This is not only an invitation to read about the planning effort, but to become a part of it. Commentary is welcome and desired from any person on campus or in the community, and your thoughts and opinions will find their way into discussions in the committees. Please contact any of the planning committee members, who are listed on the website, and who may be reached by e-mail, telephone or direct mail at ASU Jonesboro. Comments also may be directed to the strategic planning director,
Dr. David Cox, dwcox@astate.edu.

Any effective planning process must be based upon accurate information. The purpose of this report and several which will follow is to provide information to the campus and external communities, and to draw some observations based upon this information. Full information sets have been appended to this report, and were compiled by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (Higher Education Funding in Arkansas, ALC-Higher Education Subcommittee Report, September 2003) and the ASU Office of Institutional Research and Planning (ASU Jonesboro Campus, The Past Decade of Providing Educational Opportunities and Quality Instruction: A Review of 1992-93 to the Present). (These files are linked in the left column, or you may download the attachments at the bottom of this page).

The data depict the current and historical environment for higher education in Arkansas, and how Arkansas State University fits or compares within that environment. Several conclusions may be drawn from the data, and may inform our strategic planning effort:

* ASU is considered a Master’s I level institution within the Carnegie classifications, and is grouped with the University of Central Arkansas, Arkansas Tech University, Henderson State University, and Southern Arkansas University. The companion institutions in this group are smaller than ASU, receive less state funding, and offer fewer academic programs, especially at graduate levels. While ASU has been at this classification for many years, we may have outgrown it.

* ASU is within reach of classification as a doctoral/research-intensive university, and then would be grouped with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, an institution of comparable size, funding, and scope of offerings. A future report on funding formula distribution may show the advantages of inclusion in this higher classification.

* Enrollment in ASU-Jonesboro courses has been relatively constant for the last decade, although actual enrollment on the Jonesboro campus has declined in that time. Steady enrollment production has been achieved through student participation in Jonesboro courses offered at other locations throughout the state. In this same period, four of the 10 state universities have increased in enrollments. Over the last decade, ASU has consistently had the third highest student headcount enrollment among state universities, and the second-highest full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment. ASU is within reach of having the second highest headcount enrollment, but significant increases would be necessary to attain the largest FTE enrollment figure. The relative advantages of these enrollments may be discussed as a part of the planning process.

* Over the last decade, ASU’s market share of FTE production within the state has declined, as has the FTE production as a market share among all four-year state universities. Market share growth has increased for FTE production by two-year state institutions, as has the number of these two-year institutions throughout the state.

* From 1995-2000, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in Arkansas increased by 9.1%. Since 1993, ASU has awarded 13,321 bachelor’s degrees, and since 1999, more than 1,500 annually. Only one university in Arkansas has produced more bachelor’s degree graduates than ASU during the last decade.

* Since 1993, ASU has awarded 3,258 master’s and specialist’s degrees, and 47 doctoral degrees. Only two universities in Arkansas have produced more graduate-level degrees than ASU during the last decade.

* ASU has had the third to fourth highest six-year graduation rate among all two- and four-year institutions in Arkansas over the last decade.

* ASU has had the third to fourth highest retention rate from freshmen to sophomores among all two-and four-year institutions in Arkansas over the last decade.

* Arkansas higher education’s share of the state general revenues has declined over the last decade. State funding per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in Arkansas also has declined over the last decade, considering adjustments for inflation. Despite productivity results outlined above, ASU ranked fourth among four-year institutions in funding per FTE student in 2001-02, and was barely above fifth place.

* Tuition and fees among all public higher education institutions increased over the last decade. The rate and annual percentage of increase at ASU has been generally comparable to increases at other Arkansas universities. In 1993, ASU undergraduate tuition and fees amounted to $1,930. In 2001-02, the figure was $4,480. This rate and percentage of increase during this period could have been mitigated with appropriate state support.

* As the result of a strategic planning session in 1996, ASU decided to let tuition and fees rise to meet the respective costs of expanded programs and services, rather than to continue to operate as a “low-cost provider” and not expand programs and services.

* State funding as a percentage of the ASU education and general budget in 2001-02 was 50.9%. This was the smallest percentage of state support among all universities. ASU full-time tuition and mandatory fees for 2003-04 were among the highest for Arkansas universities.

What can be drawn from these points? State funding for higher education has declined over time, and the state appropriation to ASU as a percentage of our total budget is, and has always has been relatively low. As a result, our tuition and fees are high, in order to pay the bills for a university with our range of programs and services.

Despite a persistently difficult financial picture, productivity at ASU has remained high. We have kept enrollments steady, we have retained students at a relatively high rate, and we have graduated a good number of students who have come to seek degrees.

From a public investment perspective, we have done what we were meant to do over the last decade. The Higher Learning Commission report said the same thing in other words. A well-deserved observation is that ASU is a good university and is doing a good job, thanks to the students, faculty, and staff who share in this accomplishment.

How can we do better? That is what the strategic plan may define, with your advice and counsel. That definition should also consider our student composition, potentials for institutional growth, positive changes we can cause, and new ways to make money to support our efforts. These are topics for future reports.

I would be pleased to reply to any questions or concerns about this material, or any aspect of ASU operations. You are welcome to contact me at president@astate.edu.

Leslie Wyatt


attachments (right click on file to "save target as" to your computer)
http://asunews.astate.edu/ADHEpresentation.pdf
http://asunews.astate.edu/asu_pres.ppt

[back to top]