on the chart on this page, so too did the production of degrees of all types from bachelors of arts and science through masters and specialists degrees to professional and Ph.D. degrees. The university's instructional mission, while often measured in terms of credit hours and programs and student FTE, produces its major benefit when it graduates a student prepared through a defined program of academic study represented by an academic degree. From our perspective, the degree awarded is the clearest measure of teaching achievement. Fig.1 Student FTE University of Florida (1990-1994)
Fig.2 Enrollment Trends: AAU Public Universities and the University of Florida 1988-1994 Fig. 3 Degrees Awarded (1988-1994)
However, while we have seen the degree total rise along with the total enrollment, we also must compare our degree productivity with our counterpart institutions. Clearly we fit reasonably well into the AAU public university profile for total bachelors degrees awarded. However, our Ph.D. total is low relative to our counterparts and the relative emphasis on Ph.D. degrees expressed as a percentage of bachelors degrees is also low. These data indicate the different structure of the academic programs of these universities. Florida has very inexpensive undergraduate tuition and thus attracts a high quality student body with a relatively low requirement for financial aid. However, Ph.D. level instruction among AAU public universities depends very heavily on the availability of financial aid, and graduate students select institutions not only on their academic research quality but also on the availability of financial aid. There is also a time
lag between the creation of quality research programs as reflected in
sponsored research expenditures and the movement of Ph.D. students into
those fields. In many cases, University of Florida Ph.D. programs have
produced advanced degrees for relatively few years. Nonetheless, these
data indicate that the institution must invest more effectively in the
development of its Ph.D. programs if it is to compete successfully in its
peer group.
The faculty provide the intellectual energy and productivity that results in teaching and research. As budgets tighten and many of our external constituencies focus on the productivity in teaching, we must ensure that we maintain quality of teaching and sustain the research productivity that is the hallmark of a major research university like the University of Florida. While direct measures of faculty productivity may elude us, the proportion of teaching done by the ranked faculty indicates the focus on quality by our most qualified teachers. In the charts below, the proportion of teaching done by ranked faculty has increased as the proportion done by other faculty, principally teaching assistants, has decreased. The shift to ranked faculty is even greater than outlined here, of course, because the number of credit hours taught has also increased dramatically. Fig. 4 Percent Change in Credit Hours Taught by Ranked Faculty and Other Instructors (1992-1994)
Fig. 5 Credit Hours Taught by Ranked Faculty and Other Instructors (1992-1994)
As the chart below
indicates, we have simultaneously continued the decade long trend toward
increasing sponsored research expenditures. Sponsored research
expenditures is the only fully reliable indicator of the research
intensity of the faculty as it reflects the actual expenditures of funds
secured from outside sources on research. Other important research does
not appear here such as art, humanities, and social science or
professional school work done without special outside funding, but
nationally we all use sponsored research expenditures as the best
indicator of research commitment even though it is not complete. Research
enhances the quality of both undergraduate and graduate teaching. Fig. 6 Sponsored Research Expenditures (1990-1994)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
