RECONFIGURING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

AT

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

A White Paper

Summary

This white paper presents a proposal for reconfiguring the undergraduate program at the University of Arizona (UA) in order to enhance our ability to meet the diverse needs of UA students, to increase the throughput of qualified graduates and to provide the state with graduates that will best serve its needs. The goal can be achieved only if the program recognizes and accommodates the range of incoming student preparation, enabling students to proceed at a rate determined by their level of accomplishment to an appropriate career. The program must also recognize and meet the manifold needs of the state and especially its employers.

To achieve these goals we propose an undergraduate program structure with four levels of accomplishment namely Foundation (Level I), Matriculation (Level II), Upper Division2 (Level III) and Advanced (Level IV). Entry points for high school graduates would normally be at the Foundation or Matriculation Levels depending on the student’s level of academic preparation. We also propose two degree exit points, following completion of the Upper Division or the Advanced Level, arranged to articulate better with the different career paths of UA graduates. General Education requirements, based on a core curriculum, would be met at the Foundation and Matriculation Levels. In addition to the current majors programs, we also propose to expand the number of programs leading to multi-disciplinary degrees – that is in combinations of subjects that reflect the increasing breadth of education required by modern society.

Incoming students with superior preparation would enter at the Matriculation Level and could graduate from Upper Division after three study years (90 units) or from the Advanced Level after four study years (120 units). Adequately prepared students entering at the Foundation Level could expect to graduate from the Upper Division after four study years (120) units and from the Advanced Level after five study years (150 units)3. Progress would depend on accomplishment and students would proceed at a pace and to a level determined by their own desires and accomplishments.

We believe the proposed system would provide a better undergraduate experience for the vast

1 The present White Paper is an updated version of a proposal originally made by a faculty group in 1995. The authors of that version are listed in Appendix E.

2 Note this would correspond approximately to the current graduation requirement.

3 This barely fits into the current upper limit for tuition relief but seems well worthwhile for those who meet the requirements for proceeding to the advanced level. Version March 19th, 2007 2

majority of students because it more readily accommodates the widely differing goals and needs of UA students. It leaves all career paths open to students meeting Regents' entrance qualifications and provides achievement incentives to students and high schools. The reconfiguration can be accomplished through steady evolution from the current program.

We request that readers view this White Paper as an attempt to suggest a general approach to improving the undergraduate experience at the UA. The two underlying principles are (1) a combination of flexibility in accommodating different student needs; and (2) rigor in maintaining standards. The goal is to have students advance through the system as they master previous work so that the value of their degree is maintained. We recognize that the details of the structure outlined in this White Paper cannot be applied directly to all areas of study at the UA; we do, however, believe that the underlying principles can and should be so applied.

Acknowledgements

The following individuals contributed significantly to writing and/or critiquing the present version of this document:

Diana Archangeli*

John Bieging

Gail Burd

Vicki Chandler*

Michael Cusanovich*

Mike Drake*

Paula Fan*

Laura Forsyth

Merrill Garrett*

John Hildebrand*

Chris Impey

Richard Kroc

Pierre Meystre*

Jay Nunamaker*

David Soren*

Peter Strittmatter*

Steve Wright*

Nick Woolf

Andrea Yool*

* Member of the Advocates faculty group.Version March 19th, 2007 3

4 Some students, high schools and colleges maybe moving away from SAT scores even though (or perhaps because) the SAT score is such an accurate predictor of academic success.

Undergraduate Program Reconfiguration

1. Goal. The interests of the State of Arizona are best served by a well educated work force at all levels of endeavor. This is especially true for individuals at the higher level of intellectual capability since they will in general provide leadership in enhancing the overall technical, economic and cultural activity within the state. Education of these individuals is the function of the universities and enhancing their quality is therefore a key to the state’s future. For this reason,

President Robert Shelton has stated a goal for the University of Arizona (UA) of achieving a ranking among the top ten public research universities. Reaching that goal requires simultaneous achievement of excellence in the areas of teaching, research and service to the community. A key element in this endeavor is the creation of an outstanding undergraduate program. This must be accomplished while at least maintaining the high standards already established in other areas of the University's mission.

The purpose of this White Paper is to suggest some ways in which improvements to the undergraduate program might be accomplished. It builds upon an earlier White Paper published in 1995. Some of the recommendations of that earlier document have been implemented, albeit haltingly. Nonetheless much remains to be done if the UA is to develop an undergraduate program worthy of its “top ten” aspirations. Indeed the basic problems have changed only slightly in the interim and are listed below.

2. Problems with the UA Undergraduate Program. The problems include:

 

a. Failure of roughly 40 percent of the incoming freshman class to graduate in six years;

 

 

b. Lack of an effective way to handle the wide range of college preparedness of the freshman class, with many students lacking even basic skills and incoming SAT scores ranging from below 750 to above 15004;

 

 

c. Failure of 30-40% of the entering freshman in the lower range of SAT or similar scores to return for a second year (see Appendix A);

 

 

d. Difficulty on the part of many students in selecting appropriate courses from the huge "smorgasbord" of offerings and requirements; this is especially true for the less well prepared students and/or those with no clear concepts of career goals;

 

 

e. Weak connection, for many students, between enrollment in majors and the skills (even broadly defined) needed in their subsequent careers;

 

 

f. A perception of the university as a large, amorphous and uncaring entity that does not deal

5 It should be noted that Arizona currently has the second fastest growth, nationwide, in high school graduates; 90 percent of this growth is among Hispanic students a circumstance which UA must also recognize in its planning .

6 In fact ~ 28% of freshman require remedial work of some kind in Math; the corresponding numbers in English composition are similar. This situation appears to have improved somewhat over the last decade as a result of both increased high school requirements and re-calibration of criteria.

 

with the needs of distinct groups of students;

 

 

g. Failure to provide adequately for superior students resulting in their departure from the UA before graduating (see discussion below).

 

We believe the UA undergraduate program faces a special problem compared to its Association of American Universities (AAU) peers because of the exceptionally wide range of entering student preparedness5. As shown in Figure 1 and in Appendix A, this range and distribution essentially guarantees a low graduating percentage - independent of any other variable. We estimate (see Appendix A) that, among students admitted, approximately 75 percent have no more than "Adequate Preparation" and require further basic general education in order to proceed with a meaningful college education.6 The remaining 25 percent may be described as having

Figure 1. Graduation rates for the UA 1992-2002 first time/full-time freshman are shown as a function of intake SAT score for both resident and non-resident students (see Appendix A). Also shown is the relationship between average graduation rate and average incoming SAT score for a sample of AAU public universities (see Appendix A; Table A1). The position of the UA in this plot is noteworthy. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%900950100010501100115012001250130013501400SAT ScoresGraduating (%)AAU UniversitiesUniversity of ArizonaUA Non-ResidentUA ResidentVersion March 19th, 2007 4 Version March 19th, 2007 5

"Superior Preparation" which should allow them to proceed directly to more advanced studies. Providing appropriate paths for the better prepared students should make the UA program more attractive to them and hence lead to an increase in their number – thereby benefiting all involved.

The most important step toward improving the graduation rate - and hence public perception of the undergraduate program - would be to increase the average level of preparedness of incoming students. The data of Figure 1 suggest that, while the UA is graduating a comparable percentage of students with lower SAT scores as are its peers, it is doing worse than its peers in graduating students with the highest SAT scores. This in turn suggests that these better prepared students are leaving the UA before they graduate perhaps to attend other schools with a more challenging program. Our goal is, of course to increase the output of well qualified graduates from the UA, i.e. to increase the graduation rate while maintaining the standards associated with a UA degree.

3. Conditions Associated with Change. The changes in the undergraduate program should, if possible, meet the following criteria. They should:

 

a. Be consistent with the needs and resources of the students, the state and its employers;

 

 

b. Exert positive performance pressure on the high schools and their students;

 

 

c. Encourage good students to enter and stay at the UA;

 

 

d. Enhance the critical thinking skills and problem solving abilities of all students;

 

 

e. Be flexible enough to meet the needs both of those requiring specialized training and those desiring a more general education;

 

f. Let students proceed at a pace that suits their abilities, motivation and financial circumstances;

 

 

g. Recognize that most of the students will not proceed to academic careers and that many have no need of a "specialist" education.

 

 

h. Given the rapidly growing demands for higher education in Arizona (both from students and employers) expand the rate of production of suitably qualified graduates.

 

 

i. From normal considerations of cost-effectiveness, ensure that the total UA student population does not decline significantly and perhaps grows.

 

A core general education curriculum is needed to guarantee that incoming students develop the necessary basic skills and fundamental knowledge both to proceed to more advanced education and to be well prepared for life in the 21st century. This involves skills in communicating and Version March 19th, 2007 6

7 Indeed, very well prepared entering students, who already have clear career plans, should have the opportunity to begin work immediately on their area of specialization.

8 An outstanding and long established example is provided by the Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) sequence at Oxford University. It is also possible to conceive of interdisciplinary sequences designed for pre-Law, pre-Med, pre-Ed students.

reasoning and an appreciation of the cultural, social and scientific framework within which the student will live. This core provides the foundation upon which further studies can be undertaken successfully.

In implementing the core curriculum, we need to take care of students at all levels of preparedness. We should avoid having students repeat subject matter which they already understand (there is nothing worse for student morale than to mark time). Care should also be taken to ensure that students with inadequate preparation do not proceed to levels where failure is inevitable. Both of these conditions imply a need for performance-based rather than time-based progress evaluations. It is critical that such a system be implemented and operated effectively.

At more advanced levels, there is a continuing need for "specialist” or “professional" training for both undergraduate and graduate students. This has been the traditional product of universities like the UA and the quality of this part of the program must be maintained or improved7.

However, there is apparently also an increasing demand for a more broadly based educational program that produces graduates capable of meeting the rapidly changing requirements of modern society. This type of undergraduate program, which is in many ways more challenging than specialist training for both students and faculty, is also increasingly perceived as a good basis for some professions (e.g. law, public service8 etc.). This component of the UA program should be strengthened, while preserving or enhancing the quality of the "specialist" programs. Both are required to meet the future needs of the state.

We are now at a watershed. If we ensure that students are better prepared at each stage and permit students to progress at their own individual optimum rate, the program will improve both in perception and in reality. If we slow down the better students, they will go elsewhere; if we overwhelm the less prepared students they will fail. In either case the problems of the undergraduate program will be perceived to worsen.

4. Proposed Restructuring. In order to address the above problems and achieve the stated goals, we propose to restructure the UA undergraduate program to reflect four levels of accomplishment through which a student may progress at a rate and to a level determined by his/her own needs and efforts.

There would be two levels at which freshmen may enter, depending on their level of preparedness. There would also be two degree levels ("standard" and "APS or Advanced/

9 These designations are arbitrary and temporary and are used here only as placeholders .One might consider “General” for Standard and “With Honors in (specialization)” for APS. Final designations remain to be chosen and must ultimately be approved by the faculty and the Board of Regents.

Professional/Specialist" 9- see discussion below and Appendix D), corresponding to different levels of academic accomplishment and oriented toward different career goals. In considering the proposed structure, it is essential to recognize that the levels denote accomplishment or performance, not length of time. Well defined measures of achievement at each level are, therefore, essential. The proposed structure is illustrated schematically in Figure 2, in which a "study year" refers to the annual load carried by a full time student (or roughly 30 units).

Figure 2. Schematic illustrating the different student paths depending on preparedness, career goals, university accomplishment etc. There are at least two entry points (corresponding to the Foundation and Matriculation levels of accomplishment) and two exit points (corresponding to the completion of Upper Division or Advanced level work).

The purpose of each level would be as follows:

Level I - Foundation Level. This level would be the normal entry point for most students (roughly 75 percent) who are admitted to the University. Its purpose would be to provide students with the basic general education and skills required to proceed with a university education. A full time student would normally spend one year completing Foundation Level requirements.

The following subjects might be included at the Foundation Level: basic mathematics, English

Version March 19th, 2007 7Version March 19th, 2007 8

composition, a foreign language, basic science, social studies and humanities. Much of this material is already part of the curriculum offered at the UA. Foundation Level courses might be offered (optional) on a Pass/Fail basis; performance in them would provide the criteria for advancement to Level II. Students that cannot meet these criteria should be counseled to pursue other careers.

Students could test out of Level I either by performing sufficiently well in placement exams set by the University or by presenting Achievement Test or Advanced Placement results or simply on the basis of UA Academic Index (see Appendix B). Students who can satisfy the Foundation Level requirements upon entry should proceed directly to Level II (or higher). (Any of these criteria would encourage greater levels of effort in the high schools, especially in the senior year).

Students well prepared in some areas but not in others might be permitted to proceed to some of the Level II courses in areas of demonstrated competence while completing Level I requirements in the others. It would also be possible to admit to Level I a limited number of students who would otherwise be in their senior year at high school. Admission would be on a competitive basis with some preference given to those whose high schools cannot provide the necessary level of course work. (Such programs are reported to be working well at some other state universities).

Level II - Matriculation Level. Level II would contain the more advanced components of the general education core curriculum. These would be developed by the individual Faculties (Humanities, Science, Social and Behavioral Sciences, etc.) and would normally be taken by all Matriculation Level students. Broad "integrating" courses (two semester six unit sequences in each Faculty) would provide the student with an overview of the study area in question. (The nature of integrating courses in the general area that includes that of specialization requires further discussion)

Matriculation Level students would be expected to select and to begin taking courses in pursuit of a chosen major or leading to a “Multidisciplinary Studies (MDS)” degree. For some students, these might be viewed as “pre-major” programs and would give students and faculty an opportunity to decide whether or not the program choice was appropriate for the individual involved. Career counseling services should be provided to guide students at this stage. A full time student would normally expect to complete the Matriculation Level in one year. A Certificate of Matriculation might be provided for those who complete Level II requirements so that even those that leave at this stage would have some recognition of their accomplishment. Matriculation Level might have an honors program similar to that currently offered by UA.

In addition to the “integrating” general education courses, a reduced suite of courses for non-major general studies would also be offered at the Matriculation Level, along with courses in the student's major field. The number of such additional courses required would be left to the faculty in individual majors programs (specialist or multi-disciplinary) and would in part be determined by the other requirements of the major concerned. The individual faculties may also set Matriculation Level accomplishment criteria for admission to their programs leading to Level IV Version March 19th, 2007 9

10 We understand that an MDS program in the three areas of Commerce, Political Science, and Spanish is under consideration for those students that will not proceed to advanced standing in the Eller College of Business and Public Administration.

studies, when these are required. University wide criteria would apply for programs leading to Level III.

Students who arrive at the University with truly exceptional capabilities or accomplishments may be permitted to skip all or part of the Matriculation Level and proceed directly to Level III in their area of specialization. The decision on individual cases would be made by the faculty concerned. Such students would normally undertake a Level IV program of study and could, in any case, not graduate with less than 90 credit units (three study years).

According to current ABOR policies, graduates of two-year colleges and appropriately qualified transfer students from other universities would also be eligible to proceed directly to level III, upon approval of the faculty concerned.

Levels III - Upper Division (2 years). Upon satisfactory completion of Level II, students would proceed to the major and faculty of their choice (either specialist or multidisciplinary). Upper Division curricula would contain much the same course structure as is currently in place and full time students should expect to spend two years in completing this part of the program. Upon completion of Upper Division studies, the student would be eligible to receive a Standard9 baccalaureate degree that would represent a level of accomplishment similar to the current average degree award at the UA. A student could also elect to continue studies at Level IV, leading to an Advanced/Professional/Specialist9 ("APS") baccalaureate degree or to an “accelerated Master’s” degree (see below).

For students not wishing to pursue one of the “specialist” majors as currently defined in existing colleges, we propose to expand the multi-disciplinary programs leading to an MDS degree granted under the auspices of University College. The purpose is to provide options for students who desire a broader education that is well suited to the general employment opportunities within the state – and the needs of many employers in both the public and private sectors. The existence of such a program will also help solve the current problem of students in search of any major that will accept them; it will also allow the specialist programs to elevate their standards and so encourage superior students to stay in Arizona.

We envisage the MDS program to involve a limited number of subject combinations with courses selected largely from those already offered by the various departments and colleges. Thus an Arizona PPE degree might involve courses selected from/ taught by the Political Science, Philosophy and Economics Departments. Another possibility might be a general science degree with courses drawn from both the physical and life sciences and perhaps statistics and oriented to potential science teachers, science writers, patent attorneys, technical managers to cite a few examples. A combination of psychology, a foreign language and marketing might also appeal to students entertaining a career in international sales.10 Some programs of this kind are already Version March 19th, 2007 10

underway but are not as well established and/or recognized as we believe desirable. We suggest that some well defined groupings be added in consultation with employer organizations within the state. These offerings can then be adapted and expanded in the light of experience – especially with employment prospects. Since graduation standards must be maintained, this program would probably only have a second-order effect on the graduation rate. It would, however, provide an alternative path for students whose options are currently disjoint from their career goals.

For most students, whether in traditional or multi-disciplinary majors, the normal undergraduate course of study would end with the completion of Upper Division and the award of a standard degree. Those in traditional majors that wish to proceed to Graduate or Professional School would normally continue to Level IV – or proceed directly to an “Accelerated Masters’” where such a program is available and appropriate (see discussion below). In some subjects, this may require some adjustment in Upper Division curricula (e.g. special courses) for the students involved. In others, good performance in Upper Division may be sufficient to permit students to begin work early on the Level IV degree requirements.

Level IV - Advanced Level. After satisfactory completion of Upper Division studies (and, in certain subjects, a special course of study during that time) a student could elect to proceed to Level IV, the most advanced undergraduate level. The student could expect to complete the Advanced Level in one year and would then receive an APS Degree9. The expected level of performance for an APS Degree would be set so that those students who receive such a degree have a high probability of being admitted to a recognized graduate or professional school in their field of study if they so desire. Quality will be calibrated in most fields through the GRE or similar exams. Specifically, students with a high GPA at the Advanced Level should do correspondingly well on the GRE and similar exams; the internal grade scale would be adjusted to meet this requirement. (cf Appendix D for details of the advanced program at the ANU).

An alternative path would lead the student directly to an “Accelerated Masters” degree, a concept now being implemented in a number of degree programs. Depending on the field of study this might involve one or two additional years of study but might be especially attractive in certain fields such as Engineering (see Appendix D for details of the Biochemistry Master’s program).

The proposed Level structure is further illustrated in Figure 3 which also shows articulation to high schools, community colleges, graduate and/or professional school and to the work force.

Time to Graduate. For a full time student, who entered the University with adequate preparation, the expected time to graduate with a Standard Degree would be four years (120 units), while an APS Degree would take five (150 units). A full time student with superior preparation could graduate with a standard Degree after three years (90 units) and with an APS Degree after four (120 units). Only a student with adequate preparation seeking an APS Degree would obviously require more than 120 units of credit to graduate. (Appendix C contains a discussion of the work

Figure 3. The proposed Level structure is illustrated showing the two normal entry points for high school students at the Foundation (I) and Matriculation (II) Levels - as well as the option for truly exceptional students to proceed directly to Upper Division (III). Students may conclude their studies with the award of either a Standard or an APS baccalaureate degree following satisfactory completion of studies in Upper Division (III) and Advanced Level (IV) respectively. They would then join the work force or, alternatively, proceed to graduate or professional school. The role of University College in monitoring the General Education and Multi-disciplinary Studies programs is also shown. [Note Level III consists of two study years; all other levels are one study year.]

Version March 19th, 2007 11Version March 19th, 2007 12

load required of a full time student and the impact of student employment on time-to-graduate.)

Degrees. While not essential, we nonetheless suggest that some distinction be made between degrees at the Standard and APS levels. The issue is discussed in Appendix D. One possibility is to reserve the designation BA for a Standard degree and to use existing (or in some cases new) specialist designations for APS degrees (e.g., BS, BFA, BLit. etc). Another involves using the qualifier “Honors” for the advance degree. Many other designations are possible – and there is some advantage to sticking as closely as possible to existing names for familiar concepts. (Appendix D also contains further information on an Accelerated Master’s Program in Biochemistry at UA and an Advance Bachelors’ Degree program at the Australian National University.)

Cost Concerns. While it is true that the proposed reconfiguration involves some additional effort, it is not clear that the overall expense would rise dramatically. The reason for this is that the re-structuring would involve two course ladders that are already in existence, namely the standard courses leading, after completion of Level III, to a Standard degree and the honors sequence, which could be modified to take care of those electing to proceed to Level IV and an APS degree. This would involve some changes to the current honors program in that the class size might well expand as the fraction of students taking the APS sequence grows – one goal of the reconfiguration. The question of cost does, however, require more careful analysis before embarking on major change.

5. Additional Considerations. While section 4 contains the principal elements of our restructuring proposal, a number of additional options have been discussed and these are described in further detail below.

University College. In the current proposal, the purpose of University College is two-fold, namely to:

 

(a) provide a "home" for up to two years of general education for entering students, until they identify their major department or course of subsequent study; and

 

(b) serve as an Upper Division coordinating vehicle for those seeking an MDS (non-specialist) degree.

 

University College would thus serve the student who either seeks a general education as an outcome or has not yet achieved the level of general preparedness required to commence more advanced or specialized work.

University College courses would normally be taught by faculty in the existing colleges, which would also provide faculty mentors or advisors. Essentially all teaching faculty in the Humanities, Science and Social Studies would, therefore, have an appointment and responsibilities in University College in addition to their college specific duties. A Dean and some staff would be required to administer the program and to coordinate with the specialist colleges. They might be appointed from the specialist faculties on a rotating basis, thereby ensuring close coordination of academic programs and standards. Version March 19th, 2007 13

Accomplishment Levels. As noted above, Levels I-IV represent levels of accomplishment. The plan requires that a student demonstrate performance at a lower level before proceeding to a higher one. It is, therefore, necessary to establish a well-understood means of defining these levels. Some definition is provided by entities external to the university, such as SAT, ACT, AP at the entry level and by GRE, LSAT, MSAT and similar scores for graduates. The other accomplishment levels will have to be set internally but in careful registration with the external measures at initiation and conclusion of the students’ sojourn at the UA .

Probably the greatest problems will be at the Foundation Level. It is suggested that the required performance for completion of Foundation Level be calibrated in terms of College Board Achievement Tests, Advanced Placement or similar criteria, (see Appendix B for discussion of the use of Academic Index in this context). This would serve the purpose of specificity and provide easier articulation with high schools both in Arizona and out-of-state. Foundation Level students would be tested internally for advancement to Matriculation Level (through their normal course accomplishments). Students could test out of the Foundation Level either by presenting Achievement Test or Advanced Placement results or by performing sufficiently well in placement exams set by the University. The actual level of performance required would be set by the individual faculties involved. Students would normally be permitted to proceed to Level II only when they are able to meet the performance criteria.

At Levels III and IV, external standards are already set in terms of entry to graduate school which is itself frequently determined by GRE scores or similar indices. Another calibration is provided by the standard accreditation processes. The Provost, in consultation with the Deans of individual colleges will need to set and maintain internal standards by reference to these external measures. Students doing well by internal measures should (statistically) do well on external tests also.

The requirements for completion of Level II (and in some circumstance of Level III) will have to be set largely internally. They will need careful articulation with programs at two year colleges. In setting completion criteria for Level II, each degree program should establish what additional general education (beyond the Foundation Level and the three integrating courses of the Matriculation Level) is needed to satisfy its requirements.

6. Advantages of the Proposed Restructuring. The structure outlined above could bring the following benefits. It would:

(a) Provide a basic framework and platform which is more comprehensible and less threatening to the incoming student, while still retaining substantial flexibility;

(b) Ensure that the student has developed a foundation of knowledge and skills before proceeding either into an area of specialization or more advanced multi-disciplinary studies - thereby also reducing the likelihood of failure; Version March 19th, 2007 14

(c) Permit the well prepared or especially talented student to proceed more rapidly, thereby increasing the probability that the student will enter and remain at the UA;

(d) Make it clear to students that progress depends on their own performance;

(e) Allow classes to be offered to groups of students that are at more closely similar preparation levels; this is more effective for students as well as more economical;

(f) Accommodate the needs of students requiring a more general education, for which there is increasing demand.

(g) Encourage better preparation of students at the high schools through student and parent (including cost) pressures;

(h) Create a greater collegial atmosphere among faculty fulfilling part of their teaching obligation through University College (it would also encourage the "schools" concept for teaching courses required for specialists);

(i) Help raise the overall intellectual level of the undergraduate program by increasing the attractiveness of the UA to better prepared students.

(j) Provide improved potential for undergraduates, especially those in the APS programs, to become involved in the research activities of the University.

The likely result of implementing this program is an overall improvement in the level of undergraduate performance and in public perception of the "value" of an undergraduate education at the UA. Such improvement is an essential element of a program to place the UA among the top 10 public research universities in the nation.

Concluding Remarks. This White Paper has been prepared by a group of interested faculty not as a prescription to be adopted in its entirety but rather as a stimulus for discussion leading to an overall enhancement of the UA’s undergraduate program. It certainly contains suggestions that would differentiate the UA from many of its peers, hopefully in a positive way as viewed from the student perspective. Some action in regard to the undergraduate program is, in any case, necessary if the UA is to achieve its goal of a “top ten publics” ranking.

APPENDIX A

Graduation Rate

The graduation rate from a university is dependent on a number of factors. Principal among them is the quality and/or level of preparedness of the incoming students. While a combination of high school grades and SAT scores is a better predictor of university performance, the SAT score alone gives a good measure of the likelihood of graduating.

Figure A1. Graduation rates for UA 1992-2002 first time/full-time freshman class are shown as a function of intake SAT score for both resident and non-resident students. Also shown are the average graduation rates for the public universities listed in Table A1 as a function of average incoming SAT score. The position of the UA is noteworthy.

Figure A1 shows the dependence of overall graduation rate on average intake SAT at AAU Public Universities. The data, which are listed in Table A1, have been taken from the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange, May 2006 reports. They demonstrate a clear correlation between average freshman SAT score and six year graduation rate at the institutions listed. Also shown in Figure A1 is how the probability of graduating in six years from the University of Arizona varies with SAT score for both in-state (resident) and out-of-state (non-resident) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%900950100010501100115012001250130013501400SAT ScoresGraduating (%)AAU UniversitiesUniversity of ArizonaUA Non-ResidentUA Resident

Version March 19th, 2007 15Version March 19th, 2007 16

 

Public University	Average SAT Score (2004 class)	% graduating (1999) cohort
University of Buffalo, State University of New York	1140	57%
Stony Brook University, State Uni. of New York	1176	59%
University of Kansas	1137	59%
University of Arizona	1120	59%
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities	1183	61%
University of Nebraska, Lincoln	1177	63%
University of Oregon	1114	65%
University of Iowa	1163	66%
University of Missouri, Columbia	1142	66%
University of Colorado at Boulder	1170	66%
Purdue University	1149	67%
Ohio State University	1153	68%
Iowa State University	1131	68%
University of Pittsburgh	1231	70%
Rutgers, State University of New Jersey	1226	71%
University of Washington	1182	74%
University of Texas at Austin	1230	75%
University of Maryland at College Park	1237	76%
Michigan State University	1137	76%
Texas A&M University	1183	77%
University of Wisconsin, Madison	1274	78%
University of Florida	1260	79%
University of California, Santa Barbara	1182	79%
University of California, Irvine	1209	80%
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign	1274	80%
University of California, Davis	1170	80%
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	1287	84%
University of California, San Diego	1250	84%
Pennsylvania State University(*)	1200	86%
University of California, Berkeley	1314	87%
University of California, Los Angeles	1290	87%
University of Michigan	1287	87%
University of Virginia	1330	93%

 

 

C11/Opinions_Reports/2006-07/Reconfiguring Undergraduate Education – Strittmatter/Woolf Report 3-17-07

BACK

This site maintained by The University of Arizona Faculty Center
1400 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210473
Tucson, AZ 85721-0473
VOICE 520-621-1342   FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
Last updated 10/28/07