body, faculty, and staff.
GOAL 4: Be the residential campus that provides a sense of
diverse community and student
experiences that develop the whole person.
GOAL 5: Provide an optimized administrative
framework with sound physical, technological, and financial resources
that are consistent with a national university of choice.
GOAL 6: Support economic development,
public sector outreach, and distance education appropriate for a technological
university.
The
goals and objectives of the University are presented below with strategies
that can be supported or initiated by the faculty and staff of the
School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science.
GOAL
1: Provide an outstanding and relevant learning environment, consistent
with a national university
of choice
Our
first goal links directly to our mission: to benefit the State of
Michigan and society as a whole.
The following objectives address the needs of the 21st century
work force. First, the greatest job growth is in areas that demand
a solid grounding in mathematics, science, and technology.
Objectives:
1.1
Provide an excellent foundation in the fundamental principles and
areas of creativity and enrichment, which are at the core of all university
learning.
SFRES Strategies:
·
continuously assess and improve the general education program;
·
assess curricular outcomes and revise accordingly;
·
increase the use of instructional technology; particularly on-line
instruction for remedial courses.
1.2
Provide active, discovery-based learning experiences that include
the integration of research and co-op/internship experience.
SFRES Strategies:
· investigate the establishment of a land management enterprise for undergraduates;
·
provide every interested student with an opportunity to work with
faculty on research;
·
reward and recognize individuals who successfully generate monies
in support of these activities.
1.3
Offer programs in new and emerging areas, particularly interdisciplinary
areas (e.g. bioinformatics, information technology).
SFRES Strategies:
·
network with all of our stakeholders, e.g., advisory boards, alumni,
industry, to identify emerging areas;
·
seek new state support for emerging areas beyond general fund revenues
and pursue all existing state funding opportunities;
·
create interdisciplinary teams in both undergraduate education and
research;
·
offer
flexible undergraduate degree programs and professional master’s degrees;
·
structure a system in which cooperation between units is rewarded.
1.4
Repackage programs to keep current with the trends in science and
technologies;
SFRES
Strategies:
· close the undergraduate major in wood science;
· create a minor in wood science that complements other curricula on campus;
· support the establishment of a teaching certificate for the Applied Ecology
& Environmental Science major;
· support graduate program development in areas of strength.
1.5
Strengthen our international programs;
SFRES
Strategies:
·
integrate the international experience in educational programs;
·
establish meaningful partnerships with universities and companies
abroad with both virtual and real exchanges (e.g. Veracruz, Polish Academy of Science,
Aracruz
Cellulose)
1.6
Develop unparalleled classrooms, learning laboratories, and centers
that make the best use of information technology, with anywhere, anytime
computing and communication.
SFRES Strategies:
·
make high-tech instructional technologies available in classrooms
and laboratories;
GOAL 2: Expand our scholarship and research
activities, sustaining successful existing programs while pursuing
new endeavors in carefully targeted areas.
Our
national recognition and reputation must be based on scholarship and
research. The goal of reaching national prominence can best be achieved
by selecting and promoting a few strategic platforms that can be supported
university-wide. Platforms will provide a network structure that links
faculty, staff, departments, colleges, educational programs, and strong
disciplinary cores, which fuel the development of new interdisciplinary
science and technologies. Platforms
which the University has proposed are: Biotechnology, Environmental
Science and Engineering, Manufacturing, Nanotechnology,
Engineered Materials, Information Technology, Natural Resource
Development. Many of these
can be supported by the efforts of faculty in the School of Forest
Resources & Environmental Science.
Objectives:
2.1
Increase the number of interdisciplinary efforts in a few, well-focused
platforms that will lead to world-class recognition;
SFRES Strategies:
·
support cross-departmental, cross-college/schools faculty teams in
our areas of focus (e.g. biotechnology, bioinformatics, ecology, wood science);
·
obtain endowed chairs in key areas Forest Ecology and Management, Forest Biotechnology,
Wildlife Ecology and Management, and Sustainable Forest Management;
·
ensure that interdisciplinary work is properly recognized and rewarded.
2.2
Increase the number of faculty actively engaged in research and graduate
education;
SFRES Strategies:
·
reward scholarship and graduate education;
·
choose new faculty with strong research and graduate education interests;
·
devise equitable policies for the distribution of royalties from patents
and copyrights among investigators, the central administration, schools/colleges,
and departments.
·
work
with the USDA Forestry Sciences laboratory to establish joint appointments
for Forest Service scientists to participate in programs of the School.
2.3
Increase the percentage and number of graduate students who are supported
externally;
SFRES
Strategies:
·
reward faculty who support graduate students;
·
give the recruitment of graduate students high priority;
·
provide competitive compensation and benefit packages to attract and
retain quality graduate students.
GOAL 3: Identify
the best size and blend for our educational programs, which have a
diverse student body, faculty, and staff.
The University
needs to grow graduate student enrollment to approximately 15% of
total enrollment. The large
graduate program and aggressive research programs of the School can
contribute to this.
Objectives:
3.1 Determine
the right mix of graduate/undergraduate students for the benefit of
all of our stakeholders.
SFRES Strategies:
·
Support the development of a university resource model that can explore
the financial consequences of curriculum, staffing, workload, average
class size, scholarship, research, and both undergraduate and graduate
enrollment decisions in terms of their short- and long-term impact.
3.2
Aggressively support and implement strategies to increase the diversity
of our student body.
SFRES Strategies:
·
coordinate all efforts to recruit under-represented students, with
a target of increasing the number of women students to those of our
benchmarks;
·
and, similarly, increase the number of minority students to those
of our benchmarks.
3.3
Manage and optimize enrollments within disciplines, schools and colleges
for the benefit of all of our stakeholders.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
enrollment
of the School should be approximately
Forestry (B.S. degree)140, Applied Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 160 (will require filling three faculty lines).
3.4 Pursue aggressive
targeted marketing for programs with potential and need.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
develop a marketing plan that is in line with the strategic plan;
·
increase the visibility and enhance the image of Michigan Tech, move
from “easy to get into and hard
to get out of” to an image of quality and selectivity (“hard to get
into but once in, the quality of our programs, faculty and staff will
ensure your success”);
·
develop first-class web presence;
· use the School’s Advisory Committee to develop marketing strategies.
3.5 Obtain substantial
additional resources to support programs important to the economic
development of Michigan.
SFRES
Strategies:
· have
industry and business leaders be advocates for increased State appropriations
for programs relevant to the economic vitality of Michigan.
· convince
State government leaders to provide significant increases in general
fund appropriations to increase Michigan Tech’s capacity to educate
graduates.
GOAL 4: Be the
residential campus that provides the sense of diverse community and
student experiences that strive to develop the whole person.
Michigan Tech
needs to identify its competitive niche in an environment where the
e-commerce markets try to segregate “knowledge delivery”, “knowledge
creation”, and the “social aspects” of a traditional college education.
Fewer institutions will offer robust residential programs devoted
to the student-centered development of educated citizens and leaders.
Michigan Tech must take advantage of its beautiful location on the
shores of Lake Superior and become a university where undergraduate
students have the developmental
experience of living and studying in a small, residential setting
among a true community of scholars.
In
addition to outstanding recreational opportunities (cross-country
skiing, down-hill skiing, golfing), the completion of the Rozsa Performing
Arts Center will provide the university and the community with a beautiful
facility in which to experience, perform, and learn about the arts.
Objectives:
4.1
Become recognized for high quality student life activities
SFRES
Strategies:
·
support
the establishment of student centered outdoor activities such as an
“Outdoors Club” focused on outdoor recreation and taking advantage
of our location, particularly the waterfront and cross-country ski
trails;
·
work
to establish the “Tech Trails” as a first-class recreational forest
for cross-country skiing, hiking, and biking;
·
foster
an environment for students that is friendly, supportive and challenging;
· provide quality academic advising;
· foster
student leadership and self-managed teams in co-curricular and classroom
activities.
4.2
Provide and promote cultural and artistic experiences.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
coordinate cultural and artistic activities to maximize their impact
on students;
·
increase the support of cultural and artistic experiences through
outside funding sources.
4.3 Provide an
attractive campus environment.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
support campus beautification efforts with faculty expertise.
4.4 Provide outstanding residence hall options
such as suites, etc.
GOAL 5: Provide an optimized administrative
framework, with sound physical, technological, and financial bases,
consistent with a national university of choice.
One of the greatest
assets at Michigan Tech is our people. We would do them, and the institution
as a whole, a disservice if we did not maximize their potential and
provide a sound framework in which to work. If we are to become a
national university of choice, it will be because our people made
it happen. Appropriate compensation, possibilities for professional
advancement, and professional respect are all necessary ingredients
for a quality workplace.
Too often the
administrative framework of an institution remains stagnant. Michigan Tech must promote an outlook that
encourages organizational agility and flexibility. We especially want
to ensure that we implement practices that benefit the entire Michigan
Tech community and to tear down the barriers which prevent us from
working as a team.
Objectives:
5.1 Continue
to improve operational methods, simplify processes, remove bureaucratic
barriers and empower our people.
SFRES
Strategies:
· set
up a problem-solving team who will make a self-improvement do-list
for the administration of the School and continuously work to make
procedural improvements;
· evaluate
and redesign systems to be more efficient and customer-service oriented,
both for internal and external customers;
·
encourage cross-training to ensure the coverage of critical services;
· recognize
and reward the support of and the participation in faculty and staff
development activities;
· implement
processes to optimize communication between students, faculty, staff,
and administration.
5.2
Optimize the financial structure to provide for adequate checks and
balances, and most, importantly, to best support the education and
development of students.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
implement efficient, cost-saving practices;
· support
the development of a university resource model that can explore the
financial consequences of curriculum, staffing, workload, average
class size, scholarship, research, and both undergraduate and graduate
enrollment decisions in terms of their short- and long-term impact;
· support
the development of a budget model that combines positive feedback,
internal quantitative productivity measures, quality measures, and
benchmarking, in order to allocate resources based on unit contributions
to the strategic plan.
5.3
Increase the financial resource base.
SFRES Strategies:
· work with the Forestry Sciences lab to build strong, interconnected research
program;
· initiate efforts to establish three chaired professorships;
· build an endowment for field studies;
· build an endowment for fellowships;
· build our scholarship endowment;
· increase
the extramural funding for education and research.
5.4
Provide well-maintained physical facilities with up-to-date technological
features.
SFRES Strategies:
· build an endowment for renovating facilities;
·
evaluate and redesign physical facilities to be more efficient, technologically
up-to-date, and customer-oriented;
· expand
the size of the School forest to at least 10,000 acres representing
diverse habitats to support a forestry enterprise program;
·
foster the ubiquitous sharing of resources, laboratories, and equipment.
5.5
Provide an outstanding work environment and support opportunities
for all members of the Michigan Tech community.
SFRES
Strategies:
· support
competitive compensation and family-friendly benefit packages to attract
and retain quality faculty, staff, and students;
·
insure the availability of resources to retain the best faculty and
staff without penalizing others;
·
expand professional development of faculty and staff to ensure they
have the necessary tools to carry out their mission effectively;
·
actively recruit diverse faculty and staff.
GOAL 6: Support economic development, public sector
outreach, and distance education appropriate for a technological university.
6.1 Increased
activities in research & development and technology transfer will
become a hallmark of Michigan Tech.
SFRES Strategies:
· cooperate in the development of the USFS Forestry Sciences lab on campus;
· conduct
forest productivity research spanning the range from the molecular
level to the landscape level.
6.2. Develop
distance learning programs that contribute to the financial well being
of the University, especially by partnering with industry and state
agencies.
SFRES
Strategies:
·
develop training programs for Geographic Information
Systems.
GOAL 7: IMAGE - Build our reputation beyond
the borders of Michigan and the
Midwest such that Michigan Tech becomes a national university of choice.
7.1.
Develop a pervasive marketing plan that emphasizes quality.
7.2.
Develop a compelling statement to other institutions that emphasizes
a high quality environment of learning and scholarship.
7.3 Pursue aggressive targeted marketing for
programs with potential and need.
SFRES Strategies:
·
develop a marketing plan that is in line with the strategic plan;
·
increase the visibility and enhance the image of Michigan Tech, move
from “easy to get into and hard to get out of” to an image of quality
and selectivity (“hard to get into but once in, the quality of our
programs, faculty and staff will ensure your success”);
· develop a first-class web presence;
APPENDIX 1: School
Portfolio
CURRENT STATUS
AND GOALS OF THE SCHOOL
OF
FOREST RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Mission
Statement
Our mission is:
· To
maintain outstanding undergraduate and graduate programs in forestry,
applied ecology and environmental science, and biotechnology.
· To
maintain an excellent research program which includes interdisciplinary
research, complements educational objectives, and stimulates conservation
and sustainability of natural resources, and maintenance and development
of the forest products industry with efficient and ecologically sound
use of federal, state, and private forests.
· To
advance the intellectual climate of the University through a competent
and responsible faculty and research staff, and a cadre of excellent
students.
· To
encourage students and School personnel to accept positions of leadership
in the University, the community and their profession.
· To
maintain a prominent role in forestry, applied ecology, and wood science
education and research in the state and region, as well as both nationally
and internationally.
Status
and Goals
Our current status and goals for performance are shown in
Tables 1 though 10 (attached). These Tables were prepared for a recent
CSREES review. In his review
of our draft portfolio, Erich Bloch raised the question of whether
the faculty size in Forestry should be restored to 25.
He also asked what budget level would enable the School to
reach its potential. And he closed by suggesting that perhaps we
already have enough undergraduate students and that the School represents
a major opportunity for MTU to excel.
The School’s quality has been recognized for some time by
various individuals and peers. In
order to enhance the quality of the School, the suggestion that Erich
raises of restoring the faculty size to 25 should be implemented. While our numbers of faculty have eroded, during
that same time we were trying to assure quality by having sufficient
faculty support to assure scholarship.
However, our budget also was reduced. We believe that $115,000
per faculty member is required to support faculty salaries and adequate
School staff and administrative support.
This suggests a budget of $2,875,000 in contrast to our current
FY 2000 budget of $1,782,000. A
budget at this level represents approximately a 90% increase in budget
from ten years ago. This is not out of line with what other units
in the University have experienced, especially in view of then increase
in quality
that has occurred and the possibility to quickly enhance our
quality with additional funding.
We currently have a few internationally recognized specialties
including, for example, ecology and biotechnology.
The ecology area, as well as some areas in which we have little
or no depth, could be significantly improved in quality with restoration
of the faculty size to 25 with sufficient funding.
Although not the preferred alternative, it is possible to
make smaller incremental changes to our existing situation. Table 11 shows projections for various scenarios.
Our strategy for increasing the number of undergraduate students
is to recruit throughout the midwest using our own professional recruiter.
Just as we were able to realize greater gains in advancement
activities with our own advancement officer, we feel we must put a
major effort into our own recruiting efforts to maintain our goals
for number of undergraduate students. We expect that we shall exceed 200 undergraduate
students within four years. It
will be necessary to hire at least one more faculty member to support
the Applied Ecology and Environmental
Science program, as has been previously agreed to by the Provost.
We would like to point out that the reduced productivity reflected
in Scenario 1 of Table 11 is a result of the reduction in faculty
members from 25 to 18.3 as cited earlier, as well as limited growth
in state funding. These were
listed as threats in the SWOT analysis.
The number of PhD students is currently at 20 (Table 11).
Our original goal was 16 as indicated in Table 1.
It now seems reasonable to have an average of slightly over
1.0 PhD students per faculty member.
This average can be increased if 1) there were more faculty
members or 2) additional support from the University is provided.
Our goal for annual research expenditures per faculty member
has been $115,000. Currently
we are obtaining more than 2.5 times that amount (Table 11). This will be difficult to sustain with limited
numbers of faculty and increased teaching loads, especially under
the pressures of teaching in the semester system.
We believe that a reasonable goal is to generate external funding
equivalent to state support. Because
we believe that $115,000 is required to support a faculty member (including
faculty salary, staff support salary, and necessary expenses), this
amount is a reasonable goal for external funding.
We do expect to continue to exceed this goal, however, even
under Scenario 1.
We have had goals of diversity for the student body. These have been to increase the proportion
of women students to 30% and to increase the proportion of nonresident
students to 30%. The popularity
of the Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences undergraduate program
is helping us to reach this goal.
The proportion of women students in that program is approximately
50%. We have attempted to
recruit from other states, and the tuition scholarships for outstanding
students is helping us to increase our numbers of nonresident students.
We do plan to try to recruit Native Americans more effectively.
We conducted a two-week multi-cultural workshop for high school
students in each of three summers. The workshops were popular. We had many representatives from the Hmong
population in Green Bay, black students from the Detroit area, and
a few Native Americans. Unfortunately,
we have not been able to recruit any students from this expensive
workshop activity, and the workshops have been abandoned.
We currently have only two Native Americans in the undergraduate
student body.
Since 1984, we have added significantly to the overall diversity
of the faculty. There were
no women on our faculty in 1984.
There was one person of Asian descent on the faculty at that
time. We now have three and one-third women, three
faculty of Asian descent, one of African descent, and one faculty
member of Indian descent.
Measurable
Outcomes
Our
measurable outcomes include:
· Numbers of BS graduates
· Numbers of MS graduates
· Numbers of PhD graduates
· Endowments, Contracts and Grants, Patents,
Royalties
· Number of peer-reviewed publications
· Faculty and staff awards, and other forms of
recognition
The
time lines for reaching goals were discussed earlier. The relative priority of the goals should be determined by MTU’s
strategic plan. The following
priorities are reflective of our assumptions regarding University
priorities:
1. Maintaining our goals for annual research expenditures.
2. Maintaining adequate numbers of PhD students.
3. Reaching our goals for undergraduate student
numbers.
4. Maintaining the number of refereed journal
articles at or above the University’s goal level.
We recently held a retreat to discuss our programs and priorities.
The results from that retreat are used to respond to the Focus
on Four Categories.
1. Present programs/activities
- We should maintain enrollment in the forestry major at 140.
We have been very successful with the PhD program and no changes
are needed. The target number in the MS and PhD program should probably remain
at about 60.
2. Programs/activities
to be expanded and in which we have a good base - We have already
surpassed the number of students in our Applied Ecology and Environmental
Sciences program for a new faculty member to be added. Therefore, to expand this program further we
need more faculty.
3. Programs/activities
with no current base that ought
to be started and built - We have had considerable discussion
regarding the formation of a professional master’s degree. This is still being discussed by faculty as
well as a new biotechnology and bioinformatics graduate degree program.
4. Areas to be de-emphasized - We are reviewing the undergraduate program
in wood science. We shall
evaluate this program next fall to determine whether to de-emphasize
it. If we do, this will result in putting more
emphasis on graduate programs.
Benchmark
Institutions
Our
three benchmark institutions are:
·
School of Forest Resources-The Pennsylvania State University
·
College of Natural Resources-University of Minnesota
·
College of Natural Resources-Virginia Tech University.
An
additional seven are:
·
College of Natural Resources-Colorado State University
·
College of Forest Resources-North Carolina State University
·
College of Forestry-Oregon State University
·
College of Natural Resources-University of California
at Berkeley
·
School of Forest Resources-University of Georgia
·
College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Science-University
of Idaho
·
College of Forest Resources-University of Washington
We recently received information from our benchmark institutions
and compared our productivity with theirs. Results from this comparison can be seen in
Table 12. For instance, the
faculty in the College of Natural Resources at the University of Minnesota
(50 faculty) have fewer refereed publications per faculty member (2.00
- U of MN versus 4.47 - MTU) and less external funds generated per
FTEF ($252,000 - U of MN versus $327,000 - MTU) than our 18.3 faculty
members.
OPPORTUNITIES AND AREAS OF STRENGTH FOR
MICHIGAN
TECH BASED ON EXPERTISE,
LOCATION OR VISION
Michigan Technological University is located in a vast expanse
of forests. This provides
numerous opportunities for programs relating to natural resources
and the environment. If you
categorize areas of research at Michigan Tech (as Joe Warren did for
a recent NAB meeting) you will find that many strengths of the University
are in the natural resources and environmental areas.
Our expertise in these matters and strategic location should
be reflected in the strategic plan of the University.
School of Forest
Resources & Environmental Science
(data required for recent CSREES review)
Table 1. Current status and goals for performance.
|
Measure
|
GOAL
|
STATUS
|
|
Undergraduate Students
|
2001
|
199
|
|
PhD Students
|
162
|
20
|
|
Refereed Journal Articles Annually per FTEF
|
21
|
4.47
|
|
Annual Research Expenditures Per FTEF
|
$115,0003
|
$304,882
|
1Source: Two Decades into Michigan Technological University’s
Second Century: A Long-range
plan, MTU. July, 1984.;
2Source: Specified by the Dean of the Graduate School
in 1987 when PhD program was initiated.;
3Source: Specified in School of Forest Resources &
Environmental Science planning documents, 1996
Table 2.
Enrollment by degree program at Michigan universities having
accredited undergraduate forestry programs (1998).
|
University
|
|
|
Degree
|
|
|
|
AAS
|
BS
|
MS
|
Ph.D.
|
|
Michigan Tech
|
16
|
172
|
36
|
26
|
|
Michigan State
|
|
99
|
17
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3.
General fund base budgets ($ in ‘000) and percent change in
allocation for the three research-active academic units at Michigan
Tech.
|
Unit
|
FY89
|
FY90
|
FY91
|
FY92
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
FY99
|
Change
FY89-99
|
|
Engineering
%
Change
|
8978
|
9387
4.5
|
10100
7.5
|
10400
3.0
|
10530
1.3
|
11840
12.4
|
12240
3.4
|
12710
3.8
|
11900
-6.4
|
12590
5.8
|
13040
3.6
|
+45.2%
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
%
Change
|
6287
|
6675
6.2
|
6880
3.1
|
7080
2.9
|
6941
-1.9
|
7969
14.8
|
8427
5.7
|
8922
5.9
|
10820
21.2
|
11090
2.5
|
11350
2.4
|
+75.9%
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
%
Change
|
1524
|
1592
4.5
|
1652
3.8
|
1699
2.8
|
1489
-12.4
|
1641
10.2
|
1673
1.9
|
1725
3.1
|
1781
3.3
|
1835
3.0
|
1769
-3.6
|
+16.1%
|
Note:
FY97-Chemistry moved from Engineering to Sciences and Arts,
Teacher Education moved to Sciences and Arts
Table
4. Tenure track faculty positions
from 1990 to present.
|
Unit
|
FY90
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
FY99
|
FY00
|
|
Engineering
|
108
|
123
|
132
|
135
|
140
|
138
|
138
|
137
|
133
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
|
124
|
133
|
141
|
146
|
152
|
153
|
150
|
148
|
151
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
|
17
|
16
|
21
|
20
|
22.3
|
20.3
|
17.3
|
17.3
|
18.3
|
Table 5. Research expenditures ($ in ‘000)
from 1990 to 1998.
|
Unit
|
FY90
|
FY92
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
Engineering
|
5,087
|
5,538
|
6,532
|
8,123
|
9,543
|
10,448
|
11,514
|
12,297
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
|
1,115
|
1,361
|
1,171
|
1,621
|
2,064
|
2,702
|
2,535
|
2,992
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
|
2,147
|
1,941
|
2,240
|
2,351
|
2,588
|
3,064
|
3,920
|
5,183
|
Table 6. Research expenditures
per FTEF and per dollar of general fund support.
|
Unit
|
Research Expenditures/
FTEF
|
Research Expenditures/
Dollar of General Fund Support
|
Engineering
|
$89,759
|
$0.98
|
|
Sciences & Arts
|
$20,216
|
$0.27
|
|
Forestry & Wood Products
|
$304,882
|
$2.82
|
Table
7. Fall term undergraduate
enrollments.
|
Unit
|
FY90
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
FY99
|
FY00
|
|
Engineering
|
4047
|
4311
|
4016
|
3844
|
3735
|
3620
|
3640
|
3547
|
3397
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
|
1185
|
1188
|
1156
|
1116
|
1098
|
1093
|
1216
|
1217
|
1111
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
|
134
|
143
|
149
|
150
|
158
|
155
|
181
|
172
|
199
|
Table
8. Fall term graduate enrollments.
|
Unit
|
FY90
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
FY99
|
FY00
|
|
Engineering
|
291
|
329
|
367
|
386
|
386
|
357
|
341
|
345
|
367
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
|
174
|
201
|
217
|
229
|
233
|
223
|
223
|
224
|
217
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
|
46
|
46
|
41
|
34
|
46
|
65
|
59
|
62
|
75
|
Table
9. Fall term graduate enrollments
per tenure-track faculty position.
|
Unit
|
FY90
|
FY93
|
FY94
|
FY95
|
FY96
|
FY97
|
FY98
|
FY99
|
FY00
|
|
Engineering
|
2.69
|
2.67
|
2.78
|
2.86
|
2.76
|
2.59
|
2.47
|
2.52
|
2.76
|
|
Sciences
& Arts
|
1.40
|
1.51
|
1.54
|
1.57
|
1.53
|
1.46
|
1.49
|
1.51
|
1.44
|
|
Forestry
& Wood Products
|
2.70
|
2.88
|
1.95
|
1.70
|
2.06
|
3.20
|
3.41
|
3.58
|
4.10
|
Table 10. MS and PhD graduates from the SFRES - 1993
through 1998.
|
Year
|
MS
|
PhD
|
|
|
Enrollment
|
Graduates
|
Enrollment
|
Graduates
|
|
1993
|
17
|
2
|
24
|
-
|
|
1994
|
10
|
6
|
24
|
7
|
|
1995
|
13
|
5
|
33
|
3
|
|
1995
|
28
|
5
|
37
|
5
|
|
1997
|
24
|
14
|
35
|
8
|
|
1998
|
36
|
7
|
26
|
6
|
|
Table 11. Alternative scenarios and resulting measurable outcomes in 2005
and 2010.
|
|
Measurable
Outcome
|
Scenario 1 – No increase in state funding
except for inflation
(18.3 faculty)
|
Scenario 2 – Two new faculty positions
|
Scenario 3 – Two new faculty positions,
5 GTAs
|
Scenario 4 – Four new faculty positions,
5 GTAs
|
|
Current
|
2005
|
2010
|
2005
|
2010
|
2005
|
2010
|
2005
|
2010
|
|
Number of Forestry BS Students
|
138
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
|
Number of Applied Ecol/Env. Sci. BS Students
|
48
|
40
|
40
|
60
|
80
|
60
|
80
|
140
|
160
|
|
Number of Wood Sci. BS Students
|
13
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
|
Total Number of BS Students
|
199
|
200
|
200
|
220
|
240
|
220
|
240
|
300
|
320
|
|
Number of Undergraduate Students per FTEF
|
10.9
|
10.9
|
10.9
|
10.8
|
11.8
|
10.8
|
11.8
|
13.5
|
14.3
|
|
Number of MS Students
|
52
|
40
|
40
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
|
Number of MS Students per FTEF
|
2.8
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
|
Number of PhD Candidates
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
24
|
26
|
30
|
36
|
44
|
50
|
|
Number of PhD Candidates per FTEF
|
1.1
|
1.1
|
1.1
|
1.2
|
1.3
|
1.5
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
2.2
|
|
Endowments, Contracts, Grants, Royalties
(in millions)
|
6.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
5.5
|
6.0
|
7.0
|
7.5
|
9.0
|
9.5
|
|
External Funds Generated per FTEF (in thousands)
|
327.9
|
218.6
|
218.6
|
270.9
|
295.6
|
344.8
|
369.5
|
403.6
|
426.0
|
|
Number of Peer-reviewed Publications per
FTEF
|
4.47
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
4.50
|
4.50
|
5.50
|
5.50
|
6.00
|
6.00
|
Table 12. Comparison of Current Status (1998-1999) of
SFRES-MTU with Peer Institutions
|
Measurable Outcome
|
|
|
|
|
MTU
School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science
|
Minnesota
College of Natural Resources
|
Penn State University School of Forest Resources
|
VPI College of Natural Resources
|
|
No.
of Undergraduates:
|
|
|
Fisheries & Wildlife
|
---
|
142
|
NA*
|
150
|
|
|
Forestry/Forest Resources
|
138
|
66
|
NA*
|
229
|
|
|
Recreation & Resource Management
|
---
|
27
|
---
|
|
|
|
Urban Forestry
|
---
|
19
|
---
|
---
|
|
|
Applied Ecol/Env. Sci./ Environmental Studies
|
48
|
214
|
---
|
---
|
|
|
Wood Science/ Wood & Paper Science
|
13
|
73
|
NA*
|
66
|
|
|
Undecided
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
129
|
|
|
Total Number of BS Students
|
199
|
541
|
540
|
574
|
|
|
Number of Undergraduate Students per FTEF
|
10.9
|
10.8
|
18.62
|
9.4
|
|
|
Number of MS Students
|
52
|
74
|
62
|
128 (total
grad students)**
|
|
|
Number of MS Students per FTEF
|
2.8
|
1.5
|
2.1
|
2.1 total (includes
both M.S. & Ph.D.)
|
|
|
Number of PhD Candidates
|
20
|
43
|
34
|
|
|
|
Number of PhD Candidates per FTEF
|
1.1
|
0.9
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
Contracts, Grants, Royalties (in millions)
|
6.0
|
12.6
|
1.3
|
3.7
|
|
|
External Funds Generated per FTEF (in thousands)
|
327.9
|
252.0
|
44.3
|
61.1
|
|
|
Number of Peer-reviewed Publications per FTEF
|
4.47
|
2.0
|
2.8
|
1.9-2.4
|
|
|
Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF)
|
18.3
|
50
|
29
|
60.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not Available;
**Separate data not available