Document Sample
APPENDIX Powered By Docstoc

       5.1 Getting Started On Benchmarking

National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)

A benchmark, or standard by which something can be measured, is used to compare peers
to improve results. The key steps in getting started with benchmarking are: identifying the
key metrics and indicators for your benchmarking purposes; defining a peer or comparison
group; and finding the data to use.

Metrics and Indicators

Any benchmarking effort should begin with a good understanding of your own institution
(internal analysis) and its environment. When preparing to choose benchmarking
indicators for the institution, it may be useful to consider two distinct types of metrics:
operational benchmarks and strategic benchmarks.
Operational Benchmarks. If internal analysis and environmental review indicates that
your institution may not have the operational efficiency of its peers, then the institution
may decide to focus on operational benchmarks, such as the number of bills processed per
FTE student. Operational benchmarks are often considered the core of a benchmarking
effort. However, the risk of focusing exclusively on operational benchmarks is that they
could be treated as an end unto themselves instead of part of an overall strategy of
achieving a competitive advantage.
Strategic Benchmarks. While operations focus on how we do what we do, strategy
focuses on why. For example, how is the institution positioned to perform in five, ten, or
twenty years? Indicators could include the quality of the applicant pool, the professional
development of staff, or the technological savvy of the institution. Typically high level
management is most interested in strategic benchmarks, such as rankings in national
surveys and leading indicators for the industry.

Defining A Peer Group
Who should an institution compare itself to? If your institution doesn't already have a
defined peer group, there are resources to help begin developing one:
Carnegie Classification. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
recently created multiple classification systems based on undergraduate programs, graduate
programs, undergraduate profile, size and setting of the institution, and a revision of the
traditional basic classification. Through the foundation‟s website, institutions in the same
classification/grouping can be identified. In addition, custom classifications can be created
using the online tool on the Foundation‟s website.
IPEDS Peer Tools.       The Department of Education‟s National Center for Education

Statistics has two online tools on their website, the Peer Analysis System (PAS) and the
Executive Peer Tool, which can aid in the creation of a peer comparison list.
   The IPEDS PAS allows a user to create a comparison group using any number of
    criteria from the full list of IPEDS variables. For the user who is familiar with IPEDS
    data and has a specific set of criteria in mind for their peer group, the PAS may be the
    best option.
   The Executive Peer Tool, a simplified version of the PAS, and will walk the user
    through creating a peer list based on specific IPEDS variables, such as geographic
    region, enrollment size, and Carnegie Classification. Once in the tool, enter your
    institution name, then select “Select your peer list,” and then select the criteria you
    desire to base the peer group on. The Executive Peer Tool also offers the option of
    automatically generating a peer group.

Finding the Data
One of the great challenges of benchmarking can be knowing where and how to find the
right data. There is a wealth of information available, and a good place to start finding
available data that fits your needs is visiting the resources identified in the resource matrix
and in more detail on our resource page [both included immediately below]. There are
many data sharing groups that exists for different types of institutions, regions, athletic
conferences, etc. A few examples are the Higher Education Data Sharing consortium
(HEDS), the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) and Southern
Universities Group (SUG). Institutions may already be involved in a data exchange or may
want to consider joining an appropriate data sharing group for benchmarking purposes.

Data Resources Matrix (NACUBO)
[data source column includes hyperlinks to web pages]

Data Source                 Data Available                                  Usage Restrictions

Integrated                  Enrollments,      program      completions,     Available to the public for free. Most recent data
Postsecondary               graduation rates, faculty & staff, finances,    available to institutions through password login.
Education Data System       and student financial aid.

Association     of          Primarily IPEDS Data but does include other     Available only to AGB members with an annual
Governing   Boards          sources.                                        fee of $750.
(AGB) Benchmarking

National   Science          Includes selected IPEDS data and data from      Available to the public for free.
Foundation                  many NSF surveys including the Survey of
WebCASPAR                   Earned Doctorates, Survey of Federal Funds
                            for R&D, Survey of R&D Expenditures, and
                            NSF-NIH Survey of Graduate Students and

Endowment &
Finance Data
NACUBO Endowment            Data on college and university endowment        Participants receive free access to the results
Study                       management and performance. Individual          through NACUBO's Online Research Tool, which
                            institution data on asset allocation,           can be found through the "MY NACUBO" portal
                            performance, and spending rate available to     on the NACUBO website. Non-participants can
                            participating institutions.                     purchase the results through NACUBO's online
Council for Aid to          Charitable support data, including source and   Report results can be purchased for $100; study
Education Voluntary         size of gifts.                                  participants receive a discount. Data mining tool is
Support of Education                                                        available for a fee, based on institution type.
Data Miner
                            Net assets, revenues and expenditures,          Available to the public for free.
IPEDS Finance Survey
                            scholarships and fellowships.
Delaware Study of           Teaching loads, direct costs of instruction,    Free to study participants.
Costs and Productivity      and externally funded research and sevice
Moody's     Municipal       Financial and operating credit statistics.      Subscription service providing access to the
Financial       Ratio                                                       database and capability to create custom queries.
Analysis (MFRA)

Facilities Data
Association of Higher       Costs per square foot, building age and space   Free to survey participants. Available to non-
Education     Facilities    use, and personnel costs and staffing levels.   participants for $230. (APPA members $150)
Officers        (APPA)
Facilities Core Data
Society for College         Data on physical size and growth patterns of    Participants receive a complete data set. Data sets
and          University     colleges and universities.                      are not sold to non-participants.
Planning        (SCUP)
Campus           Facility
Space Productivity and      Data on resource allocations for academic       Must be a member of the consortium.

Cost       Evaluation     facilities by discipline.
(SPACE)         Data

Salary and Benefits
American Association      Data on tenure track and benefits of                Selected tables are online and available to the
of University Professor   administrative compensation for senior              public for free. Custom peer comparisons and
(AAUP) Salary Survey      executive positions.                                datasets available for purchase. Full report
                                                                              available to AAUP
                                                                              members for free and can be purchased by non-
College and University    Several salary and benefit surveys, including       DataOnDemand is available for a subscription fee,
Professional              administrative compensation, mid-level              based on CUPA-HR member status.
Association for Human     administrative compensation, faculty salary
Resources      (CUPA-     and employee health care benefits.
HR) DataOnDemand

IPEDS HR Survey           Staff and     faculty     salaries,     benefits,   Available to the public for free.
                          classification and tenure status.
Benchmarking Survey       Strategic      planning,       staffing     and     Participants receive a custom report and access to
of Human Resource         compensation,      benefits,     training and       the Data Analysis System.
Practices in Higher       development and performance assessment.

Tuition Discounting
NACUBO         Tuition    Institutional student aid, percent of students      Participants receive free access to results and an
Discounting Survey        receiving institutional grants, net revenues        online tool, the NACUBO Benchmarking Tool, for
                          and other related information.                      peer comparison purposes. Non-participants can
                                                                              purchase the results through NACUBO's online

Data Resource Details
One of the challenges of benchmarking can be finding the right data. Below are details
about some data sources that may help you get started in your benchmarking efforts.

General Data
Integrated Postsecondary Data Analysis System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis System. The
IPEDS is the core postsecondary education data collection program of the Department of
Education's National Center of Education Statistics (NCES). The IPEDS system is built
around a series of interrelated surveys to collect institution-level data in areas such as
enrollments, program completions, faculty, staff, and finances from all primary providers
of postsecondary education. All institutions participating in Title IV financial aid must
complete IPED surveys. The Peer Analysis System (PAS) enables users to compare a
Linchpin institution of the user's choosing to a group of peer institutions, by generating
reports using selected IPEDS variables of interest. The Executive Peer Tool is a simplified
version of the PAS containing a series of predetermined indicators.
Association of Governing Board's (AGB) Benchmarking Service. AGB's online service
provides access to several years of IPEDS data and data from other sources. Institutions can
select peers from existing groups of institutions or create their own peer group, and data
can be presented in customized reports. This service is available to AGB members for an

annual fee of $750. It is possible to preview the service on the association's website.
National Science Foundation WebCASPAR. The WebCASPAR database provides
access to data focusing on science and engineering but also provides information on other
fields in higher education. From the database's website users can create data tables from
the following sources: selected IPEDS Survey Data and NSF Survey Data (Survey of
Earned Doctorates; Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development; Survey of
Federal S&E Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions; Survey of R&D
Expenditures at Universities and Colleges; and NSF-NIH Survey of Graduate Students and
Postdoctorates in S&E).

Endowment and Finance Data
NACUBO Endowment Study (NES). Annually, NACUBO collects endowment data
from its member institutions with endowments over $1 million. The NES is national in
scope and includes data from all major sectors of the higher education community. It is the
primary source of college and university endowment management and performance data in
the United States. Aggregate data is available to the public through three tables that are
made available to the public each year or through purchasing the study's results through the
NACUBO online bookstore. Participating institutions have access to confidential
institution level data and receive access to the full results and Executive Summary at no
Council for Aid to Education Voluntary Support of Education Data Miner. The
Council for Aid to Education's annual Voluntary Support of Education survey collects data
about charitable support, including the source of gifts, the purposes for which they are
earmarked, and the size of the largest gifts. Participating institutions can purchase the
report of the full results for a 35% discount. The data mining tool for benchmarking giving
trends against peer institutions is available for a fee, based on institution type ranging from
approximately $350 to $1,100. The report of the full results is available to the public for
$100 and can be ordered on the council's website.
Integrated Postsecondary Data Analysis System (IPEDS) Finance Survey. The IPEDS
is the core postsecondary education data collection program of the Department of
Education's National Center of Education Statistics (NCES). All institutions participating
in Title IV financial aid must complete IPEDS surveys. The IPEDS Finance Survey
collects data annually on net assets, revenues, expenses, scholarships and fellowships, and
other data typically found on the General Purpose Financial Statement. The IPEDS Peer
Analysis System (PAS) enables users to compare an institution's data to a group of peer
institutions, by generating reports using selected IPEDS variables of interest. The
Executive Peer Tool is a simplified version of the PAS containing a series of predetermined
Delaware Study of Costs and Productivity. Participation in the cost study allows
institutions access to analyses of data on teaching loads by faculty category, direct costs of
instruction by academic area, and externally funded research and service productivity.
Institutions can access comparative data with national benchmarks by either Carnegie
classification or a peer group chosen by the institution. Over 300 institutions participate in

the study.
Moody's Municipal Financial Ratio Analysis (MFRA). Moody's Median's is a
subscription service that provides access to Moody's comprehensive database of financial
and operating credit statistics in the Higher Education sector and the tools to create custom
queries. MFRA includes Pre-set Medians -- key financial and operating statistics on a pre-
determined grouping of entities.

Facilities Data
Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers' (APPA) Facilities Core Data
Survey. The Facilities Core Data Survey contains 12 modules that collect data on strategic
financial measures, costs per square foot for several facilities functions, building age and
space use, and personnel costs and staffing levels. Participating institutions receive a
customized report showing comparisons of their data to other participants. A CD-ROM is
produced for benchmarking entitled, Facilities Performance Indicators, and is free to study
participants and available for purchase to non-participants at a fee of $150 for APPA
members and $230 for non-members.
Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) Campus Facility Inventory.
SCUP's Campus Facility Inventory (CFI) was started in 2003 collecting data about the
physical size and growth patterns of colleges and universities. All participants receive a
complete data set for peer comparison purposes. Data sets are not sold to non-participants.
Space Productivity and Cost Evaluation (SPACE) Data Consortium. The Space
Consortium, sponsored by Clemson University and the Medical University of South
Carolina, allows consortium member institutions to compare resource allocations for
academic facilities by discipline with other institutions through an online portal.

Salary and Benefits Data
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Salary Survey. AAUP
conducts an annual salary survey which includes data on tenure track and benefits of
administrative compensation for selected senior executive positions. Institutional
representatives may order custom peer comparison reports that depending on the timing
relative to report release, type of request, and the number of peers requested in the report
have fees ranging from $25 to $350. A complete data set, for conducting one's own
analyses can also be purchased -- fees are $350 for participating institutions and $400 for
non-participants. Copies of the full print report are distributed to all members at no cost;
non-members can order the full print report for $68. A summary with selected tables is
available online at no charge.
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR)
DataOnDemand. CUPA-HR conducts several annual salary and benefits surveys:
Administrative Compensation Survey; Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary
Survey; National Faculty Salary Survey for Four-Year Institutions; the Community College
Faculty Salary Survey; Employee Health Care and Other Benefits; and Retiree Health Care
Benefits . For benchmarking, the DataOnDemand application allows users access to results
from the particular survey for the current year and the previous two years. The

DataOnDemand application can be used for creating peer comparisons, however note that
individual institution salary data is not available, a comparison group must include a
minimum of eight institutions. DataOnDemand is available for a subscription fee
depending on CUPA-HR member status and survey participation status the fees range from
$500 to $1,000. Executive summaries of the results of these surveys are available on the
association's website at no charge. Full reports for each survey are produced and are
available for a fee depending on CUPA-HR member status and survey participation status
the fees range from $140 to $300.
Integrated Postsecondary Data Analysis System (IPEDS) Human Resources Survey.
The IPEDS is the core postsecondary education data collection program of the Department
of Education's National Center of Education Statistics (NCES). All institutions
participating in Title IV financial aid must complete IPEDS surveys. The IPEDS Human
Resources Survey collects data annually on staff and faculty salaries, benefits,
classification and tenure status. The IPEDS Peer Analysis System (PAS) enables users to
compare an institution's data to a group of peer institutions, by generating reports using
selected IPEDS variables of interest. The Executive Peer Tool is a simplified version of
the PAS containing a series of predetermined indicators.
Benchmarking Survey of Human Resource Practices in Higher Education. Conducted
by BearingPoint Inc. in conjunction with CUPA-HR, institutional participants receive both
a custom report and unlimited access to the Data Analysis system. Participation fees are
based on the institution's FTE student enrollment ranging from $300 to $700. The
Benchmarking survey is intended to replicate the Balanced Scorecard approach by
presenting metrics underlying strategic planning, staffing and compensation, benefits,
training and development, performance assessment, leadership, and culture.

Tuition Discounting Data
NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey. NACUBO annually collects data from
independent, non-profit colleges and universities on the level of institutional student aid,
percent of students receiving institutional grants, net revenues and other related
information. Participants are given complimentary access to the results through the "My
NACUBO" portal on the NACUBO website. Non-participants can purchase the results
($29.95 for NACUBO members and $39.95 for non-members) through NACUBO's online
bookstore. In addition to these resources, the NACUBO Online Benchmarking Tool allows
participants of the Tuition Discounting Study to compare their institution‟s tuition
discounting data against a self-selected peer group. The tool can also be accessed by
logging into "My NACUBO".

       5.2 European Benchmarking Initiative in Higher Education

Context. Major changes are taking place in European Higher Education. Competition has
risen significantly urging Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to increase their
attractiveness on the market and profile themselves much more significantly. Curricula
need to be reformed in line with the Bologna Process and research has become very
strategic. European HEIs are encouraged to become strong players in the European
economy and the global knowledge society.
Quality is key to support all these developments and in this context, enhancing university
performance and modernising university management must be on the agenda of all
university leaders and decision-makers in Europe . A clear understanding and transparency
of modes of operations and processes with a view to improve them continuously is needed.
Many HEIs are developing strategies to achieve these goals.
Benchmarking is a modern management tool which can also support these changes.
Performance indicators and benchmarks are all needed by university leaders to make
informed choices for strategic developments and support the competitiveness of HEIs on
the international scene.

Symposium. The symposium is a first gathering of university leaders, experts and
practitioners on Benchmarking in European Higher Education and will take place in
Brussels on 8 November 2007 . This will be an excellent opportunity to discuss our project
findings in terms of benchmarking concepts and practices, benchmarking groups identified
and our proposed multidimensional approach, guidelines and standards.
Project. EBI is a two-year project funded by the European Commission to improve
benchmarking approaches in Europe, with a specific view to producing benchmarking
standards on good practices for university governance. The project is designed to help
modernise higher education management and to promote the attractiveness of European
Higher Education. It supports HEIs and policy makers to better realise the Lisbon goals and
the Bologna Process. The project was initiated by the European Centre for Strategic
Management of Universities (ESMU), together in a consortium with UNESCO European
Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES), the Centrum fur Hochschulentwicklung
(CHE) and the University of Aveiro
For the purposes of the project, the term ‟benchmarking‟ has been taken to mean a process
of self-evaluation and self-improvement through the systematic and collaborative
comparison of practice and performance with similar organisations in order to identify
strengths and weaknesses, and to learn how to adapt and improve organisational processes.
Online multidimensional tool. The project will lead to a multidimensional benchmarking
approach and online tool with different models and a range of indicators which will allow
HEIs to find the most appropriate benchmarking model for their own needs. European
universities will be invited to register their interest online and joining a pilot benchmarking
programme. The website will have an extensive bibliography and database of articles and

publications on Benchmarking in Higher Education.

Handbook. A “Handbook on Benchmarking in Higher Education” will be produced based
on the systematic stocktaking of existing benchmarking approaches and methods.
Standards and guidelines. Benchmarking standards will be produced in the framework of
the project and disseminated widely in the higher education sector through a conference,
two workshops and an interactive website. The “Standards and Guidelines for
Benchmarking in Higher Education” will provide guidelines for institutions which want to
engage in benchmarking activities.

       5.3 Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve

ERIC Digest (1995)

Jeffrey W. Alstete

Increasing competition, demands for accountability, and higher volumes of available
information are changing the methods of how institutions of higher education operate in the
mid-1990s. For higher education to enact substantial and sustainable changes in efficiency
and productivity, a new way of thinking or paradigm that builds efficiency and a desire for
continual learning must be integrated into institutional structures. Tools are also being
developed that measure or benchmark the progress and success of these efforts (Keeton &
Mayo-Wells 1994). Among the improvement strategies and techniques such as Total
Quality Management (TQM), Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), and Business
Process Reengineering (BPR), benchmarking has emerged as a useful, easily understood,
and effective tool for staying competitive.
What is Benchmarking?

Although the use of comparative data has been used for years in some industries, including
higher education, benchmarking as defined today was developed in the early 1980s at the
Xerox Corporation in response to increased competition and a rapidly declining market
(Camp 1989). The strategy of benchmarking is important both conceptually and practically,
and is being used for improving administrative processes as well as instructional models at
colleges and universities by examining processes and models at other schools and adapting
their techniques and approaches (Chaffee & Sherr 1992; Clark 1993). More concisely,
benchmarking is an ongoing, systematic process for measuring and comparing the work
processes of one organization to those of another, by bringing an external focus to internal
activities, functions, or operations (Kempner 1993). The goal of benchmarking is to
provide key personnel, in charge of processes, with an external standard for measuring the
quality and cost of internal activities, and to help identify where opportunities for
improvement may reside. Benchmarking is analogous to the human learning process, and it
has been described as a method of teaching an institution how to improve (Leibfried &
McNair 1992). As with other quality concepts, benchmarking should be integrated into the
fundamental operations throughout the organization and be an ongoing process that
analyzes the data collected longitudinally. Benchmarking attempts to answer the following

   How well are we doing compared to others?

   How good do we want to be?

   Who is doing it the best?

   How do they do it?

   How can we adapt what they do to our institution?

   How can we be better than the best? (Kempner 1993)

Previously, questions like these may have not have seemed important to institutions of
higher education. However, in the competitive and rapidly changing markets of the 1990s
(characterized by declining enrollments and funding in higher education), organizations are
learning never to be satisfied with the status-quo, and to continually question their internal
operations and relative position in the eyes of prospective customers. To answer these
questions, several multi-step benchmarking methods have been developed by leading
benchmarking practitioners (Camp 1995; Spendolini 1992; Watson 1992). Benchmarking
procedures can be condensed into four steps: planning the study, conducting the research,
analyzing the data, and adapting the findings to the home institution that is conducting the
study. The first step involves selecting and defining the administrative or teaching
process(es) to be studied, identifying how the process will be measured, and deciding
which other institutions to measure against. Second, benchmarking process data is collected
using primary and/or secondary research about the colleges, universities, or other
organizations being studied. The third step consists of analyzing the data gathered to
calculate the research findings and to develop recommendations. At this point, the
differences or gaps in performance between the institutions being benchmarked help to
identify the process enablers that equip the leaders in their high performance. Adaption of
these enablers for improvement is the fourth step in the first iteration of a benchmarking
cycle, and the primary goal of the project.

A review of the benchmarking literature shows that there are primarily four kinds of
benchmarking: internal, competitive, functional/industry, and generic or best-in-class.
Internal benchmarking can be conducted at large, decentralized institutions where there are
several departments or units that conduct similar processes. The more common competitive
benchmarking analyzes processes with peer institutions that are competing in similar
markets. Functional or industry benchmarking is similar to competitive benchmarking,
except that the group of competitors is larger and more broadly defined (Rush 1994).
Generic or best-in-class uses the broadest application of data collection from different
industries to find the best operations practices available. The selection of the benchmarking
type depends on the process(es) being analyzed, the availability of data, and the available
expertise at the institution.

Is Benchmarking Applicable to Higher Education?

Due to its reliance on hard data and research methodology, benchmarking is especially
suited for institutions of higher education in which these types of studies are very familiar
to faculty and administrators. Practitioners at colleges and universities have found that
benchmarking helps overcome resistance to change, provides a structure for external
evaluation, and creates new networks of communication between schools where valuable
information and experiences can be shared (AACSB 1994). Benchmarking is a positive
process, and provides objective measurements for baselining (setting the initial values),
goal-setting and improvement tracking, which can lead to dramatic innovations (Shafer &
Coate 1992). In addition, quality strategies and reengineering efforts are both enhanced by

benchmarking because it can identify areas that could benefit most from TQM and/or BPR,
and make it possible to improve operations with often dramatic innovations.

Despite the majority of positive recommendations for using benchmarking and successful
examples of its current use, there are critics of its applicability to higher education. The
stated objections include the belief that benchmarking is merely a strategy for marginally
improving existing processes, that it is applicable only to administrative processes (or only
to teaching practices), is a euphemism for copying, is lacking innovation, or that it can
expose institutional weaknesses (Brigham 1995; Dale 1995). These concerns are largely
unfounded because benchmarking can radically change processes (if warranted), apply to
both administration and teaching, adapt not "adopt" best practices, and if the Benchmarking
Code of Conduct is followed, confidentiality concerns can be reduced. The Code of
Conduct calls for benchmarking practitioners to abide by stated principles of legality,
exchange, and confidentiality (APQC 1993). Benchmarking can make it possible for the
industry to improve processes in a "leapfrog" fashion by identifying and bringing home
best practices, and therefore offering a way of responding to demands for cost containment
and enhanced service quality in a cost-effective and quality-oriented manner (APQC 1993;
Shafer & Coate 1992).

Where is Benchmarking Being Used in Higher Education?

Graduate business schools, professional associations such as NACUBO and ACHE,
independent data sharing consortia, private consulting companies, and individual
institutions are all conducting benchmarking projects today. The broad-based NACUBO
benchmarking program was begun in late 1991, and it seeks to provide participants with an
objective basis for improved operational performance by offering a "pointer" to the best
practices of other organizations. Today, nearly 282 institutions have participated in the
study, and the current project analyzes 26 core functions at colleges and universities, such
as accounting, admissions, development, payroll, purchasing, student housing, and others
(NACUBO 1995). The Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE) and graduate
business schools have also conducted specialized benchmarking studies that focus on the
processes and practices concerning their particular institutional departments (AACSB
1994; Alstete 1996). A review of the literature finds independent benchmarking projects
are currently in use, or have recently been conducted, by a wide range of institutions such
as the University of the Chicago, Oregon State University, Pennsylvania State University,
Babson College, and many others. These independent projects cover undergraduate and
graduate teaching processes, as well as academic and business administrative practices.

How Can an Institution Get Started?

Before beginning a benchmarking study, an institution should decide if benchmarking is
the correct quality improvement tool for the situation. After processes are selected for
analysis, the appropriate personnel, who have a working knowledge of the area undergoing
the benchmarking analysis should then be chosen to conduct the study. A college and
university can take part in an externally sponsored benchmarking project with predefined
objectives, or conduct a project on its own or with the help of consultants. It is
recommended that, as a start, an institution new to benchmarking, begin with a more

"grassroots" level departmental or administrative project that measures best practices
internally, or with local competitors. An institution that is more advanced in quality
improvement efforts can seek out world-class competitors better and implement the
findings more readily than a benchmarking novice (Marchese 1995b). Information on
prospective benchmarking partners can be obtained from libraries, professional
associations, personal contacts, and data sharing consortia. Once the benchmarking data is
collected and analyzed, it can be distributed in a benchmarking report internally within the
institution and externally to benchmarking partners for implementation of improved
processes. The overall goal is the adaption of the process enablers at the home institution to
achieve effective quality improvement. Benchmarking is more than just gathering data. It
involves adapting a new approach of continually questioning how processes are performed,
seeking out best practices, and implementing new models of operation.


Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to
Superior Performance. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Camp, R.C. (1995). Business Process Benchmarking; Finding and Implementing Best
Practices. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.

Kempner, D.E. (1993). The Pilot Years: The Growth of the NACUBO Benchmarking
Project. NACUBO Business Officer, 27(6), 21-31.

Shafer, B.S., & Coate, L.E. (1992). Benchmarking in Higher Education: A Tool for
Improving Quality and Reducing Cost. Business Officer, 26(5), 28-35.

       This ERIC digest is based on a full-length report in the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report series
       95-5, Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve Quality by Jeffrey W.

       5.4 Benchmarking and the Role of Organizational
           Learning in Developing Competitive Advantage

Knowledge and Process Management
Volume 8 Number 2, pages 123–135 (2001)

Jonathan D. Pemberton, George H. Stonehouse, and David J. Yarrow

[relevant section only]

What is Benchmarking?

A benchmark can be defined as „a physiological or biological reference value against which
performance is compared‟ (Zairi, 1992). In its narrowest sense, therefore, benchmarking in
a business context is concerned with comparing a company‟s performance with that of
competing organizations in an attempt to improve how it performs the same, or similar,
functions (Watson, 1992). As a starting point, it represents an attempt to identify and
subsequently implement best practice (Camp, 1995). Zairi neatly encapsulates the spirit of
the approach, and its possibilities, stating that „......the essence of benchmarking is to
encourage continuous learning and to lift organisations to higher competitive levels.
Through problem-solving, the acquisition of internal and external knowledge and its
effective implementation, standards of practice can be enhanced with the direct effect of
achieving higher levels of customer satisfaction and, as a consequence, business
performance can also be greatly improved‟ (Zairi, 1998).

In effect, the enhanced learning and knowledge accrued in the benchmarking process
results in improved products, processes and, ultimately, performance. Where organizational
learning is absent, however, the benchmarking process is of limited value in terms of
generating superior performance, a theme pursued in later sections of this paper. There is
no single, agreed approach to benchmarking and its benefits are largely governed by the
nature of the process adopted. Camp, for example, identifies four distinct methods of
benchmarking, whereas Bhutta and Huq argue that there are seven different approaches to
benchmarking (Camp, 1989; Bhutta and Huq, 1999). In this paper, attention is focused on
metric, process and diagnostic bench- marking, three broad categories encompassing many
of the features of methods discussed by other authors (Appleby, 1999). In particular,
diagnostic benchmarking is examined in more detail in the context of organizational
learning, making reference to the findings of research conducted at Newcastle Business

Metric Benchmarking. Metric benchmarking is based upon comparisons of certain
performance data which are perceived to be both important and relevant. For example,
manufacturing companies use such data to compare their delivery reliability, scrap rates
and absenteeism levels, among several other measures, with those of other competitors and
award-winning companies (DTI et al., 1995). The use of league tables to compare
performance of similar organizations, particularly in relation to schools, colleges and
universities, is a common, if sometimes controversial, example of metric benchmarking.

This form of benchmarking requires a group of organizations to submit performance data
relating to different aspects of their activities, against which individual organizations can
then evaluate their performance in relation to that of leading performers or industry
averages. While such benchmarking may highlight the strengths and weaknesses of an
organization‟s performance, there are obvious and inherent dangers in using raw data on
aspects of performance as the basis for comparison. This is particularly true where exact
like-with-like comparisons are not possible with the result that the potential for
organizational learning is significantly reduced, although such comparisons may still can
act as a catalyst for improved business performance.

In short, metric benchmarking is concerned with what constitutes good performance rather
than how it is achieved. As such, it can help an organization to pinpoint aspects of
performance that need to improve, but provides little guidance in the process of learning to
improve. In essence, it is unlikely to involve any degree of organizational learning that
significantly enhances performance superior to that of leading competitors.

Process Benchmarking. With the shortcomings apparent in metric benchmarking, process
benchmarking involves in-depth comparisons of specific areas of activity between two or
more organizations in an attempt to learn how improved performance might be achieved
(Zairi, 1992; Camp, 1995). However, while offering potentially greater benefits in this
respect, the approach is both difficult and expensive. As a consequence, few organizations
embarking upon process benchmarking have fully capitalized upon its potential to
significantly enhance performance, with research indicating that as few as 5% of
benchmarking projects actually result in the transfer of best practice (CCI, 1993). Lewis
also arrives at the same conclusion, suggesting that, from personal experience, „95% of best
practice sharing is of no value‟ (Lewis, 2000).

Szulanski‟s extensive study of intra-firm best practice transfers offers some insights into
the reasons for the difficulties in successfully finding and implementing best practice
(Szulanski, 1993a). He found that, on average, it took twenty-seven months for a firm to
identify an existing best practice, with an additional nine months needed to act and
capitalize on this information. While the study was conducted in an intra-organizational
setting, there is no reason to suspect that its findings do not provide useful insights into the
inter-organizational transfer of practices
(Szulanski, 1993a,b, 1995).

It is worth stressing, however, that process benchmarking can and does produce impressive
results. For example, Camp presents six case studies outlining the success of companies

such as AT&T, Ritz-Carlton and Westinghouse, for example (Camp, 1995). Zairi and
Codling cite further examples of companies that have experienced success in this arena
(Zairi, 1998; Codling,
1998). However, Friedewald describes such examples as „a few leading lights‟, arguing that
the amassed survey evidence is limited and of dubious reliability, fraught with problems of
definition and methodology, with all but the most „quality‟ mature organizations tending to
focus on metrics, as opposed to best practices (Friedewald, 2000, unpublished dissertation).

The observed difficulties centre predominantly on the inability of all but the most
sophisticated and innovative companies to recognize the importance of benchmarking in
the wider context of organizational learning and to integrate the two to produce a tangible
and measurable improvement in comparative performance.

Diagnostic Benchmarking. It is clear that a necessary precursor to process benchmarking
is a detailed understanding of the organization‟s own processes. Naturally, in most
organizations, the first step in a process benchmarking exercise concerns a study and
„mapping‟ of the processes in question, an often informative procedure in itself. Ultimately,
valuable lessons are subsequently learned by comparing the business‟s own processes with
those of other organizations, although the „preparatory‟ step of pooling of knowledge about
the processes from various internal sources is often the most informative and beneficial
consequence of the process. Codling, for example, notes that the first benefits from
benchmarking usually occur at this stage, with waste, error and duplication being identified
and, subsequently, eradicated (Codling, 1998). In this sense, benchmarking promotes both
inter- and intra-organizational learning, permitting a wider view of the business and its
environment, and with the potential to exploit the resulting knowl- edge derived from the
learning process in a more effective way with a resultant improved competitive

Diagnostic benchmarking has features of metric and process benchmarking, seeking to
explore both practices and performance, as well as identifying areas of relatively weak
company performance and organizational practices showing room for improvement
(Appleby, 1999). While process benchmarking is an improvement technique, diagnostic
benchmarking is effectively a „health check‟ for the company, designed to identify
practices to be changed, and an indication of the performance improvements that could and
should ensue.

The technique builds upon the idea of performance comparisons, but recognizes the
limitations of using such a benchmark in isolation by inviting an organization to compare
its practices or processes to those of other organizations, simultaneously assessing the
results arising from their practices. In this way, diagnosis of practices and the associated
performance represents a significant step to improving future performance through newly
acquired organizational learning and knowledge. In reality, the benchmarking process
forces managers to reflect upon current practice in comparison to that of leading
organizations, assisting in the learning process by not only highlighting problems but also
by demonstrating alternative approaches (Yarrow, 1999). PROBE (Promoting Business
Excellence) is an international benchmarking scheme managed by the Confederation of

British Industry (CBI) in partnership with London Business School, the IBM Consulting
Group and the University of Northumbria at Newcastle and is a good example of diagnostic

This approach to benchmarking and learning is not without problems, however. It is often
difficult to determine which set of practices to benchmark, and how they are linked to the
key indicators of performance. Furthermore, in moving between organizations, determining
when „like is being compared with like‟, especially where day-to-day work practices are
concerned, presents a significant hurdle.

Diagnostic benchmarking also has similarities with self-assessment, a popular technique
utilized by progressive organizations since the 1990s (Oakland, 1999). Self-assessment is
frequently based upon the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model
setting out a blueprint for the „excellent business‟ by describing the practices that should be
in place and the performance that should follow (Dale and Bunney, 1999). It entails a
comparison of an organization‟s practices and performance via quantitative assessments
and qualitative judgments, based on the benchmark standards of the model. Despite the
apparent similarities with diagnostic benchmarking, self-assessment focuses on „absolute‟
standards defined by the model, rather than on inter-organizational comparisons, but the
EFQM model places emphasis on benchmarking as a key element of business excellence.


Below are a few articles on tuition setting and discounting. At the convening, we will also
have the following articles available if you wish to read more deeply:

Lapovsky, L. (2004). Tuition discounting and prudent enrollment management. AGB
Priorities, 24, 1-16.

       The College Board (2006). Trends in College Pricing. Tables 2:15 – 2:19 (net price).

        5.5 Setting Tuition: Key Factors to Consider

Kathy Kurz and Jim Scannell

University Business
May, 2005

Higher ed, like any business, must listen to the "voice of the customer" in pricing

It's not like 15 years ago, when most colleges and universities set price based on what was
necessary to balance the budget (and, for public institutions, what would be politically
acceptable). Now, more higher education institutions understand that market forces factor
into the price-setting deliberations. To appropriately factor in market considerations,
however, there are eight key points to mull over:

Include the Right People in the Discussion. Budget committees often lack members that
can bring an external perspective to pricing questions. Including representation from
enrollment-related offices of admissions and financial aid, or at least gathering their input
early in the process, is critical.

Select the Right Comparison Group. When benchmarking with other institutions on
things like faculty salaries and endowments per student, institutions often use a set of peer
or aspiration institutions, with little consideration given to whether these institutions are
actually its competitors. The most relevant price comparisons, however, are with the
institutions that most frequently appear in the choice sets of students who are part of your
applicant pool. To identify this group, many institutions conduct research with admits to
understand where non-matriculants are going and where matriculants would have gone as
their number one choice. Another option for establishing your competitor set is to look at
SAT/ACT score overlap reports that show where else students send their scores when they
send them to your institution. Finally, for schools that participate in the National Student
Clearinghouse, using the Enrollment Search option can provide information on where non-
matriculants (as well as those who attended and subsequently transferred) are attending
school now.

Look At More than Just Sticker Price. We have found a strong correlation between
sticker price and prestige across the country, as measured by such factors as mid-50 percent
SAT/ACT scores, selectivity, and rank in U.S. News & World Report. Institutions that are
at the top of their competitor set in terms of sticker price, but toward the bottom in terms of
prestige measures, typically face significant challenges in meeting their enrollment goals.
Therefore, when benchmarking with competitors, it's vital to compare prestige as well as
sticker price. In addition, data should be collected to understand the net price being
charged by your competitors, not just the sticker price, because sticker price discounts can
vary widely from institution to institution.

For example, in conducting this analysis for a recent client, Scannell & Kurz found that the

institution went from the lowest priced in its competitor set based on sticker price to the
highest priced based on net price. To estimate net price, you can calculate any institution's
freshman discount rate from the financial aid data it provides to IPEDS, which is publicly
available (albeit a bit outdated) on the National Center for Education Statistics website (go
to: To calculate the discount rate, go to the
financial aid page of a selected institution. Once there, find the percent of the freshman
class receiving institutional aid and the average institutional aid provided. These figures
can be used to calculate an average award across the whole freshman class [(percentage *
average award) / 100]. This figure divided by the tuition charge from the same year (found
on the detail page) is the freshman discount rate. (This approach is only as reliable as the
data provided to IPEDS, and, as a result, sometimes produces questionable results.)

Pay Attention to the Behavior of Your Applicant Pool. If you are having trouble
yielding full-pay admits, this may be an indication that you are already priced above your
perceived value in the marketplace. Therefore, it is critical that attention be paid to student
matriculation rates, based on whether or not they apply for aid, their level of need and
discount rate, their quality profile, and so on. This will help clarify how a significant price
increase may impact the achievement of your institution's enrollment goals.

Some institutions are becoming quite sophisticated at using econometric analysis to
understand the price sensitivity of their pool, based on historical responses to aid offers.
Other institutions that have not provided much financial aid in the past (or that want to
understand the price elasticity of populations not yet in their applicant pool) conduct
market research to assess how students might react to various price increases. (Go to the
Stamats       website     for     a       description    of      one      such      service: Bottom line: Higher education institutions, like
any business, need to find some way to factor the "voice of the customer" into their pricing

Consider the Advantages (and Disadvantages) of Differential Pricing. Although more
common at public institutions than private institutions, setting different prices for different
institutional "products" is becoming more popular. The University of Pittsburgh, for
example, charges $2,600 more for its in-state nursing major than for in-state arts and
sciences majors.
Similarly, statewide systems often charge less for regional campuses than for the system
"flagship." Some institutions charge a different rate for cohort-based, accelerated programs
than for traditional, semester-based courses. These differential pricing schemes, ideally,
reflect differences in the market's "willingness to pay." However, when considering such
approaches, it is important to ensure that the resulting tuition schedule does not become so
complex that it is difficult to explain.

Moreover, once the differential has been established, be aware that across-the-board
percentage increases can impact different populations very differently. The best example
of this is resident versus non-resident tuition charges in public institutions. A 5 percent
increase in in-state tuition could translate into a $300 bump, while the same percentage on
out-of-state tuition could result in a $1,000 increase. If out-of-state students are more price
sensitive than residents, it may be necessary to consider implementing an across the board

dollar increase instead.

Think Long-Term. At many institutions, setting price is viewed as an annual decision.
While it is certainly important to review assumptions annually, the institution should have a
longer-term strategy in mind that annual decisions about price should support. For
example, the State University of New York system recently announced a plan to tie tuition
increases for incoming freshmen classes to the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), and
then freeze tuition at that level for the duration of that cohort's program (typically four
years). While this particular plan would not be appropriate for every institution or system,
it makes sense in New York. Historically, SUNY tuition is often held constant for years at
a time, only to increase suddenly and significantly. This longer-range approach represents a
much more rational and predictable model for the institution to explain, and for parents to

Remember that Market Perceptions Lag. Some institutions make the mistake of
thinking that they can immediately charge more because they have made desirable changes
in or investments to facilities or programs. While those investments may well change the
perceived value of the institution in the marketplace over time--thus increasing the market's
willingness to pay--it is unlikely that the change in perception will be immediate. Pricing
changes need to follow a change in the perceived value of an institution, not lead it. The
"Chivas Regal" effect (if you charge more then you must be worth it) no longer applies in a
higher education marketplace where much more information about institutions and how
they compare to (or rank against) one another on a number of measures is readily available
to the public.

Consider the Economic Conditions of Your Primary Draw Area. If your institution has
a local or regional market, you need to factor into your pricing deliberations the current
economic conditions of the area. For example, if unemployment is at an all-time high, a
significant tuition increase may not be sustainable, even though demand among non-
traditional age students may be increasing. Similarly, public institutions in states with
significant populations at every income level may be better able to successfully implement
significant tuition increases than those institutions in states that have a predominately
middle-class population, as long as aid for needy students is adjusted.

The good news is that higher education is becoming more market-aware in establishing
pricing and discounting policies. However, many institutions have a long way to go in
terms of the sophistication of their market assessments. It requires discipline and time to
gather and analyze the data needed to measure the perceived value of your institution. But
it is that perception that determines what people are willing to pay and, therefore how you
should price, and discount, your educational "products."

       5.6 Tuition Discounting at AASCU Institutions

Policy Matters
Volume 4, Number 2 (February, 2007)
American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Nick Hillman

As states continue the trend of providing postsecondary institutions with smaller shares of
state funds, public colleges and universities are forced to rely more heavily on tuition and
fees as a source of revenue. While this trend is well documented, little is known about how
colleges use institutional aid to provide tuition “discounts” to certain student populations.
In 2006, The College Board published Tuition Discounting: Not Just a Private College
Practice that examined the extent to which public colleges are using tuition revenue and
institutional aid to offset the cost of attendance for some students. Tuition discounting has
important policy implications for public colleges and universities primarily because most
of the discounts are awarded to students who do not have critical financial need. Colleges
often utilize tuition discounts to attract talented students who will help their institutions
improve college rankings, athletic programs, and demographic profiles. This policy brief
helps answer some basic questions about the extent to which AASCU institutions engage in
tuition discounting and how institutional discounting policy can leverage resources for
students with the greatest financial need.


The average tuition discount rate at AASCU institutions is low, but rising. At 6.4
percent, the average tuition discount rate at AASCU institutions is relatively low when
compared to the 33.5 percent discount rate in the private four-year sector and the 14.7
percent rate at all public four-year institutions. This year, AASCU institutions awarded
more than $653 million in need-based and merit-based institutional grant aid to their
students. Part of the reason why AASCU institutions are able to keep their discount rates
low is due to the fact that they are able to keep their tuition rates relatively low, making the
overall cost of attendance relatively low. During the past three years, the average discount
rate for AASCU members has increased by one percent. Although AASCU institutions
provide low tuition discount rates, it is likely that these rates will continue to creep up over
time as tuition increases.

Most institutional grant aid at AASCU institutions goes to students who do not have
critical financial need. Tuition discounting can be a very powerful enrollment
management tool to help students cover their financial need. Fifty-eight percent of all
institutional grant aid at AASCU institutions is awarded to students without documented
financial need. Only 42 percent of institutional grant aid is awarded on need-based
measures, suggesting that institutions are using discounts to “shape” their cohorts in an
effort to enroll students with high SAT scores, award scholarships to student-athletes, or
provide tuition waivers to minorities and students whose family members are employed at
the institution. For AASCU institutions to remain committed to their missions of providing

accessible and affordable educational opportunities to a diverse array of students, it is
essential that institutional aid is targeted to those with documented financial need. When
institutions use tuition discounting as a strategy to “shape” an incoming cohort without
addressing financial need, then less aid is available to those with documented need and
students will continue to be priced out of educational opportunities.

Every institution must decide its own “ideal” discount rate that is sustainable and
equitable. There is no standard discount rate that will work best for all institutions – tuition
discount rates must be determined based upon institutional mission, values, and financial
capacity. Also, state financial aid policy may influence the extent to which public colleges
engage in tuition discounting. When states provide high levels of grant aid or when states
keep tuition rates down, public colleges may rely less on tuition discounts to offset the cost
of attendance.

In a representative sample of 193 AASCU institutions, we found that AASCU colleges
engage in quite different discounting strategies depending on which state they are located.
AASCU institutions in Georgia and Wisconsin, for example, have an average discount rate
is 2 percent and only one-third of their institutional aid is awarded to students with
demonstrated financial need. These two states do not provide students with much
institutional aid, and when they do it typically is awarded based on merit rather than need.
On the other hand, AASCU institutions in California and Maine discount tuition by
approximately 8 percent, with three-fourths of the aid going to students who have
demonstrated financial need. California and Maine serve as examples of institutions
utilizing tuition discounts as a tool for making college more affordable to those with need.

The discount rate for AASCU institutions ranges from as low as 1 percent, and as high as
25 percent. Sustaining high discount rates will pose real challenges to public institutions,
particularly as tuition revenue is taking the place of state revenue. Approximately 37
percent of institutional revenues come from students. Students at public colleges are
carrying a heavier financial burden today than ever before, and tuition discounting is a way
institutions can help reduce the net price paid by students. One way for institutions to keep
their discount rates low is to keep tuition rates low. All institutions must set a sustainable
goal for their overall discount rate and then determine how institutional policies can strike a
balance between the amount of need-based and non-need-based aid that is awarded.
College leaders must be aware that the biggest driver of the steadily rising discount rates is
the rising net cost of attendance.

Whether institutional aid is based on need or on talent, colleges will continue to provide
some level of tuition discounts. The discount rate is likely to rise as net price rises, so
institutions must be strategic in the way they allocate institutional aid. Although tuition
discount rates at AASCU institutions are lower than those at most other public four-year
colleges, less than half of institutional aid is awarded to students with demonstrated
financial need. This trend is quite worrisome, particularly as the net cost of attendance
continues to increase and low-income students continue to be priced out of educational
opportunities. As stewards of the public good, AASCU institutions must remain committed

to the goal of increasing access and affordability, and it is necessary to develop tuition
discounting strategies that make the most of the limited financial resources. Tuition
discounting is a valuable tool for colleges to use for enrolling a desired mix of students, but
it is a more valuable tool when institutions utilize institutional aid for those with the
greatest amount of financial need.

The College Board. Each year, the College Board administers its Annual Survey of
Colleges and uses the results to publish reports such as Trends in Student Aid and Trends
in College Pricing.

National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). The
association collects and analyzes trends in higher education business and financial
management. NACUBO and The College Board are partners on tuition discounting data

The Lumina Foundation. The Lumina Foundation addresses issues surrounding financial
access and education retention through research, grants for innovative programs, and
communications initiatives.

       5.7 2006-2008 Tuition Proposals:
           Key Features and Innovations

University of Texas (UT) System

UT System students have benefited since the Legislature granted tuition-setting authority
to public university governing boards in 2003. The System's academic campuses hired
more than 370 faculty and additional advisors and graduate assistants. More than 470
courses were also added. By adding these positions, the campuses intend to enhance the
personal attention students receive. The new courses offer students more flexible
schedules, including early-morning, evening and weekend classes. With these
improvements, the academic campuses hope to raise student graduation rates and increase
on-time graduation.

Campuses throughout the UT System use a thorough consultative process to determine
their current and future needs. Additionally, these institutions continue to develop new and
innovative ways to encourage students to graduate on time, take courses at off-peak times
and explore creative loan and rebate programs. Here are some of the key features and
innovations at UT's nine academic campuses found within the 2006-2008 proposals.

UT Arlington. UT Arlington proposes to consolidate most course and program fees into a
single rate and cap charges at 14 semester credit hours (SCH); additional hours are at no
cost to student. In addition, the College of Business would institute an enhanced designated
tuition charge in order to provide funds to hire additional faculty to meet accreditation
requirements. UT Arlington proposes to expand eligibility for its $200 per year tuition
rebates to students completing 28 semester credit hours in two full terms; currently, 30
SCHs are required. The proposal also would set aside an additional $500,000 for need-
based grants (in addition to the required 20 percent set-aside); provide a “bonus grant” of
between $500 and $1,000 to students who receive need-based grants who attempt at least
14 SCHs per semester; and provide more assistance to middle class students. Additional
tuition revenue would allow need-based grants to go to students with up to $7,500 per year
in expected family contribution, up from $6,000 today.

UT Austin. UT Austin proposes to continue to fix all fees at 2004-2005 levels. Increases
in flat rate amounts are charged as designated tuition and are subject to the financial aid
set-aside requirements. The campus recommends a temporary suspension of enrollment
reduction plans to help address its budget shortfall. Enrollment would remain at about
49,500 during the two-year period. UT Austin will dedicate $2 million in 2007-2008 to
pay for a portion of the cost for replacing the Experimental Sciences Building (additional
funding from TRBs or PUF bonds will be required). UT Austin will continue financial
assistance to cover increased tuition costs for students from families making up to $80,000
per year. Additional funding also would be provided through B On-Time loans and tuition
assistance for teaching assistants. UT Austin recommends that non-resident undergraduate
tuition be comparable to the rates of its competitive peer institutions. On average, non-
resident rates at a selected group of peer universities (Berkeley, Michigan, Ohio State,

Virginia, and Washington) are 3.2 times the resident rate. UT Austin recommends an
increase that would make tuition for new non-resident students roughly equal to 3.2 times
the resident tuition. The increase would be phased in over a two-year period, with
approximately half the increase to be implemented in 2006-07 and the balance in 2007-08.
Continuing nonresident students would see an 8 percent increase in 2006-2007 and a four
percent increase in 2007-2008. The lower increases for continuing nonresident students
will allow them to continue their education and complete their degrees at UT Austin
without experiencing an unmanageable increase in the cost of their education.

UT Brownsville/TSC. Beginning in fall 2007, UTB will charge students taking 14 or
more semester credit hours a flat rate. Last year, the institution implemented a flat fee for
students taking 15 or more credits, leading to a 30.6% increase in students taking 15 or
more credits during fall 2005 compared to fall 2004. UTB will discount designated tuition
and certain fees by 25% for students who enroll in 7:00 a.m. or earlier classes or Saturday
classes, and a discount of 10% to students enrolling in classes from noon to 4:00 p.m.
Even with proposed increases, charges at UTB remain among the lowest of any university
in Texas.

UT Dallas. New students entering UT Dallas for the first time in 2007-08 would be
guaranteed fixed tuition and academic fees for four years. The tuition and fee rates for new
students in 2007-08 would be 13% higher than the 2006-07 rates, an increase equivalent to
an average minimum increase of 5% per year compounded over 4 years. UTD proposes to
move towards flatter tuition and fee charges, with the aim of encouraging students to take
more courses per semester and, thus, to save money and graduate sooner. There are no
added tuition and fee costs for enrolling for SCH in excess of the “full-time” level of 15
SCH. UTD proposes to compensate for the higher costs of engineering and management
education by initiating supplemental fees for enrollment in these classes. UTD plans to
develop programs with local community colleges for qualified students who are struggling
to afford UTD such that the admitted student can enroll at a community college for 2 years,
and then at UTD for their final 2 years, at the tuition rate applicable when they first
enrolled at the community college.

UT El Paso. In fall 2006, UT El Paso will pilot a new voluntary Guaranteed Tuition Rate
Plan that will provide entering freshmen, who qualify for and select the program, a
guaranteed tuition and mandatory fee rate of $194 per credit hour for four years. The plan
will require students to take at least 30 credits each academic year and thus will encourage
graduation in as close to four years as degree requirements permit. Entering freshmen in
fall 2007 will pay $208 per credit hour.

UT Pan American. UT Pan American plans to promote timely graduation by offering
eligible students a Graduate on Time Tuition Scholarship upon successful completion of 15
or more hours towards their degree program during a fall or spring semester. For need-
based recipients, the scholarship would be funded by the university‟s financial assistance
set-asides. Current projections indicate recipients could be awarded GOTTS scholarships in
the amount of $200 per semester. UTPA‟s proposal would raise tuition and fees
substantially, but even after the proposed increases, the FY 2008 total tuition and

mandatory fees at UTPA will remain below the current FY 2006 tuition and mandatory
fees charged at many Texas public universities, and would be the second lowest of any UT
System institution.

UT Permian Basin. UT Permian Basin will continue its rebate program to encourage
timely graduation. The Cash for College program begun two years ago is funded with
tuition revenues and provides a $400 senior year credit for each prior year in which a
student completes 30 credits between September and August. From spring 2004 through
summer 2005, 250 UTPB students have benefited from Cash for College, earning over
$102,000 in tuition rebates.

UT San Antonio. UTSA will use additional funds generated for the set-aside for need-
based students to increase work-study opportunities on campus, including the hiring of peer
mentors for students on academic probation and part-time student employees in the Child
Development Center. The Center offers child care to children of students, faculty and staff.
Funds will also be used to increase grants and scholarships. UTSA will dedicate $500,000
in funds for students who do not meet financial aid income guidelines (i.e. “middle
income” or international students). The university also will provide funds for a loan
program for students who plan to teach, with a portion of the loan forgiven each year that a
graduate teaches in a Texas public school. Plans are being finalized with the College of
Education and Human Development to begin implementing this program in spring 2006.

UT Tyler. Mandated set-asides from increases in designated tuition will provide UT Tyler
additional resources in excess of $250,000 each year for the following financial aid
programs: B On Time student loan, Education Affordability Grants (middle income
students), Working to Success Institutional Work Study Program, Free Senior Semester
Tuition Incentive/Rebate, Final Semester Tuition Incentive/Rebate, Graduate Retention
Free Tuition Award, and Weekend Course Savings Rebate. Even with the proposed
increases in tuition and required fees, UT Tyler‟s total tuition and required fees will
continue to remain well below the statewide average.

       5.8 UT System Institutions

Academic Campuses                               For Information: 956/882-8200
UT Arlington                          
Year Established: 1895
Year Joined UT System: 1965                     UT Dallas
Enrollment: 24,825 (Fall 2006)                  Year Established: 1961
Faculty: 1,240 (Fall 2006)                      Year Joined UT System: 1969
Personnel: 1,919 (Fall 2006)                    Enrollment: 14,523 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $330.0 million (FY 2007)                Faculty: 770 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $34.9 million            Personnel: 1,746 (Fall 2006)
(FY 2006)                                       Budget: $260.8 million (FY 2007)
President: James D. Spaniolo                    Research Expenditures: $43.1 million
For Information: 817/272-2222                   (FY 2006)                                     President: David E. Daniel
                                                For Information: 972/883-2111
UT Austin                             
Year Established: 1883
Year Joined UT System: 1883                     UT El Paso
Enrollment: 49,697 (Fall 2006)                  Year Established: 1914
Faculty: 3,164 (Fall 2006)                      Year Joined UT System: 1919
Personnel: 10,617 (Fall 2006)                   Enrollment: 19,842 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $1,759.5 million (FY 2007)              Faculty: 1,083 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $446.7 million           Personnel: 1,543 (Fall 2006)
(FY 2006)                                       Budget: $265.1 million (FY 2007)
President: William C. Powers, Jr.               Research Expenditures: $41.9 million
For Information: 512/471-3434                   (FY 2006)                                  President: Diana S. Natalicio
                                                For Information: 915/747-5000
UT Brownsville                        
Year Established:
Year Joined UT System: 1991                     UT Pan American
Enrollment: 15,677 (Fall 2006) (Includes        Year Established: 1927
UTB and Texas Southmost College)                Year Joined UT System: 1989
Faculty: 693 (Fall 2006)                        Enrollment: 17,337 (Fall 2006)
Personnel: 1,326 (Fall 2006)                    Faculty: 792 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $126.8 million (FY 2007)                Personnel: 1,835 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $5.9 million (FY         Budget: $207.7 million (FY 2007)
2006)                                           Research Expenditures: $6.8 million (FY
President: Juliet V. García                     2006)

President: Blandina Cárdenas                   For Information: 903/566-7202
For Information: 956/381-2011        
                                               Health Institutions
UT Permian Basin                               UT Southwestern Medical Center at
Year Established: 1969                         Dallas
Year Joined UT System: 1969                    Year Established: 1943
Enrollment: 3,462 (Fall 2006)                  Year Joined UT System: 1949
Faculty: 223 (Fall 2006)                       Enrollment: 2,396 (Fall 2006)
Personnel: 219 (Fall 2006)                     Faculty: 1,790 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $40.3 million (FY 2007)                Personnel: 7,233 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $2.4 million (FY        Budget: $1,326.0 million (FY 2007)
2006)                                          Research Expenditures: $333.3 million
President: W. David Watts                      (FY 2006)
For Information: 432/552-2020                  President: Kern Wildenthal                                   For Information: 214/648-3111
UT San Antonio
Year Established: 1969                         UT Medical Branch at Galveston
Year Joined UT System: 1969                    Year Established: 1891
Enrollment: 28,379 (Fall 2006)                 Year Joined UT System: 1891
Faculty: 1,197 (Fall 2006)                     Enrollment: 2,255 (Fall 2006)
Personnel: 2,568 (Fall 2006)                   Faculty: 1,276 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $334.5 million (FY 2007)               Personnel: 11,693 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $32.3 million           Budget: $1,420.6 million (FY 2007)
(FY 2006)                                      Research Expenditures: $155.0 million
President: Ricardo Romo                        (FY 2006)
For Information: 210/458-4011                  President: John D. Stobo                                   For Information: 409/772-1011
UT Tyler
Year Established: 1971                         UT Health Science Center at Houston
Year Joined UT System: 1979                    Year Established: 1972
Enrollment: 5,926 (Fall 2006)                  Year Joined UT System: 1972
Faculty: 377 (Fall 2006)                       Enrollment: 3,651 (Fall 2006)
Personnel: 382 (Fall 2006)                     Faculty: 1,273 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $66.1 million (FY 2007)                Personnel: 3,024 (Fall 2006)
Research Expenditures: $.9 million (FY         Budget: $696.7 million (FY 2007)
2006)                                          Research Expenditures: $175.2 million
President: Rodney H. Mabry                     (FY 2006)

President: James T. Willerson                UT Health Center at Tyler
For Information: 713/500-4472                Year Established: 1947                            Year Joined UT System: 1977
                                             Enrollment: n/a - not degree-granting
UT Health Science Center at San              Faculty: 97 (Fall 2006)
Antonio                                      Personnel: 873 (Fall 2006)
Year Established: 1959                       Budget: $119.9 million (FY 2007)
Year Joined UT System: 1959                  Research Expenditures: $12.6 million
First Year of Classes: 1968                  (FY 2006)
Enrollment: 2,825 (Fall 2006)                President: Kirk A. Calhoun
Faculty: 1,562 (Fall 2006)                   For Information: 903/877-3451
Personnel: 3,233 (Fall 2006)       
Budget: $536.0 million (FY 2007)
Research Expenditures: $139.8 million
(FY 2006)
President: Francisco G. Cigarroa
For Information: 210/567-7000

UT M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
Year Established: 1941
Year Joined UT System: 1941
Enrollment: 108 (Fall 2006)
Faculty: 1,621 (Fall 2006)
Personnel: 14,101 (Fall 2006)
Budget: $2,388.6 million (FY 2007)
Research Expenditures: $409.7 million
(FY 2006)
President: John Mendelsohn
For Information: 800/392-1611

       5.9 The Future of Tuition:
           Colleges Eye Discounts on Tuition to Change Student Choices

Chronicle of Higher Education
September 19, 2003

Sara Hebel

Raising tuition can be about more than simply plugging budget holes. As colleges debate
their pricing structures, some administrators want to see if they can also force changes in
student behavior.

By charging varying rates of tuition, colleges hope to entice students to enroll in classes
at unpopular times of day, take enough courses to graduate within four years, or find a
way to afford a college education that might have seemed out of reach. For public
colleges, those goals are often shared by state lawmakers, who are urging institutions to
make more efficient use of their facilities, improve their graduation rates, and help get
more low- income students into college.

Finding new ways of charging tuition is more than just a theory at some colleges. Starting
last year, the University of Oregon began making two major adjustments in its tuition
policy, giving discounts to encourage students to take classes at unpopular times and
easing the burden on part-time students, who were paying a disproportionate share of

In some ways, the university's hand was forced. When one of the institution's largest
classroom buildings had to be closed for renovation in 2002, officials had to find
somewhere to put the growing number of students. They sought a way to stretch out the
class schedule throughout the day to fit more classes into other buildings. The university
offered students a 15-percent discount on credit hours for classes they took after 3 p.m., a
policy the university will extend to classes that start before 9 a.m. this winter. The plan
has worked to make afternoon classes more popular, says John T. Moseley, the
university's senior vice president and provost. University officials say 32 percent of
students, or 3,190, took at least one discounted class last fall and projected that the policy
would save students a total of $1.5-million in 2003-4.

Offset by Higher Tuition

Some students say the discounts, while better than nothing, were of limited help because
the university raised tuition in the middle of 2002-3 by about 12.7 percent, or $10 per
credit hour. Gabe V. Kjos, a junior, says the tuition increase more than wiped out the $53
of tuition savings he realized from taking a 3 p.m. politics class last winter. In the spring,
he could not take advantage of the discount because his work-study job at the law school
needed him in the afternoons.

"The tuition discount seems like an innovative way of saving students money, but when
they surcharged students as well as giving them a discount, we aren't saving," says Mr.
Kjos, who says he carefully weighs the costs of every class, including whether it comes
with additional fees and how expensive the books are, before registering. "And that hurts
students who are pinching pennies to stay in school."

With tuition rates rising, University of Oregon officials say that it is imperative that the
growing costs are appropriately allocated among students. In 1979, the state covered 70
percent of the cost of educating a state resident at the university; today it pays less than

Until this academic year, students have not been charged extra for credit hours above 13
or below 17 in any quarter, effectively making part-time students shoulder a significant
portion of tuition for classmates who took heavier course loads. The new policy more
evenly distributes costs among students. For instance, it will charge students who take
more than 13 but less than 17 credits a discounted rate rather than giving them those
courses free of charge.

"Now it is more important than ever that tuition be equitable," Mr. Moseley says. "Once
our policy encouraged students to take a more diverse workload and to explore. But now
it is not equitable if they are exploring on the backs of others."

While Oregon is charging more to students who take full course loads each quarter, the
University of Texas is considering charging them less to encourage more students to
finish college within four years. Under the plan, the university would discount tuition, or
even make it free, for credits that students take above a certain minimum number, for
which the university would charge full fare.

"We should view tuition not only as a way of raising money but achieving strategic
objectives," says Mark G. Yudof, chancellor of the University of Texas System. He has
set up two committees to weigh new approaches to tuition after the Texas Legislature this
year granted public institutions authority to set their own rates. "You can encourage low-
income students to graduate on time and enhance students' willingness to take credits
they need," he argues.

Community colleges in Texas have already experimented with differential pricing over
the past two years, taking an approach similar to Oregon's by discounting classes taken at
unpopular times, but with a main goal of increasing access.

The Dallas County Community College District slashed rates in half, to $13 per credit
hour, for students who took classes between 1 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. during the week, after 1
p.m. on Friday, and all day throughout the weekend. Enrollment in the district grew by 17
percent, to 56,000 over the past two years, and officials attribute one-third of that
increase directly to the tuition policy.

The lower tuition rates attracted financially strapped international students, who aren't

eligible for most financial-aid programs, while also easing parking problems and
spreading out the use of student services, such as career counseling, throughout the day,
officials say.

But the policy was discontinued this year because it led to a decline in revenue. Tuition
income dropped by about 4.6 percent, or $4-million, for instance, at the Dallas district,
says Bob Brown, the district's vice chancellor of business affairs.

Still, Mr. Brown says, the experiment was useful in making some realities clear to state
officials. "It helped demonstrate to the state the price sensitivity of our students, even at
community colleges with extraordinarily low tuition," he says.

Basing Tuition on Majors

In other states, college officials are looking at a variety of ways to set varying tuition
rates, including one idea that would charge students based on their choice of major.

That approach was one of many the University System of Maryland weighed as a
university committee reviewed tuition policies. In the end, though, the university panel
focused on making rate increases more predictable. At the same time, university officials
shied away from several differential-pricing ideas, fearing that those policies could create
unproductive incentives for students, colleges, and the state.

"Many students had many questions about whether differential policies were fair and
whether they might skew choices," says Gerald A. Heeger, president of the University of
Maryland University College and the leader of the tuition study group.

If some liberal-arts majors were cheaper to pursue than degrees in engineering or
chemistry, students might shy away from areas of study that were best suited for them.
And, Mr. Heeger says, it would be unfair to charge students based on what they are
expected to earn in the future. Many people who received a master's degree in business
administration and went to work in energy-related jobs, for example, may now be
unemployed, he points out.

Maryland State Sen. Thomas M. Middleton, a Democrat who is chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, also worries that making it more expensive for students to study
subjects that often lead to high-paying jobs could hurt the economy. If too many residents
choose to pay less by studying other subjects, a state could unwittingly shrink its
knowledge base in key areas.

"It could damage opportunity for potential economic development," says Mr. Middleton.
He argues that state officials need to keep tuition increases in check by funneling as much
money as possible to higher education. Otherwise, he says, the state risks forcing
institutions to adopt potentially damaging policies. "You get what you pay for," he says.
"You've got to be very careful."

As tuition at public colleges -- which   . . . so has the share of the total cost of
enroll 80 percent of college students -- education picked up by students.
has gone up . . .
Average tuition and fees at public four- Tuition as a share of annual college
year colleges                            budgets
1980              $804                   1980             12.9%
1985              $1,318                 1985             14.5%
1990              $1,908                 1990             16.1%
1995              $2,811                 1995             18.8%
2000              $3,487                 2000             18.5%
SOURCES: College Board; U.S. Department of Education

       5.10 The Future of Tuition:
            One Price for the Well-Off, a Lower One for Everyone Else

Chronicle of Higher Education
September 19, 2003

Jeffrey Selingo

It's become as common on college campuses as laptops and cellphones: tuition
discounting. After loans, scholarships, and work-study paychecks are taken into account,
very few students actually pay the sticker price listed in the undergraduate catalog.

But what if that price more accurately reflected what students really pay? The more
money a family has, the more its children would pay to attend college. Such a change
would turn the student-aid system inside out. Rather than taking the sticker price and
adjusting it, using financial aid as the tool, the price would be adjusted upfront, giving
families a firm idea of what they would pay before their children even applied for
college. Tuition rates would come to resemble tax tables.

While no one has suggested throwing out financial aid as we know it, the idea of linking
tuition to family income has been proposed by lawmakers and college trustees in a few
states, including two that are well known for their low tuition rates at public colleges:
California and North Carolina.

In July, as the Board of Regents of the University of California system agreed to raise
tuition by 30 percent for 2003-4, one member, Tom Sayles, suggested that the nine-
campus system impose a surcharge on well-off families. The extra fee, perhaps $1,000,
would be applied to students whose families make more than $90,000 a year, under one
model being considered, or more than $150,000, under another.

"I don't think that we can continue to apply across-the-board increases," Mr. Sayles said.

An analysis of the proposal by university officials predicted that with the $90,000
threshold, a $1,000 surcharge would generate $53.7-million in the first year, after
administrative costs were factored in. With the median income of students' families
across the system between $70,000 and $75,000 a year, university officials estimated that
36 percent of students would pay the surcharge if the threshold were $90,000, and 13
percent if it were $150,000.

'A Cliff' Between Fees

But the university's study also raises serious concerns about the idea. For one, officials
say, it would create a "cliff" between the fees charged to students just above the threshold
and those just below. The analysis also predicts that California would receive "numerous

appeals" from families who feel that "any definition of income" does not represent their
financial situation, and that any income cutoff "is arbitrary."

The idea also has the makings of a political horror movie. Almost from the moment it
was proposed, university officials distanced themselves from it.

"The income-contingent fee surcharge is an idea suggested by one member of the Board
of Regents and has not been discussed by the board in any level of detail," says Hanan
Eisenman, a university spokesman. "It is not on the regents' agenda as a specific item for
discussion or action."

Even Mr. Sayles himself, who did not return several telephone calls, is not talking about
the idea anymore, according to other regents, who add that the proposal is probably dead
for now.

"It sounds like unfair taxation," says Ward Connerly, a regent, who supports raising
tuition over all and then giving needy students more financial aid. "Wealthy people think
they are already paying too much in taxes."

What's more, under any system that tied tuition to income, well-off students who pay
more would not necessarily get anything more in return. In other words, the students
would still stand in cafeteria lines with everyone else and take classes in large lecture

"Unless the higher tuitions are accompanied by a higher level of service, it's not fair,"
says Jane Wellman, a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a think
tank in Washington.

After studying income-contingent tuition as a consultant to University of North Carolina
system several years ago, Ms. Wellman says she concluded that it was "not workable,"
and that it fails to meet the standards of a good policy. "I think you want something that
is defensible, transparent, and is equitable," she says. "This pricing structure smacks of

A Bargain in North Carolina

For a time, the idea had some appeal in North Carolina, where lawmakers in recent years
have struggled to meet the university's growing needs and, at the same time, a
constitutional mandate that calls for tuition to be as close to free as possible for in-state
students. At $3,372 a year, many North Carolina families see tuition on the highly
competitive Chapel Hill campus as a relative bargain, especially considering that the
median family income among students there is about $85,969. (Nationwide, about one-
fifth of the students who attend public flagship universities come from families who
make more than $100,000 annually.)

Still, North Carolina never adopted the income-contingent idea. A similar plan, floated by

the leader of the State Senate last year, also went nowhere. "I don't anticipate it coming
up again in the near future," says Molly Corbett Broad, president of the university
system. "North Carolina takes its historical commitment to low tuition pretty seriously."

Even if tying tuition to income were politically workable, several experts in higher-
education finance say it would pose an administrative headache.

For one thing, colleges would have to collect income data on every student, not just on
those applying for financial aid. And while the financial-aid system depends on a set of
complex formulas, which take into account family assets and siblings in college, among
other things, an income-contingent model would probably be based largely on adjusted
gross income reported on federal tax returns.

"When you look closely at it, the plan breaks down pretty quickly," says Gary T. Barnes,
a retired vice president of the University of North Carolina system. "Many people take
extensions on their income taxes, so they wouldn't have that information readily
available. And what information would you use? Adjusted gross income is just that,
adjusted, and you very quickly have a debate about the definition of income."

That is what faced Michigan State University in the late 1960s, when students' tuition
amounted to 1 percent of their parents' adjusted gross income. Roger Wilkinson, vice
president for finance and operations at the time, says the system was "extremely difficult"
to operate, particularly since officials did not have the computer technology available

"It was politically unpopular in the Michigan Legislature, and there was a lot of pressure
to implement a new program," he says.

As a result, the university scrapped the tuition policy after only two years, in 1970. Since
then, no university, public or private, has followed by charging an explicit fee based on

       5.11 A simple benchmarking study: Comparing Fund Raising at Georgia
            Public Four-Year Institutions With Similar States: Relative Annual
            Voluntary Contributions and Endowment Figures

Council for Aid to Education
Voluntary Support of Education Database
FY 2006 Data

I began by looking at the states most similar to Georgia in population:

                Est. Pop. 2006   Rank Med. Income     Rank
.Illinois       12,831,970       5    46,528          13
.Pennsylvania 12,440,621         6    41,171          27
.Ohio           11,478,006       7    40,697          29
.Michigan       10,095,643       8    43,795          20
.Georgia        9,363,941        9    42,069          23
.North Carolina 8,856,505        10 38,204            37
.New Jersey     8,724,560        11 58,759            1
.Virginia       7,642,884        12 48,986            11
.Washington 6,395,798            14 46,041            15

U.S. Average                          43,057

These states, in general, have an array of four-year public institutions similar to that in

The Council for Aid to Education, Voluntary Support of Education Database enabled me
to look at voluntary giving to those public institutions in each state that reported data in
FY2006, as well as enrollment, endowment, and expenditures figures. The data for
Illinois was too incomplete to be useful, and the state higher education systems in
Washington and New Jersey are too small to provide an appropriate comparison to

In Georgia, 17 of the public four-year institutions reported data, with the following not
filing reports:

Armstrong Atlantic State University
Dalton State College
Fort Valley State College
Gainesville State College
Georgia Gwinnett College
Georgia Southwestern State University
Gordon College
Middle Georgia College

Smaller institutions in certain other institutions did not report data. But because I used
relative figures – contributions per student, endowment per student, contributions per
expenditures, endowment per expenditures – these missing data are not particularly

Among the six states most similar to Georgia, our state had the lowest statewide
voluntary contribution per student in FY2006 (total contributions divided by total

Virginia                                 $        2,699
North Carolina                           $        2,391
Michigan                                $         1,719
Ohio                                    $         1,607
Pennsylvania                            $         1,504
Georgia                                 $         1,289

It also has the lowest statewide endowment per student (total endowment divided by total

Virginia                                $         29,281
Michigan                                $         27,041
Ohio                                    $         16,444
North Carolina                          $         13,873
Pennsylvania                            $         13,504
Georgia                                 $         12,448

Georgia was stronger in endowment per expenditures, with a total endowment of $2.27
billion compared with overall annual expenditures of $3.6 billion – or the endowment
figure at 63 percent of expenditures:

Virginia                                144.1%
Michigan                                127.1%
Ohio                                    81.2%
Georgia                                 63.1%
North Carolina                          62.6%
Pennsylvania                            58.7%

Georgia was last in FY2006 contributions per expenditures, with the institutions in the
state raising $235 million and having a $2.27 billion aggregate budget – or fund raising
being 6.5 percent of expenditures.

Virginia                               13.3%
North Carolina                         10.8%
Michigan                               8.1%
Ohio                                   7.9%
Pennsylvania                           6.5%
Georgia                                6.5%

Please see worksheet 3 for the complete aggregate data and worksheet 2 for data for each

       5.12 NACUBO Online Benchmarking Tool

Welcome to the NACUBO Online Benchmarking Tool demonstration.                     This
demonstration will guide you in creating a peer-group and generating reports using this

To begin, select NACUBO Online Benchmarking Tool under NACUBO services.
At this time, only institutions that participated in the 2005 NACUBO Tuition Discounting
Study are able to access the tool. If your institution did not participate, a message
indicating this will appear. In the tools next iteration (?) institutions who participated in
the 2006 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study, through the College Board‟s Annual
Survey of Colleges, will be able to use the tool as well.

Let‟s begin. Select the “NACUBO Online Benchmarking Tool” link.

To begin generating reports click on “My Reports” on the top menu bar.

There are two types of reports available to you in the tool – Peer Group based and
Summary Based.

The Peer Group based reports allow you to customize reports based on the Peer Group
you have defined – we‟ll work on defining a Peer Group later in the demonstration.

The Summary Based reports contain tables similar to those found in previous NACUBO
Tuition Discounting Study Reports. These reports allow you to view the aggregate
averages based on all study participants for a particular measure. For example, you can
view the average tuition discount rate for full-time freshmen for all participants against
your institution‟s data response in a given year.

Click on the “Summary Based” tab to begin generating Summary Based reports. All
available summary reports can be viewed in the drop-down menu.

To see the reports within each demographic category, click on the plus and minus signs,
they will expand and collapse the folders and allow you to see the available reports.

By clicking the “plus” sign the content in the folder will be revealed. Notice that within
sections there is also additional content to be revealed by clicking on the “plus” signs.

There are two types of reports that you can select within the summary based reports. One
that would display your institution submitted data for that measure or one that will not
display your institutions data, and just report the aggregate averages for that given survey
year. This will allow you to generate reports appropriate for different audiences.

To view a report click on the actual report title. Then select a year and hit the “Go”
button. Only one year of data can be displayed at a time. The summary reports provide a
snapshot for the given survey year.

The selected report displays the calculated averages for the chosen categorization, the
average for all institutions, and if selected, your institutions calculated average.

If you would like to change the chart type, select the chart icon located toward the right
of the screen. You can either select a different type of bar chart or a trend chart.

If you would like the save or export the report to your computer, click on the save icon
located toward the right of the screen. You can save the report as a PDF, MHT, Excel
file or an XML. If you save the report as an Excel file, for example, you can than work
with the data and charts in Excel to further customize the report to your needs.

To begin generating Peer Group Based reports, click on the “Peer Group Based” tab
found to the left of the “Summary Based” tab.

The Peer Group Based reports are based on your institution‟s unique peer group. The
reports based on your selected peer group allow you to compare the averages of your peer
group against your peers. Please be advised that no individual data is displayed.

Within the Tuition Discounting Data Set there are two key points relate to creating your
peer group. First, only one peer group per institution is permitted. Once an individual at
your institution selects a peer group, you will not be able to change it. Second, a
minimum of ten institutions are required in a peer group. Though these two restrictions
can be limiting, they were put in place in order to protect the confidentiality of your and
your peers Tuition Discounting data.

To move forward with generating Peer-Group Based Reports, click the “OK” button.

There are a number of ways to begin generating a list of institutions to include in your
peer group. You can search by an institution‟s name, by region, by state or Carnegie
Classification. For example, to search for institutions in the New England region, click
on “New England” in the region box. Then click on the search button to generate a list of
institutions meeting your search requirements. Our search found 54 institutions in the
New England region.

To select an institution for your Peer-Group, click on the box next to the institutions
name. To continue revealing additional institutions click on the next button and it will
take you to the next page of institutions. If you would like to select all of the institutions
the tool has generated, click on the box next to “Institution Name.” This will allow you
to select all institutions at one time.

To move your selected institutions into the Peer Group being created, click on the “Add”
button to move the institution over to the right-hand column. You may remove
institutions from the Peer Group you are creating by clicking on the box next to the
institution you would like to remove, and then clicking the “Remove” button.

Once you have selected a minimum of 10 institutions and are satisfied with your peer
group, type in the name for your peer group and click on the “Create Peer Group” button.
Once you click on the “Create Peer Group” button, your peer group is now defined and
cannot be changed. Please be sure that every institution you wish to be included is

To view the institutions in your peer group, you can click on the “My Peers” button on
the top menu bar.

Now that your peer group is defined, you can begin generating Peer Group Based reports.

Within the “Peer Group Based” tab, click on the drop-down menu to view the listing of
reports. Expand and collapse the report folders using the plus and minus signs to view
the entire listing of peer based reports. Click on the title of the report you wish to

The generated Peer Group Based report includes longitudinal data for your institution as
well as the averages for your selected peer group. Similar to the functions in the
Summary Based Reports, you can save your reports or change the type of chart displayed.

If you would like to see the data sources, variables, definitions, and data calculations used
in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study and the NACUBO Benchmarking Tool click
on the “FAQ” tab located in the top menu bar.

If you have further questions and wish to contact NACUBO, click on the “Contact
NACUBO” tab located in the top menu bar.

When you are finished with your session log-out of the tool. When you log-in to the
Benchmarking Tool for another session your saved peer group will be available to you.

This concludes the demonstration of the NACUBO Benchmarking Tool.

     FY 2006 Report,
     Council for the Aid                                             Contrib Per                                         Endow Per
     of Education                    Contrib FY06   Enrollment        Student           Endowment         Expenditures    Student    Endow:Expend   Contr:Expend

     Columbus State
1    University             GA   $     13.902.841        7.597   $      1.830      $     24.366.000   $     72.823.992   $   3.207          33,5%          19,1%
     Georgia Institute of
2    Technology             GA   $     95.781.200       17.135   $      5.590      $ 1.312.679.309    $    834.386.497   $ 76.608          157,3%          11,5%
     Augusta State
3    University             GA   $      3.942.201        6.333   $       622       $     13.512.625   $     46.034.879   $   2.134          29,4%           8,6%
     University of
4    Georgia                GA   $     69.482.991       33.660   $      2.064      $    574.576.000   $ 1.124.486.835    $ 17.070           51,1%           6,2%
     Savannah State
5    University             GA   $      2.904.474        3.241   $       896       $      2.900.000   $     51.000.000   $    895            5,7%           5,7%
     Abraham Baldwin
6    College                GA   $      1.517.249        3.423   $       443       $      6.836.009   $     29.362.436   $   1.997          23,3%           5,2%
     Polytechnic State
7    University             GA   $      2.180.987        3.807   $       573       $      3.026.306   $     42.486.382   $    795            7,1%           5,1%
     Valdosta State
8    University             GA   $      3.842.478       10.503   $       366       $     23.372.278   $     75.449.996   $   2.225          31,0%           5,1%
     Georgia Southern
9    University             GA   $      6.365.107       16.646   $       382       $     31.552.733   $    145.582.445   $   1.896          21,7%           4,4%
     Kennesaw State
10   University             GA   $      5.755.515       18.556   $       310       $     19.099.295   $    141.364.551   $   1.029          13,5%           4,1%
     Macon State
11   College                GA   $      1.147.552        6.150   $       187       $      7.318.400   $     29.112.737   $   1.190          25,1%           3,9%
     Georgia College
     and State
12   University             GA   $      2.260.134        5.662   $       399       $     17.705.798   $     66.669.184   $   3.127          26,6%           3,4%
     University of West
13   Georgia                GA   $      2.822.297       10.154   $       278       $     17.699.942   $     84.752.450   $   1.743          20,9%           3,3%
     North Georgia
     College and State
14   University             GA   $      1.223.829        4.765   $       257       $     17.265.108   $     42.834.689   $   3.623          40,3%           2,9%
     Medical College of
15   Georgia                GA   $      9.155.001        2.585   $      3.542      $    106.262.000   $    324.371.851   $ 41.107           32,8%           2,8%
     Clayton State
16   University             GA   $      1.478.206        6.212   $       238       $      3.070.948   $     55.977.711   $    494            5,5%           2,6%

     Georgia State
17   University           GA    $   11.323.190    25.945   $    436    $     88.904.050   $   430.023.087   $   3.427   20,7%    2,6%
                                $ 235.085.252    182.374   $   1.289   $    $ 3.596.719.722   $ 12.448    63,1%    6,5%

     Georgia Perimeter
     College              GA    $    3.322.722    20.461               $       445.085    $   114.284.418   $   5.585    0,4%    2,9%

     Armstrong Atlantic
     State University     GA    no report
     Dalton State
     College              GA    no report
     Fort Valley State
     College              GA    no report
     Gainesville State
     College              GA    no report
     Georgia Gwinnett
     College              GA    no report
     State University     GA    no report
     Gordon College       GA    no report          3.500                     5.663.657        22.082.658    $   1.618   25,6%
     Middle Georgia
     College              GA    no report

     Ferris State
1    University           MI    $   29.953.618    12.547   $   2.387   $     28.943.560   $   183.549.191   $   2.307   15,8%    16,3%
     University of
2    Michigan             MI    $ 251.476.551     55.028   $   4.570   $ 5.652.262.026    $ 2.336.387.808   $ 102.716   241,9%   10,8%
     Saginaw Valley
3    State University     MI    $    7.511.287     9.543   $    787    $     38.098.515   $    72.566.131   $   3.992   52,5%    10,4%
     Wayne State
4    University           MI    $   49.832.117    32.982   $   1.511   $    210.000.000   $   645.131.853   $   6.367   32,6%    7,7%
5    University           MI    $   12.337.943     6.510   $   1.895   $     66.004.648   $   167.840.585   $ 10.139    39,3%    7,4%
     Michigan State
6    University           MI    $   90.635.481    45.166   $   2.007   $ 1.482.844.988    $ 1.387.576.675   $ 32.831    106,9%   6,5%
     Grand Valley State
7    University           MI    $   13.668.325    22.565   $    606    $     52.325.059   $   257.418.762   $   2.319   20,3%    5,3%

8    Oakland University    MI     $    7.533.592    17.339   $    434    $     31.553.417   $   156.812.389   $   1.820   20,1%    4,8%
     Western Michigan
9    University            MI     $   15.163.867    26.239   $    578    $    165.970.546   $   318.961.653   $   6.325   52,0%    4,8%
     Central Michigan
10   University            MI     $   12.331.493    27.452   $    449    $     68.042.725   $   275.163.066   $   2.479   24,7%    4,5%
     Eastern Michigan
11   University            MI     $    7.441.542    23.486   $    317    $     44.824.451   $   250.426.979   $   1.909   17,9%    3,0%
     Northern Michigan
12   University            MI     $    2.657.192     9.353   $    284    $     33.304.000   $   112.484.103   $   3.561   29,6%    2,4%
     Lake Superior
13   State University      MI     $     782.894      3.394   $    231    $     11.045.701   $    41.694.101   $   3.254   26,5%    1,9%
                                  $ 501.325.902    291.604   $   1.719   $ 7.885.219.636    $   $ 27.041    127,1%   8,1%

     Delta College         MI     $    4.059.839    10.374               $     10.356.416   $    61.294.689   $    998    16,9%    6,6%
     Lake Michigan
     College               MI     $    1.074.780     4.035               $      5.358.276   $    28.033.105   $   1.328   19,1%    3,8%
     Michigan College      MI     $    4.098.936     4.382               $     16.512.158   $    43.828.657   $   3.768   37,7%    9,4%

     University of North
     Carolina at Chapel
1    Hill                  NC     $ 236.579.182     27.276   $   8.674   $ 1.687.838.091    $ 1.313.915.289   $ 61.880    128,5%   18,0%
     North Carolina
2    School of the Arts    NC     $    5.795.227     1.137   $   5.097   $     25.721.864   $    39.729.719   $ 22.623    64,7%    14,6%
     North Carolina
3    State University      NC     $ 138.299.146     30.149   $   4.587   $    412.298.000   $   956.888.382   $ 13.675    43,1%    14,5%
     University of North
     Carolina at
4    Asheville             NC     $    3.048.577     3.660   $    833    $     19.469.727   $    51.626.604   $   5.320   37,7%    5,9%
     University of North
     Carolina at
5    Pembroke              NC     $    3.688.749     5.827   $    633    $      8.173.670   $    63.795.890   $   1.403   12,8%    5,8%
     University of North
     Carolina at
6    Greensboro            NC     $   15.124.785    16.060   $    942    $    155.642.459   $   273.079.743   $   9.691   57,0%    5,5%
     Appalachian State
7    University            NC     $    8.598.607    14.653   $    587    $     53.123.721   $   173.944.702   $   3.625   30,5%    4,9%

     University of North
     Carolina at
8    Charlotte             NC    $   13.887.674    20.772   $    669    $       139.870.408    $       302.493.633    $   6.734   46,2%    4,6%
     East Carolina
9    University            NC    $   15.645.180    24.351   $    642    $        79.002.000    $       352.057.907    $   3.244   22,4%    4,4%
     North Carolina
     A&T State
10   University            NC    $    8.393.511    11.103   $    756    $        16.038.262    $       204.539.906    $   1.444    7,8%    4,1%
     Western Carolina
11   University            NC    $    4.438.239     8.665   $    512    $        30.515.686    $       113.091.149    $   3.522   27,0%    3,9%
     North Carolina
12   Central University    NC    $    3.711.631     8.675   $    428    $        24.072.709    $       124.369.775    $   2.775   19,4%    3,0%
13   State University      NC    $    2.995.953     5.566   $    538    $        18.264.528    $       102.784.921    $   3.281   17,8%    2,9%
     University of North
     Carolina at
14   Wilmington            NC    $    3.688.749    11.653   $    317    $        40.010.993    $       183.416.805    $   3.434   21,8%    2,0%
     Fayetteville State
15   University            NC    $    1.174.217     6.301   $    186    $         6.890.924    $        86.259.382    $ 1.094       8,0%    1,4%
                            15                                                                                        $ 143.745   544,8%   95,5%
                                 $ 468.174.659    195.848   $   2.391   $ 2.716.933.042        $ 4.341.993.807        $ 13.873     62,6%   10,8%

     College               NC    $    1.969.690     3.775               $         6.050.617    $        28.735.047    $   1.603   21,1%    6,9%
     Blue Ridge
     College               NC    $    1.135.542     5.440               $         3.494.145    $        15.533.665    $    642    22,5%    7,3%

     Ohio State
1    University            OH    $ 209.912.962     57.748   $   3.635       $ 1.996.839.412        $ 1.828.000.000    $ 34.579    109,2%   11,5%
2    University of Akron   OH    $ 25.226.405      22.636   $   1.114       $   186.200.000        $   271.135.000    $ 8.226      68,7%    9,3%
     Bowling Green
3    State University      OH    $   19.246.542    18.645   $   1.032       $     85.723.000       $    223.932.943   $   4.598   38,3%    8,6%
     University of
4    Cincinnati            OH    $   70.706.310    35.244   $   2.006       $        $    905.280.664   $ 31.242    121,6%   7,8%
5    Miami University      OH    $   27.749.436    20.591   $   1.348       $   336.874.104        $    451.402.654   $ 16.360     74,6%   6,1%
     Kent State
6    University            OH    $   14.482.284    34.491   $    420        $     79.288.660       $    460.792.740   $   2.299   17,2%    3,1%
     University of
7    Toledo                OH    $    7.717.182    19.201   $    402        $    137.989.000       $    258.872.240   $   7.187   53,3%    3,0%

8   Ohio University       OH       $   13.750.610    28.751   $    478        $    207.666.472       $    487.096.469   $   7.223    42,6%    2,8%
    Cleveland State
9   University            OH       $    6.578.062    15.550   $    423        $     26.408.159       $    235.483.303    $ 1.698      11,2%    2,8%
                               9                                                                                         $ 113.411   536,8%   55,1%
                                   $ 406.385.277    252.857   $   1.607       $        $ 5.121.996.013    $ 16.444      81,2%    7,9%

    College               OH       $    5.614.015
    College               OH       $    5.401.469

    Northeastern Ohio
    College Of
    Medicine              OH       no report
    Wright State
    University            OH       no report
    Youngstown State
    University            OH       no report
    Central State
    University            OH       no report
    Shawnee State
    College               OH       no report          3.820                   $     11.107.656       $     42.759.914   $   2.908    26,0%

    University of
1   Virginia              VA       $ 216.353.292     23.160   $   9.342   $ 3.522.702.000        $       901.454.000    $ 152.103    390,8%   24,0%
    College of William
2   and Mary              VA       $   48.536.623     7.544   $   6.434   $       491.652.269    $       221.337.986    $ 65.171     222,1%   21,9%
    University of Mary
3   Washington            VA       $    9.195.272     4.734   $   1.942   $        28.810.969    $        72.479.048    $   6.086    39,8%    12,7%
4   University            VA       $   65.107.123    29.396   $   2.215   $       295.608.198    $       646.439.566    $ 10.056     45,7%    10,1%
    Institute and State
5   University            VA       $   74.772.518    27.979   $   2.672   $       447.405.000    $       750.663.387    $ 15.991     59,6%    10,0%
    George Mason
6   University            VA       $   23.282.698    29.728   $    783    $        46.781.583    $       360.774.894    $   1.574    13,0%    6,5%

     James Madison
7    University           VA     $     9.802.371    16.697   $    587    $     39.073.373   $   174.240.753   $   2.340    22,4%     5,6%
8    University           VA     $     3.476.854     4.374   $    795    $     37.588.000   $    62.668.066   $   8.594    60,0%     5,5%
9    Radford University   VA     $     4.181.606     9.552   $    438    $     42.995.259   $    95.514.127   $   4.501    45,0%     4,4%
     Old Dominion
10   University           VA     $    11.355.395    21.326   $    532    $    156.656.503   $   260.544.000    $ 7.346      60,1%     4,4%
                            10                                                                                 $ 273.761   958,5%   105,0%
                                 $ 470.913.975     174.490   $   2.699   $    $ 3.546.115.827   $ 29.281     144,1%    13,3%

     Patrick Henry
     College              VA     $     1.096.050
     J. Sargeant
     College              VA     $     3.754.173

     Virginia Military
     Institute            VA     no report
     Virginia State
     University           VA     no report
     Norfolk State
     University           VA     no report
     Newport University   VA     no report

     University of
     Pittsburgh at
1    Bradford             PA     $     3.818.615     1.204   $   3.172   $     13.103.561   $    15.511.931   $ 10.883     84,5%    24,6%
     University of
2    Pittsburgh           PA     $ 116.551.310      33.393   $   3.490   $ 1.540.000.000    $ 1.451.558.000   $ 46.117     106,1%    8,0%
     University of
3    Pennsylvania         PA     $     5.902.822     6.459   $    914    $     22.998.963   $    76.049.609   $   3.561    30,2%     7,8%
4    State University     PA     $ 161.379.763      80.124   $   2.014   $ 1.389.600.000    $ 2.302.230.000   $ 17.343     60,4%     7,0%
5    Temple University    PA     $ 41.883.162       34.097   $   1.228   $   204.178.000    $   692.066.000   $ 5.988      29,5%     6,1%
     Lock Haven
     University of
6    Pennsylvania         PA     $     3.151.912     5.283   $    597    $      7.232.987   $    67.011.400   $   1.369    10,8%     4,7%

     West Chester
     University of
7    Pennsylvania         PA     $   4.263.898    12.990   $    328    $     13.625.019    $   125.668.556    $   1.049   10,8%    3,4%
     University of
8    Pennsylvania         PA     $   2.692.181     7.691   $    350    $      8.593.436    $    84.255.125    $   1.117   10,2%    3,2%
     University of
9    Pennsylvania         PA     $   3.638.721     8.570   $    425    $     14.810.350    $   121.059.616    $   1.728   12,2%    3,0%
     University of
10   Pennsylvania         PA     $   2.900.294     7.184   $    404    $     12.733.776    $    97.909.827    $   1.773   13,0%    3,0%
     East Straudsburg
     University of
11   Pennsylvania         PA     $   2.039.101     6.793   $    300    $     12.922.542    $    73.717.254    $   1.902   17,5%    2,8%
     University of
12   Pennsylvania         PA     $   1.200.250     3.390   $    354    $      8.351.302    $    44.925.781    $   2.464   18,6%    2,7%
     University of
13   Pennsylvania         PA     $   2.993.676     9.864   $    303    $     15.018.193    $   127.497.042    $   1.523   11,8%    2,3%
     Indiana University
14   of Pennsylvania      PA     $   4.064.703    13.903   $    292    $     38.733.687    $   189.636.894    $   2.786   20,4%    2,1%
     Slippery Rock
     University of
15   Pennsylvania         PA     $   2.379.741     8.105   $    294    $     17.918.793    $   111.392.789    $   2.211   16,1%    2,1%
     University of
16   Pennsylvania         PA     $   1.968.262     7.919   $    249    $     15.174.072    $   101.149.277     $ 1.916     15,0%    1,9%
                            16                                                                                $ 103.730   467,2%   84,7%
                                 $ 371.409.158   246.969   $   1.504   $ 3.334.994.681     $ 5.681.639.101    $ 13.504     58,7%    6,5%

     College              PA     $   4.720.177     8.754               $ 17.416.000,00     $ 54.581.000,00    $   1.989   31,9%    8,6%
     Harrisburg Area
     College              PA     $   3.795.347    16.001               $ 25.702.023,00     $ 124.818.218,00   $   1.606   20,6%    3,0%
     College of
     Allegheny County     PA     $   2.065.223    18.381               $    4.080.587,00   $ 86.543.775,00    $    222     4,7%    2,4%

    Rutgers, The State
    University of New
1   Jersey               NJ       $   77.873.137    50.016   $   1.557   $    496.692.241   $ 1.222.500.000   $   9.931   40,6%    6,4%
    New Jersey
    Institute of
2   Technology           NJ       $    6.900.094     8.058   $    856    $     58.530.000   $   198.986.000   $   7.264   29,4%    3,5%
    Montclair State
3   University           NJ       $    5.361.620    14.896   $    360    $     30.035.919   $   180.926.000   $ 2.016      16,6%   3,0%
4   Rowan University     NJ       $    4.415.645     9.762   $    452    $    154.083.000   $   147.159.000   $ 15.784    104,7%   3,0%
5   Kean University      NJ       $    4.317.974    12.958   $    333    $      9.948.781   $   159.820.114   $    768      6,2%   2,7%
    Ramapo College
6   of New Jersey        NJ       $    2.070.800     5.538   $    374    $      6.949.473   $    93.797.000    $ 1.255      7,4%    2,2%
                              6                                                                               $ 37.017    205,0%   20,7%
                                  $ 102.048.868    101.228   $   1.008   $    756.239.414   $   $ 7.471      37,8%    5,1%

    College of Morris    NJ       $    1.109.598

    University of
    Medicine and
    Dentistry of New
    Jersey               NJ       no report
    Thomas Edison
    State University     NJ       no report
    William Paterson
    University           NJ       no report
    Richard Stockton
    College              NJ       no report

    University of
    Washington           WA       $ 316.251.912     42.974   $   7.359   $ 1.689.527.814    $ 2.114.837.967   $ 39.315    79,9%    15,0%
    Washington State
    University           WA       $   54.116.173    23.428   $   2.310   $    581.907.746   $   642.621.751   $ 24.838    90,6%    8,4%
    University           WA       $    5.703.228    13.076   $    436    $     25.389.000   $   198.842.093   $   1.942   12,8%    2,9%
    University           WA       $    3.069.877     9.477   $    324    $     18.958.943   $   107.774.138   $   2.001   17,6%    2,8%

                             4                                                                             $ 68.095   200,8%   29,1%
                                 $ 380.365.740    88.955   $   4.276   $ 2.315.783.503   $   $ 26.033    75,6%   12,4%

College                 WA       $    1.224.550

University              WA       no report
Evergreen State
College                 WA       no report

Northern Illinois
University              IL       $   13.692.782
Southern Illinois
University at
Carbondale              IL       $   10.766.716
Southern Illinois
University at
Edwardsville            IL       $    6.005.951
Eastern Illinois
University              IL       $    2.869.878
College of DuPage       IL       $    2.104.717
Western Illinois
University              IL       no report
University of
Illinois                IL       no report
Illinois State
University              IL       no report
Illinois Institute of
Technology              IL       no report
Chicago State
University              IL       no report
                                 $ 35.440.044

Institutions by


University of
Georgia                GA   $   69.482.991    33.660   $    2.064   $     574.576.000     $ 1.124.486.835       $ 17.070    51,1%    6,2%
Georgia Institute of
Technology             GA   $ 95.781.200      17.135   $    5.590   $ 1.312.679.309       $   834.386.497       $ 76.608    157,3%   11,5%
                            $ 165.264.191     50.795   $    7.654   $ 1.887.255.309       $ 1.958.873.332       $ 93.678

Michigan State
University             MI   $   90.635.481    45.166   $    2.007   $ 1.482.844.988       $ 1.387.576.675       $ 32.831    106,9%   6,5%
University of
Michigan               MI   $ 251.476.551     55.028   $    4.570   $ 5.652.262.026       $ 2.336.387.808       $ 102.716   241,9%   10,8%
                            $ 342.112.032    100.194   $    6.577   $       $ 3.723.964.483       $ 135.547

North Carolina
State University       NC   $ 138.299.146     30.149   $    4.587   $     412.298.000     $      956.888.382    $ 13.675    43,1%    14,5%
University of North
Carolina at Chapel
Hill                   NC   $ 236.579.182     27.276   $    8.674   $ 1.687.838.091       $ 1.313.915.289       $ 61.880    128,5%   18,0%
                            $ 374.878.328     57.425   $   13.261   $       $ 2.270.803.671       $ 75.555

State University       PA   $ 161.379.763     80.124   $    2.014   $ 1.389.600.000       $ 2.302.230.000       $ 17.343    60,4%    7,0%
University of
Pittsburgh             PA   $ 116.551.310     33.393   $    3.490   $ 1.540.000.000       $ 1.451.558.000       $ 46.117    106,1%   8,0%
                            $ 277.931.073    113.517   $    5.504   $ 2.929.600.000       $ 3.753.788.000       $ 63.461

Institute and State
University             VA   $   74.772.518    27.979   $    2.672   $     447.405.000     $      750.663.387    $ 15.991    59,6%    10,0%
University of
Virginia               VA   $ 216.353.292     23.160   $    9.342   $ 3.522.702.000       $   901.454.000       $ 152.103   390,8%   24,0%
                            $ 291.125.810     51.139   $   12.014   $ 3.970.107.000       $ 1.652.117.387       $ 168.094

Ohio State
University             OH   $ 209.912.962     57.748   $    3.635       $ 1.996.839.412       $ 1.828.000.000   $ 34.579    109,2%   11,5%
University of
Cincinnati             OH   $ 70.706.310      35.244   $    2.006    $       $   905.280.664       $ 31.242   121,6%   7,8%
                            $ 280.619.272     92.992   $    5.641   $ 3.097.939.412       $ 2.733.280.664       $ 65.821

Institutions by
University            VA   $   65.107.123   29.396   $   2.215   $       295.608.198    $       646.439.566    $ 10.056    45,7%   10,1%
Wayne State
University            MI   $   49.832.117   32.982   $   1.511   $       210.000.000    $       645.131.853    $ 6.367     32,6%   7,7%
Temple University     PA   $   41.883.162   34.097   $   1.228   $       204.178.000    $       692.066.000     $ 5.988    29,5%   6,1%
University of North
Carolina at
Charlotte             NC   $   13.887.674   20.772   $    669    $       139.870.408    $       302.493.633    $   6.734   46,2%   4,6%
Georgia State
University            GA   $   11.323.190   25.945   $    436    $        88.904.050    $       430.023.087    $   3.427   20,7%   2,6%
Cleveland State
University            OH   $    6.578.062   15.550   $    423        $     26.408.159       $    235.483.303   $   1.698   11,2%   2,8%