Report 0705

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Strategic Assessment
DRAFT Final Report
Submitted to
J. Milton Adams
Senior Vice Provost
April 30, 2013
WORKING DRAFT
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment
Table of Contents
Part 1: Executive Summary
page 2
Part 2: Strategic Assessment I. II. III. IV. The Project The Higher Education Environment The University of Virginias Current Position Implications for Strategy
page 5 page 5 page 7 page 14 page 44
Part 3: Appendices I. II. III. IV. Comparison School Study Final Report Summary of Internal Interviews a. List of Internal Interviewees Comparative Peer Data Spreadsheet - please see attached .zip file a. Comparative Peer Data Sources University of Virginia Positioning & Pricing Study Key Findings a. University of Virginia Attributes & SDM Variables b. Positioning & Pricing Research Report Financial Aid Optimization Report Comparative Financial Aid Benchmarking Report
page 52
V. VI.
1 Art & Science Group
WORKING DRAFT
Part 1: Executive Summary
In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, Art & Science Group was tasked with conducting an assessment of UVA relative to its institutional goals and the environment in which it operates. Our work comprised an examination of internal and external data and documents; interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior administrators, and board members; examination of strategic priorities at nine comparison universities selected by UVA; and interviews with higher education thought-leaders and senior officials at the comparison universities. These distinguished leaders and observers consistently characterized the present as an inflection point for higher education. A leading public university, in particular, confronts a broken business plan, finding every one of its revenue sources stressed; fierce competition for outstanding faculty against better-funded private institutions at a time of mass retirements; technological innovations that may be leading to a revolution in how colleges teach and deliver education, juxtaposed with a greater-than-ever need for top students to gain what only a rich residential education can provide; heightened expectations to innovate, help solve social and environmental problems, and operate more efficiently, with measurable results; flawed governance; and the real possibility that its fortunes could rise or fall sharply, depending on the choices that it makes. In this environment, even a prestigious university is routinely advised to build on its comparative advantages, not to imagine that it can do everything well or thrive where competitors already have built a significant lead. The University of Virginia is almost uniformly understood to begin with a true and singular advantage: a superior, extraordinarily valued undergraduate experience in which many highly engaged students take unusual responsibility for their educational experience. UVA is seen to have complementary advantages as well: a distinctive shared culture among faculty and students, leadership in areas of the humanities and social sciences, outstanding professional schools which also notably value the student experience, and an unusual midsize that creates opportunity for exceptional teaching and learning.
WORKING DRAFT
The criticisms leveled most frequently at UVA are that it has been comparatively complacent, slow to insist on evidenced-based strategies, and indecisive about its direction at a time when other universities, both leading and lower-tier, have aggressively pursued every facet of institution-building. Research funding has not kept pace, faculty quality is seen as less strong than it should be, political pressures to keep tuition low have meant tuition revenues have not been optimized, and fundraising, while robust, has left strategic priorities unaddressed. Strategic planning presents an opportunity for decisiveness, and this round of planning comes at an opportune time. UVAs core strengths and distinctions favor it in a higher education environment that rewards outstanding student experiences, already-established research and scholarly strengths on which to build, and clear differentiation. And, if for reasons it would not have wished, UVA finds itself in the national spotlight, creating an unparalleled opportunity to assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is headed. Observers see UVAs problems as both unique and representative of the problems faced by many universities, and both internal and external constituents are anxious to see how UVA responds, including in this strategic planning effort. Rather than emulate other research universities, our assessment suggests that UVA would gain greatest comparative advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold recommitment to its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research universityfocused on students academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching faculty, and development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation. UVA would do well to protect its core advantage vigorously and indeed to invest further in aspects of the residential experience to remain competitive and to ensure that a high percentage of UVA students partake in the full experience. In particular, UVA could claim leadership development notably, the preparation of imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, publicservice-oriented future leadersas a major institutional focus and reason for continued investment in residential education. UVA would also do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy and the student experiencein ways that build on UVAs distinctive institutional values and strengths across multiple schools. As it joins many others in considering the means of
WORKING DRAFT
educational delivery, UVA should lead in rethinking the content of an undergraduate education today and the path through advising, experiential learning, and other forms of engagement that students take to develop useful knowledge for this era. UVA will be best-served to position itself as a research institution but not aspire to become a research-driven institution. This will mean reinvesting in UVAs historic areas of leadership in the humanities and social sciences, while also sustaining and developing strong offerings in carefully selected, highly focused areas in the sciences. It will also mean more vigorous interdisciplinary collaboration across departments, programs, and schools. It will mean continuing to focus graduate and professional school resources even further on programs of national prominence. Many in the University of Virginia community see UVA as facing an inflection point of its own. They admit to being deflated by cuts and controversy yet at the same time ready, behind decisive leadership and strategic investment, to release enormous pent-up energy for revitalization and renewal. UVA can thrive by making clear, strategic choices and reasserting a proud, vital, accountable culture and commitment to academic leadership.
WORKING DRAFT
Part 2: Strategic Assessment I. THE PROJECT
In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, we were tasked with assessing UVAs competitive position relative to: Its institutional purposes and goals The environment in which it operates
Our work steps included: Examination of internal and external data and documents Interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior administrators, and board members (total of 90-95) Examination of strategic priorities at nine comparison universities: o Duke University o New York University o University of California, Berkeley o University of California, Los Angeles o University of Chicago o University of Michigan o University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill o University of Southern California o Vanderbilt University Interviews with higher education thought-leaders and senior officials at the comparison universities. We have completed one-on-one interviews with approximately 30 individuals:
WORKING DRAFT
Thought Leaders
Tony Carnevale Director, Center on Education and the Workforce Georgetown University Ralph J. Cicerone President, National Academy of Sciences Chair, National Research Council National Academy of Sciences Scott Cowen President, Tulane University Ronald G. Ehrenberg Director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute Cornell University Andrew Hamilton Vice-Chancellor, University of Oxford Daphne Koller Founder of Coursera Stanford University Bernie Machen President, University of Florida M. Peter McPherson President, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities Thomas Sullivan President, University of Vermont Charles M. Vest President, National Academy of Engineering Bill Massey President, The Jackson Hole Higher Education Group Hunter R. Rawlings, III President, Association of American Universities Richard Vedder Professor Emeritus, Ohio University Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Mark Yudof President, University of California Darrell G. Kirch, M.D. President and CEO, Association of American Medical Colleges Earl Lewis President, Andrew Mellon Foundation Jonathan R. Cole Provost and Dean of the Faculties, Emeritus Columbia University James J. Duderstadt President Emeritus & University Professor of Science and Engineering University of Michigan Don Finley President, Virginia Business Higher Education Council
WORKING DRAFT
Comparison Institutions
Philip J. Hanlon Mary Sue Coleman President, University of Michigan Michael Hout Natalie Cohen Professor of Sociology & Demography & Director, Berkeley Population Center University of California- Berkeley Richard McCarty Provost, Vanderbilt University Holden Thorp Chancellor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Terrence J. McDonald Dean, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts University of Michigan Scott Waugh Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost UCLA Peter Lange Provost, Duke University Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Michigan
Universities, notably public flagship institutions, operate today in an especially demanding environment, so we begin by looking at these external factors affecting UVA: section II, below, highlights some of these key factors. In Section III we describe UVAs current position. In Section IV we give what we see as the implications of UVAs position for its strategic choices. Unless indicated otherwise, quotes in the document are from the thought-leader and comparison-school interviews.
WORKING DRAFT
II.
THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Financial Constraints and Competition Universities face decreases, limitations, and highly aggressive competition for each of their major funding sources (federal, state, private support, tuition) All of higher education has a broken business plan. The tuition/financial aid model is vulnerable and poorly understood We have a breakdown in the compact between higher education and society in terms of how we innovate and advance and who will pay for it. The public model is broken, and given the pressures on state resources it wont be fixed. UVA must try to figure out way to privatize itself, or to further privatize key parts of the University. It must do more and more to be independent of the state. Universities should be more aggressive in creating innovative ideas sell or privatize ancillary operations. UVA has to be more to be sensitive to these opportunities. They should ask: why are we in the housing business? Lease out the dorms, set standards for the developer to renovate and build housing, and put the gains into renovations of existing facilities that are out of date. In other words, it has to think strategically about how to leverage its assets. Consider moving employee pensions outside the state retirement system if that is an issue. Consider and implement differential tuition pricing and market inputs to pricing, college by college, program by program, school by school. Charge more for the highest demand most selective programs. I think UVA should be the first top public university in line to be privatized. The state is a minority shareholder, and a small one at that. Why should it have the kind of control it does?
WORKING DRAFT
Universities will continue to compete aggressively for the very top faculty candidates, of whom there are far fewer than there are universities pursuing them, and public universities are at a financial disadvantage From the annual report of the American Association of University Professors released in early April: The average salary across all faculty ranks at private colleges was $99,771, an increase of 2.4 percent from the previous academic year. At public colleges, the average salary was $80,578, a 1.3-percent increase. The public-sector disadvantage is greatest for full professors who earn 35 percent less at public doctoral universities than do their peers at private doctoral institutions. The only strategic planning that universities do thats really strategic is recruiting faculty. That will shape where youre going for 30 to 40 years. What new faculty look for are the colleagues strength of faculty already there, the graduate programs, and the depth. UVA is vulnerable here. The most promising faculty will look at UVA and find it wanting. If you focus on what faculty care about what resources are available, salaries, research support, conferences, etc., the very best senior faculty are running away from public universities. So the question is not only about attracting the best, but whether UVA can hold onto its best. Key is to start hiring right now. They cant start soon enough most publics are not in a hiring mode, so theres advantage to leaping ahead. This is a real opportunity. Theyll get the pick of the best young people out there. They should borrow to do it. There is a high level of concurrence in what constitutes a promising young scholar. Were competing for the same few people. Its a Darwinian process. The challenge is for a university to present opportunities to attract the best people in the marketthe one who will number one in her cohortyear in and year out. Its a hard ideal to hit. A university must keep its standards for whats acceptable in faculty hires at the highest level. You need some super-competent people. Above average is not enough.
WORKING DRAFT
Its just a resource question when theyre being squeezed on both sides by the state. So theyll have to follow a strategy that focuses on pursuing young faculty who are hidden stars. For example, theyll have to go after people with didnt quite make it into National Academy of Sciences, or who just missed a major NIH or DOD grant, but whose work is worthy and promising. And they wont able to compete with the leading publics let alone the privates. Theyll have to outwork and outthink richer competitors theyll have to be very bold and willing to takes risks, and this will require a Board that will stand behind them.
I wouldnt join the faculty there today theres just too much uncertainty. It doesnt project stability to me, and the current situation probably leaves some doubts in the minds of the best faculty.
WORKING DRAFT
Technology and Residential Learning Technological and other innovations and conditions are initiating a great deal of experimentation which may lead to a revolution in how colleges teach and deliver education For almost all universities, we are at an inflection point. The question for leaders is how many experiments to run at once. Weve been in this model where the least trained members of the communityTAs are doing the most important and difficult part of teaching: really engaging kids. The approach to teaching has resembled taking the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm. The teaching model is backwards and not scalable. Now were applying learning science and putting real R&D into education. I wouldnt invest a lot on money in MOOCs. Theres too much uncertainty about where those technologies will end up. But I would work with Chapel Hill, Maryland, etc. Meet and talk with everyone who has a platform to determine what model works for then and what can be monetized. Here UVAs smaller size might be a real advantage it should make them more nimble. MOOCs are not the silver bullets its one form of democratization of higher education, but theres no substitute for interactions among students. Technology can flip the way we use information and then faculty use the information to solve problems with students. But the days of the large lecture in traditional form are over. Faculty will focus students learning problem solving sessions. Bricks and mortar are not dead. Terry Sullivan was right in moving cautiously on the technology front. Theres no ideal for cost model and no sustainable economic model yet. Its not even clear that these technologies can save money if they still provide a high-quality experience. And we dont know yet if students are leaning or how theyre learning over time. It appears there will increasingly be a bifurcation between heavily residential versus heavily online institutions o For the best students and those with the greatest difficulties, face to face will remain essential. We must engage them, challenge them.
WORKING DRAFT
o If professors can be replaced by a computer screen, they should be. If youre not offering more than a computer, then you deserve to be replaced. Im thrilled by online developments. It forces us to up our game. A residential experience is, if anything, becoming even more important for top students who must be prepared to assume demanding positions of leadership o Current 18-year-olds will live into their 100s. They will work into their 80s. Higher education will be increasingly important to fill those many years. Elite universities are making significant new investments in their residential experiences, emphasizing the education they provide outside the classroom and outside of coursework The big challenges will be in using Internet access and social media to create blended classroom experiences tailored to the learning habits of this generation of students. But there must be no sacrifice of quality maintaining closely engaged faculty experience in the classroom is critical. But good uses of the technology can help take the routine, grunt work, out of teaching and learning but also enhance the traditional classroom experience. Technology can be a powerful pathway to accomplish multiple things but you have to understand each pathway, how you achieve it, how you monetize it, and make it sustainable. You also have to determine what works for each market. One method does not fit all. But focus on the core audience first undergraduates then expand from there.
WORKING DRAFT
Expectations Universities are expected to become more efficientat the same time they are expected to become more innovative Graduating students are expected to have practical work skillsat the same time they are expected to be more imaginative and adaptable Universities are increasingly expected to contribute directly to the amelioration of complex, pressing societal and environmental issues Boards and other constituents call for bold responses to these challenges, generally focused on the business aspects of the university enterprise. o Measurement is a leadership task which goes against the grain of faculty tradition. Medicine faced it; from the era of doctors saying "we have mystical powers" to now, where there is a realistic model in place for measuring outcomes. o If we want to be a great university, what will it take to get us there? Leading with an austerity argument will be a disaster. We have to lead instead with enhancing learning and introducing assessment. Universities remain the institution in the society expected to act as a guardian and champion of free and scientific inquiryproviding expertise, asserting the importance of evidence-based policies and decisions, and protecting the right to divergent viewpoints and dissent.
WORKING DRAFT
Urgency of Differentiation Each university must increasingly play to its comparative advantages in order to be competitive for funds from any of its major sources Institutions that are not already among the leading research-driven universities are likely to be ill-served by aspiring to compete for funds or prestige by copying that model Dont go into areas youre not already in. Period. Universities with strong market appeal for their residential education experience should protect that advantage UVA is sitting on a pedestal, and the strength of the brand opens many opportunities that would not be available to lesser places. Undergraduate education is where I think they should focus. They have to capitalize on existing strengths. o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey: UVA students rate UVA as having a significantly greater commitment to undergraduate education than its peers. (Average score for UVA was 5.14, compared to the average for peers of 4.63, on a 6-point scale.)
Threat to Competitive Standing In light of all of above, especially the financial and technological factors, even universities that are near the top in prestige are vulnerable to significant declines in standing. Unlike anything we have seen in decades, there will be real shifts in the higher education hierarchy in this era. The University of Virginia is not safe. o While UVAs endowment is relatively strong regarding other publics, next to major high-endowment privates its in a very weak position. Its very easy to compromise excellence but once its lost its much more costly and difficult to rebuild and sustain itthats the threat to UVA as the state simultaneously cuts support and constrains tuition revenue. Its being squeezed on both sides and the consequences are not good.
WORKING DRAFT
III.
The University of Virginias Current Position
True Distinction UVA is almost universally seen as special, exceptional (the highest graduation rate of a public), noted for having enduring and valued traditions (Its like Jefferson died yesterday. When I was there I saw a lot of bow ties and those bathroom-less buildings everyone competes to be in.), having an aurawhich, were it to lose that and become merely pedestrian, would be dealt a devastating blow from which it likely could not recover They have done undergraduate education better than we have. Theyre the best at it of any of us. They have a distinctive undergraduate college. Theres a lot of pride in it. Do they use technology to enhance that experience? Like other publics, do they load more students on the same faculty base? They have a choicewhich not many publics have. They are different in this regard even from other elite publics. From my point of view UVA represents the ideal of a university. Everyone thinks of UVA as a great university its an icon even though by the most objective measures its really not. Theres this big buzz about efficiency. Its hard to think of UVAof what it does well as efficient. Leader of one of the comparison universities: Everything weve done thats propelled us forward in undergraduate education in the last decadedoubling research experiences, internships, senior capstone experienceshas been, quote unquote, inefficient. But theyve also been effective and differentiating. If there ever was a public Ivy it is UVA. This quality will be an advantage in marketing, development, etc. and perhaps even state support. This is why Virginia should play to its strengths. Its interesting to look at, say, Maryland versus Virginia. Thirty years ago, Maryland was inferior. Not anymore. If you were having dinner at the country club, youd be
WORKING DRAFT
more pleased to say UVA than Maryland. But thats historical, not current reality. And Virginia Tech is more of an academic threat than UVA realizes. One of the problems is that UVA is inherently an aristocratic school. Its fundamentally a residential place and residential experience. This is a real marketing advantage. But the board may not fully understand the implications of this. You have to be careful to avoid going too aggressively with online education and other things that would take the university off on a tangent away from its core mission and strength. I understand the auraits a very good place for studentsbut its not a powerhouse research university. Were it to lose that aura, it would be just like any other public university.
UVA continues to hold its place as a top-ranked public institution. In looking at the US News & World Report rankings over the past ten years for top public national universities (removing all private institutions), UVA has held steady at the second position. In 2004, UVA shared the top spot with UC: Berkeley, but for the past nine years UVA has been ranked as the second top public. o UVAs scores on each of the components that make up the ranking have remained steady or improved over the past ten years. Only alumni giving rate has dropped in ten years, from 27% in 2004 to 22% in 2013. UC: Berkeley has remained ranked as the top public national university for the past ten years. UCLA has moved up recently from fourth to now sharing the second position with UVA for the past four years. Michigans ranking has been falling in the past few years, and now sits at fourth. UNC has remained as the fifth best public for the past ten years. o In comparing UVAs ranking factors vs. UC Berkeleys, there are some areas in which improvement might help close the gap between the two schools. Berkeley has an advantage in academic reputation and student quality. Berkeleys median SAT score is consistently 20-30 points higher and top 10% percentage is consistently 8-10 percentage points higher than UVA. Also,
WORKING DRAFT
Berkeley is much more selective with acceptance rates 10-11 percentage points lower than UVA. o UCLA has improved in ranking due to consistently increasing their graduation rate from 85% in 2004 to 90% in 2013 and regularly outperforming their predicted graduation rate. The median SAT score has also shown consistent improvements and is now up almost 50 points from ten years ago. Compared to UVA, UCLA has a higher percentage of students in the top ten percent of their class and is more selective. o Michigan has been slowly declining in undergraduate rank despite an improved graduation rate, increased student quality, and becoming more selective. It seems that Michigans fall in rank is due to institutions near them making larger strides. Compared to UVA, Michigan has a slight edge in academic reputation, which accounts for the largest percentage of the US News ranking. UVA also benefits in being more selective and having a higher alumni giving rate than Michigan. UVA Freshmen rate the importance of rankings in national magazines much higher than freshmen at other large publics, including those at more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey)
WORKING DRAFT
US News 2013 Best National Universities Rankings Among Publics
School Rank University of California: Berkeley University of Virginia University of California: Los Angeles University of Michigan University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
Public Rank 21 24 24 29 30 1 2 2 4 5
Score 79 77 77 74 73
UG Academic Reputation Index 93 87 86 88 85
Average freshman retention Predicted Actual Grad % of classes % of classes rate Grad Rate Grad Rate Performance under 20 50 or more 97% 90% 90% 64% 14% 97% 90% 94% +4% 53% 15% 97% 87% 90% +3% 51% 22% 96% 89% 90% +1% 48% 17% 97% 85% 90% +5% 33% 13%
Public Rank 21 24 24 29 30 1 2 2 4 5
Student/ % of faculty SAT/ACT SAT/ACT Freshmen in Average faculty who are full- 25th 75th SAT/ACT top 10% of HS alumni giving ratio time percentile percentile Median class Accept rate rate 17/1 89% 1250 1490 1370 98% 22% 12% 16/1 98% 1240 1460 1350 91% 33% 22% 17/1 91% 1180 1440 1310 97% 25% 13% 16/1 93% 28 32 30 95% 41% 17% 14/1 97% 1200 1400 1300 79% 31% 22%
WORKING DRAFT
From the comprehensive study of UVAs prospective-student market conducted by Art & Science Group in the 2011-2012 academic year: In the prospective-student market, UVA holds a highly distinctive, strong, but not commanding position. There are many very good students who want to come to UVA; however, there is not the line-without-end of outstanding students that some people imagine there to be. Students who choose to apply and enroll rate it very highly (8.1 and 9.0 on a 10point scale, respectively) o Notably on attributes including student honor code, beautiful campus, history and tradition No in-state institutions represent significant competitive threats UVA could raise price significantly in-state and moderately out-of-state without losing market share If UVA were to decrease financial aid significantly, as some have suggested, it would experience significant declines in the quality and diversity of its matriculating students, especially from out of state UVA does not stand out from its competition on the attributes that are most important in students choices: o strong program in the students expected field of study o outstanding students o advising o exceptional faculty UVA also lags on other attributes that drive students perceptions of quality: o strong science and engineering programs o job placement o career counseling Higher-ability admitted students rate UVA significantly lower than do other prospects Competition is stiff: 2/3 of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top-25 institutions
WORKING DRAFT
Many non-applicants and even admit-declines are turned off by their visit to UVA Grounds o Half of non-applicants who visited UVA became less interested
UVAs cultural identity is unusually well-defined and polarizing. It is decidedly desirable to some and undesirable to many. UVA is perceived by prospects to be notably less welcoming than competitors o a decisive factor o even applicants and enrolling students concur
It is also seen as more elitist, preppy, and homogenous than the competition The effects of UVAs perceived culture on students choices are the strongest we have ever seen as decisive as attributes such as student and faculty quality a first in our experience
Of the initiatives tested, UVA could have the greatest positive effect on applications and matriculations by investing in faculty-student relationshipsin and beyond the classroom o This would have a strong effect on desirable cohorts: +17% yield rate if emphasized, -21% if not emphasized for out-of-state admitted students
Higher education, especially the elites, needs to reinvent admissions. We need more quirky students and an intellectual and cultural mash-up. Thats what stimulates inventiveness, entrepreneurship, creativity. My sense is that UVAs students are a rather homogeneous lot. That needs to change.
Its clear to me that constraints on the number of out-of-state students have to be lifted especially since the political forces resist a market driven pricing strategy. Its quite obvious that the University and the state need more out of state students to pay the bills, and its foolish not to act on that.
According to UVAs First and Fourth Year Survey from 2009, students in their fourth year have shown large improvements in key skills and proficiencies. Across every skill comparing fourth-year students currently and to when they started at UVA, there is at least a 20% bump in students who feel they are excellent at the particular skills.
WORKING DRAFT
Some of the skills where students report the largest amount of excellence in their fourth year include the ability to get along with and appreciate people of different races, cultures, countries, and religions (71%); the ability to think critically and analytically (64%); and the ability to acquire new skills and knowledge on your own (64%).
The skills showing the biggest improvement in excellence since their first year include the ability to judge the value of information based on the soundness of sources, methods, and reasoning (60%, up from 17%); the ability to acquire new skills and knowledge on your own (64%, up from 22%); and the ability to work as a member of a team (62%, up from 23%).
It is interesting to note that while fourth-year students feel strongly that they have excelled in the ability to get along with and appreciate people of many different backgrounds, they also are less likely than first-year students to report that UVA is welcoming to key minority groups.
UVA climate and welcoming (1=least welcoming,10=most welcoming) First-year Fourth-year Women 8.8 8.3 LGBT individuals 6.9 6.2 Racial and ethnic minorities 7.7 7.0
The view from within UVA: A sizable number of UVA undergraduates are exceptionally engaged in and take unusual responsibility for their educational experience, which is seen to lead to exceptional outcomes in the careers and contributions of graduates o Questions remain about what percentage of its students partake in this exceptional experience o Thought-leader: The residential college initiative at UVA seems to have stalled. The value proposition now isnt how well classes are delivered on campus. Its what happens beyond class. Thats the critical part of why students and parents will choose a college. Without knowing what students are getting from these experiences you cant know the people youre trying to change. Students change not in the classroom but outside it.
WORKING DRAFT
o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey: 50% of 4th-year UVA students completed a significant research project as part of their undergraduate program, and 66% completed or plan to complete an internship in their 4 years at UVA. Just over 80% of those who completed an internship arranged the internship on their own and without significant help from the university, school, or department. From the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey: we see similar numbers as above, and additionally note that UVA students closely match the norms at other research universities on high-impact practices and participation by students. o From NSSE: Students at UVA report spending more time participating in cocurricular activities than the national average. First-year students at UVA spend about 5.5 hours participating in co-curricular activities, compared to the national average of about 2 hours. Seniors at UVA spend about 6 hours participating in co-curricular activities compared to the national average of about 1.5. o We also see in NSSE that UVA students spend more time per week preparing for class than do students nationally. First-year students spend about 15.5 hours preparing while nationally students spend about 12.5 hours, and seniors at UVA spend about 14 hours while seniors nationally spend about 13 hours preparing for class. o From NSSE: Students reported significantly higher than national average the perception that UVA emphasizes spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work (on a scale of 1-4, 3.41/3.42 compared to national 3.19/3.17), but did not diverge significantly from the perception of providing support needed for academic success (3.10/2.96 to national 3.12/2.96). o UVA Freshmen take their education seriously: They report that they fail to complete homework on time less frequently, asked a teacher for advice after class more frequently, fall asleep in class less frequently, were a guest in a teachers home more frequently than freshmen at other large publics, including those more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey)
WORKING DRAFT
o While we see in SERU that students are quite satisfied with the quality of and access to faculty, in NSSE students cite a lower satisfaction with their relationships with faculty. From SERU: nearly all UVA students are very satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction (4.97 rating out of 5) and rate access to faculty outside of class very highly (4.86). From NSSE: UVA students rated their relationships with faculty members slightly below other Southeast Publics and further below the NSSE national average. On a scale of 1-7, UVA first-year students rated it 5.15 and seniors rated it 5.31, compared to Southeast Publics averages of 5.20/5.43 (first-year/seniors) and the NSSE national average of 5.29/ 5.46. From NSSE: Students generally reported lower interaction with faculty than the national average (discussing grades/assignments, talking about career plans, discussing ideas from readings or classes with faculty, receiving prompt feedback, working together on noncoursework projects, and even Worked harder than you thought you could to meet and instructors standards or expectations.) According to the First and Fourth Year Survey, fourth-year students are more likely to interact with faculty outside of the classroom. About 30% of fourth-year students interact with faculty outside of classroom at least once per week, while only 16% of first-year students interact with faculty outside of classroom. Although first-year students are slightly more likely to use faculty office hours than fourth-year students, fourth-year students are far more likely to interact with faculty for lunch/dinner/coffee, in co-curricular activities, and in other situations.
WORKING DRAFT
Faculty interaction outside of classroom First-year Fourth-year Office hours 93% 90% Lunch/dinner/coffee 11% 24% Co-curricular activities 8% 20% Other 9% 19%
Other possible risks for UVA: From NSSE: Students, particularly first years, ranked the quality of academic advising received at UVA slightly lower than the national average. On a scale of 1-4, first year students at UVA rate the quality of academic advising 2.9 compared to a 3.1 rating for first-year students nationally. Seniors at UVA rate advising at 2.8 compared to seniors nationally at 2.9. From NSSE: UVA students report a lower perception of the institutions contribution to their ability to use computing and information technology than the national average (3.03 vs. 3.20 among seniors on a scale from 1-4). Most students are counting on the continued prestige of UVA more than specific skills they might gain. o From SERU: Students at UVA cited the most important aspects of a research university, on a 5-point scale, as The prestige of this campus when you apply for a job (4.8) and The prestige of this campus when you apply to grad school (4.57). These aspects were more important than aspects that pointed to practical work skills or being imaginative and adaptable, such as Being able to attend plays, concerts, lectures, and other cultural events (4.11), Having access to a world-class library collection (4.16), Learning research methods (3.8), Pursuing your own research (3.41), and Assisting faculty members in their research, for pay or as a volunteer (3.29). While this is not unique among UVAs closest public peers, UVA students found attending plays, concerts, lectures, and other culture events significantly more important than did their peers, and research-related items significantly less important than did their peers.
WORKING DRAFT
o In addition, from NSSE, students reported that their experience at UVA contributed less to their acquisition of job or work-related knowledge and skills than the national average (2.93 vs. 3.07 among seniors on a 4-point scale).
Undergraduate education at UVA is seen as an unusual value, that is, inexpensive relative to the quality of the experience and worth of the degree: #1 in Princeton Review, #4 in US News, and #2 in-state and #4 out-of-state in Kiplingers among public institutions Princeton Review ranks UVA as the number 1 public best value college. Princeton Review's ranking of great academics combined with affordable costs takes into account academic ratings, financial aid ratings, and sticker price minus average gift aid. UNC ranks 2nd, UCLA ranks 5th, and Michigan ranks 9th. UVA ranks 29th in US News ranking of Best Value Schools for national universities and 4th among public national universities. US News' ranking of Best Value Schools is calculated using ratio of quality to price (60%), need-based aid (25%), and average discount (15%). UNC ranks 17th overall and 1st among public institutions. Kiplinger's rankings of Best Values in Public Colleges ranks UVA 2nd for in-state and 4th for out-of-state students. Kiplinger's ranking of value uses admit rate, 4-yr graduation rate, cost after need-based aid, and average debt. UNC ranks 1st IS and 2nd OOS. UCLA ranks 6th IS and 7th OOS, UC Berkeley ranks 8th both IS and OOS, and Michigan ranks 11th IS and 18th OOS.
The professional schools, notably law and business, both highly ranked (Law 7, Darden 12 in US News), have contributed much to the Universitys national and international reputation (Note that we interviewed deans and others from the other professional schools at UVA and recognize their contributions and importance to UVAs distinction, but this assessment is to be focused primarily on law, business, and medicine.)
WORKING DRAFT
Law: Over the past seven years UVA has moved from a low of 10th to a high of 7th in the current rankings. While all schools have experienced a decrease in calculated scores to rank them, this has not hurt UVAs law rankings.
In looking at trend data for the law school rankings of similarly ranked schools, it appears that UVA has some ranking criteria where improvements could lead to continued climbing of the ranks. o University of Virginias nearest ranked competitors, New York University (6th) and University of Pennsylvania (also 7th), have remained fairly steady over the last 5 years. o UVA could help themselves in jumping over NYU and spacing themselves from Penn by improving student quality in terms of both undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores. Currently, NYU has an edge on UVA in LSAT scores and Penn has a slightly higher median undergraduate GPA. UVA is also lagging behind NYU and Penn in student/faculty ratio. o The factors where UVA has consistently succeeded compared to their nearest competitors are in selectivity and employment placement. NYU and Penn have had fairly noticeable decline in placement of jobs at graduation and 9 months out, but UVA has remained fairly stable. o University of Chicago has moved up in rank from 7th in 2009 to 4th in the most recent year of ranking by increasing student quality, in terms of undergraduate GPA, and improving the student/faculty ratio. University of Chicagos growth in the rankings is somewhat surprising as they have become slightly less selective in the past five years and have had a noticeable decline in employment placement. o The only law school with an evident decline in law school ranking over the past several years is UC: Berkeley, currently ranked 9th, from as highly ranked as 6th. The ranking factors that have most hurt UC: Berkeley are a steady decline in peer and lawyer/judge assessments and a marked drop in employment placement in the most recent year.
WORKING DRAFT
US News & World Report 2014 Law School Ranking Lawyer/ Peer Judge Assessment Assessment Median UG Median (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) GPA LSAT Accept rate 4.8 4.7 3.91 173 8% 4.8 4.8 3.86 173 16% 4.8 4.7 3.86 171 10% 4.6 4.7 3.81 170 20% 4.6 4.6 3.70 172 18% 4.4 4.6 3.69 171 28% 4.4 4.6 3.73 168 15% 4.3 4.6 3.75 168 16% 4.4 4.4 3.80 167 12% 4.4 4.7 3.70 168 25%
School Yale University Harvard University Stanford University University of Chicago Columbia University New York University University of Virginia University of Pennsylvania University of California: Berkeley University of Michigan
Rank 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 9 9
Score 100 95 95 92 92 89 85 85 83 83
Rank Yale University Harvard University Stanford University University of Chicago Columbia University New York University University of Virginia University of Pennsylvania University of California: Berkeley University of Michigan 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 9 9
Grads Bar State with Student/ employed Employed 9 passage most bar Jurisdiction's faculty at mos after rate in test overall bar ratio graduation grad jurisdiction takers passage rate 7.9/1 90.7% 91.2% 96.3% NY 77% 11.4/1 90.9% 93.7% 97.5% NY 77% 7.6/1 93.2% 95.8% 88.5% CA 67% 7.5/1 90.6% 95.1% 96.4% IL 89% 8.0/1 93.2% 95.4% 96.2% NY 77% 9.0/1 93.1% 93.8% 95.5% NY 77% 10.9/1 97.3% 96.0% 91.8% VA 79% 10.3/1 83.6% 91.2% 94.2% NY 77% 11.6/1 72.6% 82.6% 86.8% CA 67% 12.8/1 70.7% 85.8% 94.8% NY 77%
WORKING DRAFT
Darden: The most recent ranking of 12th is the highest for Darden since 2008. Student quality at Darden has been increasing, but is still noticeably lower than top ten ranked institutions, as is selectivity. Corporate recruiters assessments also appear to be lagging compared to other top institutions. o As Darden has made some gains in the business school rankings, so too has Duke (Fuqua), who is currently ranked 11th. Over the past five years, Fuqua has been held in higher regard, in terms of peer and recruiter assessments, than Darden. Darden has a noticeably higher median GMAT score than Fuqua, but Fuqua has the clear advantage in placement data at graduation and 3 months out. By working to improve career placement, UVA would likely benefit from increased assessment ratings by recruiters. o Yale, currently ranked 13th, has been decreasing in rank over the past five years and its clearly due to a decline in selectivity and a large drop in employment placement.
WORKING DRAFT
US News & World Report 2014 Business School Ranking
School Rank Harvard University Stanford University University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) Northwestern University (Kellogg) University of Chicago (Booth) University of California: Berkeley (Haas) Columbia University Dartmouth College (Tuck) New York University (Stern) Duke University (Fuqua) University of Virginia (Darden) Yale University University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson) University of Michigan (Ross)
Score 1 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 100 100 99 97 97 96 93 91 90 87 86 85 84 82 82
Peer Recruiter Assessment Assessment Average Average Accept (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) UG GPA GMAT Score rate 4.8 4.5 3.67 724 11.5% 4.8 4.6 3.69 729 7.1% 4.8 4.6 3.60 718 20.0% 4.7 4.4 3.53 710 15.6% 4.7 4.4 3.69 708 22.9% 4.7 4.4 3.52 720 23.0% 4.6 4.1 3.61 715 13.8% 4.5 4.2 3.50 715 20.8% 4.3 4.0 3.49 717 20.4% 4.2 3.9 3.51 720 15.7% 4.3 4.0 3.42 690 27.5% 4.2 3.9 3.45 703 26.6% 4.2 4.1 3.55 717 21.3% 4.1 3.8 3.56 704 22.6% 4.3 3.9 3.40 703 40.6%
B
Average starting salary and Grads Employed 3 OOS Total fullbonus (in employed at mos after Tuition time thou) graduation grad and Fees enrollment $142.5 77.4% 89.3% $63,300 1,824 $140.5 71.3% 87.8% $57,300 803 $138.3 79.7% 91.7% $62,000 1,685 $139.0 84.5% 94.4% $58,200 816 $134.0 76.9% 91.7% $56,800 1,161 $135.7 84.1% 92.3% $56,900 1,161 $133.8 74.4% 92.7% $56,300 490 $134.9 77.0% 91.6% $60,900 1,274 $138.7 85.8% 92.9% $60,500 549 $133.9 79.5% 90.5% $55,200 780 $136.5 86.5% 91.7% $54,900 874 $131.9 81.5% 90.9% $53,900 637 $121.6 66.5% 85.5% $56,500 494 $121.9 71.9% 86.5% $54,500 737 $134.4 74.3% 81.4% $55,200 992
1 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14
WORKING DRAFT
From within UVA: Consistent with the distinctions of undergraduate education, both Law and Darden place a very high emphasis on teaching while, at the same time, a number of their faculty are leading scholars in their fields, in some cases world-class
Both benefit from collaborations with scholars and graduate departments in related fields at UVA The student experience at both, as well as in the School of Medicine, is a strength to build on o UVA's Medical School is ranked 26th in research and 18th in primary care. UVA's ranking in research has slowly dropped from a ranking as high as 22nd, largely due to decreased NIH funding and amount of funding per faculty. At the same time, UVA has shown steady to positive increase in peer and residency director assessments and noticeable increases in student quality and selectivity in recent years.
Other Distinctions
UVA occupies, as it always has, a unique place in higher education as the first institution founded to adapt longstanding traditions in liberal education to the conditions of a democracy dependent upon an educated, active citizenry equipped with useful knowledge.
UVAs unusual mid size and human scale creates opportunity for exceptional, even oneof-a-kind teaching and learning, but also means it faces both the threats of being too small (especially in research) and too large (especially in the educational experience). UVA Freshmen rate the importance of wanting to go to a school about the size of their chosen college as more important than those freshmen at other large publics, including those at more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey)
WORKING DRAFT
Local Community Job opportunities, services, and quality of life in the Charlottesville community are very important to UVAs ability to recruit and retain faculty and senior administrators. The Charlottesville community is seen as both a significant asset and liability; UVA is thought not to be fully exploiting the advantages of its location (notably the proximity to Washington, DC, and northern Virginia) Universities need to think seriously about the social pieces it needs to put in place to make hiring possiblewhether thats Asian markets or African-American barber shopswhat social community they need to create. Universities cant recruit without having strong ties to their community. The characterizations of UVAs relationship with the local community that we heard range widely, but most people expressed a need for renewed outreach and new investments
WORKING DRAFT
Leadership Observers note that UVA has been hit with budget cuts but also is resting on its laurelsthat it is still of high quality but has been comparatively complacent at a time when other universities, both leading and lower-tier, have been highly aggressive in every facet of institution-building. UVA is not as well positioned as it was 15 years ago. Budget cuts have taken a toll. The narrative out of Richmond is not uplifting. What is the value proposition for higher education in the Commonwealth? Over 15 years, leading officials in Richmond have squandered one of the best higher education systems. Its remarkable its as good as it is. Theyre living on the razors edge. Theres a sense theyre riding on 200-year-old laurels. Theyre in a time-warp of sorts. A number of others have surpassed them.
UVA is not associated strongly with innovations or a culture of innovation and many thoughtleaders described UVA as risk-averse. Its a wonderful placethat doesnt feel as driven as others.
Relative to other institutions, UVA largely missed the recent growth wave in federal research funding. Theyve had a little bump recently in their research profile but before that had seven years where they didnt move up at allwhile others doubled their federal funding. They dont have the horsepower of Illinois or Wisconsin. In fact Ill bet that the recent AAU admitteesBU, Irvine, Emory, and Santa Barbarabring in as much federal money as UVA. Over the last four full years, UVA has had a 24% decrease in the total amount of NIH awards and 25% decrease in the total amount of NSF awards. The comparison schools have had more modest declines to slight increases in NIH funding; however, many have had more significant declines in NSF funding.
WORKING DRAFT
NIH Funding 2012 Awards University of Virginia 313 University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 829 University of California: Los Angeles 815 University of California: Berkeley 328 University of Michigan 1054 New York University 494 University of Chicago 405 Duke University 763 Vanderbilt University 763 2012 Funding $120,410,783 $377,641,180 $367,216,676 $118,610,088 $458,491,303 $212,416,998 $186,624,901 $355,648,391 $329,043,070 # of Awards Amount Change Change since '09 since '09 -24% -25% 12% 9% -8% -7% 1% 4% 0% 1% 18% 28% -17% -13% 4% -4% 5% 8%
NSF Funding # of Awards Amount Change since Change since '09 '09 -35% -23% -7% -13% -20% -53% -32% -73% -16% -51% -9% -16% 2% -38% -16% -44% -9% -54% 4% -31%
2012 awards University of Virginia 61 University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 76 University of California: Los Angeles 107 University of California: Berkeley 103 University of Michigan 209 University of Southern California 89 New York University 54 University of Chicago 90 Duke University 91 Vanderbilt University 51
2012 Funding $16,310,812 $27,399,326 $30,096,447 $30,685,057 $50,836,050 $34,974,100 $14,095,322 $24,512,077 $23,492,836 $15,614,038
In looking at domestic rankings for both undergraduate and graduate programs, UVA is typically ranked around the middle of their peer institutions. However, global or international rankings consistently rank UVA far behind competitive peers. This is primarily due to the fact that international rankings rely heavily on research and funding towards research.
WORKING DRAFT
Best Colleges Rankings (US News) UG National Universities Top Public Schools Best Value Schools (Publics) Undergraduate Business High School Counselor Rankings Best Value Schools Undergraduate Engineering
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand 24 30 24 21 29 32 24 4 8 17 2 5 2 1 4 4 1 5 7 3 3 5 11 22 29 22 17 29 29 29 17 11 11 29 17 38 11 9 16 34 20 3 7 23 20 34
Best Grad School Rankings (US News) Law English Business Nursing Medicine - Primary Care Clinical Psychology History Education Online Nursing Psychology Medicine - Research Computer Science Economics Sociology Politcal Science Engineering Physics Chemistry Public Affairs Biological Sciences Math Speech-Language Pathology Statistics Earth Sciences Clinical Psychology (School Psyc)
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand 7 31 17 9 9 6 18 4 11 15 10 15 10 1 13 20 36 8 10 26 12 20 14 7 14 10 26 6 11 30 15 4 21 6 21 41 7 15 18 1 11 8 74 74 39 44 31 18 2 1 11 26 18 6 14 20 11 9 1 7 18 46 4 14 24 22 37 8 12 11 17 17 1 24 69 26 12 2 2 4 30 40 21 21 30 26 22 13 8 21 31 8 8 14 28 20 14 1 13 28 20 35 27 58 30 32 15 5 13 11 48 1 19 36 35 6 9 1 4 16 39 6 14 31 36 13 10 6 4 15 54 12 10 36 38 79 16 3 9 9 28 36 40 36 19 5 11 40 52 7 30 57 45 13 16 1 16 67 53 13 45 49 46 23 23 6 12 6 6 23 16 46 24 24 2 20 56 46 13 13 32 46 30 8 2 8 10 51 6 24 51 52 11 52 3 58 10 27 2 17 6 10 63 52 17 3 9 25 17 45 104
WORKING DRAFT
University of California: Berkeley University of Chicago University of California: Los Angeles University of Michigan New York University Duke University University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill University of Southern California Vanderbilt University University of Virginia
Academic Ranking of World World University Universities '12 - Rankings '12 Shanghai Jiao Times Higher Tong University Education 4 9 9 10 12 13 22 20 27 41 36 23 41 42 46 56 50 106 101-150 118
Other indicators: The faculty in arts and sciences at Virginia are of variable quality. There are some very good faculty, a few good departments. When you start looking hard at many of the science departments theyre actually languishing in the 30s and 40s rather than the 20s where youd have thought them to be. The quality of the research standing of the departments is not where it should be. I worry that the UVA medical school will expand, they wont keep getting great scholar-teachers in the college, the college will become secondary to the medical enterprise and UVA will become Emory, Hopkins, or Wash U.
WORKING DRAFT
NRC Rankings # of Programs R Program Religious Studies Spanish, Italian & Portuguese Kinesiology Physiology Microbiology Biomedical Engineering German Language & Literature Astronomy Systems Engineering Cell Biology Neuroscience French Language & Literature English Language & Literature Chemical Engineering Psychology Nursing Anthropology Civil Engineering Ranked 40 60 41 63 74 74 29 33 72 122 94 43 119 106 236 52 82 130 5th 1 3 5 5 7 9 10 11 11 15 16 18 18 19 20 21 23 25 R 95th 11 14 34 34 24 21 24 25 41 63 55 31 53 38 71 39 52 63 16 14 13 6 4 7 25 11 18 25 9 29 33 24 19 9 55 39 S S 5th 95th 26 40 27 30 30 28 29 27 43 89 44 38 69 60 54 25 71 94 RA 5th 19 14 14 12 9 9 15 11 14 27 15 29 26 14 22 18 75 41 RA 95th 31 28 30 46 42 40 25 28 45 96 73 37 53 54 65 40 81 109 SS 5th 9 3 22 29 29 31 23 14 41 21 4 24 11 13 57 2 19 89 SS 95th 20 34 31 57 65 63 29 32 58 102 42 38 57 68 137 18 47 117 D 5th 25 56 24 45 16 40 12 21 66 21 15 12 100 11 95 9 23 58 D 95th 32 60 37 59 44 65 25 32 72 64 46 27 113 36 165 24 42 106
WORKING DRAFT
# of Programs R Program Environmental Sciences Politics Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics Biology Pharmacology Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering History of Art Philosophy Economics History Materials Science & Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Biophysics Chemistry Mathematics 83 126 136 159 178 127 34 35 37 37 39 44 58 65 73 85 96 76 47 36 18 12 56 40 74 74 60 59 107 71 31 21 16 16 40 41 71 76 68 90 105 74 6 25 52 13 32 21 50 87 105 90 124 84 69 25 10 36 95 63 77 59 52 77 155 93 127 58 90 117 137 29 30 30 32 34 57 49 50 64 56 37 43 46 55 58 82 55 62 76 90 29 32 50 43 65 97 44 72 63 101 8 42 69 83 44 41 56 84 106 99 78 46 22 63 101 112 56 44 96 121 159 120 116 28 28 28 57 61 81 17 26 3 63 67 39 25 26 4 96 78 50 4 32 11 72 111 82 57 17 86 111 51 108 Ranked 140 105 5th 26 28 R 95th 55 53 35 66 S S 5th 95th 87 83 RA 5th 22 63 RA 95th 71 79 SS 5th 107 61 SS 95th 129 85 D 5th 45 74 D 95th 88 91
WORKING DRAFT
# of Programs R Program Statistics Sociology Engineering Physics Physics Ranked 61 118 161 161 5th 48 55 60 61 R 95th 60 91 114 112 32 89 49 42 S S 5th 95th 48 111 128 110 RA 5th 23 65 19 39 RA 95th 41 103 109 118 SS 5th 40 94 32 10 SS 95th 59 108 117 102 D 5th 3 103 147 118 D 95th 16 116 155 146
WORKING DRAFT
There are only a couple interdisciplinary programs ranked Center for Global Health and Biophysics, neither of which has been ranked particularly favorably. o In the 2013 University Global Health Impact Report Card done by the Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, UVA ranked 44th out of 54 ranked Global Health programs.
School Rank Duke University Vanderbilt University University of California: Berkeley University of Michigan University of California: Los Angeles University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill University of Chicago New York University University of Southern California University of Virginia
7 8 14 19 23 25 35 40 43 44
UVAs association with Thomas Jeffersons vision for faculty-student interaction and educating active citizens is an asset; at the same time, the continual evocation of Jeffersons name prompts skepticism that the institution is focused sufficiently on the present day o According to the First and Fourth Year Survey, students report that their experiences at UVA have made them much better prepared for a role in civic life.
WORKING DRAFT
Much better prepared for role in civic life First-year Fourth-year Academic experiences at UVA 36% 58% Co-curricular experiences at UVA 48% 67% Overall experiences at UVA 57% 76%
From within UVA: Basic science at the School of Medicine was once excellent but now is suffering from funding competition, leadership neglect, and, consequently, low morale
Many faculty fear that UVA is becoming a short-term stop for their top colleagues, a place to get tenure and then move on, and that the greats retiring from the UVA faculty are not being replaced quickly enough, if at all. o According to salary wage data provided by UVA, most faculty members at UVA are paid well below faculty at other similar public and private institutions. The only schools and departments at UVA where wages for professors rank above the 75th percentile are Law (mean at UVA is $231,600/$222,500 (full professors/all professors) vs. overall mean of $211,400/$195,400) and Public Policy ($220,046/$164,400 vs. overall mean of $173,800/$138,100). Other program or school wages that rank at or above the 60th percentile for full professors are French Language, Systems Engineering, and Nursing. All other programs or schools rank below the 60th percentile.
WORKING DRAFT
Among the public universities in the competitive peer set, financial support and funding from sources such as individuals, foundations, corporations, and other organizations are far behind at UVA by more than $50 million. However, the total financial support covers a larger percentage of institutional expenditures at UVA which are the lowest among all competitive peers - by nearly $800 million. (from Council for Aid to Education)
University of Virginia University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill University of California: Berkeley University of California: Los Angeles University of Michigan Duke University New York University University of Chicago University of Southern California Vanderbilt University
Total Support 2010 - 2011 (Not including deferred) $216,162,000 $274,946,000 $283,347,000 $415,330,000 $270,352,000 $349,658,000 $337,852,000 $216,748,000 $402,411,000 $119,440,000
Institutional Expenditures $952,000,000 $1,732,350,000 $1,731,788,000 $2,735,991,000 $3,010,138,000 $2,090,834,000 $3,692,235,000 $1,840,754,000 $2,660,214,000 $1,552,454,000
% Inst. Exp covered by Total Support 23% 16% 16% 15% 9% 17% 9% 12% 15% 8%
WORKING DRAFT
Strategy, Planning, Execution, and Morale
UVA has not articulated clearly its overarching strategies, nor has it executed effectively on the plans it has developed. UVA has operated recently as a largely top-down but decentralized institution, leaving a relatively weak culture of lower-level authority but creating the possibility that strong central leadership could galvanize a sense of shared purpose among the leaders who have developed in the various units. Many perceive that UVAs current administrative leadershipin part in reaction to pressures from its boardis protecting more than inspiring and challenging the faculty. Faculty and administrative leaders see UVA as only infrequently coming together as one community, while perceiving that the shared culture of the community may be its greatest asset. Likewise, programmatic initiatives and fundraising have tended to focus on specific initiatives as opposed to expressions of university-wide direction and priority The new budget model is seen as likely, unless handled with great skill, to lead to further decentralization and separateness Those faculty and administrative leaders today evidence, on the one hand, demoralization in the face of recent cuts, losses, and controversy and, on the other, great present and latent energy in light of opportunities and deep regard and affection for the institution. Many of them see UVA at a decisive, even make-or-break, moment
WORKING DRAFT
Governance and Last Summers Upheaval Though governance was not included in this assessment, the thought-leaders interviewed almost unanimously volunteered the observation that flaws in how UVA is governed represent a significant threat to the University, at least on par with the most pressing financial and competitive threats. UVA is allowing to slip away the opportunity created by last summers leadership crisis to assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is headed Observers see UVAs problems as both unique and representative of the problems faced by many universities, and are anxious to see how UVA responds, including in this strategic planning effort Even with the best of planning, governance is always a concern, but with the pressures on UVA the tensions are exacerbated and the need for a clear strategy is even greater. Virginia is not going to have a world-class university by providing single digit support of its budget or exercising control over its in- and out-of-state tuition theyre kidding themselves if they think this will work. Theyve taken a terrible rap out there and they havent done much to repair it. Today, public university leaders must understand that they cant just deal with their states in terms of politics and getting money, but instead must be public figures. They must explain what benefits derive from the fact that their university is national and international as well as for the state. Being able to articulate this when the whole world is paying attention is an opportunity. The events of past year or so have diminished the brand. Its unbelievable to me that and an institution of UVAs history and stature went through this kind of turmoil that and is still going through it. Of course this is not going to destroy the institution, but it most certainly will undermine it. I see it as a colossal failure of governance. Theres a lot of blame to pass around, but this should not have happened. And is suspect it happened because there was no coherent, overarching strategy for the future of the university.
WORKING DRAFT
Everybodys doing some soul-searching about public institutions. UVA is a part of this but it looks like its headed in the wrong direction, not the least of which because it doesnt have a supportive state. Virginia once had one of the finest systems of public higher education, but it looks like the state is letting that advantage slip away.
Virginias system of boards is crazy, too much churning politically. Its a design flaw. Maybe time has come that board composition and appointments should change. As a start, perhaps the University should be able to appoint some of its own board members.
Governance has to be public trust we should have no elected or politically appointed trustees. Its like mixing oil and water. Trustees have to have experience with universities, understand research, and appreciate the value of the research enterprise and what its meant for our nation.
But there are also serious governance issues regarding finances and ideology. They must work more closely with the governor and pay much more attention to state relations. Michigan goes about this very well it built a strong business alliance that supports the university. So it came from both directions the University reached out and business reached out as well. Higher education does best when it works with enlighten business leaders.
It also must get the political appointees off the board. Its not good when the university has no control over who gets on its board. You simply cant build and sustain a great university without a great board.
WORKING DRAFT
IV.
IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGY
UVAs Core Assets and Differentiation It would place UVA at a competitive disadvantage to set a strategy that merely emulates either the largest research-driven universities or the institutions that teach, or seek to teach, the largest numbers of students It wont be at all easy for them to compete in big science, and engineering cant be top notch, because of their size. They wont get the oversized NIH and NSF grants.
Instead, UVA would gain the greatest advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold recommitment to its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research universityfocused on students academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching faculty, and development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation In faculty recruitment, a university needs, first, to have a sense of its priorities, its strategic vision, and, second, to be aware of its own particular values. UVA is still Mr. Jeffersons university. Classics will have a place. Astronomy and physics. UVAs leaders should spend time in an imagining exercise, asking, what should be the most salient features of Jeffersons university in the 21st century?
WORKING DRAFT
Leadership in Teaching and Learning UVA would do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy and the student experiencein ways that build on UVAs distinctive strengths and institutional values: Prioritize interaction between undergraduate students and faculty o Can UVA be a leader in developing alternatives for how teaching faculty are funded, hired, and promoted? Taking PhD students who arent getting placed, training them extensively, and hiring them as Faculty Fellows. Take the lead in considering new delivery mechanisms, schedules, etc. The content of an undergraduate education today (curriculum) (We are focused too much on questions about delivery.) The path students take to develop useful knowledge (advising, experiential learning, etc.) In particular, UVA could claim leadership developmentnotably, the preparation of imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, public-service-oriented future leaders as a major institutional focus and reason for continued investment in residential education UVA might make leadership potential the core criterion for undergraduate admissions and the basis of intentional student recruitment and marketing efforts o Consider increasing the percentage of out-of-state students admitted, in order to attract more of these future leaders to Virginia Publicize and hire more UVA teachers and advisors who are themselves leaders, of various kinds UVA would distinguish itself if it could deliver this robust collegial experience to all, not just some, of its students. UVA must invest further in the residential experience it provides if it is to be competitive and actually realize its claim of a contemporary Academical Village. o And, some would say even more importantly, rethinking:
WORKING DRAFT
I would strongly encourage UVA to strengthen its collegiate structure, to provide something in the residential campus experience that is unique, pedagogically sound, and leads to intellectual development that would be impossible online or in a large anonymous urban university.
Since there is little advantage to a university that delivers a premier undergraduate experience to be known as a value, it would make sense for UVA to charge what the market indicates it is worth in-state and out-of-state UVA Freshmen rate the current economys effect on their choice of college to be less strong than those attending a large public of normal selectivity, as reported in the 2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey. UVA could take the lead in the study of contemporary higher education, including pedagogy and curricular content and also adaptations in administrative leadership and governance in the current environment.
WORKING DRAFT
Research, Scholarship, and Collaboration UVA would gain greatest advantage if it were to be positioned as a research institution but not aspiring to become a research-driven institution. Position UVA as a research partner, resource, convener Give particular attention to inter-institutional partnerships, taking advantage of the complementary strengths of other universities and institutions o UVA may find its future hinges not on what it does alone but through partnering in state and regionallywith Duke, Hopkins, Maryland. The 20th century model that each institution builds spires wont be the most effective way going forward. Position UVA as helping claim national leadership for the state of Virginia, building on the dramatically increased assets of Northern Virginia in particular to position the state as a leader in selected realmsincluding higher educationand on key issues o How much does UVA have going on in northern Virginia? Too little. Virginia Tech is moving there big time. George Mason could become a competitor. Maryland already is. Reinvest in UVAs historic (and relatively inexpensive) areas of leadership in the humanities and social sciences, while also sustaining strong offerings in the sciences. Focus graduate program resources even further on programs of national prominence. That said, the size of the graduate programs on which UVA focuses will be critical to its faculty recruitment efforts The Health Sciences strategy needs realistic revision, both in terms of emphasis on clinical trials when the patient population is not adequate and in terms of its broad focus on three central concerns (cardiovascular, cancer, and neuroscience) which are probably too broad for an excellent but smaller medical school. The real threat is an over-extension of biomedical spending and construction based on anticipation that the gravy train will continuewhich is unlikely.
WORKING DRAFT
Increasingly use basic science faculty in the School of Medicine to teach basic sciences in the College, as clinical teaching is taking over from faculty lectures in SOM. Put a much stronger premium on collaboration across departments, program, and schools. UVA has to be very focused and careful it can waste lot of money and there are serious dangers in trying to become a truly comprehensive research university, which it isnt now. Competition with giant state universities and leading privates is very risky. UVA has been successful not by saying yes but by saying no. It cant be all things to all people. Say no to student growth and academically weaker students, say no to graduate programs that dont fit the model, but also be opportunistic. Play to and leverage current strengths and build new ones very selectively. It also means eliminating weak programs at the graduate level and even the undergraduate level. In a nutshell it would be better for UVA to have a dozen top programs than 40 or 50 so-so programs. The days are over when can build real academic strength and leadership by focusing on single departments. If you think of ways to organize the depth of knowledge that is necessary for effective collaboration it is a very deep challenge. But if I had to put bet on critical areas theyd be the neurosciences, bioengineering, cognitive science, and computer science. Here collaboration between the medical school and academic departments is critical. I know UVA has a medical school on campus and thats an advantage at least in theory. Stanford right after war moved its medical school from San Francisco to Palo Alto precisely for this reason. But just having the medical school on campus is not a panacea. They must do a better job of collaboration with their university counterparts. The University will have to be more deliberate about setting up interdisciplinary programs. Joint appointments must be made. Its not just a matter of being interdisciplinary, nor is it just societal problems. Its starting with the key questions. Mind-brain development, versus just neuroscience. Understanding the creative process through the work of literary scholars, artists, and computer scientists.
WORKING DRAFT
The STEM areas are critical as are the health sciences. But UVA cant do it all. It has to be sufficiently strong is a limited number of fields. Focused strength in a few areas should be the goal. Now I think of UVAs strength in the humanities and social sciences, less so the sciences. So selective excellence is the right strategy for the future.
One answer might be collaboration with the other very good publics in UVAs back yard -- Virginia Tech, Chapel Hill, Maryland. How do you build on the relationships you already have, provide more opportunities for faculty and students, eliminate duplication, build complementary strengths, keep costs down, and give students more experiences? UVA must be asking these questions.
That said, make a point of continuing to value the work of the individual, as teacher or scholar
WORKING DRAFT
Revitalizing the Culture UVA will thrive not as a defensive academic culture nor with a corporate culture, but rather with a proud and vital academic culture. Reassert the importance of scholarly inquirythe fact that discovery and innovation come not from re-studying what we already know but from following curiosity about what we dont know. Universities should seek revenue not just to have more money to spend but to free people to be arcane, to seek after the Golden Fleece, to tell us something about the human condition.
Re-value UVAs unusually civil, personal culture. Communicate the value of what goes on at UVA and in public higher education more effectively and more aggressivelymake external communication more a part of the UVA culture, and take a lead in the state and national conversations on the value of higher education in the US today. Stand up as what one interviewee characterized as the public intellectual of our time: This role is different from conducting research or preparing students for employment, though its related to those purposes. Great institutions, going back to Thomas Jefferson, were created to be bastions of argument and protective for people who stand up and say, no matter what directs the politics, our policy and discourse must be based on deep thought, on economics and science; we must have meaningful political conversations. What other institution in society can champion those values?
WORKING DRAFT
COMPARISON SCHOOL STUDY Description In this part of the assessment we focused on identifying the strategic priorities at nine comparison universities selected by the University of Virginia. We reviewed comparative data and conducted interviews with senior officials at six of the nine universities. Duke University Peter Lange, Provost New York University University of California, Berkeley Michael Hout, Natalie Cohen Professor of Sociology & Demography University of California, Los Angeles Scott Waugh, Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost University of Chicago University of Michigan Mary Sue Coleman, President Philip J. Hanlon, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Terrence J. McDonald, Dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Holden Thorp, Chancellor University of Southern California Vanderbilt University Richard McCarty, Provost
WORKING DRAFT
Strategic priorities at all of the comparison universities include notable commitments to:
I. II.
Recruiting and supporting a diverse student body Strengthening the undergraduate experience, with concerted effort focused on residential life and experiential learning outside of the classroom Tackling key societal problems in research and graduate education An increased global orientation Investment in faculty recruitment and community Maximizing community impact
III. IV. V. VI.
VII. Raising private funds for institution-wide priorities
While the strategic priorities are largely similar from institution to institution, implementation and investment varies. In this report, which is organized around these seven themes, we summarize the strategies, reference comparative data, and highlight examples of creative and successful implementation. We conclude the report with a look at the competitive position of each institution as reflected in selected rankings.
Throughout the report, comments from senior officials at comparison institutions are noted in italics.
WORKING DRAFT
I. Recruiting and Supporting a Diverse Student Body All of the institutions studied have invested in the racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and international diversity of their student populations. As summarized by one senior official: Higher education, especially the elites, needs to reinvent admissions. We need more quirky students and an intellectual and cultural mash-up. Thats what stimulates inventiveness, entrepreneurship, creativity.
UVA UCBerkeley Michigan UCLA UNC Chicago Duke NYU USC Vanderbilt
Total Enrollment 21,095 36,142 43,426 41,341 29,137 15,219 14,591 50,917 40,000 12,859
Undergrad 14,641 25,885 27,979 27,941 18,579 5,369 6,484 19,401 18,000 6,817
Graduate Caucasian (UG) 6,454 60% 10,257 15,447 12,004 8,325 9,850 8,107 18,8990 22,000 6,042 30% 66% 32% 66% 43% 47% 41% 41% 62%
International (UG) 7% 13% 5% 6% 1% 10% 9% 16% 2% 6%
% on Inst. Aid 27% 53% 47% 58% 46% 60% 47% 54% 61% 59%
Any Aid 59% 66% 64% 71% 70% 70% 62% 60% 75% 64%
Information concerning financial aid strategy and initiatives for most of the comparison institutions can be found in the Financial Aid Benchmarking Study conducted by Art & Science Group for UVA last year.
WORKING DRAFT
II. Strengthening the Undergraduate Experience Comparison universities are investing extraordinary resources into these aspects of the undergraduate experience: A. First-year programs B. Faculty-student interaction C. Experiential learning outside the classroom, including undergraduate research, internships, and service-learning D. Advising and mentoring E. International education The attention to experiential learning outside of the classroom is particularly notable. One university leader explained: Everything weve done thats propelled us forward in undergraduate education in the last decadedoubling research experiences, internships, senior capstone experiences has been, quote unquote, inefficient. But theyve also been effective and differentiating. A shift in balance from passive learning to active learning is considered by many to be the key to transforming undergraduate education, as summarized by these comments: By active learning I mean learning situations where students are directly engaging the programs of the world, such as undergraduate research, where the answer is not known. Or service learning where you are out interacting with people or entrepreneurial activities where you are starting your own business or creative performances or international study in an unfamiliar place. One of the changes that elite universities will undergo is getting students out of their seats and interacting with the world directly. When I look at the ways we have transformed teaching for undergraduates, really challenging them to tackle real-world problems, working with teams, having an impact on the world, it continues to astonish me. It is a way to solidify the thinking, the knowledge, the approach that will help us in the future. We have students going to Africa and developing medical devices, and they work. That is just incredible. We are really teaching them to become global citizens. For universities like us, it [leadership in undergraduate education] means the full-scale attachment of undergraduate education to research. We specifically rate departments
4
WORKING DRAFT
on how many research opportunities they provide. We count undergraduate research in tenure and promotion review. Other enrichment activities, such as internships and study abroad, are also important. Even the largest publics are seeking ways to build and strengthen their residential academic community. This includes efforts to connect academic and residential life more fully, through expanding on-campus housing, residential colleges and learning communities, other creative uses of space, and campus life programming. Total Enrollment 21,095 Undergraduate Enrollment 14,641 Living in university housing All first year students live on campus; 42% of others All freshmen live on campus, housing guaranteed for sophomores; 77% of all others live within one mile of campus Virtually all freshmen live on campus 94% of freshmen live on campus 66% of sophomores live on campus All freshmen live on campus 55% of others Housing is guaranteed for all four years Required to live on campus through junior year NA All freshmen live on campus Most students live on campus
5
UVA
UCBerkeley
36,142
25,885
Michigan UCLA
43,426 41,341
27,979 27,941
UNC
29,137
18,579
Chicago Duke
15,219 14,591
5,369 6,484
NYU USC
50,917 40,000
19,401 18,000 6,817
Vanderbilt 12,859
WORKING DRAFT
Increased attention to the visual and performing arts has been an important component of campus life initiatives. Technology was cited as an important tool in exploring new models of undergraduate education. No institution, however, advocates a move to online education simply for the purposes of increasing efficiency or expanding enrollment. We are all talking about the flipped classroom. It has become a platitude and we need to be careful with platitudes. There is a lot of fantasy about how technology is going to bring down costs. It is a valuable add on, but I dont see it bringing down costs. Its a mirage if you think its going to solve the fiscal crisis. The key issue to these leading universities is how technology will improve the undergraduate residential experience and increase faculty-student interaction. There must be no sacrifice of qualitymaintaining closely engaged faculty experience in the classroom is critical. But good uses of technology can help take the routine, grunt work, out of teaching and learning but also enhance the traditional classroom experience.
Noteworthy Undergraduate Initiatives First-Year Programs Duke's Focus Program for first-year students provides clusters of courses designed around an interdisciplinary theme, taught by faculty from diverse academic departments who are leading researchers in their fields. Courses in each cluster fulfill Dukes general education curriculum requirements and may contribute to a major, minor or certificate. The program features small seminars, shared housing among Focus students, and integrated learning experiences on campus and in the community. UCLAs Colleges Freshman Cluster Program is a curricular initiative designed to strengthen the intellectual skills of first year students, introduce them to faculty research, and expose them to best practices in teaching as seminars and interdisciplinary study. Clusters are year-long, interdisciplinary courses, collaboratively taught by some of the universitys most distinguished faculty. During the fall and winter quarters, students attend lecture courses and small discussion sections and/or labs. In
WORKING DRAFT
the spring quarter, these same students enroll in one of a number of satellite seminars dealing with topics related to the cluster theme. Faculty-Student Interaction Berkeley expects all faculty to contribute to undergraduate education, not only through classroom instruction but also through advising, research mentoring, and other activities. Academic units without undergraduate majors or programs are given incentives to find creative ways to contribute, so the education of undergraduates becomes a campus-wide endeavor. o Berkeleys Discovery Courses taught by the most outstanding professors are offered to non-majors Every USC faculty member, even Distinguished and University Professors, teaches undergraduate courses Duke FLUNCH program (Faculty + Lunch = FLUNCH): Duke Student Government, in partnership with the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Education, provides funding for undergraduates to take their professors to lunch (or dinner). Each student has a FLUNCH allotment of $100 per semester.
Experiential & Interdisciplinary Learning The Berkeley Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program (URAP) is designed to stimulate awareness of advanced research and interest in graduate study. Students meet regularly with faculty for research mentoring and earn 1 unit of academic credit for each 3 hours of research work (limited to 4 units per term). The program operates much like an internship but students are not paid for their participation. The Michigan Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) creates research partnerships between first and second year students, and faculty, research scientists, and staff from across the university. All schools and colleges are active participants, providing a wealth of research topics from which a student can choose. Excel@Carolina offers a range of accelerated opportunities to outstanding first-year students. Opportunities range from undergraduate research and specialized mentoring and advising in the sciences to innovations scholarships and assured admission into graduate schools.
7
WORKING DRAFT
Dukes Bass Connections provides problem-focused pathways for undergraduates to participate in interdisciplinary initiatives that tackle complex social issues, including Brain & Society, Information, Society & Culture, Global Health, Energy, and Education & Human Development. Duke Certificate Programs: These interdisciplinary courses of study are not available within any single academic unit, but rather offer students cross-field experience around a multidimensional topic. Duke offers 20 undergraduate and 32 graduate certificates, usually requiring coursework from among different departments. USC Renaissance Scholars is a signature program that honors students who pursue major and minor combinations from widely separated fields of study.
Advising The University of Chicago has an unusual approach to advising students. Every undergraduate is assigned to a College adviser with whom they will work during their four years on campus. College advisers are full-time professionals within the Office of the Dean of Students in the College. They are generalists, prepared to advise students across the spectrum of academic interests. When a student declares a major, he or she will be assigned a second academic adviser, from the department. This second adviser will offer more specialized guidance on meeting the majors requirements and research opportunities. In addition to the students academic and departmental advisers, there are specific advisers for preparing for graduate school and the professions through the UChicago Careers In program. Duke Advising Center provides a network of advisors, including academic advisors, academic deans, global advisors, peer advisors, and staff.
Residential Experience Berkeley is committed to providing two years of University housing to students who want to live on campus. UCLA, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt, and the University of Chicago have invested in residential colleges. These colleges provide students with renowned live-in faculty, the support and mentorship of graduate students and professional staff members, and special programming.
WORKING DRAFT
Duke has enhanced residential life through intentional, re-imagined space. o East Campus provides the inward-looking gateway that welcomes first-year students into Dukes academic and social communities. West Campus provides more focused intellectual and social experiences as sophomores and juniors. Central Campus offers upper class students and graduate students the outward looking portal to the world beyond Duke. Central Campus provides both culminating and transitional space culminating in the sense of refining and consolidating intellectual and personal skills and the capacities for autonomy and self-regulation and transitional in the sense of fostering engagement with the Durham community and the larger world.
Community Engagement and Service Learning UCLA Center for Community Learning works in collaboration with academic departments to offer undergraduates the opportunity to participate in civic engagement through a variety of structured, rigorous academic courses that link theory with practice. The research interests of faculty and students are connected to the needs and priorities of community partners through Los Angeles and in the state, nation, and larger global community. DukeEngage, is a fully funded 8-week immersive service experience in the United States or abroad, which involves students, faculty, and alumni and intensive and transformational serve and learn immersions. Every Duke student is eligible for one summer of funding through the DukeEngage program. 75% of undergraduate students participate in service learning.
Global Studies The DukeImmerse program is a novel, collaborative, interdisciplinary learning laboratory for select groups of students and faculty. The program, taught in Durham for the first six weeks, is designed to satisfy general education requirements such as writing, cross-cultural interest, research and ethical inquiry. In lieu of classes, students and faculty members interact on a daily basis. These interactions take the form of small group meetings, informal instructional groups, and one-on-one meetings. The program also includes a domestic or international travel experience, an extended field trip.
WORKING DRAFT
III.
Tackling Key Societal Problems in Research and Graduate Education
We observed the following trends in graduate education: A. Research at the comparison universities is defined by problem-driven approaches. There has been a history of defining investments by discipline at universities, and I think that increasingly the most successful universities will be defining their investments by external problems or opportunities to pursue. B. Increased investment in graduate funding; however, universities are making more strategic choices among departments and disciplines in order to build distinction in areas that show the greatest potential for success. Focusing is important regardless of the scale of the institution. The model we always use is to look at what Stanford was able to achieve after the war by building Spires of Excellence. Build in areas you are already strong and let the aura of those areas raise the quality of everything else. First ask, what are the most highly ranked departments right now? You cant just go invest millions in what youve never done before. So look for strengths first, and then look for ways to expand beyond them. C. Expanded interdisciplinary programs and expectations and an explosion of centers and institutes. D. Vertical integration of research programsfaculty, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and undergraduates interact collaboratively and work on pressing problems in research teams. E. Assessing and strengthening the support of graduate students long-term career growth.
Examples of each universitys focus areas are outlined below:
10
WORKING DRAFT
Publics Berkeley Global Poverty Stem Cell Research (Berkeley Stem Cell Center) Alternative Energy (Energy Biosciences Institute) Computational Biology Nanosciences & Nanoengineering Cultural Evolution & Preservation Metropolitan Studies International Relations & Global Security New Economic Theories Complex Systems, Design & Human Interfaces New Media Environment Michigan Nanoscience & Technology Michigan Energy Institute Life Sciences Institute Institute for Social Research Center for Statistical Consultation and Research Sustainability UCLA Community, Nation and Society, including population, immigration, and economic issues Cultural Tradition & Innovation Environment & Energy Health & Biomedical Science Foundational Science & Engineering Science, Technology & Economic Growth UNC-Chapel Hill Cancer Genome Atlas Program Institute for Global Health & Infectious Diseases Institute of Marine Sciences Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute Carolina Population Center
11
WORKING DRAFT
Privates Chicago Manager of Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Research Computing Center Urban Education Neubauer Family Collegium for Culture & Society Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology & Human Behavior Other Interdisciplinary Programs: Astrophysics Computational Neurosciences Creative Writing Education Human Rights Duke Institute for Brain Sciences Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Kenan Institute for Ethics Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy Global Health Institute John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute Social Science Research Institute NYU Marron Institute on Cities & the Urban Environment Center for Urban Science & Progress NYI Innovation Venture Fund NYU Entrepreneurial Institute NYU-Poly Incubator Initiatives Program Initiative in Data Science & Statistics Global Public Health Program Center for Neural Science Druckenmiller Neuroscience Initiative Humanities Initiative USC Mann Institute of Biomedical Engineering Biomemetic MicroElectronic Systems Brain and Creativity Broad Center and Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events House Ear Institute Information Sciences Institute Institute for Creative Technology Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Vanderbilt Trustees put $100M into interdisciplinary centers: Exploring Culture, Society & Humanity Understanding the Human Mind Exploring, Understanding & Engineering: The Physical, Biological, and Mechanical World of the Unseen Markets, Politics, Economic & Legal Institutions
Other academic initiatives: Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education
12
WORKING DRAFT
Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics Norman Lear Center Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center Religion and Civic Culture Saban Research Institute at Childrens Hospital SETI Institute (Astrobiology) Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute Southern California Earthquake Center Energy Institute Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies
Vanderbilt Institute of Chemical Biology Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience Research in Proteomics and Functional Biology
13
WORKING DRAFT
In addition, universities are working to lead in the creation, management, and delivery of scholarly resources in support of teaching and research. Noteworthy initiatives include: Michigans Center for Statistical Consultation and Research (CSCAR) provides support and training to University of Michigan researchers in a variety of areas relating to management, collection, and analysis of data. CSCAR also supports the use of technical software and advanced computing in research. Michigan has established Third Century Initiative in celebration of its bicentennial, a $50 million/five- year initiative to develop innovative, multi-disciplinary teaching and scholarship approaches. UCLAs Faculty Research and Expertise Service provides a database of 3,000 descriptions and links and assists researchers in finding collaborators
14
WORKING DRAFT
NRC Rankings # of Ranked Programs 40 60 41 63 74 74 29 33 72 122 94 43 119 106 236 52 82 130 140 105 159 120 116 127 R 5th 1 3 5 5 7 9 10 11 11 15 16 18 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 28 28 28 28 29 RA RA 5th 95th 19 31 14 28 14 30 12 46 9 42 9 40 15 25 11 28 14 45 27 96 15 73 29 37 26 53 14 54 22 65 18 40 75 81 41 109 22 71 63 79 25 26 4 29 96 78 50 97 SS 95th 20 34 31 57 65 63 29 32 58 102 42 38 57 68 137 18 47 117 129 85 72 111 82 41
Program Religious Studies Spanish, Italian & Portuguese Kinesiology Physiology Microbiology Biomedical Engineering German Language & Literature Astronomy Systems Engineering Cell Biology Neuroscience French Language & Literature English Language & Literature Chemical Engineering Psychology Nursing Anthropology Civil Engineering Environmental Sciences Politics Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics Biology Pharmacology Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
R 95th 11 14 34 34 24 21 24 25 41 63 55 31 53 38 71 39 52 63 55 53 57 61 81 57
S 5th 16 14 13 6 4 7 25 11 18 25 9 29 33 24 19 9 55 39 35 66 17 26 3 37
S 95th 26 40 27 30 30 28 29 27 43 89 44 38 69 60 54 25 71 94 87 83 63 67 39 82
SS 5th 9 3 22 29 29 31 23 14 41 21 4 24 11 13 57 2 19 89 107 61 4 32 11 8
D 5th 25 56 24 45 16 40 12 21 66 21 15 12 100 11 95 9 23 58 45 74 57 17 86 78
D 95th 32 60 37 59 44 65 25 32 72 64 46 27 113 36 165 24 42 106 88 91 111 51 108 112

15
WORKING DRAFT
Program
History of Art Philosophy Economics History Materials Science & Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Biophysics Chemistry Mathematics Statistics Sociology Engineering Physics Physics
# of Ranked Programs 58 90 117 137 83 126 136 159 178 127 61 118 161 161
R 5th 30 30 32 34 34 35 37 37 39 44 48 55 60 61
R 95th
S 5th
S 95th
RA 5th RA 95th 32 50 43 65 31 21 16 16 40 41 23 65 19 39 44 72 63 101 71 76 68 90 105 74 41 103 109 118
SS 5th
SS 95th 56 84 106 99 50 87 105 90 124 84 59 108 117 102
D 5th
D 95th
49 50 64 56 58 65 73 85 96 76 60 91 114 112
43 46 55 58 47 36 18 12 56 40 32 89 49 42
55 62 76 90 74 74 60 59 107 71 48 111 128 110
42 69 83 44 6 25 52 13 32 21 40 94 32 10
46 22 63 101 69 25 10 36 95 63 3 103 147 118
56 44 96 121 77 59 52 77 155 93 16 116 155 146
16
WORKING DRAFT
An Increased Global Orientation Comparison institutions have invested heavily in international programs over the last ten years. Strategies have included: A. B. C. D. E. Creation of a central office for global programs Academic initiatives Increased participation in Study Abroad programs Increased enrollment of international students Partnerships with institutions in strategic locations throughout the world
The following tables outline specific visions and strategies:
17
WORKING DRAFT
Publics Berkeley Priorities Create a Global Engagement Office. Improve academic support services for international students. Streamline and improve services for students studying abroad. Explore collaborative research opportunities in China. Evaluate revenuegenerating prospects from online education targeting global audiences. Develop relationships with major Indian corporations that are interested in enhancing the skills of their young workforce. Develop a communication Michigan Vision University of Michigan is committed to internationalizing with equity. The University seeks reciprocal, mutually productive engagement with nations and institutions around the world to enhance education and advance knowledge and understanding. U-M was one of five U.S. colleges and universities to receive the 2012 Sen. Paul Simon Award that recognizes outstanding and innovative achievements in campus internationalization. Academic Initiatives The Presidents Challenge: Enriching the Student Global Experience The Africa Initiative The China Initiative Michigan International Institute (II) advances the UCLA Vision To be an international university that attracts the best faculty and students worldwide and is distinguished by international programs and research. Academic Initiatives Establish strategic partnerships with worlds best universities (focusing on Asia and Latin America) Considering a conference center to attract scholars from around the world Study Abroad Aims to double the number of students who study abroad by 2019 UNC-Chapel Hill Vision To become a leading global university that: prepares students for life in an interconnected world Helps North Carolina and the nation succeed in a global economy, and addresses pressing international and regional problems through teaching and collaborative research among UNC faculty experts and students, and their partners around. Organization FedEx Global Education Center unique among American colleges and universities in bringing together the three major components of international education: student and faculty services, academic instruction, and programs and research International strengths:
18
WORKING DRAFT
strategy for shaping the exchange of knowledge, perception of UC ideas, and resources across Berkeley abroad. U-Ms campus and with Establish a strategy partnering institutions committee for China, worldwide. The Institute India, and Latin houses 17 centers and America. programs focused on world Strengthening regions and global themes. relationships with the Pacific Rim. Study Abroad Mobilizing Cal alumni U-M was ranked No. 16 in abroad. the nation in the total number of students studying abroad International Community OnCampus U-M was has been ranked highly for the size of its international student body As of the fall semester of 2012, a total 8,491 international students, scholars, faculty and staff studied or worked at U-M.
Global Health / Public Health Business and Economic Development Population Studies and Migration Water, Sustainable Development, and the Environment Latin America and Europe
Academic Initiatives Curriculum in Global Studies Graduate Certificate in International Development Global Research Institute Study Abroad 40% of undergraduates study abroad International Student Enrollment International students enroll directly through the new Global Visiting Students Program
19
WORKING DRAFT
Privates Chicago Vision Duke Vision A leader in internationalization, exceeding all American universities in federal support for international area studies. Strategies: Increasing percentage of international students on campus Developing interdisciplinary foreign language and area centers Enhancing study abroad Developing educational partnerships with foreign institutions NYU Vision First Global Network University Academic Initiatives: Comprehensive liberal arts campuses in a number of foreign countries Global Liberal Studies program merges liberal arts curriculum with experiential learning and intensive international intellectual experiences Study Abroad: According to Open Doors Survey, NYU sends more USC Vision The intellectual, creative, and cultural wellspring for the Pacific Rim and emerging societies of Asia and Latin America Vanderbilt Vision The university is aggressively working to recruit international students; develop international research collaborations and exchanges; facilitate connections between schools, departments, and offices to promote internationalization; identify funding opportunities for international research; assist in the coordination of visiting delegations; and integrate international experiences into Vanderbilt curricula. Academic Initiatives: The Vanderbilt Initiative for
20
Academic Initiatives: International Centers in Beijing and Paris Booth School of Business has campuses in London and Singapore Oriental Institutea museum and research facility in Chicago and an archeological site in Egypt Graham School Travel Study Programone to three-week continuing education programs Students intern in 85 cities around the world
Academic Initiatives:
Partnerships: Maintains eight international offices that work closely with academic partners in education and research, with partners in the corporate and NGO worlds, with government agencies and
WORKING DRAFT
International House is affiliated with 15 international houses worldwide
students abroad than any other American university International Student Enrollment: International students comprise 16% of student body
international organizations. These offices help recruit undergraduate and graduate students, coordinate international study, work, and research opportunities, and cultivate partnerships.
International Student Enrollment Enrolls more international students than any other American university
Scholarship and Global Engagement (VISAGE) combines the university's deep commitments to international study and civic engagement through innovative scholarship and service opportunities abroad. Students explore topics of global significance through a year-long learning sequence. Maymester Courses in international locations GEO Scholarships available primarily to undergraduate students studying abroad on GEO programs Study Abroad Advisors
21
WORKING DRAFT
IV.
Investment in Faculty Recruitment and Community
The following trends can be observed in faculty recruitment. 1. Focused hires in areas of strengthcluster hires, joint appointments, graduate fellows One of the decisions we made is that we tried to think about areas of strength and then make hires of young people based on groups. We have taken a cluster hiring approach because people want to be with others who are great to work with, communicate well, and are top in the country. So we dont just approach it school by school or college by college, but take an institution-wide approach. Michigan One of the surprising facts is that it is cheaper to get faculty hired in a highly ranked department than a lower ranked department. So either reinvest in already highly ranked departments or choose some new foci that you are willing to invest five times as much to achieve distinction. 2. Increased attention to mentoring You must maintain an age balance in the faculty. Dont create a cliff but just hiring junior people. You also need mentoring and leadership, found and unfound. Be attentive to where youll get that leadership. 3. Commitment to creating a culture of faculty engagement and innovation One of our key strategic in faculty recruitment is to make the UCLA campus the most desirable work environment in the country. There is always a lot of innovation on campuses and academics love this, so investing in programs that push innovation are the most important factor in recruiting and retaining the next generation of faculty. If your strategy relies on creating that atmosphere, its a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its more important than money. 4. Expansion of tenure and promotion guidelines to include new institutional priorities Noteworthy Initiatives Michigan Staff Innovation Award recognizes individual staff members or teams whose big ideas make the university a better place.
22
WORKING DRAFT
Michigan launched an initiative in 2007 to hire 100 new junior faculty committed to interdisciplinary teaching and research o Cluster hires in support of sustainability focus: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sustainablefoodsystems/cluster_hires_in_sustainable_food _systems
At Vanderbilt, the number of faculty chairs has increased from 76 in 2002 to 170 in 2012 Chicago Faculty Expansion Initiative, launched in 2010, has been led by the provost and deans and has taken multiple forms in the schools and divisions, involving both junior and senior faculty. Some of new positions are in response to competitively evaluated proposals from throughout the University. o University of Chicago uses a cluster system within their Biological Sciences Division for graduate programs. The cluster system allows for integration of faculty, coursework, research programs, training programs, and seminars for a multidisciplinary training experience. The five clusters at U of Chicago are Cancer Biology, Immunology, Microbiology, Molecular Metabolism & Nutrition, and Molecular Pathogenesis & Molecular Medicine.
Duke has devoted $100 million to recruit and retain outstanding and diverse faculty (tenure and non-tenure track) in the humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary areas that address important issues in the world. UNC-Chapel Hills Institute for the Arts and Humanities helps recruit, refresh, develop, and retain teachers and scholars. The IAH aims to be a full-service faculty center, providing resources to support faculty initiatives and a place for enriching intellectual exchanges. Two core programsthe Faculty Fellows Program and the Ruel W. Tyson Jr. Academic Leadership Programs encourage faculty to develop their talents and goals through interaction with colleagues. Support for innovative scholarship and inspiring teaching is the core mission of the IAH. The Institute fosters conversations about cutting-edge research and teaching in the a variety of focus areas. The UNC Faculty Engaged Scholars program is an initiative to advance faculty involvement in the engaged scholarship. Scholars are selected through a competitive process. During the two-year program, scholars participate in a highly interactive and experiential curriculum, involving on site-visits and discussions with other Carolina faculty members and their community partners.
23
WORKING DRAFT
V.
Maximizing Community Impact
Universities have notably increased their focus on issues-oriented research, creating servicelearning opportunities for students, and local, national, and international partnerships. The following tables provide only a sampling of programs designed for community and societal impact.
24
WORKING DRAFT
Publics Berkeley Local and State Government & Community Relations program focuses on the link between UC Berkeley and the local and Bay Area community. Kindergarten to College: Portal to 200-plus outreach programs linking UC Berkeley undergrads and grad students with local K-14 students. Science@Cal: Celebrating the diversity of science at UC Berkeley by bringing together scientists, educators, and the public for lectures, festivals, and other activities both on and off campus. Lawrence Hall of Science: Hands-on science exhibits, camps, and school programs for kids, parents, and educators. Michigan UCLA Local and State Local and State Michigan Community Scholars Program Ginsberg Center for Large extension program Community Service and Learning Center for Local, State and Urban Policy Center for Educational Outreach National National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, affiliated with the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education UNC-Chapel Hill Local and State School of Government provides educational, advisory, and research support for state and local governments Power of 1 Program marketing effort that highlights how UNCChapel Hill people improve the lives of North Carolinians. Blackstone Entrepreneurs Network, a five-year initiative to help North Carolina's Research Triangle become headquarters for America's next highgrowth companies with the greatest potential to create new jobs. Carolina is joining partner schools Duke University, North Carolina Central University and North
25
WORKING DRAFT
Several museums and collections UC Botanical Garden:. Chancellor's Community Partnership Fund EastBay Neighborhood Initiative:
Carolina State University, as well as the Durhambased Council for Entrepreneurial Development, in the effort. National Association with Research Triangle Park, a thriving entrepreneurial community and nexus for technology and life sciences firms Carolina Covenant International
International More undergrads from UC Berkeley have gone on to join the Peace Corps than from any other university in the country.
26
WORKING DRAFT
Privates Chicago Local and State UChicago Promise Universitys pledge to help increase college access and readiness for Chicago high school students National University manages two US Department of Energy laboratories Duke Local and State Duke-Durham? National Association with Research Triangle Park NYU Local and State In addition to its Manhattan locations, the University is also formally affiliated the Polytechnic Institute of NYU in Brooklyn, the second oldest school of engineering and technology in the country Has research facilities at the Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, in Sterling Forest, near Tuxedo, New York National Science Foundation NYU 2031: NYU in NYCa long-term USC Vanderbilt Local and State
National
International The Vanderbilt International Strategy of 2005 calls for partnerships with a small number of peer institutions in strategic locations throughout the world." Since early 2006, Vanderbilt has undertaken to identify a select group of strategic partners for Vanderbilt, focusing on the key criteria of research
27
International DukeEngage Government of China, State Administration of Foreign Experts International Affairs International Government of Houses is affiliated India, Department with 15 of Personnel and international houses Training, Indian across the world Administrative Services Korea Development Institute Government of Korea
WORKING DRAFT
ABC News Be the Change; Save a Life Series contributing partner LabCorp of America, for storage and use of specimens for research AmeriCorps, City Year, Peace Corps, Teach for America, and Yellow Ribbon Military Veterans, for fellowships to the Sanford School for a MPP
strategic framework for moving the University forward while respecting the local community
prominence (worldclass strengths in areas similar to Vanderbilt's), discipl inary breadth (at least five counterparts to VU's ten Schools), and strategic location (in terms of geopolitics, economics, and accessibility).
28
WORKING DRAFT
Raising Private Funds for Institution-wide Priorities Private universities are far ahead of publics when it comes to private philanthropy and endowment size. However, because of decreases in state support, public universities have developed a more entrepreneurial culture, turning to private gifts and new sources of revenue (commercialization, self-supporting programs) to sustain and enhance the quality of academic programs and facilities. Public peers surpass UVA in financial support and funding individuals, foundations, corporations, and other organizations.
University of Virginia University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill University of California: Berkeley University of California: Los Angeles University of Michigan Duke University New York University University of Chicago University of Southern California Vanderbilt University
Total Support 2010 - 2011 (Not including deferred) $216,162,000 $274,946,000 $283,347,000 $415,330,000 $270,352,000 $349,658,000 $337,852,000 $216,748,000 $402,411,000 $119,440,000
Institutional Expenditures $952,000,000 $1,732,350,000 $1,731,788,000 $2,735,991,000 $3,010,138,000 $2,090,834,000 $3,692,235,000 $1,840,754,000 $2,660,214,000 $1,552,454,000
% Inst. Exp covered by Total Support 23% 16% 16% 15% 9% 17% 9% 12% 15% 8%
Several of the comparison institutions have been particularly successful raising funds for needbased aid. Duke and Vanderbilt have been especially successful in raising funds for need-based aid. Increased endowment funds for undergraduate aid have been a major institutional priority and included in recent capital campaigns. NYUs Call to Action aims to raise funds in support of undergraduate and graduate students UC-Berkeley and Michigan have also found private fundraising to be essential to the continued growth of need-based aid programs.
29
WORKING DRAFT
Through the Bruin Scholars Initiative, UCLA aims to raise $500 million in support of aid for graduate and undergraduate students Public and private institutions that have been successful raising private funds for aid cite the leadership of the president/chancellor and the board of trustees as instrumental.
Other Noteworthy Fundraising Initiatives Chicago, Duke, and Vanderbilt have established strategic initiatives fundsessentially venture capital funds in support of key strategies to meet programmatic goals Innovate@Carolina aims to raise $125 million to make Carolina world leader in launching ideas for the good of society The State of North Carolina Distinguished Professorships Matching Program matches private gifts to endow professorships that can be awarded to outstanding faculty members at the full, associate or assistant professor level. Duke does an especially effective job in making the case for university-wide priorities. o Current Duke campaign themes: Enriching the Duke Experience ($600M) Experiential Learning Innovation and Entrepreneurship The Residential Experience The Arts Duke Athletics Activating Dukes Power for the World ($1.4 billion) Global Health Medical Discovery and Patient Care Energy The Environment Interdisciplinary Research Durham and the Region Sustaining Dukes Momentum ($1.25 billion) Financial Aid
30
WORKING DRAFT
Faculty Excellence Duke Annual Fund
Campaign literature states: Support for our undergraduate, graduate, and professional school students crosses all three themes of the campaign, and fundraising priorities related to undergraduate education represent about 40 percent of our goal. The three themes above represent the shared values and vision of leaders across the university.
31
WORKING DRAFT
APPENDIX Competitive Position as Reflected in Rankings In looking at domestic rankings for both undergraduate and graduate programs, UVA is typically ranked around the middle of the comparison institutions. UC-Berkeley has remained ranked as the top public national university for the past ten years. In 2004, UVA shared the top spot with UC-Berkeley, but for the past nine years UVA has been ranked as the second top public. UCLA has moved up from fourth to now sharing the second position with UVA for the past four years. Michigans ranking has been falling in the past few years, and now sits at fourth. UNC has remained as the fifth best public for the past ten years. Berkeley has an advantage in academic reputation and student quality. Berkeleys median SAT score is consistently 20-30 points higher and top 10% percentage is consistently 8-10 percentage points higher than UVA Also, Berkeley is much more selective with acceptance rates 10-11 percentage points lower than UVA UCLA has improved in ranking due to consistently increasing their graduation rate from 85% in 2004 to 90% in 2013 and regularly outperforming their predicted graduation rate. The median SAT score has also shown consistent improvements and is now up almost 50 points from ten years ago. Compared to UVA, UCLA has a higher percentage of students in the top ten percent of their class and is more selective. Michigan has been slowly declining in undergraduate rank despite an improved graduation rate, increased student quality, and becoming more selective. It seems that Michigans fall in rank is due to institutions near t hem making larger strides. Compared to U.Va, Michigan has a slight edge in academic reputation, which accounts for the largest percentage of the US News ranking. UVA also benefits from being more selective and having a higher alumni giving rate than Michigan.
Compared to the public peers, undergraduate education at UVA is seen as an unusual value: #1 in Princeton Review, #4 in US News, and #2 in-state and #4 out-of-state in Kiplingers among public institutions. Princeton Review ranks UVA as the number 1 public best value college. UNC ranks 2nd, UCLA ranks 5th, and Michigan ranks 9th.
32
WORKING DRAFT
UVA ranks 29th in US News Best Value Schools for national universities and 4th among public national universities. UNC ranks 17th overall and 1st among public institutions. Kiplinger's rankings of Best Values in Public Colleges ranks UVA 2nd for in-state and 4th for out-of-state students. UNC ranks 1st in-state and 2nd out-of-state. UCLA ranks 6th in-state and 7th out-of-state, UC-Berkeley ranks 8th both in-state and outof-state, and Michigan ranks 11th in-state and 18th out-of-state.
Global or international rankings consistently rank UVA far behind peers. This is primarily due to the fact that international rankings rely heavily on research and funding towards research. Professional Education Comparison institutions have a number of highly ranked professional programs. For the purposes of this study, we have focused on law, business, and medicine. Law Schools: New York University (6th) has remained fairly steady over the last 5 years. o NYU has an edge on UVA in LSAT scores in student/faculty ratio. o NYU has had fairly noticeable decline in placement of jobs at graduation and 9 months out University of Chicago has moved up in rank from 7th in 2009 to 4th in the most recent year of ranking by increasing student quality, in terms of undergraduate GPA, and improving the student/faculty ratio. University of Chicagos growth in the rankings is somewhat surprising as they have become slightly less selective in the past five years and have had a noticeable decline in employment placement. UC-Berkeley is the only law school with an evident decline in law school ranking over the past several years. Berkeley is currently ranked 9th, from as highly ranked as 6th. The ranking factors that have most hurt Berkeley are a steady decline in peer and lawyer/judge assessments and a marked drop in employment placement in the most recent year.
33
WORKING DRAFT
Business Schools: Dukes Fuqua School of Business has made some gains and is currently ranked 11th. Over the past five years, Fuqua has been held in higher regard, in terms of peer and recruiter assessments, than Darden. Darden has a noticeably higher median GMAT score than Fuqua, but Fuqua has the clear advantage in placement data at graduation and 3 months out.
For additional data on the comparison schools studied, including information on medical schools, please see the UVA Comparative Peer Data file.
34
WORKING DRAFT
Overall Rankings
Best Colleges Rankings (US News) UG National Universities Top Public Schools Best Value Schools (Publics) Undergraduate Business High School Counselor Rankings Best Value Schools Undergraduate Engineering
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand 24 30 24 21 29 32 24 4 8 17 2 5 2 1 4 4 1 5 7 3 3 5 11 22 29 22 17 29 29 29 17 11 11 29 17 38 11 9 16 34 20 3 7 23 20 34
35
WORKING DRAFT
US News 2013 Best National Universities Rankings Among Publics UG Academic Reputation Index 93 87 86 88 85 Average freshman retention Predicted Actual Grad rate Grad Rate Grad Rate Performance 97% 90% 90% 97% 87% 90% +3% 97% 87% 90% +3% 96% 89% 90% +1% 97% 85% 90% +5%
21 24 24 29 30
Public RankScore 1 2 2 4 5
79 77 77 74 73
% of % of classes Student/ % of faculty SAT/ACT SAT/ACT Freshmen in Average classes 50 or faculty who are full- 25th 75th SAT/ACT top 10% of HS alumni giving School under 20 more ratio time percentile percentile Median class Accept rate rate University of California: Berkeley 64% 14% 17/1 89% 1250 1490 1370 98% 22% 12% University of Virginia 53% 15% 16/1 98% 1240 1460 1350 91% 33% 22% University of California: Los Angeles 51% 22% 17/1 91% 1180 1440 1310 97% 25% 13% University of Michigan 48% 17% 16/1 93% 28 32 30 95% 41% 17% University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 33% 13% 14/1 97% 1200 1400 1300 79% 31% 22%
36
WORKING DRAFT
Graduate School Rankings
Best Grad School Rankings (US News) Law English Business Nursing Medicine - Primary Care Clinical Psychology History Education Online Nursing Psychology Medicine - Research Computer Science Economics Sociology Politcal Science Engineering Physics Chemistry Public Affairs Biological Sciences Math Speech-Language Pathology Statistics Earth Sciences Clinical Psychology (School Psyc)
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand 7 31 17 9 9 6 18 4 11 15 10 15 10 1 13 20 36 8 10 26 12 20 14 7 14 10 26 6 11 30 15 4 21 6 21 41 7 15 18 1 11 8 74 74 39 44 31 18 2 1 11 26 18 6 14 20 11 9 1 7 18 46 4 14 24 22 37 8 12 11 17 17 1 24 69 26 12 2 2 4 30 40 21 21 30 26 22 13 8 21 31 8 8 14 28 20 14 1 13 28 20 35 27 58 30 32 15 5 13 11 48 1 19 36 35 6 9 1 4 16 39 6 14 31 36 13 10 6 4 15 54 12 10 36 38 79 16 3 9 9 28 36 40 36 19 5 11 40 52 7 30 57 45 13 16 1 16 67 53 13 45 49 46 23 23 6 12 6 6 23 16 46 24 24 2 20 56 46 13 13 32 46 30 8 2 8 10 51 6 24 51 52 11 52 3 58 10 27 2 17 6 10 63 52 17 3 9 25 17 45 104
37
WORKING DRAFT
Professional School Rankings
US News & World Report 2014 Law School Ranking Lawyer/ Peer Judge Assessment Assessment Median UG Median (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) GPA LSAT Accept rate 4.8 4.7 3.91 173 8% 4.8 4.8 3.86 173 16% 4.8 4.7 3.86 171 10% 4.6 4.7 3.81 170 20% 4.6 4.6 3.70 172 18% 4.4 4.6 3.69 171 28% 4.4 4.6 3.73 168 15% 4.3 4.6 3.75 168 16% 4.4 4.4 3.80 167 12% 4.4 4.7 3.70 168 25%
School Yale University Harvard University Stanford University University of Chicago Columbia University New York University University of Virginia University of Pennsylvania University of California: Berkeley University of Michigan
Rank 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 9 9
Score 100 95 95 92 92 89 85 85 83 83
Rank Yale University Harvard University Stanford University University of Chicago Columbia University New York University University of Virginia University of Pennsylvania University of California: Berkeley University of Michigan 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 9 9
Grads Bar State with Student/ employed Employed 9 passage most bar Jurisdiction's faculty at mos after rate in test overall bar ratio graduation grad jurisdiction takers passage rate 7.9/1 90.7% 91.2% 96.3% NY 77% 11.4/1 90.9% 93.7% 97.5% NY 77% 7.6/1 93.2% 95.8% 88.5% CA 67% 7.5/1 90.6% 95.1% 96.4% IL 89% 8.0/1 93.2% 95.4% 96.2% NY 77% 9.0/1 93.1% 93.8% 95.5% NY 77% 10.9/1 97.3% 96.0% 91.8% VA 79% 10.3/1 83.6% 91.2% 94.2% NY 77% 11.6/1 72.6% 82.6% 86.8% CA 67% 12.8/1 70.7% 85.8% 94.8% NY 77%
38
WORKING DRAFT
US News & World Report 2014 Business School Ranking Peer Recruiter Assessment Assessment Average Average Accept (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) UG GPA GMAT Score rate 4.8 4.5 3.67 724 11.5% 4.8 4.6 3.69 729 7.1% 4.8 4.6 3.60 718 20.0% 4.7 4.4 3.53 710 15.6% 4.7 4.4 3.69 708 22.9% 4.7 4.4 3.52 720 23.0% 4.6 4.1 3.61 715 13.8% 4.5 4.2 3.50 715 20.8% 4.3 4.0 3.49 717 20.4% 4.2 3.9 3.51 720 15.7% 4.3 4.0 3.42 690 27.5% 4.2 3.9 3.45 703 26.6% 4.2 4.1 3.55 717 21.3% 4.1 3.8 3.56 704 22.6% 4.3 3.9 3.40 703 40.6%
Score 1 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 100 100 99 97 97 96 93 91 90 87 86 85 84 82 82
1 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14
Average starting salary and Grads Employed 3 OOS Total fullbonus (in employed at mos after Tuition time thou) graduation grad and Fees enrollment $142.5 77.4% 89.3% $63,300 1,824 $140.5 71.3% 87.8% $57,300 803 $138.3 79.7% 91.7% $62,000 1,685 $139.0 84.5% 94.4% $58,200 816 $134.0 76.9% 91.7% $56,800 1,161 $135.7 84.1% 92.3% $56,900 1,161 $133.8 74.4% 92.7% $56,300 490 $134.9 77.0% 91.6% $60,900 1,274 $138.7 85.8% 92.9% $60,500 549 $133.9 79.5% 90.5% $55,200 780 $136.5 86.5% 91.7% $54,900 874 $131.9 81.5% 90.9% $53,900 637 $121.6 66.5% 85.5% $56,500 494 $121.9 71.9% 86.5% $54,500 737 $134.4 74.3% 81.4% $55,200 992
39
WORKING DRAFT
International Rankings
University of California: Berkeley University of Chicago University of California: Los Angeles University of Michigan New York University Duke University University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill University of Southern California Vanderbilt University University of Virginia
Academic Ranking of World World University Universities '12 - Rankings '12 Shanghai Jiao Times Higher Tong University Education 4 9 9 10 12 13 22 20 27 41 36 23 41 42 46 56 50 106 101-150 118
40
WORKING DRAFT
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES INTERVIEWS WITH UVA DEANS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, AND ADMINISTRATORS
The following questions were sent to the interviewees in advance: 1. In what fields of research and scholarship does your department (for deans: school/college) hold a position of national leadership? Given resources for competitive faculty positions and salaries, in what fields could you reasonably expect to hold such a position in the next 5-7 years? 2. What do you consider the best measures of a premier student experience in your department (for deans: school/college), and how well is your department (school/college) performing against those measures? (Please cite specifics.) 3. In what areas of public service and state and national societal impact does your department (for deans: school/college) hold a position of leadership, and in what areas could you reasonably expect to hold such a position in the next 5-7 years? 4. Please cite the 3-4 best examples of research collaboration across departments, colleges/ schools, or universities in which your department (for deans: school/college) is currently involved. This summary of responses is organized around the primary themes that emerged from the interviews: 1. Research Strengths, Faculty Recruitment and Program Strategy 2. Collaboration 3. Teaching 4. The Student Experience 5. Outreach and Community Impact 6. Building on UVAs Culture
Representative quotes appear in italics.
WORKING DRAFT
Research Strengths, Faculty Recruitment and Program Strategy UVAs ability to attract and retain top faculty is seriously compromised. We are at a serious disadvantage at UVA we cant afford to keep our best faculty. The number of top faculty we are losing to other top universities is alarming. Were a farm team for other universities. We lost to another university a guy who was teaching a Coursera course with 48,000 students and who started Project Hi-Phi getting high school students involved in philosophy. I came here six years ago. I wouldnt come here now. A number of recruiting challenges were cited. Our inability to do spousal hiring is a big impediment. Dual career recruiting in Charlottesville is challenging. We have no formal maternity policy at UVA. Having no same sex benefits was mentioned by several departments as hurting their recruitment efforts. Its a remote, small town with a small airport. Maybe we need to do something like Cornell does with its daily bus to New York. UVAs moderate size creates a particular set of challenges and requires strat egic choices. We are one of only 2-3 programs of our size that is ranked in the 30s. With three hires we could move into the top 20. We are decidedly not a leader in big data now, but we could catch up quickly with buy-in from several schools. All science departments here are small. Ours is about to have NO junior faculty. We dont have critical mass in any department. You need a faculty of 30 in our discipline (math) to be in the game. Were losing faculty in our department but, at the same time, student interest is going up.
2
WORKING DRAFT
We are a really small research university and a really large liberal arts college. Science and Engineering are really holding back UVa. If they were larger and more prestigious it would help raise the profile of the entire university. A focused approach to graduate education is widely supported. The graduate restructuring of the past two years means we can offer competitive financial packages and are getting better, if fewer, students We should cut graduate fields even further. Its revealing of our emphasis that we call CGAS the College. UVA is credited with emphasizing a few differentiating fields and topics. UVA students are exceptionally interested in the liberal arts. High numbers of students continue to major in the humanities, whereas other universities are seeing big drop-offs. Were especially strong in security. Batten is seen as hiring well and attracting strong students to a liberal arts undergraduate major in the setting of a professional school. Media Studies (40 majors now with plans to grow to 100) McIntyre is a national leader in consumer behavior and research in terms of scholarship; management, leadership, corporate governance and business analytics are coming on strong and should be there in 5-7 years; but small size of school hurts in rankings and reputation. Leaders have identified specific opportunities that build on UVAs strengths. Examples: The School of Nursings academic and research programs are thought to be on par with Johns Hopkins, University of Washington, UCSF. The leadership exhibits bountiful energy, transparent and inclusive strategic planning processes, collaborative programs within UVA, and good to excellent funding; if left to their own devices, they will continue to thrive and grow; easy faculty recruitment due to charismatic dean; size of SON could grow depending on new financial model for UVA. 4 of the 36 members of the Psychology faculty are biologists at a time when the field has dramatically moved in that direction. Historically UVAs greatest strength has been in Developmental. Could be a leader in Lifespan Developmental. Seizing opportunity now to build on strengths in neuroscience, cognitive, quantitative.
3
WORKING DRAFT
Development neurobiology is where we have the greatest promise. Sociology: theres tension between quantitative and qualitative everywhere. Weve long been known for qualitative a focus on culture -- but are growing strong quant. Our profile is more like elite privates than big publics. We wont get the big grants. We do humanistic social science. The quant people havent felt fully supported. The arts are almost there, almost a respectable player of this type of departments, almost ready to be mentioned with Princeton and Stanford. To get over this hump we need a performing arts center, a connection with engineering and technology to study creativity and public leadership, and seed funding in the office of the Vice Provost for the Arts. Religious Studiestied to cultural issues of day, global competencies, development of global leaders, biomedical ethics; connection to Contemplative Sciences Center; may be moving in direction of field studies Astronomythreatened by operating costs of ownership in national projects/ laboratories that are critical to positioning of UVA program; early investments are just getting ready to pay off but department is concerned that funding will not be protected There are some real superstars in engineering, but they are quite old now. We dont see a plan to invest money in new faculty or in updating labs and instrumentation, so are not sure where to go from here. UVAs existing strengths are being neglected or downplayed. Good stewardship of what we already have is the most important thingand no one says that. A truly strong global education starts with strong academic work concerning other countries and cultures. The Vice President for Research Office is biased toward the hard sciences. The College of Arts & Sciences is behind in fundraising and its endowment. Its been the ugly duckling compared to Darden and McIntyre. Undergraduate education is our core strength, but [the previous administration] really focused on professional schools, at the expense of our College of Arts & Sciences. We need to be sure we dont now neglect our real strengths in the humanities while pushing the sciences.
4
WORKING DRAFT
Chemistry/AstrochemistryUniversity made a big investment in two world leaders (one is a MacArthur genius grant winner) in an attempt to position the program for a big NASA grant. The University was unsuccessful in the grant process and now has these scholars to support. Meanwhile the fundamentals have been neglected in the Chemistry department, which serves a large number of students (1,300 first year students and 100 majors). Fundamentals neglected include having enough faculty to teach undergraduates and creation of inquiry-based labs. Department head told this story as an example as a big idea coming down from on high that was not based on the interests and strengths of the people in the department. Chemistry research funding is second highest in College of Arts & Sciences. Physicscurrently ranked 40th in US News out of 146 departments. Department chair believes that it has the potential to get to top 25. Undergraduate program is #15 in number of majors, and students rate undergraduate experience highly. Faculty is quite strong but the numbers are small. Labs are also outdated. Computer Science was a real strength, nationally recognized, and supported our sciences and engineering strengths, but loss of multiple faculty members without replacements has deteriorated us. We will not be able to meet the demand unless there is significant funding directed towards replacing and adding additional faculty. UVA has not staked out fields and topics in which, by virtue of its unique history and setting, it should be the leader. The Carter Woodson Center does good work but is underutilized, and its crazy that UVA does not have the leading center in the country, in the world, on race. It should involve public health, economics, education, Batten, politics, law, and the humanities. We used to be the leader in digital humanities, but through significant losses of faculty members we are now behind. We need to hire 2-3 prominent faculty members in this area to regain our top reputation. It is now becoming more fractured and silo-ed. There is concern that the dean and other faculty members are not as interested in the digital humanities as they used to be. We need to deal with the pressure on newer faculty to put aside work in digital humanities until after they get tenure. Architecture and Urban Planning are nationally recognized, but not emphasized enough. Key choices made in the School of Medicine are seen as having a negative effect.
WORKING DRAFT
To be successful, the medical/hospital strategy to focus on three areas (cancer, neuroscience, cardiovascular medicine) depends on size of patient population for clinical trials. We are sacrificing investment in basic science, once a huge strength for UVA, to support this strategy but doubt that it will unfold well. SOM leadership and vision are lacking, and even though that is about to change, we have lost tremendous ground in basic science. UVA lacks a shared, articulated vision for itself. The medical/hospital strategy is an attempt to grow the profile of UVA as a medical center, and also to grow its revenues. UVA does not have a CTSA grant, and to get one it needs to grow in patient population size and infrastructure. It is not clear that policies are in place to support that growth and to compete for patient care services with the community hospital. The teaching/student experience is above average due to TEAL (teaching enhanced active learning). Basic sciences were not included in medical/hospital strategy so are bound to diminish over time. There is enthusiasm and interest in the new interim Dean of Medicine, Nancy Dunlap, but also uncertainty over why she is interim and whether she will preside over a new strategy plan during her tenure. UVA lacks a real identity -- who are we competing with, what do we want to be? Funding has not been sought strategically. In Medicine, more state money is going to VCU and VA Tech than UVA due to leadership neglect and complacency. Our approach to math and science funding is more of a scramble than strategic thinking. What is the most important metric? While there are not huge amounts of research dollars available in our field, an incremental investment in our program would create significant strength in our programs. Ideas dont come from the ground up. Instead, they are driven from the top. Development attention is also controlled by the top. Fundraising is driving the program instead of the program driving the agenda. Its hard to know how critical initiatives can get the attention.
6
WORKING DRAFT
A bigger issue than money is aligning strategically. Someone has to be willing to step up and lead. Were shooting at targets we dont understand.
Collaboration Leaders point to some notable successes and potential opportunities. The Neuroscience Graduate Program is a gem involving 80 labs university-wide. Quantitative Collaborative (QC)Four themes: Data Analysis/Quantitative Methods, Mathematical Modeling, Experiential Social Science, Data-Gathering Methodologies Media Studies Sustainability initiatives Inter-Global Sustainability Program, Center for Design and Health, Community Design and Research, Cultural Sustainability and Preservation (needs to be regenerated) Contemplative Science Centerleaders believe that it is succeeding because of buy-in across the University. Potential for deep impact on faculty culture and undergraduate experience. Energy Center Health Issues (Nursing, Medical, Law, Darden, Batten, Professional Studies coming at it from a number of different angles) Curry (Psycholinguistics, Education Leadership, Kinesiology, Youth Violence) Idea (in the early stages) of the Library collaborating with departments to serve as a consulting center for the University and the Commonwealth Leadership minor has been very successful in leading new collaborations between McIntyre, Darden, Batten and others. Even given our recent past issues with climate research, we still have a lot of strengths here and it is collaborative in nature. Its important to remember that interdisciplinary work strengthens departments.
7
WORKING DRAFT
We do interdisciplinary in ways that allow students to explore things they wouldnt otherwise. The ten appointments as part of the Mellon grant are a real test to our ability to collaborate. On the other hand, they also express frustration with the continuing culture of silos and competition across Grounds There is a disconnect between the administrations stated interest in interdisciplinarity and the culture of competition between schools/colleges and departments. My dean forbids me to talk with faculty in other schools about collaborative ideas. We are very silo-oriented here when it comes to collaboration. Tenure process doesnt really support collaboration. Young faculty become risk-averse here, given no support in promotion and tenure process for collaborations. We need to do a better job breaking down the walls between the colleges and the professional schools. Joint appointments would really help at UVa, but the new budget model appears to make this even more difficult, if not impossible. Collaboration is seen as valuable but a kind of shibboleth, often misunderstood, and not rewarded Dont put such an overemphasis on collaboration. My department is inherently interdisciplinary. Such work within a department goes unrecognized. Lets not forget we still have humanities scholars, writing individual monographs. Collaboration in the humanities happens less in research and more in teaching. In research, the collaboration happens in dialogue, not the end product. There is a huge amount of informal collaboration. To be interdisciplinary you must be a mature scholar. Interdisciplinary hires will be weaker. Interdisciplinary is not rewarded here.
WORKING DRAFT
Collaboration here is completely faculty-driven, without significant support from administration. There is also a paucity of journals which will publish many of the new efforts so far.
Teaching Theres acknowledged to be a great deal of ferment, even a revolution, going on in pedagogy. Some note how UVA is already doing some things well. In the fourth year we teach as we should: working with primary sources, going from consuming to synthesizing and producing ideas. To apprehend the world differently: thats the most radical thing on offer. Others have not given it much thought. We have never had formal discussion about our teaching methods. Weve made the major competitive; we weed out majors. Others see UVA as the place to design and lead in reinvigorating and delivering great teaching. This is an important time of change in teaching and, while we have great teachers in our department, we need help from an expert. We need to look at how we teach. We need to get away from the model of training undergraduates as if they were miniPhDs. Theres a close connection between teaching and leading. The best graduate students approach undergraduate teaching like Teach for America. The curriculum didnt change for 40 years, and then in 1991 all we did was remove the math requirement. Our latest efforts are more focused on creating an alternative curriculum coordinated around a theme and spanning multiple disciplines. Key goal is to show how a multidisciplinary approach solves problems. UVA must change its model to do so.
WORKING DRAFT
We dont have enough faculty to require small group experiences for all of our majors. Were paying faculty more to teach less; the model isnt affordable. The solution will be a more bifurcated faculty. The new method of teaching in groups in the School of Medicine will not generate new academic scholars and leaders. Leaders believe that the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) has the potential to be a signature program for UVA and the Curry School--as well as well as a national model. It is currently a collaborative project across Grounds. Leaders at the Curry School believe that they can help UVA build on its student experience claims. The Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (CASTL-HE) is focused on the science of postsecondary teaching and learning.
The Student Experience The level of student engagement here is qualitatively different from other places for some students, in some departments. Students are at university policy discussions. Every new student class has produced a new initiative that weve sustained. How great the students are here has to do with their commitment to the institution. They love it and they take pride in what they do. Jeffersons genius was the program: the student-faculty interaction. The ease of double majoring is a great strength of UVA. You can do science and music one can be warm and fuzzy. The small departments and programs are where students have a great experience. The Distinguished Majors Program: We havent figured out how to do it properly. The student experience in basic sciences at SOM is still above average due to faculty efforts. Student choice and self-governance remains a cherished precept. Our objective is that the student finds a niche to grow in.
10
WORKING DRAFT
Our students dont do mandatory, and shouldnt. The problem is that our students are too focused academically. Let them be real people, be kids. Were losing the informality we need. Societyand our Admissions Officeare telling them they have to be perfect. Students should have as much clout as a vice president does. No other university gives students the authority we do. The honor system is broken. UVa is distinct in that undergraduate students really do run life outside the classroom, but we need to do a better job of connecting it back to the classroom. Leaders give a largely positive but mixed assessment of student quality and diversity. Theres a big gap between the preponderance of students, who are very good, and the athletes and transfers from community college. The arts departments are unable to convince the Admissions Office to admit kids we want. Were finally getting some of them through the Arts Scholars. I wish our students were more open to going abroad. We get great international students, great students from northern Virginia. Investment, innovation, and reinvigoration are needed. The student-faculty ratio here has undergone an almost 20% change here in the last several years. We are at risk. The liberal-arts feeling here is going away. From the chair of one of the large majors: We havent been a great major in years. One area we could improve: undergraduate research. JMU runs circles around us in academic advising. We need to be the place that sends students to graduate school with research experience, having had labs, learned by induction, done collaborative projects. Theyd have a huge advantage. Brown College is a model for where we should be going
11
WORKING DRAFT
The University has been talking about the sciences for years but its all research- focused. There are some science and math disciplines that dont require the same facility support but could have an impact on the quality of the undergraduate experience. Research experiences/public service Happening on an ad hoc basis Career advising and placement Happens on an ad hoc basis in departments. Some seem to handle quite well. Most students find the central career office to be useless.
Outreach and Community Impact The Research Office sustains an ambitious agenda of outreach initiatives, which, individually and collectively, are too little publicized and known. We should position UVA as a comprehensive resource and partner, versus just around specific issues or projects. Charlottesville is emerging as a cultural hub and the University is leading the way New Vice Provost for the Arts Arts as a driver of creativity and innovation on Grounds, can be symbolic blending of progressive and traditional spirit at UVA Arts as the welcoming arm of the University Our people run the local art scene, art as a means for social action. Film Festival is celebrating its 25th anniversary, has doubled in size New Arts Grounds opportunity for more collaboration and outreach Alumni interested in arts have not been engaged; fundraising limited by decentralized approach For 30 years the Classics department has helped run The Classics Project for HS teachers.
12
WORKING DRAFT
We put on a lot of programs and initiate a lot of community engagement, but nonetheless our relationship with Charlottesville is a weakness. School of Continuing and Professional Studies is thought to be quite strong. Issue: how does it relate to other colleges/departments? Leadership needs to come from top. Leaders of this program note considerable duplication of effort. McIntyre has a group of students that founded SEED, the largest student group that provides consultations for social good.
Building on UVAs Culture UVAs culture is differentiating and powerful. Theres an endowment of loyalty among faculty here. The way to differentiate UVA isnt through individual programs like the Jefferson Public Citizens. Those are only for the top students. We need to go after things systematically, not programmaticallythings that say, this is who we are. We dont want to get to the point were talking about the McIntyre experience; its the UVA experience. Its the mush. I hope we dont end up being just a collection of different units; I dont want to see a proliferation of schools. Whats important here is the common culture. Its closer to a typical British university. The personal qualities of the people here and how they relate to each other; civility; scale; how departments feel about deans. An overprofessionalized, over-corporatized approach, formal, bureaucratic, more explicit authority structures is a threat to the essence of UVA. Collegiality has empowered collaboration rather than UVA leadership empowering collaboration. The Academical Village: myth or reality? We talk about the undergraduate experience and the academical village, but most students live 5-7 miles off Grounds. Weve become a suburban campus and were disconnected from one another. Thats had an important impact on our culture. What do we need to do programmatically to compensate?
13
WORKING DRAFT
There is no place for faculty to interact with each other on an informal basis. How are Pavillion houses used? The Rotunda has become more of a museum and tourist site than a living part of the academical village. Some impediments need to be removed. The bureaucracy burden on department chairs is becoming overwhelming. There are a lot of spinning wheels, a lot of wasted time. We need to streamline, let people go, get rid of administrative bloat. There is a proliferation of centers and institutes, many seemingly unknown to people not involved in them UVA does not promote an "op-ed debate" forum for its community. Faculty here need to become more savvy about communicating what they do. In some ways, the culture needs to change. Our challenges are getting past the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and the US News Rankings. I believe the Rankings have held us back from taking a hard look at ourselves. Were playing above our weight. UVAs culture is based on word-of-mouth and oral history. We dont document facts and policies or make evidence-based decisions. Tapping the culture now, especially, is urgentand could make a major difference. After the crisis, we need to realize were all in it together. The University drifted in the 1990s and has been defined by crisis in the 2000s. This university is running on fumes. We need the core capacity to move forward. Its a critical time. The greatest challenge for the President and Provost is to inspire ambition. Theres a lot of pent-up energy. Allow room for things to come from the bottom up. Set up structures where faculty are asked to come up with proposals. We must reinvigorate this place. We must cultivate the facultys shared interest.
14
WORKING DRAFT
Walls are easy to break down here. You can do what you want. Systems get in the way. It requires leadership and coordination from the top. We need to pick a few bold initiatives we know we can achieve, and show people how.
15
UVA ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT DEANS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEWED
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Kim M. Tanzer, Dean Richard G. Wilson, Architectural History Inaki Alday, Architecture Tim Beatley, Urban and Environmental Planning COLLEGE & GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Susan McKinnon, Anthropology Howard M. Singerman, Art Michael F. Strutskie, Astronomy Laura Galloway, Biology W. Dean Harman, Chemistry John Miller, Classics Thomas A. Bloom, Drama Charles A. Holt, Economics Cynthia S. Wall, English Language and Literature Patricia L. Wiberg, Environmental Sciences Deborah L. McGrady, French Language and Literature Paul Halliday, History John Imbrie, Mathematics Siva Vaidhyanathan, Media Studies Farzaneh M. Milani, Middle Eastern & S. Asian Languages & Cultures Richard J. Will, Music Talbot M. Brewer, Philosophy Joseph Poon, Physics David A. Leblang, Politics David L. Hill, Psychology Kurtis Schaeffer, Religious Studies David Herman, Slavic Languages and Literatures J. Krishan Kumar, Sociology Deborah W. Parker, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Jeff Holt, Statistics MCINTIRE SCHOOL OF COMMERCE Carl P. Zeithaml, Dean Susan Perry Williams, Accounting Ryan Nelson, Information Technology Thomas Bateman, Management
SCHOOL OF CONTINUING AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES Billy K. Cannaday, Jr., Dean Susan Barr, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Stephen J. Pryplesh, Assistant Dean of the FBI Programs THE DARDEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Robert F. Bruner, Dean Mark Haskins, Accounting Ken Eades, Finance Alan Beckenstein, Global Economies and Markets Ron Wilcox, Marketing Elliott Weiss, Techonlogy and Operations Management Sam Bodily, Quantitative Analysis Jeanne Liedtka, Strategy, Ethics and Entrepreneurship CURRY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Robert C. Pianta, Dean Stephanie van Hover, Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education Peter L. Sheras, Human Services Carol Tomlinson, Leadership, Foundations and Policy SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE James H. Aylor, Dean Roseanne M. Ford, Chemical Engineering Brian L. Smith, Civil and Environmental Engineering Kevin Skadron, Computer Science W. Bernard Carlson, Science, Technology, and Society John C. Lach, Electrical and Computer Engineering William C. Johnson, Materials Science and Engineering Hossein Haj-Hariri, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Barry Horowitz, Systems and Information Engineering SCHOOL OF LAW - NORTH GROUNDS Paul G. Mahoney, Dean George S. Geis, Vice Dean Stephen T. Parr, Senior Associate Dean, Administration SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - HEALTH SYSTEM Steven T. DeKosky, M.D., Vice President and Dean Anindya Dutta, M.D., Ph.D., Chair, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics Frederick H. Epstein, M.D., Chair, Biomedical Engineering Barry M. Gumbiner, Ph.D., Cell Biology Kevin S. Lee, Ph.D., Chair, Neuroscience Peggy Shupnick, Senior Associate Dean for Research
2
Randy Canterbury, Senior Associate Dean for Education Jonathon Truwit, Senior Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs Brad Haws, Senior Associate Dean and CAO SCHOOL OF NURSING Dorrie K. Fontaine, Dean Linda Bullock , Associate Dean for Research Arlene W. Keeling, Acute & Specialty Care FRANK BATTEN SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC POLICY Harry Harding, Dean Dave Breneman, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs STUDENT AFFAIRS Pat Lampkin , Vice President of Student Affairs Allen Groves, Associate Vice President and Dean of Students RESEARCH Tom Skalak, Vice President for Research VICE PROVOSTS Maurie McInnis , Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Jody Kielbasa, Vice Provost for the Arts Jeff Legro, Vice Provost for Global Affairs Karin Wittenborg, University Librarian Martha Sites, Deputy University Librarian Alfred Sapienza, Associate Dean for Library Administration
ABOUT THE SOURCES

State Council of Higher Education for Virginia Collects institutional level data about Virginia institutions to assist the state government in making higher education decisions on budget planning, enrollment projections, institutional technology needs, and student financial aid http://www.schev.edu/ Most recent data from the 2011-12 academic year National Survey of Student Engagement Student survey administered by institutions to determine how students are spending their time and effort and how institutions use resources and organizes the curriculum to promote increased engagement. Over 600 institutions participated in the recent survey. http://nsse.iub.edu/ Most recent general data from the 2013 report, UVA specific data from the 2011 report Student Experience in the Research University Student survey administered by SERU consortium members to create new data sources and policyrelevant analyses to better understand the undergraduate experience and promote institutional improvement http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/ Most recent UVA specific data from the 2012 report CollegeMeasures.org, partnership between the American Institutes for Research and Matrix Knowledge Group Aims to make available key data that informs and improves the decision-making process for students, parents, and policy makers. Collected institutional level data from 1,575 four-year colleges and 1,717 two-year colleges http://collegemeasures.org/ Most recent data from the 2010 academic year US News and World Report Collects institutional level data and peer/recruiter assessments and ranks undergraduate and graduate level programs http://www.usnews.com/education Most recent data from the 2013 report College data and from the 2014 report for Graduate school data
National Center for Education Statistics (The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) Interrelated surveys conducted by the US Department NCES to all institutions that participate in any federal student financial aid program. Data is reported for over 7,500 institutions. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/ Most recent data from the 2011-12 academic year College Board Aims to promote excellence and equity in education, and collects institutional level data from over 3,800 colleges and universities http://www.collegeboard.org/ Most recent data from the 2012-13 academic year Council for Aid to Education (Voluntary Support of Education) Survey to higher education and private K-12 institutions regarding private giving and voluntary support http://www.cae.org/content/pro_data_trends.htm Most recent data from the 2011 report Higher Education Research Institute (Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshman Survey) Administered by two-year and four-year colleges and universities to entering students during orientation or registration http://www.heri.ucla.edu/cirpoverview.php Most recent data from the 2010 CIRP Freshman Survey report National Research Council (A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States) Assesses the quality and effectiveness of doctoral programs from 212 universities by using institutional level data and faculty survey responses http://www.nap.edu/rdp/ Most recent data from the version revised in 2011, collected with data from the 2005-06 academic year Bloomsburg Businessweek Ranks 237 graduate business schools and 169 undergraduate business schools by surveying students and employers and considering the number of articles published http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings Most recent data from the 2012 rankings
The Economist The Economists Which MBA? ranking is made up of 130 selected leading business schools from around the world and requires significant student/alumni response and takes into account institutional level data from the institutions http://www.economist.com/whichmba/full-time-mba-ranking Most recent data from the 2012 rankings Forbes America Forbes ranking of Americas Top Colleges measures and ranks 650 American colleges and universities on institutional level data on factors most important to students, including quality of teaching, career prospects, graduation rates, and low debt levels. Reputation and selectivity are excluded from the rankings http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/ Most recent data from the 2012 rankings Washington Monthly Washington Monthlys ranking of National Universities is based on institutional level data regarding universitys contribution to the public good, in areas of social mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), research (scholarships and producing PhDs), and service (students giving back). Schools ranked include all schools ranked in the US News & World Report ranking. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank.php Most recent data from the 2012 rankings Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Academic Ranking of World Universities) The ARWU rankings are a world rankings based heavily on institutional level data regarding academic and research performance. All universities that have published papers in Nature or Science and who have decorated faculty are included in the rankings. In addition to the overall ranking, ARWU ranks within specific fields and subjects. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html Most recent data from the 2012 rankings Times Higher Education Pulled by institutional level data on core topics of teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and international outlook, Times Higher Education ranks 400 world colleges and universities. THE, also, ranks the top 100 universities on reputation by surveying senior and published academics. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/ Most recent data from the 2012 rankings
Quacquarelli Symonds The QS rankings of world universities relies on reputation surveys from academics and employers and institutional level data, such as faculty data and research citations, to rank over 700 institutions http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012 Most recent data from the 2012 rankings Financial Times FT ranks over 150 business schools on being a Global MBA. Ranked schools must be internationally accredited and a long-running MBA program. The rankings rely on alumni surveys and institutional level data provided by the universities. http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/rankings Most recent data from the 2012 rankings
Strategic Positioning and Pricing Study
Report of Key Findings and Recommendations WORKING DRAFT
April 26, 2013
STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PRICING STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE STUDENT STUDY ............................. 4 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 8
APPENDIX Attributes and Initiatives Tested in Prospect Student Research Final Research Report: Survey of Inquirers and Admitted Applicants
ART & SCIENCE GROUP, LLC.
I.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The University of Virginia engaged Art & Science Group in Fall 2011 to conduct a comprehensive study to address the following questions: How much flexibility does U.Va. have in pricing and aid policy in its prospective traditional undergraduate student markets? What is U.Va.s current competitive position, or drawing power, in these markets? How should the University seek to strengthen its position to attract more desirable students in these markets? What would be the effects of potential changes to the student experience, communications, financial aid, and/or price? What challenges does U.Va. face in these markets? What are the Universitys greatest opportunities? What are the differences between in-state and out-of-state student populations, and between subgroups within each? What would be the trade-offs of investing in financial aid versus other strategic priorities?
In order to get at these questions, the project proceeded in the following phases: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4: Phase 5: Strategic Assessment on Grounds Econometric Analysis of Financial Aid Financial Aid Benchmarking Study Quantitative Research with U.Va. Inquirers and Admitted Applicants Preliminary Recommendations on Price and Aid
The Strategic Assessment included an overview of the Universitys objectives in institutional planning, pricing, financial aid, and student recruitment. Through interviews with selected senior officials, faculty and board members, and a review of existing analyses, strategic plans, publications, and other documents, we identified the underpinnings of the Universitys current market position, the anticipated threats and opportunities in the marketplace, and strategic initiatives under consideration. A key goal of this phase was to develop pricing, aid, and positioning initiatives to explore in the prospective-student research.
ART & SCIENCE GROUP, LLC WORKING DRAFT
The Financial Aid Optimization Analysis included a review of admission and financial aid offers and the matriculation decisions of its prospects over the last several years. Art & Science was then able to model the impact of different scenarios based on the Universitys price, aid, and enrollment objectives. The Financial Aid Benchmarking Study included a review of need-based aid policies and practices at seven peer universities: Cornell University Duke University University of California-Berkeley University of Michigan University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Vanderbilt University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Financial aid administrators at the participating universities provided detailed data and responded to questions in telephone interviews with an Art & Science Group consultant. Separate reports on the Optimization and Benchmarking studies have been submitted to the University. The Prospective Student Research was designed to help determine the potential market impacts of larger scale pricing, aid, and positioning changes the University may want to make. The study focused on qualified prospects decisions about where to apply and matriculate, and on the likely effect of a number of initiatives and positioning options under consideration at U.Va. The survey was administered by professional interviewers using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Through structural competitive analysis, we assessed U.Va.s true competitors, categorically as well as individually. Proprietary multivariate statistical analyses enabled us to determine real, as opposed to self-reported, factors motivating prospective students decisions.
This quantitative study began in February 2012 and was completed in July. We completed surveys with: Inquirers: 904 523 In-state o 102 Non-applicant inquirers o 421 Applicants 381 Out-of-state o 183 Non-applicant inquirers o 198 Applicants Admitted Applicants: 775 400 In-state o 69 Admit-Declines o 231 Matriculants 375 Out-of-state o 287 Admit-Declines o 88 Matriculants Findings and implications of all three studies were presented to an Internal Working Group. Because the initial focus of administrative and board action was the AccessUVa program, we worked collaboratively with administrators to develop preliminary pricing and financial aid recommendations for presentation to the Board of Visitors in February 2013. It was agreed that further recommendations would be incorporated into the Universitys strategic planning initiative.
II. Summary of Key Findings from the Prospective Student Study
Competitive Position of the University A. U.Va. occupies a reasonably strong market position. Students who choose to apply and enroll rate the University very highly. o Ratings are particularly high on student honor code, beautiful campus, history and tradition No in-state institutions represent significant competitive threats. U.Va. could raise price significantly in-state and moderately out-of-state without losing market share.
B. That said, U.Va.s market position is not commanding. U.Va. does not stand out from its competition on the attributes that are most important in students choices: o Strong program in the students field of study o Outstanding students o Advising o Exceptional faculty U.Va. also lags on other attributes that drive students perceptions of quality: o Strong science and engineering programs o Job placement o Career counseling Higher-ability admitted students rate U.Va. significantly lower than do other prospects. Competition is stiff: two-thirds of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top-25 institutions (as ranked by US News). Many non-applicants and even admit-declines are turned off by their visit to the U.Va. Grounds. o Half of non-applicant inquirers who visited U.Va. became less interested in the University after their visit to Grounds. (By comparison, we generally find that roughly one-third of non-applicant inquirers at other institutions report that the campus visit has a negative effect.)
C. U.Va.s cultural identity is unusually well-defined and polarizing. It is decidedly desirable to some and undesirable to many.
ART & SCIENCE GROUP, LLC WORKING DRAFT 4
U.Va. is perceived by prospects to be notably less welcoming. This is a decisive factor and even applicants concur. It is also seen as more elitist, preppy, and homogenous than the competition. o Matriculants like those aspects of U.Va.s culture. o On the other hand, those same cultural dimensions turn off many desirable prospects across all subgroups of the Universitys prospect pool (by race, region, income, and ability) The effects of U.Va.s perceived culture on students choices are the strongest we have ever seen. o Welcoming: is a place where students from many different backgrounds feel welcome and at home shows up as a variable in the analyses to predict high ratings on the attribute strong program in my field of interest. Typically, attributes related to programmatic strengths show up, such as quality of faculty, class size, quality of students, etc. The relationship of welcoming to strong program at U.Va. is noteworthy. o The welcoming attribute is particularly closely associated with strong program for middle income, minority, and top SAT inquirers in-state, where U.Va. lags the competition on strong program ratings. o It is similarly a hot button issue among out-of-state minority and middle income admitted applicants.
D. U.Va.s challenge is to continue appealing to one group of prospects who see it very favorably, while increasing its appeal to another group who find it decidedly less attractive. The Competition A. On average, prospective students are applying to 5-6 schools and being admitted to 4-6 schools. B. In-state competitors are not significant threats to U.Va. William & Mary and Virginia Tech are the most significant individual competitors, but U.Va. wins in the overwhelming majority of cases. In-state inquirers are primarily considering other Virginia publics; half of the in-state admit-declines are considering attending institutions in Virginia. Two-thirds of in-state admit-declines consider U.Va. their second choice
C. For out-of-state students, U.Va. primarily competes with research/doctoral institutions outside of Virginia. Two-thirds of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top 25 institutions No specific school is a dominant competitor out-of-state. Cost and Aid A. Prospective students do not have an accurate awareness of the cost of attendance or components of the AccessUVa program. Prospective students are largely unaware of the true cost of attendance or that U.Va. tuition is lower than at peer institutions. It is not generally well-understood how generous U.Va. is with need-based aid. Competitors are seen as more generous. o In-state non-applicant inquirers rate U.Va. low on affordability The majority of survey respondents consider U.Va. to be need-blind but few believe the University is meeting full need. Survey respondents were less aware of U.Va.s debt cap. Nearly half of the inquirers dont know about it or report no cap, and over half of the admitted applicants dont know or report no cap on student debt.
B. Awareness of a need-blind and meets full need policy has a significant positive impact on conversion and yield, even more so in-state. Just being need-blind has a neutral effect on conversion and yield in-state and out-of-state
C. Debt cap has significant positive impact on conversion only at the $30,000 level (lowest level we tested) Also significant positive impact on yield, at any of the levels tested, especially out-of-state
D. The study found a neutral impact associated with increasing price at the smaller increments tested. U.Va. could raise price in-state by as much as $3,500, beyond inflationary increases, and see no effect or even small gains in applications and enrollment.
6
U.Va. could raise price out-of-state by as much as $2,800, beyond inflationary increases, and see no effects on either applications or enrollment. Larger increases tested would result in decidedly negative effects on both applications and enrollment. Additional increases in conversion and yield rates would be possible by offsetting price increases with aid increases to all students.
Response to Programmatic Initiatives Tested A. A strong emphasis on faculty-student relationshipsin and beyond the classroom would have a strong effect on desirable cohorts of prospective students. We tested the following: At this college, most students make unusually strong connections with professors. Professors offer a range of undergraduate research opportunities, mentor students, and assist in internship and job placement. Students and professors come together frequently in formal and informal ways, including dinners at professors homes and impromptu lunches on campus. As an example, for out-of-state admitted applicants: U.Va. could expect to see a 17% rise in its yield rate if such relationships were emphasized and the market had full knowledge of that; and A drop of 21% in yield of out-of-state students if not emphasized B. Other initiatives, including an increased emphasis on preparation for global citizenship, also had positive effects, if more modest. C. Increased emphasis on Student Leadership Opportunities would also have moderately positive effects.
III. Overarching Recommendations The study findings lead us to make a handful of core recommendations. We note that some of these recommendations have already been taken up in Universitys strategic planning process and urge that each of them is addressed within the context of the strategic direction that emerges. A. Invest in facilitating and publicizing the fact that students can develop meaningful academic relationships with faculty. B. Present a much more welcoming campus visit, and be mindful of the effects on inquirers and visitors of the perceived campus culture. C. Strengthen U.Va.s reputation for program quality, advising, and student quality. D. Increase emphasis on preparation for global citizenship and student leadership opportunities. E. Increase awareness of affordability and communicate much more vigorously the features and benefits of AccessUVa. With regard to financial aid, we recommend that U.Va. optimize need-based grants in order to improve access for lower-income families, maintain or increase diversity, improve academic quality, and increase net tuition revenue. With the limitations of maintaining the current balance of in-state and out-of-state students and remaining need-blind, the ways to accomplish U.Va.s financial aid objectives are nuanced. We recommend: A. Conducting careful experiments to create greater variation in aid awarding for lowincome students. Only with such data will econometric modeling be able to help the University understand how changes in its aid program would affect the lowestincome students. B. Focusing on in-state student populations, the Universitys best opportunities are to increase institutional grants to higher-academic quality aid applicants and those with above median need.
Change awarding parameters in a way that would increase by $2,000 the grants made to applicants with demonstrated financial need and SAT scores of 1330 or higher. Doing so would likely enroll an additional 40-45 students and provide additional net revenue estimated at $300,000-$350,000. While the University could also decrease awards by a similar magnitude to lower-scorers, 15-20 fewer students would likely enroll and net tuition revenue would decrease by an estimated $100,000 to $150,000. Increasing grants to applicants with above-median need by $2,000 would likely enroll 35-40 additional students and provide additional net revenue estimated at $100,000-$150,000. This is also the most efficient way to enroll under-represented minorities; nearly one-third of the new students would be under-represented minorities.
C. Focusing on out-of-state student populations, the Universitys best opportunities among students with demonstrated need are to increase institutional grants based on academic quality. To maintain the geographic ratio, increasing by $2,000 grants to applicants with need and SAT scores of 1430 or lower would likely enroll 55-60 additional students. This would provide estimated additional net revenue of $1,200,000-$1,300,000. Note that the average SAT scores of this group are still higher than the average scores for in-state students and would thus increase overall academic quality. Increasing grants to lower-scorers would also improve ethnic diversity, with over one-third of new students being under-represented minorities. The University could also increase awards to higher scorers by $4,000 to enroll 40-45 additional students, which would likely increase net revenue by $700,000 to $750,000.
With regard to price, we believe U.Va. can increase in-state and out-of-state costs if aid levels are maintained. U.Va. could raise price in-state by as much as $3,500, beyond inflationary increases, and see no effect or even small gains in applications and enrollment.
U.Va. could raise price out-of-state by as much as $2,800, beyond inflationary increases, and see no effects on either applications or enrollment. Larger increases tested would result in decidedly negative effects on both applications and enrollment. Additional increases in conversion and yield rates would be possible by offsetting price increases with aid increases to all students.
10
Art & Science Group UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PRICING STUDY INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES TESTED IN THE PROSPECTIVE STUDENT STUDY
Student honor code: Has a student honor code History and tradition: Has a strong sense of history and tradition Job placement: Has an excellent record of placing graduates in good jobs and careers Honors program: Offers a strong honors program Exceptional faculty: Has exceptional faculty who are internationally recognized Outstanding students: Attracts the most outstanding students in the country Student leadership: Has a strong tradition of student leadership Strong science and engineering: Has outstanding programs in the sciences and engineering Beautiful campus: Has a beautiful campus 4 year graduation rate: An exceptionally high percentage of students graduate in four years Career counseling: Has strong career counseling programs Strong program: Has a strong program in your intended major Strong advising: Offers strong advising programs and mentorship opportunities Public service and citizenship: Puts great emphasis on public service and citizenship Welcoming: Is a place where students from many different backgrounds feel welcome and at home Affordable: Is affordable for you Generous aid: Has committed to providing extensive financial aid to lower and middle income students
SOCIAL CULTURES TESTED Different colleges and universities have reputations for more than academic excellence or being hard to get into; they are known by what kind of atmosphere prevails there. Respondents were asked to rate UVA, their first-choice school if not UVA, and their second-choice school. Welcoming Work hard/Party hard Non-conformist Preppy Elitists Cut-throat competitive Southern
Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of University of Virginia without the permission of both UVA and Art & Science Group.
Art & Science Group

DESCRIPTIONS OF SIMULATED DECISION MODELING (SDM) INITIATIVES TESTED
Undergraduate Experience Big university: This school provides all the opportunities and resources of a large research university: top-ranked graduate and professional programs, internationally recognized experts on the faculty, a wide variety of courses and majors, and a broad range of extracurricular and social opportunities. The presence of outstanding scholars and researchers creates a stimulating environment on campus, though many classes are taught by teaching associates instead of professors. (Only for schools with enrollment greater than 10,000 includes UVA) Smaller college feel: This school combines the best features of a research university with some of the best qualities of a liberal arts college. Students choose from a wide range of programs, research opportunities, extracurricular activities, and social events. At the same time, this school offers more individual attention and small-group learning opportunities than is typically found at big universities. Professors, not just graduate students, regularly teach undergraduate courses, many of which are small classes and seminars. (Only for schools with enrollment less than 15,000 includes UVA)
Faculty-Student Relationships Strong emphasis: At this college, most students make unusually strong connections with professors. Professors offer a range of undergraduate research opportunities, mentor students, and assist in internship and job placement. Students and professors come together frequently in formal and informal ways, including dinners at professors homes and impromptu lunches on campus. Limited but available: At this school, professors are available to students who seek them out. Some students work on research or independent projects with members of the faculty.
Student Leadership Opportunities Extraordinary: This school assumes that every student will become a leader in some way and provides all students with leadership preparation matched to their interests and potential. Top students have the opportunity to network with world-renowned leaders in science, business and economics, public policy, and other key sectors of our society and economy. In addition, students get hands-on leadership experiences through especially strong and independent student organizations entrusted with ultimate responsibility for many aspects of campus life. Through highlevel coursework and engagement with faculty and administrators, students develop a portfolio of experiences and graduate prepared to assume leadership roles and address the challenges facing our world. More than usual: Students who are interested have many opportunities to play leadership roles in a variety of organizations on and off campus. Those students participating in student government have especially strong leadership experiences and are given a great deal of independence and responsibility. In addition to leading and planning many aspects of campus life, students determine the standards to which they will hold each other accountable through an honor code and studentrun judicial system. 2
Art & Science Group

Typical: While this school is not particularly focused on leadership development, students have a number of opportunities for getting involved and for developing skills through coursework and student organizations. (Not for UVA)
Global Citizenship High degree of emphasis: This school believes that its students should graduate with a global perspective, a strong sense of responsibility, and the skills needed for informed global citizenship. In the classroom, public forums, campus organizations, international travel, and extracurricular experiences, students work alongside faculty on important contemporary issues related to technology, the environment, science, citizenship, democracy, ethics, and leadership in a global society. Many students study or travel abroad or complete internships or service-learning projects with one of the many global companies and organizations with which the college has unusually strong ties. Some emphasis: Students at this school can take advantage of a range of service-learning opportunities, take courses in public policy and voluntarism, and become involved in community and public service in the local community and surrounding region. Interested students also have opportunities to study abroad and to explore the history and impact of globalization in many of their classes.
Campus Culture Community of tradition: This school is steeped in traditions that bring students and alumni together in especially powerful ways. To a large extent, these traditions are expressed through long-standing events, activities, and honor societies as well as Greek organizations and high-profile athletic programs. Students who find living and learning in this culture most satisfying tend to be well-rounded individuals who place a high value on being part of a group of like-minded peers. Community of individuals: Along with a strong sense of community, this school is known for the wide range of interests and attitudes embraced by its students. Students here participate in a variety of organizations and activities that allow them to express their own individual interests and passions. Students come from many walks of life and value encountering other perspectives and other cultures through activities on and off campus.
Admissions Policy Need-blind and meets full need: This school is among an elite group of colleges that admits students based on academic qualifications and fit, without considering their ability to pay for college, and offers a financial aid package of loans, grants, and work study that meets 100% of a familys demonstrated financial need. Need-blind: This school admits students regardless of their ability to pay and offers financial aid packages that may or may not meet 100% of a familys demonstrated need. Need-aware: While this school generally admits students based on academic qualifications and fit, in selecting the last students for admission, it also takes into consideration their ability to afford the cost of attending.
Art & Science Group

Student Debt At most colleges and universities, students pay for tuition, fees, room and board through a mixture of family contributions, grants that do not have to be repaid, loans that do have to be repaid, and other sources. Need-based loans are loans taken out to cover financial need as demonstrated through a financial aid process. Capped at $30,000: This school caps, or places a limit on, the total amount of need-based loans students would be expected to take out during their four years of schooling at $30,000. Capped at $60,000: This school caps, or places a limit on, the total amount of need-based loans students would be expected to take out during their four years of schooling at $60,000. Capped at $90,000: This school caps, or places a limit on, the total amount of need-based loans students would be expected to take out during their four years of schooling at $90,000. No cap: This school does not cap, or place a limit on, the total amount of need-based loans students would be expected to take out during their four years of schooling.
Cost of Attendance for 2011-2012 Academic Year (INQ) The costs include Tuition & Fees and Room & Board. They do not include books, travel, and personal and miscellaneous expenses, which many colleges and universities include in their information about cost of attendance. This cost does not include any scholarships or grants a student may receive from that institution. In-state residents: Current plus 89% T&F: Current cost plus 89% tuition and fees ($31,300) Current plus 59% T&F: Current cost plus 59% tuition and fees ($27,800) Current plus 30% T&F: Current cost plus 30% tuition and fees ($24,300) Current: Current cost ($20,800) Out-of-state residents: Current plus 23% T&F: Current cost plus 23% tuition and fees ($54,200) Current plus 15% T&F: Current cost plus 15% tuition and fees ($51,400) Current plus 8% T&F: Current cost plus 8% tuition and fees ($48,600) Current: Current cost ($45,800)
Art & Science Group

Cost of Attendance for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA) The costs include Tuition & Fees and Room & Board. They do not include books, travel, and personal and miscellaneous expenses, which many colleges and universities include in their information about cost of attendance. This cost does not include any scholarships or grants a student may receive from that institution. In-state residents: Current plus 80% T&F: Current cost plus 80% tuition and fees ($31,900) Current plus 58% T&F: Current cost plus 58% tuition and fees ($28,400) Current plus 29% T&F: Current cost plus 29% tuition and fees ($24,900) Current: Current cost ($21,400) Out-of-state residents: Current plus 28% T&F: Current cost plus 28% tuition and fees ($57,900) Current plus 18% T&F: Current cost plus 18% tuition and fees ($54,400) Current plus 9% T&F: Current cost plus 9% tuition and fees ($50,900) Current: Current cost ($47,400)
Financial Aid (INQ) Need-Based Grants (financial aid that does not have to be repaid) Extensive: A relatively larger proportion of students at this school receive need-based grants. Some: A relatively smaller proportion of students at this school receive need-based grants.
Merit Awards (scholarships or grants based on academic achievement, regardless of need, that do not have to be repaid) Some: Some students at this school receive merit scholarships. Little or none: This school provides very little or no merit awards to its admitted students.
Grants Received for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA) The total amount of grants or scholarships (either merit or need-based), from the college or university to which youve been admitted. This includes the amount of any grants from the college and from Federal and State governments that were listed on the financial aid award letter from the school. It does not include grants or scholarships received from any other sources, such as churches or local organizations, or loans or work-study offered by the school. No match Half match Full match 5
University of Virginia
SDM Strategic Positioning and Pricing Study
Final Report of Inquirers and Admitted Applicants Research Summer, 2012
Research Methodology Inquirers

Quantitative interviews with domestic students who inquired at University of Virginia for the Fall of 2012
1,531 recruit interviews and 904 follow-up interviews 523 In-state Inquirers 102 Non-Applicant Inquirers 421 Applicant Inquirers 381 Out-of-state Inquirers 183 Non-Applicant Inquirers 198 Applicant Inquirers Phone-mail-phone administered
Average total interview length 44 minutes

Surveyed from February 2012 to April 2012 Survey administered blind
2
Research Methodology INQ, cont.

All responses weighted by application status and residency to reflect actual representation in the sample Requirements for participation: Plan to attend a 4-year college or university in the Fall Intended major (broadly defined) offered at UVA
Taken the SAT/ACT test and received score In-state Minority score of at least 1140/25 In-state Caucasian/Asian score of at least 1240/28 Out-of-state Minority score of at least 1180/26 Out-of-state Caucasian/Asian score of at least 1300/29 Able to name first choice school and schools applied to Able to name UVA as a school inquired at or at least somewhat familiar with the school
3
Research Methodology Admitted Applicants

Quantitative interviews with domestic students who were admitted to University of Virginia for the Fall of 2012 1,390 recruit interviews and 775 follow-up interviews 400 In-state Admitted Applicants 169 Admit-Declines 231 Matriculants 375 Out-of-state Admitted Applicants 287 Admit-Declines 88 Matriculants Phone-mail-phone administered
Average total interview length 36 minutes Surveyed from May 2012 to July 2012 Survey administered blind
Research Methodology AA, cont.

All responses weighted by matriculation status and residency to reflect actual representation in the sample
Requirements for participation: Plan to attend a 4-year college or university in the Fall Able to name first choice school and schools admitted to Admitted to University of Virginia
Qualification Incidence INQ

Not planning to attend 4-yr/ DK, 4% Major not offered, 4%
Haven't taken test yet or received score/ DK, 1%
Test score too low, 25%
D
Completed recruit interview, 58%
First choice not in IPED's database/ DK, 0.4% Didn't inquire at/ Not familiar with UVA, 2%
Refused to complete survey, 4%
Note: Completed recruit interviews = 1,531
Qualification Incidence AA
Not planning to attend 4-yr/ DK, 1% First choice not in IPED's database/ DK, 1%
Not admitted to UVA, 0.3%
Refused to complete survey, 1%
Completed recruit interview, 97%
Note: Completed recruit interviews = 1,390
Respondent Profile
Demographic highlights
Inquiry and admit pools are similar in terms of demographics: Just over half are female Around one-quarter are under-represented minorities Slightly more than half are from Virginia
The average SAT score (or ACT equivalent) is 1380 for inquirers (with floors) and 1410 for admitted applicants
Half are intending to major in natural sciences/math/engineering; onequarter in arts/humanities/social sciences; one-quarter in business/education/other Average household income self-reported by students is about $110,000 for inquirers and nearly $130,000 for admitted applicants Over four-fifths of inquirers and three-quarters of admitted applicants plan to apply for financial aid
9
Respondent demographics
Gender Female Male Race Caucasian African American Asian/ Pacific Islander Hispanic Multi-racial/ Other Unknown NET: Caucasian/ Asian NET: Minority (excluding Asians) Note: AA data from sample
INQ IS OOS Total Total 523 381 59% 56% 41% 44%
AA IS OOS Total Total 400 375 SD 57% 51% a-ab-ab-b 43% 49% b-ab-ab-a
65% 11% 9% 3% 11% 1% 74% 26%
59% 10% 11% 6% 14% 0% 70% 30%
59% 7% 17% 5% 5% 7% 76% 17%
58% 8% 12% 9% 6% 7% 71% 22%
a-ab-ab-b a-ab-b-ab b-b-a-ab b-ab-ab-a a-a-b-b b-b-a-a ab-a-c-bc
10
INQ IS Total 523 OOS Total 381 13% 9% 10% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 2% IS Total 400
AA OOS Total 375 6% 11% 5% 7% 9% 7% 6% 7% 6%
State California New Jersey Pennsylvania New York Maryland Florida Texas Georgia North Carolina NET: Northern VA NET: Central/ Tidewater VA NET: Southwest VA NET: Northeast NET: South NET: Other US Note: Cut-off at 3% of phase total
46% 30% 24% 39% 25% 36%
50% 35% 15% 42% 35% 23%
11
Hometown type Suburb of a large city Medium or small city Small town or rural Large city High school involvement: Leader Varsity sports Performing or visual arts Student government Other clubs or organizations High school involvement: Participant Varsity sports Performing or visual arts Student government Other clubs or organizations
INQ IS OOS Total Total 523 381 47% 36% 24% 25% 22% 21% 7% 18%
AA IS OOS Total Total 400 375 SD 48% 45% a-b-a-a 27% 24% 19% 17% 5% 13% b-a-b-ab
33% 28% 21% 52%
41% 23% 22% 54%
38% 26% 19% 61%
41% 22% a-ab-ab-b 25% 65% b-b-a-a
58% 55% 29% 90%
63% 54% 29% 91%
58% 54% 24% 92%
66% 53% 31% 93%
12
INQ IS OOS Total Total 523 381 9% 10% 7% 5% 6% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 8% 9% 19% 18% 52% 52% 27% 22% 21% 27% AA IS OOS Total Total 400 375 SD 11% 8% 5% 6% 5% 2% a-b-ab-b 3% 4% 3% 5% b-ab-ab-a 3% 6% b-ab-ab-a 6% 5% b-b-a-ab 5% 6% ab-a-b-ab 20% 22% 60% 49% b-b-a-b 18% 19% a-ab-b-b 23% 26%
First mentioned major Biology Business Engineering (general) Political science Bioenginnering & Biomedical Eng Economics Chemistry Undecided NET: Engineering NET: NS/Math/Engineering NET: Bus/Ed/Other/Und NET: Arts/Hum/SS Note: Cut-off at 4% of total Academic program Arts & sciences Engineering Commerce Nursing Education Architecture Note: Not collected in AA phase
56% 25% 9% 5% 3% 2%
74% 14% 7% 1% 2% 2%
13
Test taken SAT only ACT only Both Note: Not asked in AA phase SAT Score (ACT converted to SAT) Mean score <1250 1260-1400 1410-1500 1510-1600 Note: AA data taken from sample
INQ IS OOS Total Total 523 381 54% 29% 1% 15% 45% 56%
AA IS Total 400 OOS Total 375
SD
1360 13% 55% 20% 12%
1400 6% 48% 27% 19%
1380 14% 37% 31% 18%
1450 d-b-c-a 8% a-b-a-b 21% a-b-c-d 36% c-b-ab-a 35% c-b-b-a
14
INQ IS OOS Total Total 523 381 11% 8% 71% 77% 17% 16% 1% 0% 82% 84% AA IS OOS Total Total 400 375 SD 8% 7% a-ab-ab-b 64% 66% ab-a-c-bc 29% 27% b-b-a-a 1% 1% 71% 73% a-a-b-b
Applying for financial aid Yes, planning to apply Yes, have already applied No, not applying DK/ Ref NET: Applying for aid Access Eligible No Yes Income Less than $40,000 $40,000 - $60,000 $60,000 - $80,000 $80,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 $150,000 - $200,000 More than $200,000 DK/ Ref Mean NET: < $80,000 NET: $80,000 - $150,000 NET: $150,000 + Legacy Yes No Note: Not collected in INQ phase
64% 36%
54% 46%
67% 33%
68% a-b-a-a 32% b-a-b-b
8% 14% 8% 10% 9% 13% 7% 7% 10% 7% 8% 5% 14% 10% 11% 9% 21% 20% 23% 22% 10% 9% 11% 13% 9% 11% 17% 20% 19% 16% 15% 14% $ 111,600 $ 105,000 $ 125,500 $ 131,500 27% 36% 24% 22% 35% 29% 34% 30% 19% 20% 28% 33%
b-a-b-ab ab-a-b-b a-ab-ab-b a-ab-ab-b
b-b-a-a a-ab-ab-b b-b-a-a b-a-b-b b-b-a-a
12% 88%
12% 88%
15
The Competition
Competition highlights
Prospective students are applying to 5-6 schools and being admitted to 4-5 schools on average In-state competitors are not significant threats to UVa William & Mary and Virginia Tech are most significant individual competitors, but UVa wins overwhelming majority of match-ups In-state inquirers are primarily considering other Virginia publics; half of the admit-declines are considering attending institutions in Virginia Two-thirds of in-state, admit-declines consider UVa their second choice There are no significant individual out-of-state competitors For out-of-state students, UVa primarily competes with research/doctoral institutions outside of Virginia Only one-third of OOS inquirers plan to attend top 25 institutions; nearly two-thirds of OOS admit-declines plan to do so
17
Mean number of schools recalled applying to (INQ) or admitted to (AA) IS INQ & AA
16
13
10
5.5 a 4.7 b
4.1 c
4.0 c
NAI
APP
A-D
Admitted
MAT
Applied S4/S5/S6/S15 Note: Unaided responses shown
18
Mean number of schools recalled applying to (INQ) or admitted to (AA) OOS INQ & AA
16
13
10
7.1 a
7 6.1 b 6.1 b
4.8 c 4
NAI
Applied
APP
A-D
Admitted
MAT
S4/S5/S6/S15 Note: Unaided responses shown
19
Schools applied to or planning to apply to IS INQ

UVA
Virginia Tech
0%
40% 91% 48%
James Madison Virginia Commonwealth

George Mason
16%
40% 35% 28%
25% 21%
William and Mary Christopher Newport

Old Dominion
7%
23%
21% 15%
40%
5% 5%
3%
Princeton
U of Richmond
11%
11%
* * *
20% 40% 60% 80%
IS NAI IS APP
UNC: Chapel Hill

0%
S4/S5/S6
2%
11%
100%
20
Note: Unaided responses; 11% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
10
Schools applied to or planning to apply to OOS INQ

UVA
0%
14% 17%
72%
Duke Boston College

Vanderbilt
12% 17% 10% 13%

9% 11%
Tulane U
UNC: Chapel Hill
8%
8% 13%
23%
Princeton
U of Michigan
8%
7%
13% 13%
U of Pennsylvania
U Maryland
7%
6%
11% 11%
15%
William and Mary

Georgetown
5%
4%
*
40% 60% 80%
U of Richmond 0%
11%
*
20%
OOS NAI OOS APP
100%
21
S4/S5/S6
Note: Unaided responses; 11% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
Schools admitted to IS AA
UVA
William and Mary
28% 40%
100% 100%
*
50%
Virginia Tech James Madison

Virginia Commonwealth
14%
12% 14% 31%
37%
George Mason Duke

Cornell
2%
11% 15%
9% 9%
* *
1%
Georgia Tech
U of Richmond
8% 7%
8% 6%
UNC: Chapel Hill

0%
3%
8% 20% 40% 60% 80%
IS A-D IS MAT
100%
22
S4/S5/S15 Note: Unaided responses; 8% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
11
Win-loss rates for cross-admits at major in-state competitors IS AA
William and Mary
53%
19%
27%
Virginia Tech
69%
10%
21%
James Madison
79%
2%
19%
a
0% 20%
Win
c
60%
Loss
40%
80%
Other
100%
S4/S5/S15 Note: Unaided responses; Base = IS AA cross-admits at UVA and competitor school, W&M n=129, VT n=181, JMU n=98
23
Schools admitted to OOS AA

UVA
UNC: Chapel Hill
20% 15%
93% 100%
Duke Georgetown
Boston College
3%
8%
15% 14%
13%
27%
Cornell U of MD: College Park

U of Pennsylvania
1%
13%
12% 9%
0% 3%
1%
12%
Vanderbilt
Northwestern U
11%
11%
* *
OOS A-D OOS MAT
William and Mary

0%
10% 11% 20% 40% 60% 80%
100%
24
S4/S5/S15 Note: Unaided responses; 11% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
12
Realistic first choice IS INQ

UVA
Virginia Tech
0%
21% 36% 14%
James Madison Virginia Commonwealth

Christopher Newport
4%
4%
10% 9%
8%
2% 1%
George Mason William and Mary

Old Dominion
7%
5% 8% 4% 1%
Mary Washington
U of Pennsylvania
2% 1%
1% 2%
Stanford
0%
1% 2% 20% 40% 60% 80%
IS NAI IS APP
100%
25
S4
Note: 2% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
Realistic first choice OOS INQ

UVA
0%
10%
U of Chicago
4% 1%
Duke
3% 4% 3% 0%
2% 3%
U of Pittsburgh
U of Michigan
Brown
2% 1%
2% 1%
Rice U
OOS NAI OOS APP
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
26
S4
Note: 2% or more of responses within a subgroup shown
13
First choice school of schools admitted to IS A-D

William and Mary
17% a
Virginia Tech
12% a
Cornell
Virginia Commonwealth
4% b
4% b
Duke
3% b
Notre Dame
3% b
Princeton
2% b
UNC: Chapel Hill
2% b
Christopher Newport
0%
S4
2% b
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
27
Note: 2% or more of responses shown
First choice school of schools admitted to OOS A-D

U of Pennsylvania Cornell
6%
5% 5% 5%
5% 4%
Duke Georgetown U of MD: College Park

Stanford
UNC: Chapel Hill Dartmouth Harvard Notre Dame

0%
4% 3%
3% 3%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
28
S4
Note: 3% or more of responses shown
14
Second choice and Safety school INQ & AA

Second choice 16% of IS APP consider UVA to be their second choice 7% of OOS APP consider UVA to be their second choice 61% of IS A-D consider UVA to be their second choice 29% of OOS A-D consider UVA to be their second choice Safety/Back-up school 9% of IS APP consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school 9% of OOS APP consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school 28% of IS A-D consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school 14% of OOS A-D consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school 6% of IS MAT consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school 1% of OOS MAT consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school
S5/S9
29
Competitor Clusters INQ

GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private All Inquirers Applications First Choice 24% 35% 30% 21% 20% 19% 26% 24% Applications First Choice 69% 77% 13% 10% 16% 11% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 43% 59% 57% 41% Applications First Choice 28% 20% 32% 29% 26% 25% 14% 25% Applications First Choice 14% 13% 16% 12% 21% 19% 16% 25% 13% 14% 3% 2% 17% 15% Non-Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 16% 28% 31% 22% 22% 22% 31% 28% Applications First Choice 67% 76% 14% 10% 17% 12% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 40% 57% 60% 43% Applications First Choice 30% 22% 31% 28% 25% 26% 14% 24% Applications First Choice 14% 13% 16% 12% 19% 17% 17% 23% 13% 16% 3% 2% 18% 16% Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 37% 50% 27% 19% 16% 13% 20% 17% Applications First Choice 71% 79% 13% 10% 15% 10% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 47% 63% 53% 37% Applications First Choice 25% 16% 33% 31% 28% 24% 14% 29% Applications First Choice 15% 12% 16% 10% 24% 23% 15% 29% 12% 10% 2% 1% 16% 14%
UG POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others
Note: Asterisk indicates category for UVA
30
15
Competitor Clusters IS INQ

GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UG POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others In-state Inquirers Applications First Choice 47% 65% 23% 13% 15% 12% 16% 11% Applications First Choice 65% 73% 17% 14% 16% 11% 1% 2% Applications First Choice 53% 73% 47% 27% Applications First Choice 28% 18% 28% 23% 30% 31% 14% 28% Applications First Choice 12% 8% 13% 6% 20% 16% 15% 29% 16% 17% 3% 4% 21% 21% Non-Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 59% 74% 14% 7% 16% 13% 11% 6% Applications First Choice 52% 66% 26% 17% 20% 14% 1% 3% Applications First Choice 62% 80% 38% 20% Applications First Choice 35% 21% 19% 14% 32% 38% 13% 26% Applications First Choice 5% 4% 7% 4% 11% 9% 14% 25% 24% 24% 7% 6% 33% 27% Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 42% 57% 26% 17% 15% 11% 17% 15% Applications First Choice 70% 78% 13% 11% 15% 9% 1% 2% Applications First Choice 49% 67% 51% 33% Applications First Choice 26% 15% 32% 30% 29% 24% 14% 30% Applications First Choice 14% 12% 15% 8% 23% 21% 15% 31% 13% 11% 2% 1% 17% 15%
31
Competitor Clusters IS INQ by geography

GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others In-state Inquirers Applications First Choice 47% 65% 23% 13% 15% 12% 16% 11% Applications First Choice 65% 73% 17% 14% 16% 11% 1% 2% Applications First Choice 53% 73% 47% 27% Applications First Choice 28% 18% 28% 23% 30% 31% 14% 28% Applications First Choice 12% 8% 13% 6% 20% 16% 15% 29% 16% 17% 3% 4% 21% 21% Northern VA Inquirers Applications First Choice 39% 58% 28% 15% 14% 10% 19% 17% Applications First Choice 73% 78% 13% 13% 12% 7% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 53% 74% 47% 26% Applications First Choice 21% 14% 31% 28% 32% 23% 16% 35% Applications First Choice 14% 10% 15% 9% 22% 22% 17% 31% 14% 10% 1% 1% 18% 16% Other VA Inquirers Applications First Choice 55% 70% 17% 10% 16% 14% 13% 6% Applications First Choice 58% 69% 20% 14% 21% 14% 1% 2% Applications First Choice 53% 73% 47% 27% Applications First Choice 35% 20% 26% 18% 28% 37% 12% 24% Applications First Choice 10% 7% 12% 4% 18% 11% 12% 26% 18% 22% 6% 6% 24% 23%
PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UG POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others
32
16
Competitor Clusters OOS INQ

Out-of-state Inquirers Applications First Choice 3% 4% 36% 30% 24% 27% 36% 39% Applications First Choice 72% 81% 10% 6% 16% 11% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 33% 44% 67% 56% Applications First Choice 28% 23% 35% 35% 22% 20% 15% 22% Applications First Choice 16% 17% 19% 17% 22% 21% 18% 22% 9% 11% 2% 1% 13% 10% Non-Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 3% 4% 36% 30% 24% 27% 36% 39% Applications First Choice 71% 81% 10% 6% 16% 11% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 33% 45% 67% 55% Applications First Choice 29% 23% 34% 35% 23% 20% 15% 23% Applications First Choice 16% 17% 19% 17% 21% 20% 18% 22% 10% 12% 2% 1% 14% 10% Applicant Inquirers Applications First Choice 6% 6% 35% 32% 25% 29% 34% 32% Applications First Choice 77% 80% 8% 3% 14% 14% 2% 3% Applications First Choice 33% 34% 67% 66% Applications First Choice 24% 24% 40% 38% 21% 21% 15% 18% Applications First Choice 17% 17% 21% 23% 28% 31% 18% 17% 6% 6% 1% 0% 10% 6%
GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others
PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UG POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others
33
Competitor Clusters OOS INQ by geography
GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UG POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others
Out-of-state Inquirers Applications First Choice 3% 4% 36% 30% 24% 27% 36% 39% Applications First Choice 72% 81% 10% 6% 16% 11% 2% 2% Applications First Choice 33% 44% 67% 56% Applications First Choice 28% 23% 35% 35% 22% 20% 15% 22% Applications First Choice 16% 17% 19% 17% 22% 21% 18% 22% 9% 11% 2% 1% 13% 10%
New England Inquirers Applications First Choice 7% 6% 52% 55% 11% 7% 30% 32% Applications First Choice 67% 83% 11% 5% 20% 10% 3% 3% Applications First Choice 29% 35% 71% 65% Applications First Choice 34% 21% 33% 40% 22% 24% 11% 15% Applications First Choice 16% 17% 17% 14% 24% 30% 20% 22% 7% 8% 0% 0% 14% 8%
South Inquirers Applications First Choice 3% 0% 26% 16% 61% 77% 11% 7% Applications First Choice 74% 86% 10% 8% 14% 5% 1% 0% Applications First Choice 37% 51% 63% 49% Applications First Choice 24% 18% 39% 35% 22% 25% 15% 22% Applications First Choice 16% 13% 18% 20% 18% 9% 16% 25% 14% 20% 5% 2% 13% 11%
Other US Inquirers Applications First Choice 1% 4% 27% 14% 12% 14% 61% 67% Applications First Choice 76% 76% 9% 7% 14% 16% 1% 1% Applications First Choice 35% 48% 65% 52% Applications First Choice 25% 29% 34% 30% 23% 11% 18% 30% Applications First Choice 16% 20% 22% 19% 23% 20% 16% 20% 8% 9% 2% 0% 12% 13%
34
17
Competitor Clusters AA by residency
Decision Overlap GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northeast South Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others 31% 24% 22% 23%
ALL ADMITS First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 17% 33% 22% 28% 48% 17% 19% 15%
Decision Overlap 54% 15% 15% 16%
In-state First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 45% 20% 15% 20% 66% 9% 14% 11%
Out-of-state First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 2% 40% 25% 33% 7% 37% 31% 25%
74% 12% 12% 2%
88% 3% 8% 1%
83% 11% 6% 0%
66% 17% 16% 2%
82% 3% 13% 1%
80% 14% 5% 0%
83% 7% 8% 2%
91% 3% 5% 1%
91% 2% 7% 0%
54% 46%
39% 61%
67% 33%
64% 36%
51% 49%
74% 26%
42% 58%
33% 67%
50% 50%
22% 30% 27% 22%
14% 44% 21% 21%
13% 30% 25% 32%
26% 23% 31% 20%
19% 43% 18% 19%
14% 26% 26% 33%
18% 37% 21% 23%
11% 45% 23% 21%
11% 37% 22% 30%
8% 16% 25% 22% 11% 2% 15%
23% 29% 21% 17% 5% 1% 4%
3% 15% 30% 31% 9% 1% 11%
4% 10% 26% 22% 14% 2% 21%
15% 22% 29% 18% 9% 1% 7%
2% 12% 28% 31% 11% 1% 15%
13% 23% 24% 23% 8% 1% 8%
27% 33% 17% 17% 3% 1% 3%
5% 22% 36% 29% 5% 1% 2%
35
Competitor Clusters IS AA by geography

In-State Admits First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 45% 20% 15% 20% 66% 9% 14% 11% Northern VA First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 34% 20% 19% 27% 61% 10% 16% 12% Other VA First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 56% 21% 10% 13% 70% 7% 12% 10%
Decision Overlap GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northeast South Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private 54% 15% 15% 16%
66% 17% 16% 2%
82% 3% 13% 1%
80% 14% 5% 0%
73% 13% 12% 2%
86% 3% 11% 0%
89% 10% 1% 0%
59% 21% 19% 1%
78% 3% 16% 2%
71% 18% 10% 1%
64% 36%
51% 49%
74% 26%
63% 37%
47% 53%
74% 26%
64% 36%
55% 45%
74% 26%
UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others
26% 23% 31% 20%
19% 43% 18% 19%
14% 26% 26% 33%
21% 25% 31% 23%
17% 48% 14% 20%
9% 30% 24% 37%
30% 21% 32% 17%
20% 39% 23% 18%
20% 23% 28% 29%
4% 10% 26% 22% 14% 2% 21%
15% 22% 29% 18% 9% 1% 7%
2% 12% 28% 31% 11% 1% 15%
5% 12% 31% 24% 11% 0% 17%
19% 25% 30% 16% 6% 0% 5%
1% 12% 32% 36% 10% 0% 11%
4% 8% 22% 19% 18% 4% 25%
11% 20% 26% 20% 11% 2% 9%
3% 11% 24% 28% 13% 1% 20%
36
18
Competitor Clusters OOS AA by geography
Decision Overlap GEOGRAPHY Virginia * Northeast South Other US CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Research/ Doctoral * Masters Bachelors Others PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Public * Private UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION 1 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 * 20,001 or more US NEWS RANKINGS Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR All Others 4% 35% 29% 32%
Out-of-state Admits First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 2% 40% 25% 33% 7% 37% 31% 25%
Northeast First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 2% 60% 10% 29% 11% 74% 0% 16%
South First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 3% 23% 55% 19% 2% 16% 73% 9%
Other US First Choice Second Choice (A-D) (MAT) 0% 31% 11% 58% 10% 10% 0% 80%
83% 7% 8% 2%
91% 3% 5% 1%
91% 2% 7% 0%
79% 9% 8% 4%
90% 6% 3% 1%
95% 3% 3% 0%
89% 2% 9% 1%
91% 0% 8% 1%
86% 0% 14% 0%
83% 8% 8% 1%
92% 0% 8% 0%
95% 5% 0% 0%
42% 58%
33% 67%
50% 50%
35% 65%
28% 72%
36% 64%
51% 49%
39% 61%
61% 39%
41% 59%
32% 68%
52% 48%
18% 37% 21% 23%
11% 45% 23% 21%
11% 37% 22% 30%
22% 37% 24% 17%
13% 44% 25% 18%
5% 58% 11% 26%
13% 38% 20% 29%
10% 43% 25% 22%
13% 20% 33% 33%
13% 38% 20% 29%
10% 43% 25% 22%
13% 20% 33% 33%
13% 23% 24% 23% 8% 1% 8%
27% 33% 17% 17% 3% 1% 3%
5% 22% 36% 29% 5% 1% 2%
15% 22% 21% 24% 7% 0% 11%
29% 31% 11% 19% 4% 0% 6%
3% 19% 46% 30% 0% 0% 3%
13% 20% 26% 30% 8% 1% 2%
29% 25% 23% 18% 3% 1% 0%
9% 20% 33% 30% 9% 0% 0%
10% 26% 26% 14% 9% 3% 11%
21% 48% 18% 9% 2% 2% 0%
0% 35% 25% 25% 5% 5% 5%
37
Influencers & Campus Visit
19
Very influential sources of information in application decision IS INQ

Campus visit
81% 76%
School websites
Family
50% 45% 42% 42%

38% 37%
Current students or alumni Friends

24% 24%
23%
Rankings
40%
Print materials
Admissions officer
13%
22% 19%
22%
HS guidance counselors
Social media
6% 4%
2% 1%
13%
23%
*
IS NAI
Advertisement
0%
IS APP
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
39
Q7
Note: Very influential responses
Very influential sources of information in application decision OOS INQ

Campus visit 73% 77%
School websites Family

Rankings
45% 41% 32%

30% 42%
* *
42% 37%
Current students or alumni HS guidance counselors
27%
26% 27%
Print materials Friends

Admissions officer
23% 20%
16% 18%
15% 16% 5% 4%
2% 1%
OOS NAI OOS APP
Social media
Advertisement
0%
Q7
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
40
Note: Very influential responses
20
Whose decision about where to apply? IS INQ
Completely student's, 30%
Completely parents', 0% Mostly parents', 2%
Mostly student's, 50%
Equally shared, 18%
Q5
Note: Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS INQ N=181
41
Whose decision about where to apply? IS INQ
0% 0%
18%
54%
31%
IS NAI n=33 (SMALL N!)
D
0% 3% 18% 48% 28% IS APP n=148
-100%
0%
100%
Completely parents'
Mostly parents'
Equally shared
Mostly student's
Completely student's
42
Q5
Note: Base = IS INQ who are access eligible
21
Whose decision about where to apply? OOS INQ

Completely student's, 34%
Completely parents', 0%
Mostly student's, 42%
Mostly parents', 4%
Equally shared, 19%
Q5
Note: Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible, OOS INQ N=141
43
Whose decision about where to apply? OOS INQ
0% 4%
16%
42%
35%
OOS NAI n=89
D
0% 2% 15% 56% 27% OOS APP n=52 (SMALL N)
-100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Completely parents'
Mostly parents'
Equally shared
Mostly student's
Completely student's
44
Q5
Note: Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible
22
Parents were very influential in determining characteristics about schools applying to IS INQ
Academic quality
51% a
Cost
46% ab
Location
36% b
D
Campus safety
25% c
Career orientation
22% c
Prestige
19% c
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q6
Note: Very influential responses; Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS INQ N=181 45
Parents were very influential in determining characteristics about schools applying to IS INQ
Academic quality
57%
47%
Cost
49%
44%
Location
48%
29%
Campus safety
32%
20%
Career orientation
32%
15%
Prestige
16%
21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
IS NAI
IS APP
100%
46
Q6
Note: Very influential responses; Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS NAI N=33 (SMALL N!), IS APP N=148
23
Parents were very influential in determining characteristics about schools applying to OOS INQ
Academic quality
60% a
Cost
47% b
Campus safety
24% c
D
Location
22% c
Career orientation
17% c
Prestige
17% c
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
47
Q6
Note: Very influential responses; Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible, OOS INQ N=141
Parents were very influential in determining characteristics about schools applying to OOS INQ
Academic quality
61%
46%
Cost
47%
37%
Campus safety
25%
19%
D
Location
22%
21%
Career orientation
17%
25%
Prestige
17%
21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
OOS NAI OOS APP
100%
48
Q6
Note: Very influential responses; Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible, OOS NAI N=89, OOS APP N=52 (SMALL N)
24
Visited schools IS INQ & AA

100%
93% a
91% a 86% b
b
88%
97% a
98%
a
82% b
80%
b
65% 60%
71%b 65% c 59% c
68%c
40%
20%
0% NAI IS INQ
UVA 1st/2nd
APP
A-D IS AA
OA
MAT
Q8
49
Visited schools OOS INQ & AA

100% 87% a 96% a 90% a 84% a 84% a 80% 68% b 60%
b
65% 65% b
b
64%
69% b
70% b
40%
c
35%
20%
0% NAI OOS INQ

UVA 1st/2nd
APP
A-D OOS AA
OA
MAT
Q8
50
25
Visited UVA before or after making decision of where to apply (INQ) or attend (AA) IS INQ & AA
100%
Before only
80% 59% c 60% 65% c 73% b

After only
84% a
D
40%
5% bc 0% c
21% a 7% 1% 3% c bc
Before and after
20%
36% a 5% 9% b b
18% a 2% c MAT
Did not visit
12% b A-D IS AA
51
0% NAI IS INQ
Q8/Q9
APP
Visited UVA before or after making decision of where to apply (INQ) or attend (AA) OOS INQ & AA
100%
Before only
80%
33% c 58% b
2% 0% 60%
b b
62% ab 73% a
After only
40% 65% a 20%
7% 1%
a b
2% 1%
b b 5% ab
Before and after
34% b
35% b
12% a
Did not visit
10% c 0% NAI OOS INQ

Q8/Q9
APP
A-D OOS AA
MAT
52
26
Effect of visit to UVA on level of interest IS INQ & AA
28%
22%
12%
28%
10%
IS NAI n=68 (SMALL N)
3%10% 8%
39%
40%
IS APP n=384
bc b
D
7% 26% 23% 32% 12% IS A-D n=149
1%1%11%
37%
50%
IS MAT n=227
cc
-100.0%
b
0.0%
a
100.0%
Much less
Somewhat less
No effect
Somewhat more
Much more
53
Q10 Note: Base = IS INQ or AA who visited UVA
Effect of visit to UVA on level of interest OOS INQ & AA
17%
28%
11%
27%
17%
OOS NAI n=64 (SMALL N)
ab
3%8% 5%
27%
57%
OOS APP n=129
b b ab
ab
4% 14%
6%
44%
32%
OOS A-D n=185
b b
0%1% 1% 20%
77%
OOS MAT n=79
b c b b
-100.0% 0.0%
a
100.0%
Much less
Somewhat less
No effect
Somewhat more
Much more
Q10 Note: Base = OOS INQ or AA who visited UVA
54
27
Reported reason respondents became less interested in UVA after visit IS INQ
Overall culture/ Atmosphere (n=25) Campus doesnt feel welcoming/ Unfriendly (n=16) Campus size/ Layout (n=16) Unattractive campus/ Architecture/ Drab (n=11)
Host student/ Tour guide was not impressive (n=10)

Limited curriculum/ Not good for my major (n=10) Didnt think Id fit in (not specific) (n=8) Students are pretentious/ Snobs (n=8) NET: Social/ Environment (n=67) NET: Academics (n=15) NET: Location (n=6)
Q11 Note: Base = IS INQ whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=81; 8 or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted
55
Reported reason respondents became less interested in UVA after visit OOS INQ
Didnt think Id fit in (not specific) (n=13)
Limited curriculum/ Not good for my major (n=10) Too big/ Too many people (general) (n=9) Location (other) (n=7) Campus size/ Layout (n=6) Not impressed (not specific) (n=5) Overall culture/ Atmosphere (n=5) Students were too preppy (n=3) Unattractive campus/ Architecture/ Drab (n=3)
NET: Social/ Environment (n=30)

NET: Academics (n=16) NET: Location (n=10)
Q11 Note: Base = OOS INQ whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=43 (SMALL N!); 3 or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted 56
28
Reported reason respondents became less interested in UVA after visit IS AA

Campus doesnt feel welcoming (n=15) Didnt think Id fit in (not specific) (n=12) Overall culture/ Atmosphere (n=9) Campus size/ Layout (n=8)
Unattractive campus/ Architecture (n=6)

Student life/ Extracurricular activities (n=5) NET: Social/ Environment (n=47) NET: Location (n=3) NET: Academics (n=2)
Q11
Note: Base = IS AA whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N= 53 (SMALL N); 5 or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted
57
Reported reason respondents became less interested in UVA after visit OOS AA
Too big/ Too many people (general) (n=9)
Campus not diverse (n=8) Didnt think Id fit in (n=5) Student life/ Extracurricular activities (n=5) Not impressed with information I received (n=4)
D
NET: Social/ Environment (n=27) NET: Academics (n=6) NET: Location (n=5)
Q11
Note: Base = OOS AA whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=34 (SMALL N!); 4 or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted
58
29
Institution Size
Perceptions of a large university INQ

Average size cited for a large university was around 20,000 undergraduates and 25,000 undergraduate and graduate students
Advantages of a large university are largely social, followed by academics: Easier to meet people More diversity Many clubs and social organizations More course offerings and research opportunities Disadvantages of a large university are overwhelmingly academic: Lack of personal attention from faculty
Larger classes
60
30
Perceived enrollment of a large university, undergraduate population only INQ

50,000
IS NAI IS APP OOS NAI OOS APP
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
23,000
23,000 20,500 19,200
20,000
15,000
10,000 Undergraduate population only

Q14 Note: Mean values shown; Base = Those who answered about undergraduate population only, IS NAI = 55 (SMALL N), IS APP = 243, OOS NAI = 112, OOS APP = 137
61
Perceived enrollment of a large university, undergraduate and graduate populations INQ

50,000
IS NAI IS APP OOS NAI OOS APP
45,000
40,000
37,100 a
35,000
30,000
26,700 b 26,300
b
23,800 b
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000 Undergraduate & graduate populations

Q14 Note: Mean values shown; Base = Those who answered about undergraduate and graduate populations, IS NAI = 43 (SMALL N!), IS APP = 167, OOS NAI = 71 (SMALL N), OOS APP = 60 (SMALL N)
62
31
Advantages to attending a large university IS INQ

Easier to meet new people
Diversity
48% 58%
46% 47%
26% 26%
Course offerings
Student clubs and organizations Research opportunities Athletics
18%
13% 12%
24%
11% 15%
6% 8%
Better teachers
Larger faculty
5% 8%
1% 1%
None/ No benefits
NET: Social/ Environment
79%
39% 44%
87%
NET: Academics
NET: Reputation
17% 17%
6% 8% 0% 20%
IS NAI
IS APP
NET: Cost
40%
60%
80%
100%
63
Q15 Note: 8% or more responses within a subgroup shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted
Advantages to attending a large university OOS INQ

Easier to meet new people Diversity Course offerings
28% 30% 26% 25% 20% 25% 13% 17% 10% 10% 9% 7%
2% 1% 79% 48% 52% 40% 40% 49%
60%
Student clubs and organizations Research opportunities Athletics Well-funded Better facilities None/ No benefits
NET: Social/ Environment NET: Academics NET: Reputation NET: Cost
0%
85%
15% 13% 10%
21%
OOS NAI OOS APP
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
64
32
Disadvantages to attending a large university IS INQ

Lack of personal attention
Larger classes 68% 65%
39% 41% 26% 26%

12% 12% 4%
Can get lost in the crowd/ Just a number Decreased opportunity for social networking Less sense of community Higher student: teacher ratio Overwhelming/ Too many people More competition/ Harder to stand out Large campus/ Easy to get lost None/ No disadvantages
NET: Academics
12%
11% 13%
9% 7%
8% 12% 8% 7%
0% 1%
87% 85% 31%

3% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
NET: Social/ Environment NET: Cost
39% IS NAI IS APP

100%
65
Disadvantages to attending a large university OOS INQ

Lack of personal attention 66% 38% 35%
73%
Larger classes Can get lost in the crowd/ Just a number Decreased opportunity for social networking More courses taught by a TA Higher student: teacher ratio More competition/ Harder to stand out Overwhelming/ Too many people
Less access to faculty
26% 32% 12% 14%

12% 8%
10% 11% 10% 10%

8% 12%
7% 9% 0% 1%
91% 85%
None/ No disadvantages NET: Academics

NET: Social/ Environment
34% 35%
4% 3%
NET: Cost 0%
OOS NAI OOS APP 60% 80% 100%

66
20%
40%
33
School Ratings
Overall school ratings IS INQ & AA

10 9.4 a 9 8 7 7.7 b 7.1 c 9.0 a
9.6 a
9.4 a
b
8.1 7.7 c 6.8 d
8.1 b
c
7.1
7.6 b
6 5
5.9 d
5.2
5.7 c
4
3 2 1 NAI IS INQ
UVA 1st choice 2nd choice
APP
A-D IS AA
MAT
OA
Q2
Note: Mean ratings where 10 = best choice and 1 = worst choice; 17% of IS NAI rate 68 UVA 8-10; 50% of IS A-D rate UVA 8-10
34
Overall school ratings OOS INQ & AA

10 9.1 a
9.4 a
9.0 a 8.0 b
9.4 a
9
8 7.9 b
bc
7.2
7.8 b
7 6
5
7.0 c
c
6.8 6.4 c
6.1 d
7.5 b
d
5.5
5.4 c
D
4 3
2
1 NAI OOS INQ

UVA 1st choice 2nd choice
APP
A-D OOS AA
MAT
OA
Q2
Note: Mean ratings where 10 = best choice and 1 = worst choice; 17% of OOS NAI rate UVA 8-10; 41% of OOS A-D rate UVA 8-10
69
UVA overall ratings IS INQ

The following IS INQ subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:
APP rate much higher than NAI Northern VA and Central VA regions rate higher than Southwestern VA region Caucasian rate higher than Minority NS/ Math and Engineering rate higher than Bus/ Ed/ Other/ Und Mid SAT scorers rate higher than Low SAT scorers Males rate higher than Females Those who visited rate higher than Those who didnt visit
70
35
UVA overall ratings OOS INQ

The following OOS INQ subgroups rated UVA significantly differently: APP rate much higher than NAI Mid income rate higher than High income
71
UVA overall ratings IS AA

The following IS AA subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:
MAT rate much higher than A-D Those receiving aid rate higher than Those not receiving aid Low and Mid SAT scorers rate higher than High SAT scorers
72
36
UVA overall ratings OOS AA

The following OOS AA subgroups rated UVA significantly differently: MAT rate much higher than A-D Bus/Ed/Other/Und rate higher than SS/Hum/Art
Low SAT scorers rate higher than High SAT scorers

Those who visited rate much higher than Those who did not visit
73
Decision Criteria
37
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings IS NAI

Student honor code History and tradition Job placement Honors program Exceptional faculty Outstanding students Student leadership Strong science and engineering Beautiful campus 1
Q4
9.1
8.6 9.1 7.6 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.6 7.9 8.5 7.3 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
* *
UVA
1st
10
75
Note: Mean ratings where 10 = describes the school perfectly and 1 = does not describe the school at all
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings IS NAI, cont.

4 year graduation rate Career counseling Strong program 7.6 8.8 7.5 8.3 7.5 8.2 6.9 8.4 6.7 7.9 6.3 7.1 1
Q4
8.1 8.1 8.0 8.1
Strong advising Public service and citizenship Welcoming
* *
Affordable
*
UVA
1st
Generous aid 2 3 4 5 6
*
8 9
10
76
38
UVA & 1st/2nd: Attribute ratings IS APP

Student honor code History and tradition Beautiful campus 7.9 8.7 8.5 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.6 8.1 8.5 7.4 8.3 8.4 1
Q4
9.3
8.5 9.2
4 year graduation rate

Job placement
*
* * *
Honors program
Student leadership Outstanding students Strong program 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
*
UVA 1st/2nd
10
77
D
UVA & 1st/2nd: Attribute ratings IS APP, cont.
Exceptional faculty Strong science and engineering Public service and citizenship Career counseling Affordable 8.3 7.8 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.5
* * *
UVA
1st/2nd
Strong advising 7.4
7.8 8.1
Welcoming 6.7
8.1
Generous aid 1
Q4
7.1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*
8
10
78
39
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings OOS NAI

Beautiful campus History and tradition Student honor code
8.5 8.6
8.5 8.2 8.2
7.8

Job placement Student leadership Honors program Exceptional faculty Strong science and engineering 1
Q4
8.0 8.3 7.9 8.5 7.8 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 8.1 7.6 8.3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
*
UVA
*
9
1st
10
79
D
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings OOS NAI, cont.
Outstanding students Career counseling Public service and citizenship Strong program 7.6 7.9 7.5 8.0 7.4 7.9 7.3 8.9 7.2 8.2 7.2 8.0 *
Welcoming
Strong advising 6.4
Generous aid 5.9
7.5
*
UVA
1st
Affordable 1
Q4
7.3 2 3 4 5 6 7
*
8 9
10
80
40
UVA & 1st/2nd: Attribute ratings OOS APP

Beautiful campus History and tradition Student honor code
9.0 8.7
8.9 8.2 8.8
8.0
8.3 8.6 8.3 8.6 8.3 7.8 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.8 8.1 7.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Job placement
Honors program
Student leadership Strong program Outstanding students
*
10
81
UVA
1st/2nd
Q4
D
UVA & 1st/2nd: Attribute ratings OOS APP, cont.
Exceptional faculty Career counseling Public service and citizenship Strong science and engineering Strong advising 7.1 7.9 6.5 7.5 6.3 7.3 1
Q4
8.0 8.1 7.7 8.2 7.7 8.2 7.7 7.8 7.6 8.2
Welcoming
Generous aid
*
UVA
1st/2nd
Affordable 2 3 4 5 6
*
8
10
82
41
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings IS A-D

Student honor code History and tradition Job placement
9.2
8.8 8.9 8.5 8.5 8.8 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.9 8.2 8.5 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Honors program
Beautiful campus
Exceptional faculty Strong science and engineering Student leadership
*
UVA
1st
10
83
Q4
D
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings IS A-D, cont.
Outstanding students Strong program 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.9 7.8 7.7 7.7 8.3 7.6 8.2 7.4 8.5 7.4 8.4 6.6 7.7 1
Q4
Affordable Career counseling Public service and citizenship Strong advising
* *
Welcoming
*
UVA
1st
*
9
10
84
42
UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings IS MAT

Student honor code History and tradition Beautiful campus 7.7 7.4 9.1
9.6 *
9.5
7.9
9.0 7.5 8.9 8.0 8.9 8.0 8.9 6.9 8.8 7.8 8.6 7.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Student leadership
* *
Job placement
Outstanding students Strong program Exceptional faculty
*
UVA
2nd
10
85
Q4
D
UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings IS MAT, cont.
Public service and citizenship Strong science and engineering Honors program 8.5 7.6 8.5 7.5 8.4 7.8 8.2 7.3 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.7 7.9 7.5 6.8 6.9 1
Q4
* *
Affordable
Strong advising
Welcoming Career counseling Generous aid 2 3 4 5 6
*
UVA
2nd
10
86
43
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings OOS A-D

Student honor code Beautiful campus History and tradition 8.2
9.0 *
8.9 8.6 8.9
* *
8.4
8.3 8.7 8.1 8.9 8.1 8.3 8.0 7.5 7.7 8.6 7.6 8.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Job placement Student leadership Honors program Exceptional faculty Outstanding students
* *
* *
UVA
1st
*
9
10
87
Q4
D
UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings OOS A-D, cont.
Public service and citizenship Strong program Strong science and engineering Career counseling Strong advising 7.6 8.1 7.5 9.1 7.4 8.4 7.4 8.3 7.3 8.3 7.2 8.5 6.2 8.0 5.6 8.1 1
Q4
* *
*
* *
Welcoming
Generous aid
*
UVA
Affordable 2 3 4 5
*
9
1st
10
88
44
UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings OOS MAT

History and tradition Student honor code Beautiful campus Strong program Student leadership 7.3 7.2 9.6
9.7 *
9.7
7.3
8.9 7.9 8.9 7.5 8.8 8.2 8.7 8.0 8.4 7.6 8.4 7.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
*
*
Job placement
4 year graduation rate Exceptional faculty Public service and citizenship
* *
9
UVA
2nd
10
89
Q4
D
UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings OOS MAT, cont.
Outstanding students Honors program Strong science and engineering Strong advising Career counseling Affordable 8.4 7.2 8.2 7.6 8.2 7.6 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.2 7.7 7.9 7.6 6.3 1
Q4
* *
Welcoming
*
9
UVA
2nd
10
90
45
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: IS NAI
Comfortable & Aid Plus (Beta = 1.00) Welcoming, Generous aid, Strong advising, and Affordable
Strong Academics (Beta = 0.56) Strong program and Strong science and engineering Campus Plus (Beta = 0.27) Beautiful campus and Public service and citizenship NOT College (Beta = 0.25) NOT History and tradition, NOT Outstanding students, NOT Exceptional faculty, NOT Job placement, NOT 4 year graduation rate, NOT Student leadership, and NOT Student honor code
Adj. R2 = 0.27
91
D
Hot-button perception gaps IS NAI
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
NOT Student honor code

NOT Honors program
Beautiful campus
Generous aid
-1.0
Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
NOT Outstanding students
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.38
92
46
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: IS APP
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.84) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Career counseling
College (Beta = 0.66) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, and 4 year graduation rate
Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.17) Generous aid and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.30
93
D
Hot-button perception gaps IS APP
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
NOT Generous aid Job placement Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Strong program
-1.0
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.35
94
47
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI <$80K IS INQ
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.83) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Job placement
Comfortable (Beta = 0.47) Welcoming, Public service and citizenship, Career counseling, and Strong advising Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.36) Generous aid and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.23
95
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI <$80K IS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Student leadership
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Strong program
Welcoming
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.35
96
48
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ
Campus & ?? (Beta = 0.58) Beautiful campus, Public service and citizenship, Strong advising, Student honor code, and Student leadership
Strong Academics (Beta = 0.49) Strong program and Strong science and engineering Aid Plus (Beta = 0.37) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.16
97
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Beautiful campus Strong program
-1.0
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.23
98
49
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $150K+ IS INQ
Strong Academics & Placement Plus (Beta = 1.04) Strong program, Strong science and engineering, Job placement, Welcoming, Exceptional faculty, and Outstanding students
Support Plus (Beta = 0.44) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Generous aid, and Career counseling College (Beta = 0.41) History and tradition, Outstanding students, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, and Exceptional faculty Affordable (Beta = 0.37) Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.32
99
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $150K+ IS INQ
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
Significant Lead
2.0
1.0
Similar
0.0
Strong program NOT Honors program Welcoming Strong science and engineering Strong advising
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0
Adj. R2 = 0.30
100
50
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Minority IS INQ
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.94) Strong program, Strong science and engineering, Career counseling, Job placement, and Exceptional faculty
Aid & Comfortable Plus (Beta = 0.66) Generous aid, Welcoming, Affordable, and Public service and citizenship College Plus (Beta = 0.24) History and tradition, Student leadership, Student honor code, Outstanding students, Honors program, Beautiful campus, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Public service and citizenship, 4 year graduation rate, and Career counseling
Adj. R2 = 0.25
101
D
Hot-button perception gaps Minority IS INQ
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Public service and citizenship
Beautiful campus Generous aid

-1.0
Strong program
NOT Honors program
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.32
102
51
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: SAT 1450+ IS INQ
Comfortable Plus (Beta = 0.77) Welcoming, Generous aid, Career counseling, Public service and citizenship, and Exceptional faculty Strong Academics (Beta = 0.72) Strong science and engineering and Strong program College (Beta = 0.41) History and tradition, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, and Outstanding students
Adj. R2 = 0.25
103
D
Hot-button perception gaps SAT 1450+ IS INQ
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
NOT Exceptional faculty NOT Honors program
Beautiful campus
Career counseling
Strong program
-1.0
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.44
104
52
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Northern VA IS INQ
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.85) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, and Outstanding students
College (Beta = 0.54) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, Honors program, and 4 year graduation rate
Aid Plus (Beta = 0.33) Generous aid, Welcoming, Affordable, and Strong advising
Adj. R2 = 0.23
105
D
Hot-button perception gaps Northern VA IS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Beautiful campus
Strong program
Welcoming
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.32
106
53
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Other Virginia IS INQ
?? (Beta = 0.71) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, Welcoming, and Honors program
Strong Academics Plus (Beta = 0.54) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Job placement Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.50) Generous aid and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.23
107
D
Hot-button perception gaps Other Virginia IS INQ
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Beautiful campus
NOT Honors program

Generous aid
-1.0
Strong program
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.35
108
54
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Engineering IS INQ
Strong Academics plus Placement (Beta = 1.36) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Job placement
Aid Plus (Beta = 0.47) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Strong advising Affordable Plus (Beta = 0.28) Affordable, Student honor code, and Beautiful campus
Adj. R2 = 0.40
109
Hot-button perception gaps Engineering IS INQ

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Beautiful campus
-1.0
Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.39
110
55
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS INQ
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.74) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Welcoming
Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.44) Affordable and Generous aid College & Campus (Beta = 0.40) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, and 4 year graduation rate
Adj. R2 = 0.21
111
D
Hot-button perception gaps Caucasian/Asian IS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
NOT Student honor code NOT Honors program
Similar
0.0
Affordable
Beautiful campus Strong program Welcoming
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Adj. R2 = 0.31
112
56
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: OOS NAI
Prestige & Placement Plus (Beta = 0.94) Outstanding students, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Career counseling
Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.62) Generous aid and Affordable Campus Plus (Beta = 0.44) Beautiful campus, Student honor code, History and tradition, Student leadership, and Public service and citizenship
Adj. R2 = 0.28
113
D
Hot-button perception gaps OOS NAI
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
Outstanding students
1.0
NOT History and tradition Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Strong science and engineering

Strong advising Welcoming
-1.0
NOT Student honor code Generous aid Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.35
114
57
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: OOS APP
Prestige Plus (Beta = 0.95) Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Strong science and engineering, Job placement, Welcoming, Strong program, and Strong advising Tradition Plus (Beta = 0.67) History and tradition, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Student honor code, and Outstanding students ?? (Beta = 0.50) Honors program, Public service and citizenship, Strong advising, Career counseling, Student honor code, and Student leadership
Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.28) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.37
115
D
Hot-button perception gaps OOS APP
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
NOT Honors program Strong program

-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Adj. R2 = 0.38
116
58
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI <$80K OOS INQ
Prestige & Placement (Beta = 0.70) Outstanding students, Job placement, Strong science and engineering, Exceptional faculty, and 4 year graduation rate Tradition Plus (Beta = 0.64) History and tradition, Beautiful campus, and Student honor code Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.41) Affordable and Generous aid Comfortable Plus (Beta = 0.41) Welcoming, Public service and citizenship, Strong advising, and Student leadership
Adj. R2 = 0.24
117
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI <$80K OOS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Public service and citizenship

-1.0
Significant Lag
Generous aid
-2.0
Strong program
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.34
118
59
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ
Prestige & Placement & Strong Academics (Beta = 0.99) Job placement, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Career counseling, Strong science and engineering, Honors program, Strong program, and Strong advising Campus plus ?? (Beta = 0.46) Beautiful campus, Student honor code, History and tradition, Public service and citizenship, Student leadership, and Strong advising Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.36) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.27
119
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
NOT 4 year graduation rate

1.0
Beautiful campus NOT History and tradition Strong science and engineering Student leadership Strong advising Strong program Welcoming
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.40
120
60
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $150K+ OOS INQ
Prestige & Strong Academics Plus (Beta = 1.06) Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Strong science and engineering, Job placement, Strong program, Welcoming, Career counseling, Strong advising, and Student leadership Aid Plus (Beta = 0.75) Generous aid, Strong advising, and 4 year graduation rate Honors plus Affordable (Beta = 0.47) Honors program and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.31
121
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $150K+ OOS INQ

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Affordable
-1.0
NOT History and tradition Job placement
Generous aid
Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.38
122
61
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Minority OOS INQ
Prestige & Placement Plus (Beta = 0.67) Outstanding students, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, 4 year graduation rate, and Career counseling Comfortable Plus (Beta = 0.39) Welcoming, Strong advising, Student honor code, and Beautiful campus
Adj. R2 = 0.11
123
D
Hot-button perception gaps Minority OOS INQ
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
NOT Exceptional faculty

NOT Student honor code NOT Affordable NOT Career counseling
Similar
0.0
NOT Honors program Job placement

-1.0
Outstanding students Public service and citizenship Generous aid Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Adj. R2 = 0.36
124
62
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: SAT 1450+ OOS INQ
Placement & Prestige & Strong Academics (Beta = 1.11) Job placement, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Career counseling
Aid Plus (Beta = 0.67) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Strong advising
?? (Beta = 0.27) Student honor code, Beautiful campus, History and tradition, Student leadership, and Public service and citizenship
Adj. R2 = 0.35
125
Hot-button perception gaps SAT 1450+ OOS INQ

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
Generous aid
-2.0
Strong program
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.35
126
63
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ
Placement & Strong Academics (Beta = 1.07) Job placement, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Career counseling, Strong advising, and Welcoming Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.72) Generous aid and Affordable College & Campus (Beta = 0.45) Beautiful campus, Student honor code, History and tradition, Student leadership, and Public service and citizenship Honors Program (Beta = 0.16) Honors program
Adj. R2 = 0.35
127
D
Hot-button perception gaps Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
NOT Student honor code Strong science and engineering
-1.0
NOT History and tradition

Generous aid Strong program
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2.0
Affordable
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.39
128
64
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: IS A-D
Strong Academics Plus (Beta = 1.04) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, and Job placement ?? (Beta = 1.00) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Career counseling, and Welcoming
Tradition Plus (Beta = 0.53) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, and Job placement
Adj. R2 = 0.43
129
D
Hot-button perception gaps IS A-D
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Beautiful campus Strong program

-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Strong advising
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.53
130
65
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: IS MAT
College (Beta = 1.25) History and tradition, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Outstanding students, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, Public service and citizenship, Exceptional faculty, and Job placement
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 0.88) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, Strong advising, Job placement, and Career counseling
Adj. R2 = 0.53
131
D
Hot-button perception gaps IS MAT
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
History and tradition
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Affordable Job placement

Strong program
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Adj. R2 = 0.58
132
66
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI <$80K IS AA
Strong Academics plus Welcoming (Beta = 1.09) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Welcoming College Plus (Beta = 1.07) History and tradition, 4 year graduation rate, Student honor code, Outstanding students, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Career counseling, Public service and citizenship, and Strong advising
Adj. R2 = 0.50
133
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI <$80K IS AA
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Strong program Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Strong advising
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.59
134
67
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $80K<$150K IS AA
College (Beta = 0.91) History and tradition, Student honor code, Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, and Public service and citizenship Strong Academics (Beta = 0.86) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Outstanding students Advising Plus (Beta = 0.65) Strong advising, Career counseling, and Public service and citizenship
Adj. R2 = 0.48
135
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $80K<$150K IS AA
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus Affordable Strong program
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.51
136
68
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $150K+ IS AA
College & Placement (Beta = 1.18) History and tradition, Student leadership, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, Job placement, and Exceptional faculty Strong Academics (Beta = 1.09) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, and Honors program Advising (Beta = 0.50) Career counseling and Strong advising
Adj. R2 = 0.50
137
D
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $150K+ IS AA
Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
Significant Lead
2.0
1.0
Outstanding students Beautiful campus
Strong program
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.58
138
69
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Minority IS AA
Strong Academics & Placement (Beta = 1.01) Strong program, Strong science and engineering, Job placement, Outstanding students, and Exceptional faculty College Plus (Beta = 1.00) 4 year graduation rate, Student leadership, History and tradition, Student honor code, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Honors program, and Career counseling Welcoming plus Advising (Beta = 0.52) Welcoming and Strong advising
Adj. R2 = 0.45
139
Hot-button perception gaps Minority IS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Job placement
0.0
Similar
Generous aid
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.47
140
70
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: SAT 1450+ IS AA
College Plus (Beta = 0.98) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, and Job placement Strong Academics Plus (Beta = 0.90) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, and Job placement Advising & Aid (Beta = 0.58) Strong advising, Career counseling, and Generous aid Affordable & Honors (Beta = 0.27) Affordable and Honors program
Adj. R2 = 0.38
141
Hot-button perception gaps SAT 1450+ IS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
Affordable
1.0
Outstanding students Beautiful campus Strong program
Similar
0.0
Strong advising
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.53
142
71
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Northern VA IS AA
College Plus (Beta = 1.10) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Public service and citizenship, and Job placement Strong Academics (Beta = 0.90) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Honors program
Advising (Beta = 0.44) Strong advising and Career counseling
Adj. R2 = 0.49
143
Hot-button perception gaps Northern VA IS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Affordable Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
Strong program
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.54
144
72
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Other VA IS AA
Strong Academics (Beta = 1.11) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Welcoming College & Placement (Beta = 1.05) Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, History and tradition, Outstanding students, Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Job placement, Public service and citizenship, and Exceptional faculty
Aid & Affordable (Beta = 0.27) Generous aid and Affordable
Adj. R2 = 0.46
145
Hot-button perception gaps Other VA IS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Outstanding students Job placement Beautiful campus Public service and citizenship
Strong program
Similar
0.0
Strong advising
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.53
146
73
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Engineering IS AA
College Plus (Beta = 1.15) History and tradition, Student leadership, Student honor code, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Exceptional faculty, and Job placement Strong Academics plus Placement (Beta = 1.14) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, Strong advising, and Welcoming
Adj. R2 = 0.52
147
Hot-button perception gaps Engineering IS AA

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Affordable
Similar
0.0
Strong advising NOT Generous aid
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.56
148
74
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS AA
College Plus (Beta = 1.05) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Beautiful campus, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Public service and citizenship Strong Academics (Beta = 0.93) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, and Exceptional faculty
Support (Beta = 0.54) Strong advising and Career counseling
Adj. R2 = 0.47
149
Hot-button perception gaps Caucasian/Asian IS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Affordable
Beautiful campus
Strong program
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.55
150
75
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS A-D
Support Plus (Beta = 1.07) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Career counseling, and Welcoming Strong Academics (Beta = 0.94) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Job placement
College (Beta = 0.50) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Job placement, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Beautiful campus, and 4 year graduation rate
Adj. R2 = 0.42
151
Hot-button perception gaps Caucasian/Asian IS A-D

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Strong program Beautiful campus
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.50
152
76
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: OOS A-D
Prestige & Placement Plus (Beta = 1.38) Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Welcoming, Career counseling, and Strong advising
College (Beta = 0.53) Student honor code, History and tradition, Beautiful campus, Public service and citizenship, and Student leadership Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.41) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.49
153
Hot-button perception gaps OOS A-D

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
0.0
Similar
Exceptional facultyOutstanding students

-1.0
Job placement Strong advising
Significant Lag
-2.0
Strong program
Affordable
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.48
154
77
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: OOS MAT
Campus & College Plus (Beta = 1.48) Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Outstanding students, History and tradition, Student honor code, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, 4 year graduation rate, Public service and citizenship, Career counseling, Strong advising, and Strong program
Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.33) Affordable, Generous aid, and Honors program Welcoming Plus (Beta = 0.26) Welcoming, Strong science and engineering, and Exceptional faculty
Adj. R2 = 0.50
155
Hot-button perception gaps OOS MAT

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Student honor code History and tradition Beautiful campus
Significant Lead
Strong program
1.0
Similar
0.0
NOT Career counseling
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.55
156
78
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI <$80K OOS AA
Prestige & Placement Plus (Beta = 0.97) Exceptional faculty, Job placement, Outstanding students, Career counseling, Strong science and engineering, Strong advising, Strong program, Welcoming, 4 year graduation rate, and Student leadership College (Beta = 0.90) Student honor code, Honors program, History and tradition, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, and Student leadership Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.84) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.50
157
Hot-button perception gaps HHI <$80K OOS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
0.0
Similar
Strong program
-1.0
Job placement Exceptional faculty
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.53
158
79
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA
Strong Academics & Prestige (Beta = 1.21) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Welcoming, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Outstanding students Campus & College (Beta = 0.91) Beautiful campus, History and tradition, Student honor code, Student leadership, Public service and citizenship, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Career counseling, and Exceptional faculty
Adj. R2 = 0.47
159
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Welcoming
Strong program
Significant Lag
-2.0
Affordable
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.49
160
80
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: HHI $150K+ OOS AA
Welcoming & Strong Academics Plus (Beta = 1.01) Welcoming, Strong science and engineering, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Job placement, and Strong program Campus & College (Beta = 0.98) Beautiful campus, Student leadership, History and tradition, Student honor code, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Job placement, and Public service and citizenship
NOT Honors (Beta = 0.32) NOT Honors program Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.25) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.46
161
Hot-button perception gaps HHI $150K+ OOS AA

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
Outstanding students Strong program

-1.0
Strong advising
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Adj. R2 = 0.48
162
81
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Minority OOS AA
Prestige & Placement Plus (Beta = 1.18) Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Outstanding students, Job placement, Strong program, Career counseling, Welcoming, and Strong advising College (Beta = 0.74) History and tradition, Student honor code, Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Public service and citizenship, and 4 year graduation rate Affordable & Aid (Beta = 0.42) Affordable and Generous aid
Adj. R2 = 0.48
163
Hot-button perception gaps Minority OOS AA

Important
3.0
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Welcoming Affordable
Significant Lag
Strong program
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.55
164
82
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: SAT 1450+ OOS AA
Strong Academics & Prestige (Beta = 1.07) Strong science and engineering, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, Job placement, Strong program, and Outstanding students Campus & College (Beta = 0.92) Beautiful campus, History and tradition, Student leadership, Student honor code, Public service and citizenship, 4 year graduation rate, Outstanding students, and Job placement
Adj. R2 = 0.45
165
D
Hot-button perception gaps SAT 1450+ OOS AA
3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
NOT Career counseling
History and tradition

0.0
Similar
Strong advising
-1.0
Strong program
Affordable
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adj. R2 = 0.47
166
83
Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiating between competitors: Engineering OOS AA
Strong Academics plus Placement (Beta = 1.00) Strong science and engineering, Strong program, Job placement, Welcoming, Career counseling, Strong advising, Outstanding students, and Exceptional faculty College Plus (Beta = 0.96) Student leadership, History and tradition, Student honor code, Beautiful campus, Public service and citizenship, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Career counseling
Adj. R2 = 0.47
167
Hot-button perception gaps Engineering OOS AA

3.0
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2.0
Significant Lead
1.0
Beautiful campus
Similar
0.0
-1.0
Significant Lag
-2.0
Dramatic Lag
-3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Affordable
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.49
168
84
Social Cultures
UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings IS NAI

Preppy 8.5 5.0 8.1 5.7 7.9
Cut-throat competitive
Elitist
5.4
7.0 6.4 6.1
Work hard/ Party hard
D
Welcoming 8.7
Southern
5.6 5.3
4.9 6.4 1 2 3 4 5 6
UVA
Non-conformist
*
7 8 9
1st
10
170
Q12 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = describes the school perfectly and 1 = does not describe the school at all
85
UVA & 1st/2nd: Social culture ratings IS APP

Preppy 8.4 5.2 7.8 5.8 7.5
Elitist
6.2
7.3
*
8.4
Welcoming
Work hard/ Party hard 5.8

4.9 5.3
7.3 6.6
Southern
*
UVA
Non-conformist 1 2 3 4 5
6.5 6
*
8
1st/2nd
10
171
UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings OOS NAI

Welcoming 7.3 8.4 6.7 6.6 6.7
Preppy
5.8
6.6 6.1 6.5 6.0
Elitist
Southern
4.6 5.4
6.4 *
UVA
6.3 6
*
7 8 9
1st
10
172
86
UVA & 1st/2nd: Social culture ratings OOS APP

Preppy 7.5 6.0 7.4 8.3 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.0 6.7 4.5
*
*
Welcoming
Elitist
Southern
Cut-throat competitive 5.2
6.0
6.6 *
6.1 6
*
7 8
UVA
1st/2nd
10
173
UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings IS A-D

Preppy 8.8 * 7.8 * 7.5 * 7.2 *
5.1
6.5
Elitist
5.6
6.0 6.7
Welcoming 6.0 *
8.9
Southern
4.3 4.8
Non-conformist 1 2 3 4
6.7
*
8 9
UVA 1st
10
174
87
UVA & 2nd: Social culture ratings IS MAT

Preppy 8.5 * 8.1 *
5.1
6.8
Welcoming
8.0 7.9 7.7 * 7.5 *
Elitist
5.4
5.9
Southern
5.3 5.6
6.2 *
6.2
*
7 8 9
UVA 2nd
10
175
UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings OOS A-D

Preppy 7.5 *
6.0
Welcoming
7.4
8.4 *
7.3 7.3 6.9 *
Southern
3.7 6.5
5.9
Elitist
6.1 6.2 5.1

6.4
UVA 1st
*
7 8 9
10
176
88
UVA & 2nd: Social culture ratings OOS MAT

Welcoming 8.4 * 8.3 * 8.2 *
7.4
7.1
Preppy
6.1
Southern
7.3 4.3 7.1 *
Elitist
6.0
6.7 6.0 5.8

6.4
UVA 2nd
10
177
D
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings IS NAI
Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Similar
-1
Non-conformist
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Elitist
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj.
R2
= 0.43
178
89
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings IS APP

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.13
179
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI <$80K IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Significant Lag
-1
Welcoming NOT Elitist
Dramatic Lag
-2
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.21
180
90
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
NOT Elitist
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.23
181
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $150K+ IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Work hard/Party hard
Similar
-1
NOT Southern
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag -3
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj.
R2
= 0.23
182
91
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Minority IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
Welcoming
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.33
183
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings SAT 1450+ IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Adj. R2 = 0.24
184
92
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Northern VA IS INQ

3
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Elitist
Dramatic Lag
-3
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.20
185
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Other Virginia INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Non-conformist Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.29
186
93
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Engineering IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.24
187
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian IS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Significant Lag
-1
Non-conformist
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-2
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj.
R2
= 0.23
188
94
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings OOS NAI

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
NOT Preppy
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Adj. R2 = 0.21
189
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings OOS APP

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.18
190
95
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI <$80K OOS INQ
Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Non-conformist Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.15
191
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ
Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.14
192
96
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $150K+ OOS INQ
Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Adj. R2 = 0.34
193
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Minority OOS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Southern Welcoming
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.13
194
97
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings SAT 1450+ OOS INQ
Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Welcoming Non-conformist
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.24
195
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Significant Lag
-1
Non-conformist
Welcoming
NOT Southern NOT Preppy
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj.
R2
= 0.21
196
98
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings IS A-D

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Similar
-1
NOT Southern
Significant Lag
-2
Welcoming
Dramatic Lag -3
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.41
197
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings IS MAT

Important
4
Very Important
Most Important
Preppy
Dramatic Lead
Significant Lead
1
Welcoming
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.30
198
99
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI <$80K IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Elitist
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-1
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
Adj. R2 = 0.24
199
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $80K<$150K IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming Non-conformist
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.22
200
100
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $150K+ IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-1
Dramatic Lag
-2
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.14
201
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Minority IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.25
202
101
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings SAT 1450+ IS AA

Important Very Important Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-1
Non-conformist
Dramatic Lag
-2
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.20
203
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Northern VA IS AA

3
Important
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.15
204
102
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Other VA AA

Important
Elitist
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Welcoming NOT Southern
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
Adj. R2 = 0.26
205
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Engineering IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.22
206
103
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian IS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Adj. R2 = 0.19
207
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian IS A-D

Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-3
Welcoming
NOT Preppy
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
Adj. R2 = 0.45
208
104
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings OOS A-D

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
Non-conformist
-2
-3
NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Adj. R2 = 0.25
209
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings OOS MAT

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Preppy
Significant Lead
1
Welcoming
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.32
210
105
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI <$80K OOS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Preppy
Similar
Cut-throat competitive Non-conformist
Welcoming
Significant Lag
-1
-2
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.29
211
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Non-conformist
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.21
212
106
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings HHI $150K+ OOS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1

0
Similar
Elitist Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3
NOT Southern
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Adj. R2 = 0.20
213
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Minority AA INQ

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
Non-conformist
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
-3
NOT Southern
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.31
214
107
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings SAT 1450+ OOS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
Significant Lead
Welcoming
Similar
-1
Significant Lag
-2
-3
Dramatic Lag
-4 0 0.05 0.1
NOT Southern
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.20
215
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Engineering OOS AA

Important
3
Very Important
Most Important
Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
NOT Southern
Dramatic Lag
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.18
216
108
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian OOS AA

Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Non-conformist
Significant Lag
-2
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Adj. R2 = 0.16
217
Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings Caucasian/Asian OOS A-D

Dramatic Lead
2
Significant Lead
1
Similar
Welcoming
-1
Significant Lag
-2
Non-conformist
Dramatic Lag
NOT Southern
-3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Adj. R2 = 0.20
218
109
Academic Initiatives
Academic initiatives ratings IS INQ & AA

Faculty interaction opportunities
8.8 8.8
9.1 8.8
8.6 8.5
Bachelor's and master's degree in 4 years
8.4 8.6
8.5 8.3
Special concentrations
8.5 8.3
8.1 8.1
Academic support for STEM students
8.1 8.2
8.0 7.8
Intensive freshman seminar experience
8.0 7.9
NAI
Access to opportunities in DC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7.5 b 8.0a 8 9
7.8 ab 7.9 a
APP
A-D
MAT
10
Q13 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = extremely appealing and 1 = extremely unappealing 220
110
Proportion of respondents who rated academic initiatives 8-10 IS INQ & AA

78% b 83% ab
88% a 83% ab
77% 74%
76% 77%

68% 69%
76% 76%
76% 80%
69% 72%
Access to opportunities in DC
64% 64%
57% 62%
NAI APP A-D MAT

0% 20% 40% 60%
63% 63%
65% 68% 80%
100%
221
Q13 Note: 8-10 ratings where 10 = extremely appealing and 1 = extremely unappealing
Academic initiatives ratings OOS INQ & AA

9.1 a 8.7 b
9.1 a 8.8 ab
8.5 8.5
8.4 8.6
8.2 8.2
8.2 8.3
8.0 a 7.5b
7.7 ab 7.7ab
7.9
7.9 7.8 7.6 7.9 a 7.8 a
NAI APP
A-D
Access to opportunities in DC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7.3b
8.1 a 9
MAT
10
Q13 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = extremely appealing and 1 = extremely unappealing 222
111
Proportion of respondents who rated academic initiatives 8-10 OOS INQ & AA
88% ab 81% b
90% a 85% ab
76% 75%
74% 77%
74% 71%
72% 74%
71% a 58% b
62% b 64% ab
66% 67%
61% 56%
NAI APP A-D MAT
Access to opportunities in DC
0% 20% 40%
53%b 60%
62%a 62% a
68% a 80%
100%
223
Q13 Note: 8-10 ratings where 10 = extremely appealing and 1 = extremely unappealing
Simulated Decision Modeling (SDM) Initiatives Tested
112
SDM Initiatives Tested

Undergraduate Experience Faculty-Student Relationships Student Leadership Opportunities Global Citizenship
Campus Culture
Admissions Policy Student Debt Cost of Attendance 2011-2012 Academic Year (INQ) Cost of Attendance 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA) Need-Based Grants (INQ) Merit Awards (INQ) Grants Received for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA)
225
Notes on cost of attendance at UVA & competitors

Tested costs for UVA were different based on the students state of residence.
Tested costs for competitor schools were dependent on school control and students state of residence. Increases for competitor schools were calculated by percent increases to tuition and fees using the same percent for UVA. Room and board were then added on to the cost. Tested costs for UVA In-state residents Current: Current cost 1st increase: Current cost plus $3,500 2nd increase: Current cost plus $7,000 3rd increase: Current cost plus $10,500 Out-of-state residents Current: Current cost 1st increase: Current cost plus $2,800 2nd increase: Current cost plus $5,600 3rd increase: Current cost plus $8,400
226
113
Perceived undergraduate experience at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100%
80%
53% c
52% c
Big university
60%
80% b
85% a
40%
20% 20% b 0% UVA
47% a
48% a
Smaller college feel
15% c 1st/2nd UVA 1st/2nd
IS INQ
IS AA
227
Q18 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA
Perceived undergraduate experience at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
80%
43% d 53% c
Big university
60%
77% b
84% a
40% 57% a 20% 23% c 0% UVA 1st/2nd OOS INQ UVA 1st/2nd OOS AA
228
47% b
16% d
114
Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100%
80%
46% b 69% a
45% b 64% a
Strong emphasis
60%
Limited but available
40% 54% a 31% b 35% b

DK/ Ref
54% a 20%
0%
0% UVA IS INQ
0% 1st/2nd
1% UVA IS AA
1% 1st/2nd
229
Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA IS INQ & AA

100%
28% c 80% 36% b 52% a 60% 55% a
Strong emphasis
40% 71% a 64% b 20% 48% c 45% c

DK/ Ref
0%
0% NAI IS INQ
0% APP
1% A-D IS AA
0% MAT
230
115
Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
80% 49% c 71% a 50% c 63% b
Strong emphasis
60%
40% 48% a 20% 29% c 3% UVA
48% a 36% b
DK/ Ref
0%
0% 1st/2nd OOS INQ
2% UVA
1% 1st/2nd OOS AA
231
Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA OOS AA

100%
80%
45% 61%
Strong emphasis
60%
40% 53% 20%
*
38%
DK/ Ref
0%
2% A-D OOS AA
1% MAT
232
116
Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA IS INQ & AA

100%
80%
Extraordinary
44% 55%
60%
More than usual
40% 56%
20%
*
45%
DK/ Ref
0%
0% IS INQ
0% IS AA
233
Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; Typical not shown for UVA
Perceived student leadership opportunities at 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100%
29% 80% 37%
Extraordinary
60%
More than usual
40%
57% 52%
Typical
20%
DK/ Ref
11% 0% 0% IS INQ
14%
0% IS AA
234
Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA ; Typical not shown for UVA
117
Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA IS INQ & AA

100%
80%
34% c 49% b
37% c
Extraordinary
65% a
60%
More than usual
40% 66% a 51% b 20% 35% c

DK/ Ref
63% a
0%
0% NAI
IS INQ
0% APP
0% A-D
IS AA
0% MAT
Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA ; Typical not shown for UVA
235
D
Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA OOS INQ & AA
100% 22% 80% 40%
Extraordinary
60%
More than usual
40%
77%
*
59%
20%
DK/ Ref
0%
1% OOS INQ
1% OOS AA
236
118
Perceived student leadership opportunities at 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
Extraordinary
80%
40%
39%
60%
More than usual
40%
51%
48%
Typical
20%
DK/ Ref
0%
9% 0% OOS INQ
12% 1% OOS AA
237
Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA OOS INQ & AA

100% 20% d 30% c 80%
40% b
65% a
Extraordinary
60%
More than usual
40%
79% a
69% b 60% c
20%
35% d
DK/ Ref
0%
1% NAI OOS INQ
0% APP
1% A-D OOS AA
0% MAT
238
119
Perceived global citizenship at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100%
80% 60% b 60% 64% ab
High degree of emphasis
67% a
67% a
Some emphasis
40%
20%
40% a
32% b
32% b
35% ab
DK/ Ref
0%
0% UVA
1% 1st/2nd IS INQ
1% UVA IS AA
1% 1st/2nd
239
Perceived global citizenship at UVA IS AA

100%
80% 54% 60% 75%
*
Some emphasis
40%
20%
45%
*
24%
DK/ Ref
0%
1% A-D IS AA
1% MAT
240
120
Perceived global citizenship at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
80% 53% b 60%

73% a
56% b
73% a
Some emphasis
40%
46% a 20% 27% b 0% 1% UVA

0% 1st/2nd
44% a 27% b
1% UVA
DK/ Ref
0% 1st/2nd
OOS INQ
OOS AA
241
Perceived global citizenship at UVA OOS AA

100%
80% 48% 74%
60%
*
Some emphasis
40%
51%
20%
*
26%
DK/ Ref
0%
1% A-D OOS AA
0% MAT
242
121
Perceived campus culture at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100%
80%
45% b
39% c
Community of tradition
60%
79% a 88% a
40% 55% a
20%
Community of individuals
61% a
21% b
0%
0% UVA IS INQ
0% 1st/2nd
12% c 0% UVA IS AA
DK/ Ref
0% 1st/2nd
243
Perceived campus culture at UVA IS AA

100%
80%
60%
81%
93%
40%
20%
DK/ Ref
19%
0%
0% A-D IS AA
7% 0% MAT
244
122
Perceived campus culture at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
80%
47% c 47% c
60%
76% b 86% a
40%
53% a 20% 23% b
53% a
DK/ Ref
13% c
0% 1% UVA 0% 1st/2nd OOS INQ 1% UVA 0% 1st/2nd OOS AA
245
Perceived campus culture at UVA OOS AA

100%
80%
60%
83%
94%
40%
20%
DK/ Ref
16% 0% 1% A-D
*
6% 0% MAT OOS AA
246
123
Perceived admissions policy at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100% 16% c 80% 22% b 24% ab
Need-blind and meets full need
30% a
60%
Need-blind
54% 53% 51% 50%
40%
Need-aware
20%
26% a
21% ab 4% 1st/2nd
22% ab 3% UVA IS AA
17% b 3% 1st/2nd
DK/ Ref
0%
4% UVA IS INQ
247
Perceived admissions policy at UVA IS INQ & AA

100% 14% b 80% 18% b 17% b 29% a
60%
47% bc 57% ab 61% a 45% c
Need-blind
40%
Need-aware
20%
34% a
21% b 5% NAI IS INQ 4% APP 18% b 4% A-D IS AA
248
24% ab
DK/ Ref
0%
2% MAT
124
Perceived admissions policy at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100% 17% c 80% 36% ab 31% b 39% a
60% 56% a 53% ab 49% ab
Need-blind
40%
46% b
Need-aware
20%
20% a 16% ab 12% b 4% ab 9% 3% 7%
0%
UVA
2% b 1st/2nd
c b
DK/ Ref
UVA
1st/2nd
OOS AA
249
OOS INQ
D
Perceived admissions policy at UVA OOS INQ & AA
100% 16% c 80% 49% a
Need-blind
24% b
23% bc
60% 56% a 57% a 40% 36% b 20% 59% a
Need-aware
21% a 16% ab 14% ab 4% 9% 6% b

DK/ Ref
0%
7%
3%
NAI
OOS INQ
APP
A-D
OOS AA
MAT
250
125
Perceived student debt at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100% 16% b 80% 16% b 14% b
23% a
Capped at $30,000
26%
26% 60%
21%
21%
Capped at $60,000
8%
7%
16% a
40%
10% b 38% a 40% a
Capped at $90,000
30% b 20%
29% b
No cap
12% b 0%
12% b
17% a
18% a 1st/2nd
DK/ Ref
UVA
IS INQ
1st/2nd
UVA
IS AA
251
Perceived student debt at UVA IS INQ & AA

100% 17% a 80% 17% b 30% a 60% 25% a 12% b 40% 29% b 41% a 35% ab
No cap
15% a
9%
b 20% a
Capped at $30,000
24% ab 20% b 7% c 8% bc
Capped at $90,000 Capped at $60,000
32% ab 20%
9% 0% NAI
14% ab APP
19% a
17% a
MAT
DK/ Ref
A-D IS AA
IS INQ
252
126
Perceived student debt at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100% 8%
c
20% a
13% b
18% ab
Capped at $30,000
80%
32% a 26% b
18% c 18% c 8% ab 6% b
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000
60%
10% a 8% ab 40% 44% a
41% a
No cap
35% ab
20% 15% ab 0% UVA
34% b
12% b
1st/2nd
17% a UVA
17% a 1st/2nd
DK/ Ref
OOS INQ
OOS AA
253
Perceived student debt at UVA OOS INQ & AA

100% 8% b 8% b 10% ab
19% a 80% 33% a

7% 11% 20% b 22% b 16% b
Capped at $30,000
Capped at $60,000
60% 10%
48% a 45% a 34% b 20% 15% 0% NAI APP A-D MAT 19% 17%
DK/ Ref
10%
Capped at $90,000
40%
34% b
No cap
14%
OOS INQ
OOS AA
254
127
Perceived cost of attendance at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ & AA

100% 15% a 80% 19% a
2nd increase
9%
4%
5%
c
3rd increase
13% b 20% a
12% b
60%
34% c
41% b 53% a
1st increase
41% b 40%
Current
20% 23% c 0% 2% UVA IS INQ
35% a 29% b
40% a
DK/ Ref
2% 1st/2nd
1% UVA IS AA
2% 1st/2nd
Q25 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; INQ = $20,800 for 2011-2012 year, AA = $21,400 for 2012-2013 year
255
Perceived cost of attendance at UVA IS INQ & AA

100% 12% ab
9%
3%
c
3rd increase
20% a
80%
10% b
16% b 26% a
16% b
2nd increase
60% 45% b 40% 33% c 52% ab
53% a
1st increase
Current
20% 20% b 0% 1% NAI

IS INQ
25% b
33% a 23% b
DK/ Ref
2% APP
0% A-D
IS AA
1% MAT
256
128
Perceived cost of attendance at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ & AA

100%
16% a
80%
15% ab
11% b
4%
c
3rd increase
16% b 20% ab 23% a
22% a 60%
2nd increase
45% a 30% b 32% b

1st increase
40%
36% b
Current
20%
20% b 6%
34% a
31% a
34% a
DK/ Ref
0%
UVA
1% b 1st/2nd
3% UVA
1% b 1st/2nd
OOS INQ
OOS AA
257
Perceived cost of attendance at UVA OOS AA

100% 14% 80%
24%
2nd increase
3%
*
20%
3rd increase
60%
46%
26% 40%
*
1st increase
Current
20%
32% 31%
DK/ Ref
0%
4% A-D
OOS AA
0% MAT
Q25 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; AA = $47,400 for 2012-2013 year
258
129
Perceived need-based grants at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ

100% 23%
80%
41%
Extensive
60%
Some
40%
75%
*
58%
20%
DK/ Ref
0%
2% UVA IS INQ
1% 1st/2nd
259
Perceived need-based grants at UVA IS INQ

100% 16% 27%
80%
Extensive
60%
Some
40%
81% 72%
20%
DK/ Ref
0%
3% NAI
1% APP
IS INQ
260
130
Perceived need-based grants at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ

100%
31% 80% 50%
Extensive
60%
Some
40%
66%
*
49%
DK/ Ref
20%
0%
3%
UVA
OOS INQ
1% 1st/2nd
261
Perceived merit awards at UVA and 1st/2nd IS INQ

100%
80%
Some
66%
60%
70%
Little or none
40%
20%
33%
29%
DK/ Ref
0%
1% UVA IS INQ
1% 1st/2nd
262
131
Perceived merit awards at UVA IS INQ

100%
80% 59% 60% 77%
Some
*
Little or none
40%
20%
40%
*
DK/ Ref
22%
0% 1% NAI IS INQ
1% APP
263
Perceived merit awards at UVA and 1st/2nd OOS INQ

100%
80% 63%
Some
70% 60%
Little or none
40%
20%
26%
37%
DK/ Ref
0%
4%
UVA
OOS INQ
0% 1st/2nd
264
132
Perceived merit awards at UVA OOS INQ

100%
80% 59% 71% 60%
Some
*
Little or none
D
40%
20% 25%
40%
*
DK/ Ref
0%
4%
NAI
OOS INQ
1% APP
265
Proportion of respondents receiving financial aid from UVA IS AA

100% 17% c 32% a
80%
12% c
21% b
Yes
60% 70% c 40% 57% d
No
88% a 79% b
20%
DK/ Ref
13% a 0%
A-D
11% a 0%
MAT A-D
b
From sample
0%
MAT
Self-reported
S18/Sample
Note: Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources
266
133
Financial aid received from UVA, not including $0 IS AA

$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$12,800 $10,500
$10,000 $9,300
$12,600
$5,000
$0
A-D
Self-reported
S18/Sample
MAT
A-D
From sample
MAT
Note: Mean amounts only include those who received aid and knew the 267 amount; Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources
Proportion of respondents receiving financial aid from UVA OOS AA

100% 23% b 80%
51% a 20% b
43% a
Yes
60%
63% b 40% 42% c 20% 80% a 57% b
No
DK/ Ref
14% a 0% A-D
7% MAT
0% A-D
0% MAT
Self-reported
S18/Sample
From sample
268
Note: Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources
134
Financial aid received from UVA, not including $0 OOS AA

$50,000
$40,000
$30,800 a
$32,100 a
$30,000 $23,000 b $20,000

$18,800 b
$10,000
$0 A-D
Self-reported
S18/Sample
MAT
A-D
From sample
MAT
Note: Mean amounts only include those who received aid and knew the 269 amount; Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources
SDM Results
Inquirers
Note: Conversion Rate = % of inquirers who apply
Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference from zero at the 95% confidence level
135
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE
Big university
* -2%
1%
Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
Strong emphasis
17%
Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary
* -13%
5%
More than usual -40% -20%
* -5%
0% 20% 40%
Base conversion rate (N) = 65.0% (523)
271

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
4%
Some emphasis
-6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1%
-2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
272
136

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need
17%
Need-blind
2%
Need-aware
-13%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
-3%
Capped at $90,000 Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -40% -20%
-2%
0%
8% 0% 20% 40%
273

2011-2012 COST OF ATTENDANCE
$20,800 (Current)
6%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
2%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
-13%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
-17%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
274
137

NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID
Extensive
10%
Some
-6%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
7%
Little or none
-7%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
275
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ

Big university
0%
1%
Strong emphasis
8%
* -9%
3%
-1% 0% 20% 40%
276
138

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
2%
Some emphasis
* -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
* -1%
1%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
277

7%
Need-blind
0%
Need-aware
* -9%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -3% * -2%
2%
*
4%
*
20% 40%
0%
278
139

$45,800 (Current)
2%
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -3%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
* -6%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
279

Extensive
6%
Some
* -5%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
3%
Little or none
* -4%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
280
140
Effect of initiatives on number of applications INQ by residency

In-state Out-of-state
Big university
* -2% 0%
1% 1%
Strong emphasis
8%
17%
* -13% -9% * *
5% 3%
More than usual
* -5%
-20%
-1% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base conversion rate (N): In-state = 65.0% (523), Out-of-state = 10.2% (381)
281

In-state
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Out-of-state
4%
2%
Some emphasis
* -6% * -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1%
* -1%
-2%
1%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
282
141

ADMISSIONS POLICY
Need-blind and meets full need 2% 0%
7%
17%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -13% -9% *
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -3% * -3% * -2% * -2%

0% 2%
*
4%
8%
*
20% 40%
0%
283

In-state
Out-of-state
10%
Extensive 6%
Some
* -6% * -5%
MERIT AWARDS
7% Some
3%
Little or none
* -7% * -4%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
284
142
SDM Results
Admitted Applicants
Note: Yield Rate = % of admitted applicants who enroll Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference from zero at the 95% confidence level
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA

Big university
-1%
-2%
Strong emphasis
13%
Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
* -10%
Extraordinary
3%
More than usual
* -4%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N) = 63.4% (400)
286
143

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
2%
Some emphasis
* -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
287
D
6%
Need-blind
-1%
Need-aware
* -6%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -4%
2%
Capped at $90,000
*
*

-40% -20% 0%
3%
5%
*
20% 40%
288
144

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY
$21,400; Current cost and aid

$24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match 1%
8%
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match
* -5%
* -13%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
289

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid
8%

$24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match
1%
*
4%
*
7%
* -5%
1%
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched

$28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched
*
6%
* -13%
-1%
$31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched

-40% -20% 0%
6%
*
20% 40%
290
145
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA

Big university
* -2%
2%
Strong emphasis
17%
* -21%
Extraordinary
7%
More than usual
* -7%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
291

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
8%
Some emphasis
* -10%
CAMPUS CULTURE
1%
* -14%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
292
146

8%
Need-blind
-1%
Need-aware
* -8%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -5%
3%
Capped at $90,000
*
10%

-40% -20% 0%
*
15%
*
40%
20%
293
D
COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid
12%
-1%
* -7%
* -14%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
294
147


$50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match -1%
12%
4%
*
11%
* -7%
6%

*
11%

$55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40%
* -14%
5%
*
13%
*
20% 40%
-20%
0%
295
D
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations AA by residency
UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1%
Big university
* -2%
-2%
2%
Strong emphasis
13%
* 17%
* -21%
* -10%
Extraordinary
3%
* 7%
More than usual
* * -7%
-20%
-4%
-40%
0%
20%
40%
Base yield rate (N): In-state = 63.4% (400), Out-of-state = 28.9% (375)
296
148

In-state
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Out-of-state
2%
8%
Some emphasis
-10%
* -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 1%
0%
* -14%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
297
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% -1% 6% 8%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -6% * -8%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -4% * -5%
2% 3% 3%
Capped at $90,000
* *
*
10%

-40% -20% 0%
*
15%
5%
*
40%
20%
298
149
Appendix I
SDM Results
In-state Inquirers by subgroups
Note: Conversion Rate = % of inquirers who apply Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference from zero at the 95% confidence level
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by region

Big university
* -2% -2% * 0%
0% 3% 3%
Northern VA Central VA/ Tidewater Southwest VA
Strong emphasis
D
Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary 5% 4% 6%
16% 16% 19%
* *
* -15%* -10% * -11% * * *

20% 40%
* -6% -5% -6% **

0%
Base conversion rate (N): Northern VA = 65.2% (265), Central VA/Tidewater = 65.5% (130), Southwest VA = 63.9% (128)
300
150

Northern VA
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Central VA/ Tidewater Southwest VA

3% 3%
* * 6%
Some emphasis
-5% *-6% *-7% *
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% -1% -1%
-3% 0% -2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
301

ADMISSIONS POLICY

2% 0% 2%
12%
19% 19%
Northern VA
* *
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -14%
-13% ** -12%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -40% -20%
* -4% * -2% * -4% * -3% * -1% * -3%

0% 1% 1%
7% 6%
**
12%
*
20% 40%
0%
302
151

Northern VA
$20,800 (Current)
5%
* * 6% *
6%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
2% 4%
1%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -14% * -16% * -18% * -20%

-20%
* -9%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
* -12%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
303

Northern VA

11% * * 12%
Extensive
8%
Some
*
MERIT AWARDS
-4% *-5% * -9%
Some
5% 6%
* *
12%
Little or none
*
-40% -20%
* -6% * -5% -11%

0% 20% 40%
304
152
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by race

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE 0%
Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
Big university
* -2%
3% 1%
Strong emphasis
15%
26%
* -15% * -13% * *
STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Extraordinary 6% 5%
* -8% -5% *
0% 20% 40%
Base conversion rate (N): Minority = 60.9% (130), Caucasian/Asian = 66.2% (392)
305

Minority
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Caucasian/ Asian
6% 4%
Some emphasis
* -7% * -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-2% -1%
-2% -2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
306
153

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 4% 1%
Minority Caucasian/ Asian
17%
23%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -10% * -15% * -5%-3% * * -4% * -2%

-2% 1% 10% 8%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
*
20% 40%
0%
307
D
Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
$20,800 (Current)
7%
6%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
3% 2%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -14% * -18% * -18%

-20%
* -13%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
-40%
0%
20%
40%
308
154

Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
Extensive 10%
16%
Some
* -6% * -6%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
7% 7%
* *
Little or none
* -9% * -7%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
309
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by access eligibility

-1%
Access eligible Not access eligible
Big university
* -2%
-1% 2%
Strong emphasis
19% 17%

Extraordinary
* -17% -12% * * *
6% 5%
More than usual
* -7% * -5%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base conversion rate (N): Access eligible = 65.5% (181), Not access eligible = 64.7% (342)
310
155

Access eligible
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not access eligible
7% 3%
Some emphasis
* -8% * -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-2% -1%
0%
-2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
311

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -2%
Access eligible
Not access eligible
16%
24%
Need-blind
3%
Need-aware
* -21%
* -11%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -5%-3% * * -4% * -2%

1%
0%
11%
7%
0%
*
20% 40%
312
156

Access eligible
Not access eligible
$20,800 (Current)
8% 5%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
2%
2%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -15% * -13% * -21% * -17%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
-40%
313

Access eligible
Not access eligible
Extensive 9%
16%
Some
* -10%
* -4%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
8% 7%
* *
Little or none
* -10% * -6%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
314
157
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by household income

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -1% -2% 7% -2% -1%
$150K+ $80K<$150K <$80K
Big university
Strong emphasis -12% *-14% * -15% *
17%
21% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary 6% 5% 6%
22% * * *
** *
20% 40%
**-6% -5% * -7%

0%
Base conversion rate (N): $150K+ = 69.3% (113), $80K<$150K = 61.7% (178), <$80K = 64.2% 315 (149)

$150K+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
$80K<$150K <$80K
2% 6% 4%
Some emphasis
* -3% -7% *-8% *
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% 0% -1%
* -5%
-1% -20%
0%
-40%
0%
20%
40%
158

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 6% Need-blind -3% Need-aware 1% 17% 18%
$150K+ $80K<$150K <$80K

26%
* *
-23%
* -14%
* -7%
STUDENT DEBT -3% * * -3% * -6% -2% * * -2% * -4% 0% 1% 0% 7%
No cap
* 10% *
12%
*
20% 40%
0%

$150K+
$80K<$150K
<$80K
2% $20,800 (Current)
*6%
11%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
1% 1% 6%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
-15%
* -11%
* -12%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
* -17% *
-18%
* -14%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
-20%
159

$150K+
$80K<$150K <$80K
4%
Extensive
10%
21%
-3% Some
*
MERIT AWARDS
* -6% -10%
Some
8% 7% 8%
* * *
Little or none
*
-40% -20%
* -4% -8% * -11%

0% 20% 40%
D
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by intended major
UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -2% -1% -2% 6%
Big university
Engineering NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
-3%
1% 0%
12% Strong emphasis
14% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary 5% 7% 5%
* -14% * -10% -14% **-15% ** *
19% 22%
* *
2%
* -6% -8% ** * -3%

-4% 0%
20%
40%
Base conversion rate (N): Engineering = 68.7% (106), NS/Math = 64.1% (175), SS/Hum/Arts = 64.2% (119), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 63.6% (123)
320
160

Engineering
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

2% 4% 6% 3%
Some emphasis
-5% -6% -8% -4%
* *
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% -2% 0% -1% -3% -3%
2%
-2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
321
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 2% 2% -2% Need-aware -16% *-16% -11% * ** -10% 15% 12%
18%
* *
25%
Engineering
Need-blind
5%
STUDENT DEBT -3% * -4% * -4% * * -2% -2% * -2% -3% ** *-1%
No cap
0% 0%
0% 1% 4% 10% * *8% 11% * * 20% 40%
0%
322
161

Engineering
NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts
Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
6% 6% 8% 4%
$20,800 (Current)
* * * *
3% $24,300 (Current plus $3,500) 0% 3% 3%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -11% * -14%-11% * * -16% * -15% * -19% -13% * * -18%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
-40%
323

Engineering
NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts
5%
Extensive
*
9%
Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
13% 13%
Some
-6% -5% -8% -4%
* * *
MERIT AWARDS
9% Some 3% 6%
* *10%
Little or none
* -5% -7% * * -11% -7% *

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
324
162
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by SAT score

-2% -1% *-3% * 5% -1% 1%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
Big university
FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
Strong emphasis
10%
18%
24%
** *
-14% -12% -15%
5% 4%
* *7% *
20% 40%
* -5%-2% * -9% *
0%
Base conversion rate (N): 1450+ = 71.1% (121), 1350-1440 = 70.2% (155), <1350 = 58.7% (247)
325

1450+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
1350-1440 <1350
4% 4% 5%
* * *
Some emphasis
* -7%-5% * * -7%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-3% -1% 1%
0%
* -5% -1%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
326
163

ADMISSIONS POLICY
Need-blind and meets full need -3% Need-blind 2% 5% Need-aware 14%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
* 19% *
22%
-15% -18% -11%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
**-3% -2% * -5% -2% * -1% * -4% *

1% 0% 0% 8% 8% 9% 0%
* * *
20% 40%
327

1450+
1350-1440
<1350
3% $20,800 (Current)
5%
9%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
1%
0%
*
4%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -15% * -12% -16%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
* -20% * -14% * -20%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
328
164

1450+
1350-1440 <1350
6%
Extensive
* 11%
14% -6% * -7% * -5% *
Some
MERIT AWARDS
5% Some
* 9%
7%
Little or none
* -7% * -7% * -8%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
329
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by gender

Female Male
Big university
* -3% -1%
4%
-2%
Strong emphasis
19% 17%
* -16%
* -10%
6% 4%
* -6% * -5%
0% 20% 40%
Base conversion rate (N): Female = 64.4% (306), Male = 65.8% (217)
330
165

Female
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Male
5% 3%
Some emphasis
* -6% * -7%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% -1%
* -4%
-20% 0%
1%
-40%
20%
40%
331

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 21%
Female Male
16% 2% 1%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -14% * -14% * -4% * -3% * -3% * -2%

0% 0% 9% 7% -20% 0%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $30,000
-40%
*
20% 40%
332
166

Female
Male
$20,800 (Current)
6%
7%
* *
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
2%
3%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -15% * -18% * -18%

-20%
* -13%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
-40%
0%
20%
40%
333

Female
Male
Extensive
11% 10%
* *
Some
* -5% * -7%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
8% 7%
* *
Little or none
* -9% * -6%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
334
167
Effect of initiatives on number of applications In-state INQ by visit to UVA

Visited Didnt visit
Big university
-6%
* -1%
1% 1%
Strong emphasis
15%
30%
* -12% * -16%
*
4%
10%
*
20% 40%
-5% -7% 0%
Base conversion rate (N): Visited = 67.1% (452), Didnt visit = 51.6% (71) (SMALL N!)
335

Visited
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Didnt visit
3%
*
7%
Some emphasis
* -6%
-3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% -1%
-1% -6%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
336
168

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 2% 1% 16%
Visited Didnt visit
24%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -18%
* -12%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
-3% -5%
* -2% * -4%
0% 0% 6%
20% 20%
*
40%
0%
337

Visited
Didnt visit
$20,800 (Current)
5%
*
13%
$24,300 (Current plus $3,500)
1% 8%
$27,800 (Current plus $7,000)
* -13% * -14% * -16%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
$31,300 (Current plus $10,500)
* -21%
-40%
338
169

Visited
Didnt visit
Extensive
8%
*
26%
Some
* -15%
* -4%
D
MERIT AWARDS
Some
6%
8%
Little or none
* -19%
-20%
* -6%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
339
Appendix II
SDM Results
Out-of-state Inquirers by subgroups
Note: Conversion Rate = % of inquirers who apply Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference from zero at the 95% confidence level
170
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by region

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -2% 1% Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS 11% 0% 3% 1%
Northeast South Other US
Big university
Strong emphasis
7% 5%
**
* -11% * -9%
-4%
2% 2% 4%
*
20% 40%
-3% 0% 0% 0%
Base conversion rate (N): Northeast US = 11.6% (162), South US = 8.3% (96) (SMALL N), Other US = 10.1% (123)
341

Northeast
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
South Other US
3% 3% 1%
* *
Some emphasis
* -4% * -4% * -3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% -1% -1%
-1% 4% 1%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
342
171

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% -2% 1% Need-aware 7% 4%
* *11%
Need-blind
* -11% -7% *-7% * * -4% * -1% * -2% **-2% -1%

-2% 1% 4% 1% 3% 4% -20% 0%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $90,000 Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -40%
*7% *
20% 40%
343
D
Northeast
South
Other US
$45,800 (Current)
* * 2% *
2% 3% 1% 2% 1%
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
*
*
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -4% -1% * -4% * -7% -3% * * -6%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
-40%
344
172

Northeast
South Other US
6% 6% 6%
Extensive
* * *
Some
*
MERIT AWARDS
* -5% * -4% -8%
Some
3% 3% 2%
* * *
Little or none
* -4% * -5%-2% *
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
345
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by race

Big university
-1% -1%
2%
Strong emphasis
5%
* 9%
-8% -9%
4% 2% 0% -1% -20% 0%
* *
20% 40%
More than usual -40%
Base conversion rate (N): Minority = 11.0% (95) (SMALL N), Caucasian/Asian = 9.9% (286)
346
173

Minority
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Caucasian/ Asian
2% 2%
* *
Some emphasis
-4%
* -3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
-1%
2% 0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
347
D
6% 0%
-1%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -11%-8% * * -3% * -2% * -2% * -1%

3% 1% 6% 4% -20% 0%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $30,000
-40%
*
20% 40%
348
174

Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
$45,800 (Current)
2%
2%
* *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
1%
* *
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
-5%
* -3%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
* -6% * -5%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
349

Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
Extensive 5%
10%
Some
-5%
* -5%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
1%
3%
Little or none
-3% * -3% * -20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
350
175
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by access eligibility

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE 1% -1% 1% 1%
Big university
Strong emphasis
4%
10%
* -11%
-4%
3% 3% 0% -2% -20% 0%
* *
20%
40%
351

Access eligible
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not access eligible
2%
3%
* *
Some emphasis
-4%
* -2%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1%
* -1%
4% -1%
*
20% 40%
-40%
-20%
0%
352
176

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 0% -1% 8% 6%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -8% * -9%
* -2% * -3% * -2% * -1%
1% 2%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* * *
20% 40%
4% 5% 0%
353

Access eligible
Not access eligible
$45,800 (Current)
2% 2%
* *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
1%
* *
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -1%
-4%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
*
-20%
* -3%
-7% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
354
177

Access eligible
Not access eligible
Extensive 5%
8%
Some
* -9%
* -3%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
0%
*
4%
Little or none
* -7%
-20%
* -2%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
355
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by household income

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% Big university -1% Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS 12% 4% -1% 1% 2%
$150K+
$80K<$150K
<$80K
Strong emphasis
6% 5%
* -9% * -12%
**
-3%
4% 2% 3%
* -4%
* *
20% 40%
2% 0% 0%
Base conversion rate (N): $150K+ = 12.1% (107), $80K<$150K = 13.0% (104), <$80K = 8.1% (120)
356
178

$150K+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
$80K<$150K <$80K
3%
2% 1% -3% * -3% * -3%
Some emphasis
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
* -2% -1%
-1% 3% 2% -20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
357
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY
$150K+ $80K<$150K
6% 6%

-1% Need-blind 1%
* * 10%
<$80K
-2%
Need-aware
* * -11% * -7%
-8%
-3%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
-3% * -3% *
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000
* -2% -2%
-1%
2% 2% 1%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
4% 5% 3%
* **
20% 40%
358
179

$150K+
$80K<$150K <$80K
1% $45,800 (Current)
3% 2%
* *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
3%
1%
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -4% -4%
-2%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
* -7% * -6% * -5%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
359

$150K+
$80K<$150K <$80K
4%
Extensive
7% 7%
* *
Some
*
MERIT AWARDS
* -1% -5% * -10%
Some
3% 2% 2%
* *
Little or none
* -1% -4% *-5% *

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
360
180
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by intended major

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -2% Big university -1% Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS 7% 9% 10% 2% -1% 1% 1%
NS/Math/Engin SS/Hum/Arts Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
Strong emphasis
* -8% * -9% -8%
**
1% Extraordinary
5% 3%
**
20% 40%
* -2% -1%
-1%
0%
Base conversion rate (N): NS/Math/Engin = 9.4% (171), SS/Hum/Arts = 10.8% (114), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 11.4% (96) (SMALL N)
361

NS/Math/Engin
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
SS/Hum/Arts Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
2% 4% 1%
Some emphasis
* -3% * -4% * -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
* -1% -1%
0% 0% 0% 3%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
362
181

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -2% Need-blind 0% Need-aware -8% * -9% * -10% 1% 7% 4%
NS/Math/Engin SS/Hum/Arts Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
10%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -4% -2% * -2% * * -2% -1% * -1%

1% 2% 1% 6% 4% 3% 0%
**
20% 40%
363

NS/Math/Engin
SS/Hum/Arts
Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
3% $45,800 (Current) 1%
* 2% *
2%
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
* * 1% *
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
-2%
-6%
* -2%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
* -8%
-20%
* -4% * -5%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
364
182

NS/Math/Engin
6% 6% 7%
Extensive
* *
Some
* -5% -5% *-6%
MERIT AWARDS
Some
4% 2% 3%
* * *
Little or none
* -3% * -3% * -4%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
365
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by SAT score

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -2% 0% 2% Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS 7% Strong emphasis 5% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 3%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
Big university
* * 11%
* -12%* -7%
-5%
* -2% -1%
0% 0%
* *
20%
40%
366
183

1450+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
1350-1440 <1350
4% 1% 2%
* *
Some emphasis
* -4% -3% *-3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% * -1% 0%
1% 0% 2% -20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
367
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% Need-blind -2% Need-aware 1% 7% 7% 8%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
* * *
* -10% * -9% * -6%

-2% **-3% -2% * -1% *-2%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
-1%
3% -1% 3% 7% ** * 20% 40%
2% 0%
4%
368
184

1450+
1350-1440
<1350
2% $45,800 (Current) 2%
* * 2% *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1%
* * 1% *
2%
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
-3%
* -4% * -2% * -6% * -6%-4% *

-20% 0% 20% 40%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
-40%
369

1450+
1350-1440 <1350
7% 5% 5%
Extensive
* *
Some
* -3% -6% *-7% *
MERIT AWARDS
Some
3% 3% 2%
* *
Little or none
* -4% * -3% * -3%

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
370
185
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by gender

Female Male
Big university
* -2%
1% 2%
Strong emphasis
6%
*10%
* *
-9% -8%
2% 3% -1% -1% -20% 0%
* *
20%
40%
371

Female
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Male
2%
3%
* *
Some emphasis
* -4% * -3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
* -1%
-1%
0% 2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
372
186

Female Male
* *
Need-blind
-1%
1%
Need-aware
* -8% * -9% * -3% * -2% * -2% * -1%

1% 2%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* * *
20% 40%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
4% 5%
373

Female
Male
$45,800 (Current)
2%
2%
* *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
2%
1%
* *
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -3% * -3%
* -5% * -6%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
-40%
374
187

Female
Male
Extensive
7% 5%
Some
* -5% * -5%
MERIT AWARDS
Some 1%
4%
Little or none
* -4% * -3%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
375
D
Effect of initiatives on number of applications Out-of-state INQ by visit to UVA
UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% 0% 2% 0%
Visited Didnt visit
Big university
Strong emphasis
6%
10%
* -10%-7% *
* *
2% 3% -2% 0% -20% 0%
20%
40%
Base conversion rate (N): Visited = 14.6% (193), Didnt visit = 7.5% (188)
376
188

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Visited Didnt visit
2% 3%
* *
Some emphasis
* -4% * -3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1% -1%
-1%
4%
*
20% 40%
-40%
-20%
0%
377

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% 1% 6%
Visited Didnt visit
* 10%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -9% * -9% *-3% * -2%

-2% * -2% * 3% 0%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -40% -20%
* *
6%
2% 0%
*
20% 40%
378
189

Visited
Didnt visit
$45,800 (Current)
2% 2%
* *
$48,600 (Current plus $2,800)
1% 1%
* *
$51,400 (Current plus $5,600)
* -4%
-3%
$54,200 (Current plus $8,400)
* -6% * -6%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
379

Visited
Didnt visit
Extensive
6%
7%
Some
-7%
* -5%
MERIT AWARDS
Some 1%
4%
Little or none
*
-20%
-7%
* -1%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
380
190
Appendix III
SDM Results
In-State Admitted Applicants by subgroups
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by region

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% 0% -2% -3%
Northern VA
Other VA
Big university
Strong emphasis
14% 12%
* -11% * -9%
4% 2%
More than usual
* -6% -2% *
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): Northern VA = 63.1% (171), Other VA = 63.4% (229)
382
191

Northern VA
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Other VA
2% 2%
* *
Some emphasis
* -6% * -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 0%
0% 0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
383

Northern VA Other VA
* *
Need-blind
* -2% * -6% * -6%
1%
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -3% * -5%
2% 1%
Capped at $90,000 Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -40% -20% 0%
* * * * 6% *
20% 40%
2% 3%
4%
384
192

$21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match 1% 2%
Northern VA Other VA
9% 6%

$24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match $28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched
2%
* *7% *
*
10%
3%
-7%
* -3%
0% 2% 2%
*
10%

$31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched
-17%
* -9%
-1% -1% 3%

-40% -20% 0%
* 8%
*
20% 40%
385
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by race

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -1%
1% -3%
Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
Big university

Strong emphasis
12%
17%
* -9% * -11%
1%
3% -1%
*
20% 40%
More than usual
* -5%
-20%
-40%
0%
Base yield rate (N): Minority = 58.6% (68) (SMALL N!), Caucasian/ Asian = 64.3% (305)
386
193

Minority
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Caucasian/ Asian
1% 2%
0% Some emphasis
-7%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1%
1%
2% 0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
387

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -2% -1%
Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
6% 6%
* *
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -6%
-3%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -2% * -4%
-2% 2%
* * *
20% 40%
0%
3% 0%
Capped at $30,000 -40% -20% 0%
* 5%
388
194

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match 0% 1%
Minority
Caucasian/ Asian
7%
11%
* * * *
8% 6%
3% 5%
* -10%
* -4%
0% 1%
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched -40% -20%
*
6% 5%
* *
* -24%
* -10%
-1% -1% 5% 5%
*
20% 40%
0%
389
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by household income

$150K+ $80K<$150K <$80K

1%
Big university
* -6%
-2% -2%
Strong emphasis
8%
15% 14%
**
* -13%* -8% * -6%

3% 4% 2%
Extraordinary -5% -6% ** -1%

-20% 0%
**
More than usual
-40%
20%
40%
Base yield rate (N): $150K+ = 63.5% (112), $80K<$150K = 66.2% (135), <$80K = 57.3% (104)
390
195

$150K+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
$80K<$150K <$80K
2% 2%
2%
* *
Some emphasis
* -7% * -7%-5% *
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
1%
0%
-1%
-1% 1%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
391
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -2% 0% 0% 6% 5%
$150K+ $80K<$150K
* * 9% *
<$80K
Need-blind
Need-aware
-10%
* -6%
-1%
STUDENT DEBT -4% * -4% * -5% * 5%
No cap
Capped at $90,000
0% 1%
*
*

-40% -20% 0%
1% 2%
**
5%
6% 5% 3%
* **
20% 40%
392
196

$21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match 0% 5%
$150K+
* 10% * 7% * *
17%
$80K<$150K <$80K
2% 2%
2%

* * * 5% *9%
6%
3%
* *

$28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched
** *
-5% -5% -3%
0% 0%
1%
6%
*
17%
4%
**
-14% -13%
* -8% * -3% -2%

1%
3%
$31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched -40% -20% 0%
4%
* *
15%
*
40%
20%
393
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by access eligibility

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE 0% -1%
Big university

* -5%
-1%
Strong emphasis
10%
*15%
* -13%
-5%
1%
3%
More than usual
* * -5%
-20%
-2%
-40%
0%
20%
40%
Base yield rate (N): Access eligible = 61.7% (137), Not access eligible = 64.2% (263)
394
197

Access eligible
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not access eligible
2%
2%
* *
Some emphasis
* -6% * -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 0%
3% -2%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
395

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% -1% 8%
Access eligible
Not access eligible
5%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -8% -5% *
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -6%-3% *
1% 2%
* * * * *
20% 40%
3% 3%
4% 5%
396
198

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match $28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match 2% 1% 7% * * 9% 7%
Access eligible
Not access eligible
3%
4%
12%
* -4% * -5%
3% 0%
* *
12%
3%
* -11% * -14%
0% -1%
$31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched
-40% -20%
4% 0%
10%
*
20% 40%
397
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by receiving aid from UVA

Receiving Not receiving
Big university
* -1%
-1% -3%

Strong emphasis
9%
16%
* *
-10% -11%
2% 3%
* *
More than usual
* -4% * -4%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): Receiving = 70.4% (108), Not receiving = 59.7% (246)
398
199

Receiving
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not receiving
1% 3%
Some emphasis
-7%
* -3%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
0%
-1% 0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
399

ADMISSIONS POLICY

7% 6%
* *
Need-blind
* -3%0%
* -7% * -6%
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -5% * -4%
3% 1%
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000
* * *
* *
20% 40%
3% 3%
Capped at $30,000 -40% -20% 0%
6% 5%
400
200

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched 1% 1% 10% 7%
* *
* **
6% 7%
3% 5%
**
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match $28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched -40% -20%
* -4% * -5%
1% 1% 6% 4%
* *
* * -13%
-11%
-2% -1%
6% 4%
*
20% 40%
0%
401
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by intended major

Big university
-1% -1% -1%

0%
-6%
-2% -1% 0%
11%
Strong emphasis 9% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary -3% * -3% * -6% ** -4% -20% 0%
* -15% -10% ** -10% * -8%

3% 3% 2% 2%
* 17% * 13% * *
* * * *
20% 40%
More than usual
-40%
Base yield rate (N): Engineering = 62.6% (80) (SMALL N), NS/Math = 57.0% (161), SS/Hum/Arts = 64.2% (92) (SMALL N), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 77.5% (67) (SMALL N!)
402
201

Engineering
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

1%
4% 2% 1%
Some emphasis
-11%
* -5% * -6%
-2%
CAMPUS CULTURE
-1%
Community of tradition 0% 0% Community of individuals 3%
1% 0%
*
-20%
-3% -4% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
403
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% 0% -2% Need-aware
10% 9%
Engineering NS/Math
2% 2%
**
Need-blind
0%
* * -7% **-5% -5%

-5%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* ** *
-3% -4% -6% -2% 2% 3% 1%
Capped at $90,000 Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000
0%
**
2% 1%
3% 5%
** **
4% 2%
** **
6% 7% 20% 40%
-40%
-20%
0%
404
202

$21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched 1% 3% 1%
6% 5%
-1%
* * **
11% 9%
3% 8% 4% 1%

$28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match $28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched
* -9% -5% * -3% **-5% * -4% *
* * 5% * 12% * 5% 3% * *
5%
1% 0%
*
11%

$31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched -21% -12% ** * -10%-7% * -10%
1% 4% 3%
-1% 0%
1% 1%

-40% -20%
3% 0%
5%
11%
*
20% 40%
405
D
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by SAT score
UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -1% 0% Smaller college feel FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS 20% 0% -1%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
Big university
* -5%
Strong emphasis
10% 10%
* -16%
* -9% * -7%
4% 2% 2%
**
** *
20% 40%
More than usual
* -5% * -5% * -3%

-20% 0%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)
406
203

1450+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
1350-1440 <1350
3%
2% 1%
Some emphasis
* -6%-4% * * -7%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0%
0% 0%
2%
-2% -1% -20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)
407
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 7% 5% 6%
1450+ 1350-1440 <1350
* **
Need-blind
* -2% -1% * **
-8% -7% -4%
1%
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT
-2% *-3% * -5% * 3% 3%
No cap
0%
* * * * *
3% 3% 2%
5% 5% 5% 0%
* * *
20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)
408
204

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match 7% 5%
1450+ 1350-1440
0%
2% 1%
**
11%
<1350
2%
* * 5% *
6%
4%
8%
* -7% ** -5% -4%

0%
0% 3%
8% * **
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; no match $31,900, Current plus $10,500; half matched $31,900, Current plus $10,500; fully matched -40% -20% -10% * -17% *-11% *
5% 4%
* *8% *
* -4% 0%
0%
1% 4% 6% 7%
**
20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)
409
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by gender

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% 0% 0%
Female Male
Big university
* -6%
13% 12%
Strong emphasis
* *
* -12%-9% * *
1%
4%
*
20% 40%
More than usual
* *
-20%
-4% -4%
0%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): Female = 62.9% (228), Male = 64.0% (172)
410
205

Female
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Male
3% 1%
Some emphasis
* -7% * -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 0%
-2% 1%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
411
D
ADMISSIONS POLICY
Need-blind and meets full need 0% -1% 4%
Female Male
*8%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -7%-4% *
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -3% * -4%
1% 3% 2%
* * * 6%
* 4%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
4%
*
20% 40%
412
206

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $21,400; Current cost and aid $24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match 1% 1% 8% 8%
Female Male
* *
$24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched
$28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match $28,400, Current plus $7,000; half matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; fully matched -6% ** -4%
5% 3%
* *
8%
5%
3%
-2%
* *
8%
3%

* * -14%
-11%
* -4%
-20% 0%
1%
8% 3%
*
20% 40%
413
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations In-state AA by hometown type

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% 0% -3% -2%
Large city/ Suburb of large city Medium or small city/ Town or rural
Big university
Strong emphasis
11%
15%
* -10% * -11%
Extraordinary
3% 3%
* *
More than usual
* -5% * -3%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): Large city/ Suburb of large city = 64.1% (201), Medium or small city/ Town or rural = 62.4% (198)
414
207

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Large city/ Suburb of large city
Medium or small city/ Town or rural

2% 2%
* *
Some emphasis
* -6% * -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 0%
-1% 0%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
415

4%
Need-blind
* -2% * -5% * -7% * -4% * -4%
1%
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
Capped at $90,000
2% 2%

-40% -20% 0%
* * 3% * 3% *
4% 7%
*
20% 40%
416
208


$24,900, Current plus $3,500; no match $24,900, Current plus $3,500; half matched $24,900, Current plus $3,500; fully matched $28,400, Current plus $7,000; no match 1% 1%
9% 6%
*
* ** *9% *
3% 6%
5%
**
-5% -6%
1% 2%

* * 8% *
4% -12% **-13% -1% -2%

4%
* 7%
*
20% 40%
-20%
0%
417
Appendix IV
SDM Results
Out-of-state Admitted Applicants by subgroups
209
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by region

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -3% -2% -2% 6% 4%
Big university
Strong emphasis
18% 16% 15%
* * -24%
**
-20%
* -14%
8%
Extraordinary
5%
8% More than usual -40% -20%
* **
20% 40%
* -10% * -5% * -6%

0%
Base yield rate (N): Northeast = 32.2% (157), South = 27.9% (130), Other US = 24.7% (88) (SMALL N)
419
D
Northeast
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
South Other US
11% 4%
* 8%
Some emphasis
* -11% * -12%
* -5%
CAMPUS CULTURE
Community of tradition -1%
0% 2%
* -10% * -19% -14% *

-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
420
210

24%
3%
Need-blind
* -10% * -15%
-7%
0%
Need-aware
0%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -6%-3%
-8%
6% 0% 1%
*
14%
6% 5%
* *
*
18%
12% 13%
**
*
40%
20%
421

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match -1% 1% 8%
Northeast
12%
South
22%
Other US
-3%

$50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% -8% ** -6% * -8%
1%
-2%
10%
11% 10% 13%
* **
2% 6%
7%
10% * * * 12% * 18%
* -13% * -16% * -10%

3% 1% 13% 10% 12% 0%
**
*
22% 20%
*
40%
422
211
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by race

Big university
7%
1%
Strong emphasis
13%
*18%
* -24%
-12%
1% 8% -4%
* -8%
0%
20%
40%
Base yield rate (N): Minority = 24.1% (84) (SMALL N), Caucasian/ Asian = 31.0% (263)
423

Minority
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Caucasian/ Asian
2% 9%
Some emphasis
* -12%
* -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
2% 1%
* -11%
-14% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
-20%
424
212

7%
Need-blind
* -8%
* -17%
1%
Need-aware
* -6%
* -2% * -6% * -1%
4% 4%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* * *
11%
*
15%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
5%
*
40%
20%
425

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -2% -1% 1% 4% 15% 12%
*
9%
17%
* -11% -7% *
6% 6%
**
10%
14%
* -20% * -12%
4% 8% * * 13% 13%
* *
20% 40%
426
213
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by household income

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -3% 0% -1% 6% 1% -2%
$150K+
$80K<$150K
<$80K
Big university
19% Strong emphasis 7% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 5% Extraordinary 2% More than usual -40% -20% -8% * -8% * * -5% 0% 20% -21% * -22% *
22%
* *
* -10%
12%
40%
Base yield rate (N): $150K+ = 27.8% (134), $80K<$150K = 28.4% (113), <$80K = 32.3% (86) (SMALL N)
427

$150K+ <$80K
10% 9% 3% GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
$80K<$150K
Some emphasis
* -13% * -10% -6% *
CAMPUS CULTURE
2% 0% -1%
* -24%
-20%
* -8% -5%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
428
214

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -2% 0% -3% -17% * * -17% 6% 4%
$150K+ $80K<$150K
<$80K
13%
Need-blind
4%
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* **
-4% -4% -7% 6% * *
3% -1%
5%
*8% *
14%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
15% 12% 14%
* **
20% 40%
429
D
COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -1% -2% 0% 3% 3% 3% 7%
$150K+ $80K<$150K
* 10%
19%
<$80K
* *
8%
12%
14%
-10%
* -6% * -5%
2%
5%
8% 6%
* *
10%
16%
**
-14% -16%
* -10%
2% 1%
9% 7%
10%
* *
17%
*
40%
20%
430
215
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by access eligibility

Big university
* -2%
-3%
4%
Strong emphasis
10%
21%
* -25%
-11%
2%
9%
*
20% 40%
* -9%
* -4%
0%
431
D
Access eligible
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not access eligible
4%
*
10%
Some emphasis
-12%
* -6%
CAMPUS CULTURE
* -1%
-5%
2%
-18%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
432
216

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -5% 1% 14%
5%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -17%
-4%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -8% -4% *
0% 5%
*
8% 11%
*
14% 15%
* *
40%
0%
20%
433

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -1% 0% 3% 4%

11% 16%
*
14% 10%
* -9% * -7%
4% 6%
*
12% 10%
* -14% * -13%
3% 6%
*
10% 14%
* *
20% 40%
434
217
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by receiving aid from UVA

Big university
* -4%
2% 2%
Strong emphasis
6%
27%
* -29%
-11%
4%
9%
* -11%
* -4%
0% 20% 40%
435

Receiving
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Not receiving
3%
13%
Some emphasis
-15%
* -4%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 2%
* -22%
-20%
* -8%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
436
218

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -3% 2% 9% 9%
* *
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -12%
-4%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -5% * -5%
1% 6% 5%
*
16%
10%
*
*
*
21%
*
40%
20%
437
D
COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched -1% -1% 0% 7% 6% 12% 11%
* *
*
16%
* * -9%
-6%
3%
8% 7%
* * 14% *

* -17%*
-11%
2%
6%
*
9%
15%
*
40%
-20%
0%
20%
438
219
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by intended major

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -2% -2% -1% -3% 2% 4% -6%
Engineering NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts
Big university
Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
9%
Strong emphasis 9% Limited but available STUDENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Extraordinary 5%
13%
* -28% * -24%
28% 24%
**
-16% -17%
* -6% * -5% * -11% -7% *

0%
* * 10% * 5% *
8% 20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): Engineering = 22.0% (83) (SMALL N), NS/Math = 29.4% (104), SS/Hum/Arts = 26.4% (99) (SMALL N), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 37.2% (89) (SMALL N)
439
D
Engineering NS/Math SS/Hum/Arts
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Bus/Ed/Oth/Und
5% 5%
7%
15%
Some emphasis
* -9% * -12%-9% * * -10%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% Community of tradition -1% 0% 2% -4%
* *
-17% -18%
-20%
* -13%
-40%
0%
20%
40%
440
220

2% 2% 2% 1%
12%
21%
Engineering
Need-blind
-2% -3%
-13% * -13% * -7%-3% *
Need-aware
STUDENT DEBT -7% *-9% -7% **
No cap
-1% 4% 3% 5%
1%
7%
* * * *
11% 12% 10%
8%
* *
12%
17%
29%
*
40%
20%
441
D
COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid 9% 10% 8% -1%

$50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20%
* **
30%
-3%
0% 0% 5% 5% 5%
0%
* *
7% -6% * -13% *-7% * * -6%
** * *
16% 14% 11% 13%
0% 2% 6%
*
19%
8% 10% 6%
-20%
-14% **-15% * -9%
-1% 1%
10% 8% 6% 3%
**
14%
26%
*
40%
0%
20%
442
221
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by SAT score

1450+ <1450
Big university
* -3%
5% -1%
Strong emphasis
8%
28%
* -24%
* -17%
3%
12%
* -10%
* -5%
0% 20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)
443

1450+
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
<1450
14% 3%
Some emphasis
* -14%
* -7%
CAMPUS CULTURE
1% 0%
* -18%
-20%
* -10%
0% 20% 40%
-40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)
444
222

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need -1% 0% -5% 14% 3%
1450+ <1450
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -11%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -7%-4% *
6% 1%
*
*
14%
6%
*
18%
12%
*
40%
20%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)
445
D
COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -2% 0%
1450+ <1450
10%
15%
2%
5%
*
9%
14%
* -10%
* -5%
5% 6%
* *
11% 10%
**
* -18% * -10%
2% 7%
*
14% 12%
*
20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)
446
223
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by gender

Female Male
Big university
1% 2%
Strong emphasis
17% 17%
* *
* -21% * -20%
6%
8%
* -7% * -8%
0% 20% 40%
447

Female
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Male
7%
9%
Some emphasis
* -10% * -10%
CAMPUS CULTURE
0% 1%
* -14% * -14%
-20% 0% 20% 40%
-40%
448
224

Female Male
11%
Need-blind
1%
-2%
Need-aware
* -11%
-6%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -4% * -7%
4% 2%
*
7%
13%
*
20% 20%
Capped at $30,000
-40% -20% 0%
10%
*
40%
449

COST CHANGE AND GRANT MATCH POLICY $47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -13% **-14% 7% 2% -1% -1% 5% 2% 11% 14%
Female Male
* *
*
11% 11%
* *
-7% **-8%
9% 2%
* *
13%
8%
*
10%
15%
*
40%
20%
450
225
Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations Out-of-state AA by visit to UVA

UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE -1% -6% 0% 14%
Visited Didnt visit
Big university
* *
Strong emphasis
15%
29%
-21% -19%
6%
* 11%
* -8%-5% *
0% 20% 40%
Base yield rate (N): Visited = 35.2% (264), Didnt visit = 12.8% (111)
451
D
Visited
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Didnt visit
7%
*
12%
Some emphasis
* -10% * -11%
CAMPUS CULTURE
1% -2%
* -15%
-20%
-3%
-40%
0%
20%
40%
452
226

ADMISSIONS POLICY Need-blind and meets full need 0% -6% 6%
Visited Didnt visit
18%
Need-blind
Need-aware
* -22%
* -6%
STUDENT DEBT
No cap
* -14%
* -4%
2% 13% 7%
Capped at $90,000
Capped at $60,000 Capped at $30,000 -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
*
27%
*
11%
*
43%
*
20% 30% 40%
*
50%
10%
453

$47,400; Current cost and aid $50,200, Current plus $2,800; no match $50,200, Current plus $2,800; half matched $50,200, Current plus $2,800; fully matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; no match $53,000, Current plus $5,600; half matched $53,000, Current plus $5,600; fully matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; no match $55,800, Current plus $8,400; half matched $55,800, Current plus $8,400; fully matched -40% -20% 0% -1% 1% 3% 5% 10%
Visited Didnt visit
31%
*
10%
* 17%
* *
-7% -10% 5%
8%
**
10%
*15% *
* -13% * -16%
4%
10%
* *
20% 24%
11%
*
40%
454
227
Aid Analysis
Revised Report of Models and Simulations
DRAFT WORKING PAPERS
February 14, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. III. IV.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................3 WORK STEPS ...........................................................................................................5 MATRICULATION MODELS ....................................................................................6 SIMULATED EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN AID AWARDS ........................................10
Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of the University of Virginia without the permission of both UVa and Art & Science Group.
ART & SCIENCE GROUP LLC University of Virginia Revised Models and Simulations Draft Working Papers February 14, 2012
PRELIMINARY REPORT
I.
Executive Summary
The University of Virginia has an opportunity to make progress on its goals of improving access for lower-income families, increasing diversity, and improving academic quality, all while increasing net tuition revenue through the use of institutional grants in more optimal ways. However, the potential gains are marginal for in-state students. With the limitations of maintaining the current balance of in-state and out-of-state students and remaining need-blind, the ways to accomplish UVas objectives are nuanced. The key strategic questions of how aid interacts with price and other strategic initiatives under considering remains to be answered by the market research we are currently conducting, but will be of significant importance in understanding how the University can best reach those goals. It is important to note that this aid study was focused on domestic aid applicants with incomes above the 200% federal poverty level only. The econometric modeling was unable to measure sensitivities to changes in aid for the lowestincome families, due to extremely low variability in awarding and award levels significantly higher than other needy students. Moving forward, we recommend that UVa conduct careful experiments to create greater variation in aid awarding for low-income students. Only with such data will econometric modeling be able to help the University understand how changes in its aid program would affect the lowestincome students. If UVa were less generous with needy students, it would lose significant numbers of them. However, UVas decision to grow the undergraduate student body presents some opportunities to use changes in institutional aid to advance its larger objectives. Focusing on in-state student populations, the Universitys best opportunities are to increase institutional grants to higher-academic quality aid applicants and those with above median need. In the short term, changing awarding parameters in a way that would increase by $2,000 grants to applicants with demonstrated financial need and SAT scores of 1330 or higher would likely enroll an additional 40-45 students. This would provide additional net revenue estimated at $300,000$350,000. While the University could also decrease awards by a similar magnitude to lower-scorers, 15-20 fewer students would likely enroll and net tuition revenue would decrease by an estimated $100,000 to $150,000.
ART & SCIENCE GROUP LLC University of Virginia Revised Models and Simulations Draft Working Papers February 14, 2012 PAGE 3
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Effectively increasing grants to applicants with above-median need by $2,000 would likely enroll 35-40 additional students. This would provide additional net revenue estimated at $100,000-$150,000. This is also the most efficient way to enroll under-represented minorities, with nearly one-third of the new students being under-represented minorities.
Focusing on out-of-state student populations, the Universitys best opportunities among students with demonstrated need are to increase institutional grants based on academic quality. To maintain the geographic ratio, increasing by $2,000 grants to applicants with need and SAT scores of 1430 or lower would likely enroll 55-60 additional students. This would provide estimated additional net revenue of $1,200,000-$1,300,000. Note that the average SAT scores of this group are still higher than the average scores for in-state students and would thus increase overall academic quality. Increasing grants to lower-scorers would also improve ethnic diversity, with over one-third of new students being under-represented minorities. The University could also increase awards to higher scorers by $4,000 to enroll 40-45 additional students, which would likely increase net revenue by $700,000 to $750,000. Decreasing grants to out-of-state students, regardless of cohort, would decrease enrollment and net revenue significantly. Reducing awards by as much as $4,000 could result in enrollment decreases of up to 110 students and decreased net revenue of up to $2,000,000.
PRELIMINARY REPORT
II.
Work Steps
The University of Virginia retained Art & Science Group to conduct an analysis of its financial aid awarding practices for entering freshmen, as part of a larger study that will continue into the fall of 2012. The core of the aid study included an econometric analysis of aid awarding practices and matriculation experiences, and application of the matriculation model to the fall, 2011 admitted applicant pool to inform awarding policies. We began our assignment by meeting with client teams of administrators and BoV members to review their objectives for admission and financial aid, the Universitys experiences in recent years, and the data that would be available to us. Admissions and financial aid data were provided to us for all applicants for the fall entering classes of 2009-2011 at the University. After several iterations of checking, refining, and verifying the data, we began an analysis of trends in the data. When we had completed the analysis of trends in admission and aid, we met with the administrative client team to review the data, identify any further problems with the data, and explore hypotheses about the causes and implications of the trends that we should be aware of as we proceeded to develop the econometric model of individuals matriculation probability. We developed what we believed to be the final model and presented a matriculation model and preliminary simulations in January 2012. During that presentation, it was decided that there was no need to gather additional data and we would work to revise the model and run additional simulations to focus on measuring the impact on enrollment and to look for cohorts where trade-offs in students might be financially feasible. After reviewing the findings of the simulations with the client team, we summarized the Universitys awarding position and recommended changes for it to consider.
PRELIMINARY REPORT
III.
Matriculation Models
The matriculation model specifies a functional relationship between the probability of a student matriculating and certain variables that affect the matriculation decision at UVa for aid applicants with incomes greater than 200% of federal poverty level. These variables include financial aid offers from institutional and government sources, as well as demographic, geographic, and academic attributes that describe the student. This type of multivariate model allows us to predict the matriculation probability for any student for whom we have complete data. In the tables below, the marginal effect for each variable can be thought of as an approximation of the separate effect on matriculation probability of a unit variation in the value of that variable for an individual who exhibits the mean characteristics of the sample. The p-value is used to test for the significance of the individual variable, or the family of variables to which it belongs. A p-value of less than .105 for a variable (or another member of the same family of variables) is considered to be statistically significant. Of those variables that were useful in explaining the matriculation behavior of UVas admitted applicants with need, some of the variables are described as continuous variables, while others are called dummy variables. A continuous variable is one that plays a role in every students matriculation decision, but does so at a varying rate. For instance, Need amount is a continuous variable where the higher the need the lower the matriculation probability. A dummy variable is one that affects the matriculation decision in a constant fashion. Each dummy variable has only yes and no values attached to it, and the effect is measured against an omitted variable. For instance, a legacy student is significantly more likely to enroll than an otherwise identical non-legacy student. The families of variables that are included in the matriculation model for UVa (both because we have consistent data and because they were tested to be significant) are:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Year of Application: the proportion of the difference in matriculation rate from one year to the next that cannot be explained by the other variables in the model. Comparison year is Fall 2011. Geography: where the student currently resides. Comparisons are to all others in category. Race: whether the student identified him- or herself as African- or Hispanic-American, Asian-American, or another race (including Caucasian). Comparison group is Caucasians. Legacy: whether the student indicated that a parent, sibling, or other relative had attended UVa. Comparison group is non-Legacy students. Bandwagon effect: based on the number of students who were admitted from the same high school in preceding years. SAT-Below Median/SAT Above Median: the students SAT score (or ACT score converted to SAT) per point. Echols: whether the student was considered for Echols versus all others. Rodman: whether the student was considered for Rodman versus all others. Need Amount: the students amount of demonstrated need per $1,000. State Aid: the students amount of aid received from Virginia per $1,000. UVA Grant Size: the total amount of need-based grants and merit scholarships the student was offered by UVa from institutional sources per $1,000.
Note that these models are based on aid applicants only who are not considered low income by UVa (incomes > 200% of federal poverty level). International students, athletes, and tuition remission students were also excluded from the models.
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Matriculation Models 2009 2011

InState/Below MedianNeed 1056 Partial Probability 0.008 0.039 0.161 0.188 0.059 0.055 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.057 0.257 0.005 N/A 0.009 pvalue 0.805 0.237 0.004 0.000 0.141 0.255 0.356 0.000 0.000 0.261 0.056 0.281 N/A 0.146 InState/Above MedianNeed 993 Partial Probability 0.090 0.015 0.094 0.149 0.092 0.160 0.018 0.001 0.001 0.155 0.407 0.021 0.029 0.035 pvalue 0.006 0.644 0.055 0.000 0.012 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
Observations Variable Year=Fall2009 Year=Fall2010 SouthwesternVA NonAsianMinorities AsianAmericans Legacy Bandwagoneffect SATBelowMedian SATAboveMedian Echols Rodman NeedAmount'000 StateAid'000 UVAGrant'000
Observations Variable Year=Fall2009 Year=Fall2010 WesternVirginia NonAsianMinorities AsianAmericans Legacy Bandwagoneffect SATBelowMedian SATAboveMedian Echols Rodman NeedAmount'000 StateAid'000 UVAGrant'000
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Observations Variable Year=Fall2009 Year=Fall2010 Midwest NonAsianMinorities AsianAmericans Legacy Bandwagoneffect SATBelowMedian SATAboveMedian Echols Rodman NeedAmount'000 StateAid'000 UVAGrant'000
OutofState/Below MedianNeed 1206 Partial Probability 0.001 0.021 0.089 0.045 0.000 0.105 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.029 0.008 N/A 0.014 pvalue 0.971 0.395 0.026 0.123 0.996 0.001 0.000 0.268 0.100 0.690 0.712 0.003 N/A 0.000
OutofState/Above MedianNeed 1175 Partial Probability 0.039 0.064 NA 0.108 0.085 0.192 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.117 0.007 N/A 0.012 pvalue 0.212 0.024 NA 0.001 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.015 0.321 0.000 N/A 0.000
PRELIMINARY REPORT
IV.
Simulated Effects of Changes in Aid Awards
The matriculation model shown on the previous page was used to simulate the effect changes in institutional awards would likely have had on aid applicants with incomes above 200% of federal poverty level for the class entering UVA in fall 2011. When simulating the effect of decreases in awards, which we tested at values of $2,000 and $4,000, an admitted applicants award was reduced by up to the amount in question. An individual originally offered $2,500 in institutional grant would have his award reduced to $500 for the first example, and to $1 for the second example. An individual not originally offered institutional grant would not have any change in her award status. When simulating the effect of increases in awards, which were also tested at values of $2,000 and $4,000, an admitted applicants award was increased by the full amount in question. In no case did an individuals award exceed the total cost of attendance at UVA for fall 2011. It is important that we emphasize that these are the likely effects of changes. The tables on the following pages are the precise output of the modeling and simulation exercise, but are not meant to imply precise enrollment or net revenue effects. The descriptions of metrics included in the simulations for UVA are: Admitted applicants: the actual number of admitted applicants in a given cohort for fall 2011. Matriculants: the predicted number of matriculants in a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the change in number of matriculants in a given simulation. Yield rate: the predicted yield of matriculants from admitted applicants in a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the increase or decrease in yield for each simulation. Changes are not percentage changes
PRELIMINARY REPORT
of the yield percentage, but rather the increase or decrease in net yield; e.g. a 12% increase on a 62% yield would result in a net 74% yield. Minorities non-Asian: the predicted number of under-represented minorities in a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the change in number of under-represented minorities in a given simulation. SAT score: the predicted average SAT score for a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the difference in average SAT score for new/lost students in a given simulation. Total net revenue: the predicted amount of net tuition revenue in a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the change in amount of net tuition revenue in a given simulation. Net tuition revenue takes into account any increases/decreases in the number of students enrolling and any increases/decreases in total amount of aid offered. Net revenue change per new/lost student: the predicted change in net revenue for each new/lost student in a given cohort for fall 2011. This represents the average amount of net revenue for each new/lost student and is used to measure efficiencies between groups.
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 713 440 62% 94 1280 $7,048,738 86 12% 26 20 -$646,283 -$7,515
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -59 -8% -20 -10 -$158,412 -$2,685 56 8% 15 10 -$23,139 -$413
Decrease grant by $2,000 -32 -4% -13
-$40,037 -$1,251
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000

D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 158 15% 52 20 -108 -10% -36 -10 -$2,059,931 -$19,073 75 7% 24
Decrease grant by $2,000 -57 -5% -19 -10 -$1,056,793 -$18,540
Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student
1,076 223 21% 69 1350 $5,173,803
$2,922,654 $18,498
$1,557,088 $20,761
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, SAT less than 1330 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 26 7% 19 -35 -10% -20 15 4% 11
352 287 82% 94 1220 $4,513,047
-$798,194 -$30,700
-$4,980 -$142
-$352,140 -$23,476
$70,010 $4,376
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, SAT 1330 or higher Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 60 17% 7 10 -24 -7% 41 11% 4 5 $329,001 $8,024
Decrease grant by $2,000 -16 -4%
361 153 42%
1390 $2,535,691
-10 -$153,432 -$6,393
-10 -$110,047 -$6,878
$151,911 $2,532
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, SAT less than 1430 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 521 201 39% 69 1340 $4,627,672 117 22% 52 5 $2,196,392 $18,773 Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -96 -18% -36 -20 -$1,822,928 -$18,989 60 12% 24
$1,265,811 $21,097
-$885,976 -$18,458
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, SAT 1430 or higher Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 555 22 4% 41 7% Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -12 -2% 15 3%
Decrease grant by $2,000 -9 -2%
1455 $546,131
5 $726,262 $17,714 -$237,003 -$19,750
-5 $291,277 $19,418
-5 -$170,817 -$18,980
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, Below Median Need Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 27 7% 7 10 -10 -3% -2 19 5% 4 10 -$160,080 -$8,425
377 233 62% 43 1290 $4,176,073
-$547,236 -$20,268
$64,511 $6,451
$17,564 $2,196
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, Above Median Need Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 59 18% 19 20 -49 -15% -18 -20 -$222,923 -$4,549 37 11% 11 20 $136,941 $3,701
Decrease grant by $2,000 -24 -7% -11 -10 -$57,601 -$2,400
336 207 62% 51 1270 $2,872,665
-$99,047 -$1,679
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Below Median Need Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 83 16% 24 10 -43 -8% -10 42 8% 10
514 86 17% 18 1380 $3,053,519
$2,503,226 $30,159
-$1,303,765 -$30,320
$1,328,227 $31,624
-$747,413 -$29,897
ART & SCIENCE GROUP LLC
University of Virginia Revised Models and Simulations Draft Working Papers February 14, 2012 PAGE 20
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Above Median Need Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 562 137 24% 51 1310 $2,120,284 75 13% 28 30 $419,428 $5,592 Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -65 -12% -26 -15 -$756,166 -$11,633 33 6% 14 15 $228,861 $6,935
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, Grant less than $6,000 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 114 69 61% 17 1250 $1,200,901 9 8% 1 10 -$153,534 -$17,059 Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -5 -4% -2 6 5% 1
$44,673 $8,935
-$43,211 -$7,202
$9,778 $1,956
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: In-state, Grant $6,000 to less than $8,500 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 95 65 68% 8 1280 $846,115 19 20% 4 15 -$81,317 -$4,280 Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -29 -31% -5 -45 -$226,323 -$7,804 10 11% 3 10 -$16,302 -$1,630
PRELIMINARY REPORT
In-state, Grant $8,500 or Simulation cohort: higher Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000 D Admitted applicants Matriculants (model) - original/additional Yield rate (model) - original/additional Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 106 88 83% 24 1280 $755,082 9 8% 5 10 -$297,952 -$33,106 Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 -25 -24% -13 -10 $23,238 $930 5 5% 3
Decrease grant by $2,000 -12 -11% -7 -5 $39,628 $3,302
-$139,426 -$27,885
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant less than $15,000 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 40 19% 15 10 -23 -11% -5 10 -$760,815 -$33,079 19 9% 6
Decrease grant by $2,000 -18 -9% -3 15 -$585,238 -$32,513
206 28 14% 6 1380 $961,773
$1,152,439 $28,811
$569,066 $29,951
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant $15,000 to less than $28,000 Original characteristics Increase grant by $4,000
D
Simulated changes Decrease Increase grant by grant by $4,000 $2,000 31 13% 11 20 -43 -18% -9 -25 -$981,203 -$22,819 19 8% 7 15 $295,812 $15,569
234 67 29% 15 1350 $1,611,615
$352,586 $11,374
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant $28,000 or higher Original characteristics Simulated changes Increase Decrease Increase Decrease grant by grant by grant by grant by $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 Admitted applicants 217 Matriculants (model) - original/additional 93 47 -42 18 -19 Yield rate (model) - original/additional 43% 22% -19% 8% -9% Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional SAT Score (model) - original/additional Total net revenue (model) - original/additional Net revenue change per new/lost student 42 1290 $1,115,505 20 50 $20,589 $438 -22 -10 -$317,913 -$7,569 10 10 -$5,884 -$327 -10 -10 -$78,450 -$4,129
University of Virginia
Financial Aid Benchmarking Study
Summary of Key Findings Preliminary Working Draft
August 2012
Overview of project
UVa invited eight peer institutions to participate in a study of need-based financial aid costs and performance since the economic crisis. Participants were promised an anonymous reporting of the responses and of the data collected. Of those contacted, seven agreed to participate by completing a spreadsheet of data for the last three years and a 30-minute phone interview conducted by a senior professional of Art & Science Group. In addition to interviews with key financial aid administrators and a review of the data provided, Art & Science Group conducted a thorough review of participants websites and available materials. The participants included UC-Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Cornell, Duke and Vanderbilt. Information was gathered from JanuaryJune 2012.
Confidential Working Draft
Contents
This report summarizes the key findings from the benchmarking study, organized as follows: Policy, Priorities and the Recession Changes in Student Profile Funding and Implementation Budgets and Budgeting Approaches Sources of Funds Needs Analysis and Packaging Use of Merit Aid 4 9 17 18 23 28 31
Policy, Philosophy & the Recession
Admissions and Financial Aid Policies

IS/OOS Ratio
Privates University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia 70/30 82/18 65/35 70/30 70/30 Yes Yes Yes Need-aware Yes No Yes In-state only No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Need-blind
Meets full need
Policy, Priorities, and the Recession

Almost every institution surveyed reported that their policies per se have not changed as a result of the recession. However, demand for aid has increased significantly, and the universities are seeing a broader range of family incomes among current and prospective families seeking aid. All of the institutions reported an increase in expenditures on needbased grants and scholarships, as well as growth in the size of the average grant, over the last three years. Responding to these increased demands and changes in state and federal funding, public institutions have made their priorities clear in allocating available need-based aid funds. For example, one university chose to prioritize the protection of instate students, while another focused on ensuring support of middle income students. Another public with especially limited funding has used aid dollars to give slight preference to first generation students, under-represented minorities, and students from selected geographic regions. Only one other public institution in addition to UVa meets the full need of out-of-state students. (It should be noted that its percentage of outof-state students is much lower than that of UVa.)
6
Policies, Priorities, and the Recession, cont.

This public university has sustained a commitment to meeting the needs of all incomes both in-state and out-of-state and has done so only by redirecting other institutional funds to financial aid. Although it does not meet 100% of need for out-of-state students, another public university reported such campus-wide support for aid initiatives that they reallocated institutional funds to financial aid despite comprehensive budget cuts across departments. Privates have responded to the recession with loan initiativesremoval of loans from aid packages and loan caps based on family incomeand increased support of on-campus housing, summer school, and study abroad.
Policies, Priorities, and the Recession, cont.

While all universities cite an overall goal of socio-economic diversity, they do not benchmark against a specific metric (such as percentage of student body). Institutions with the clearest goals and most robust programs cite the key role of board and administrative leadership in setting the stage for a campus-wide commitment both to their policy of meeting 100% need and their other objectives for financial aid.
Changes in Student Profile
Changes in Student Profile

Nearly all institutions saw a decrease in the number of low income students on aid in the last two years. However, UVa saw a considerable increase in low income students on aid, notably from out-of-state One private university saw a dramatic increase in the number of low income students on aid in 2010. It was able to meet a significant increase in demand thanks to the availability of funding from a successful need-based aid fundraising initiative.
10
Changes in Student Profile, cont.

Both publics and privates express more concern about declining yield among middle income students than among low income students. All institutions saw a considerable growth in middle income students on financial aid in 2010 UVa is the only institution that showed increased growth in middle income students receiving aid in 2011; the growth of out-of-state middle income students receiving aid was especially high UVa has a much higher percentage of middle income students as a percentage of all students receiving aid than any other public or private As a result of the decline in the number of middle income applicants and the challenges of their state economy, one public has launched an aggressive financial aid initiative for middle income families
11
Changes in Student Profile, cont.

The number of out-of-state middle income aid recipients at UVa is three times the number of out-of-state low-income recipients. There is only one other school at which more middle income than lower income students receive aid. Publics vary in their support of in-state versus out-of-state students: UVa and one other public meet 100% need of out-of-state students One public places priority on aiding in-state students and aids out-ofstate only as funds are available Two publics protect in-state students from tuition increases during their undergraduate years Another has used increases in out-of-state tuition revenue to maintain growth in out-of-state aid
12
Low Income
Income Definition Privates University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 Total In-State Out-of-State University 7 U of Virginia Total In-State Out-of-State < $75,000 < $60,000 < $60,000 < $45,000 < 150% of poverty < $60,000 2011-12 3129 943 1066 7883 % Growth 2010-11 % Growth 2009-10 -1% 4.6% -2.3% -6.6% 3174 901 1093 8443 2872 5278 4084 1194 4452 1201 909 292 3% 187% 1.7% 3% 3073 314 1074 8191
< $60,000 < 200% of poverty
4999 3793 1206 4146 1256 965 291
-5% -7% 1% -6.8% 4.6% 6.2% -0.3%
3.7% 3% 4.5% 0% 19.1% 17.7% 23.7%
5090 3948 1142 4448 1008 772 236
13
Low Income as a Percentage of Aided Students
Income Definition 2011-12 Privates University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia < $45,000 < 200% of poverty < $60,000 < $60,000 < 200% of poverty 45% NA NA 23.6% 26.2% < $75,000 < $60,000 < $60,000 44.3% 31.5% 25%
2010-11
2009-10
46.4% 30.4% 26%
47.2% 11.2% 26%
45% 24% 29.0% 19.2% 25.6%
44% NA 31.9% 19.6% 23.6%
14
Middle Income
Definition Privates University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 Total In-State Out-of-State University 7 U of Virginia Total In-State Out-of-State $75,000-$120,000 $60,000-$130,000 $60,000-$130,000 $45,000-$140,000 200-500% of poverty $60,000-$120,000
2011-12 % Growth 1882 1146 1309 5919 0% -6% -2.5% -1%
2010-11 % Growth 1881 1223 1343 5961 3322 4719 3900 819 4505 1% 30% 7.5% 13.4%
2009-10 1859 940 1249 5882
$60,000-$130,000 200-500% of poverty
4483 3700 783 4342
-5% -5% -4.4% -3.6%
7.4% 7.2% 8.2% 6.8%
4394 3637 757 4217
2907 1994 913
1.6% 1% 3%
2862 1979 883
8.3% 12.3% 0%
2643 1756 887

15
Middle Income as % of Students Receiving Aid
Definition Privates University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia $45,000-$140,000 200-500% of poverty $60,000-$120,000 $60,000-$130,000 200-500% of poverty $75,000-$120,000 $60,000-$130,000 $60,000-$130,000
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
26.6% 38.3% 31.3%
27.5% 41.3% 31.6%
47.2% 33.5% 30.3%
33.7%
31.7% 27.8% 27.4%
31.6%
26.6% 18.6% 61.9%

16
24.7% 60.7%
19.5% 61.0%
Funding and Implementation
17
Budgets & Budgeting Approaches
18
Budgets
UVas budget for institutional need-based aid is much lower than any of the other institutions surveyed. However: When looking at budget in relation to the number of students receiving need-based grants, UVa provides the most aid per student among publics (based on incomplete data from two publics). In the last year, UVa had the highest percentage growth in needbased aid expenditures among the publics.
19
Budgets for Need-Based Grants/Scholarships
2011-12 Increase Privates University 1 $218,400,000 $105,400,000 $105,500,000 $103,100,000 NA NA $15,907,813 $38,300,000
2010-11 Increase
2009-10
10% $198,400,000 25.8% $83,800,000 26% $102,800,000 0% $102,700,000 $80,863,683 0% $76,400,000 10.5% $14,385,189 18% $32,400,000
13.7% $174,500,000 12% 10.2% 41% 25% 2.8% 22.7% $74,600,000 $93,300,000 $72,900,000 $61,100,000 $13,989,101 $26,400,000
20
University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia
10
Average Need-Based Grant/Scholarship
2011-12% Increase Privates
2010-11% Increase
2009-10
University 1 University 2 University 3 Publics University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia
$30,916 NA $37,478
6%
$29,140 $33,574
8.7% 7.0% 7.0%
$26,803 $31,253 $33,928
3%
$36,352
$7,599 NA NA $3,013 $13,642
2.6%
$7,406 $10,906 $8,672 $2,425
25.6%
$5,894 NA
9.5%
$7,922 $2,401
9.4%
$12,465
10.0%
$11,339
21
Budgeting Approaches
Privates generally submit a budget request based on meeting demonstrated need. Public approaches include the following: Allocation that has been traditionally funded by a return to aid from increases in tuition revenues but has shifted to an allocation based on program objectives. Allocation from increased tuition and housing revenues that guarantees only sufficient funding to cover in-state students. If additional funding is available, it is allocated to reducing loans for instate students and strengthening packages for out-of-state students. Combination of a percentage allocation from new tuition revenues and a review of projected costs to implement policy. Additional costs not covered by tuition revenues, endowment and gifts, and other fees designated for aid have been allocated from other sources as needed by senior administrators.
22
11
Sources of Funds (beyond tuition revenues)
23
Creative Financing
In order to sustain funding for aid initiatives during the economic downturn, one private employed creative financing measures including the following: Quarterly rather than annual distributions from endowment funds Use of reserve funds (funds not awarded in previous years and not distributed back to schools and colleges) Use of quasi-endowment funds Use of strategic initiative or presidents discretionary funds Two of the publics have allocated special fees to support financial aid: A return of a percentage of local campus based fees (i.e., safety fees, sports recreational facility fees). Students voted to allocate a percentage of these fees to help needy students. 25% of trademark licensing fees
24
12
Fundraising
Private universities have been especially successful in raising funds for need-based aid. Increased endowment funds for undergraduate needbased aid have been a major institutional priority and included in recent capital campaigns. For two of the publics, successful fundraising campaigns have been essential to the continued growth of need-based programs. The two Virginia institutions in this study have been the least successful in raising private dollars. Those institutions who have been successful raising private funds cite the leadership of the president/chancellor and the board of trustees. They also made it clear that need-based aid was campus-wide priority.
25
Fundraising for Need-Based Aidprivates

Status University 1 Included as major priority in $4.75B campaign Raised $308.5 million for need-based aid. Now continuing the effort, including a $10M challenge grant Surpassed $100M goal for need-based aid, and counting Keys to Success Commitment of President and Development Office Need-based aid has been a university-wide priority
University 2
University 3
Chancellor and Board have made need-based aid a top institutional priority
26
13
Fundraising for Need-Based Aidpublics

Status
University 4 $300M goal for need-based aid
Keys to Success
Priority of the Chancellor and campus-wide commitment Described moderate success. Commitment of Chancellor, Provost, and Board central to success of effort. Priority of the President; agreed to match every need-based dollar raised Limited success. Youth of development programs and decentralization cited as challenges. Decentralization of fundraising cited as a challenge to raising dollars for need-based aid.
27
University 5
C
University 6
Raised $10 million to support launch of low income program. Seeking now to raise $10 million more. Major university-wide initiative
University 7
Fundraising for scholarships in its infancy
UVA
Included in $3B campaign under programs and projects but no specific dollar goal indicated
Needs Analysis & Aid Packaging
28
14
Needs Analysis & Aid Packaging

Based on their available funding, universities execute on their financial aid objectives by adjusting their approaches to needs analysis and aid packaging. It is difficult to get a clear picture of the changes made by individual institutions because they are reluctant to discuss their packaging. These findings, however, are notable: UVa is the only institution that does not include work-study in packages for low income students. Most of the privates do not include loans for low income students and cap loans for others based on total family income. UVa is the only public that caps loans based on Cost of Attendance rather than family income Most publics use the Minimum Student Contribution in calculating need; UVa does not include the Minimum Student Contribution at this time. One private has committed to matching aid packages offered by Ivies and specific other top tier schools.
29
Work-Study
Exclusions
University 1 University 2 University 3 None None None None None None Only offered to students with EFC up to $13,200 Excluded for low income students both in-state and out-of-state
Maximum
$2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 and will increase up to $6,000 on a case-by-case basis $2,700 $3,000 $1,200 $4,000 for out-of-state only
University 4 University 5 University 6 University 7 U of Virginia
30
15
Use of Merit Aid
31
Use of Merit Aid

Merit awards are used by some of the universities to compete for top students: Two out of the three private universities offer merit awards Only one public offers a wide range of merit awards One public offers one-time summer enrichment excellence grants to increase its competitive appeal Both public and private universities report that an increased amount of their merit funding has been used to meet financial need. Among privates and one public, there appears to be a highly collaborative approach to combining need-based and merit aid awards for top students. All of the other public universities have decentralized, school-based merit award programs, making it difficult to collaborate.
32
16
Institutional Merit Aid in 2010-11

Budget Privates University 1 University 2 NA $112,490,000 $23,299,567 $8,778,228 $9,578,845 $46,196,650 $18,807,861 $1,600,000 NA 3% 12% 10.9% 8% 25% 19% NA NA $51,365 $27,444 $2,925 $6,472 $6,893 $4,309 NA % of UG Students Average Grant
University 3 Publics University 4 University 5*

*May include some private $
University 6 University 7 U of Virginia
33
Conclusions
34
17
Key Conclusions
1. The universities surveyed reported that their policies per se have not changed as a result of the recession. However, in response to increased demand for financial aid and changes in state and federal funding, they have clarified their objectives for the use of institutional grants. The campus-wide commitment to financial aid appears more splintered at UVa, perhaps due to a lack of clarity or consensus about the current objectives of the program. 2. While budgets for need-based institutional grants have increased at all universities, the rate of growth and cost per student aided is higher at UVa.
35
Key Conclusions, cont.

3. UVas implementation of the need-blind/meet full need policy is more expensive than others because it: meets full need of out-of-state students does not include work-study for low income students caps loans based on Cost of Attendance rather than family income does not include the Minimum Student Contribution in the EFC calculation Merit awards are limited at UVa and not used effectively or efficiently to help meet need or recruit top students. UVa has not been as committed or as successful as others in raising private dollars to support the need-based aid program. With the commitment of the Board of Visitors and the President, there may be potential to raise significant funds for need-based and merit aid.
36
4.
5.
18

Report 0705

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Report 0705

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

DRAFT Final Report

April 30, 2013

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

Part 1: Executive Summary

page 5 page 5 page 7 page 14 page 44

1 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

Part 1: Executive Summary

2 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

4 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

Part 2: Strategic Assessment I. THE PROJECT

5 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

6 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

7 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

8 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

9 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

10 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

11 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

12 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

13 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

14 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

The University of Virginias Current Position

15 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

16 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

17 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

UG Academic Reputation Index 93 87 86 88 85

18 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

20 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

23 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

24 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

25 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

26 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

27 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

28 Art & Science Group

University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

Score 1 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 100 100 99 97 97 96 93 91 90 87 86 85 84 82 82