EVIDENCE OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT, SELF-STUDY, AND PLANNING

THE RENSSELAER PLAN AND PERFORMANCE PLANNING

The Rensselaer Plan was drafted after an extensive information-sharing and -gathering process involving the entire Rensselaer community, its alumni, academic and industry leaders, and external consultants. A comprehensive strategy for transforming the university, it provides the framework to inform decision making and to establish institutional priorities, and it sets the stage for a disciplined process to realize goals -- a process that includes performance planning and performance budgeting. [The Rensselaer Plan is provided as Appendix 3.]

Vision and Markers

Before the end of Dr. Jackson's first month in office, the senior management team joined her in a retreat. Together they began to develop a shared vision and to identify boundary conditions within which strategic planning would occur.

Two months later, in her inaugural address on September 24, Dr. Jackson called for a new Rensselaer Plan that would "secure Rensselaer's position as a world-class technological research university." She laid out the fundamental guiding tenets -- excellence, leadership, and community -- and challenged the Institute to focus its research on two growth areas: information technology and biotechnology.

Self-Assessment and Writing

In October, campuswide strategic planning began in earnest, guided by an initiating document called "Building the Rensselaer Plan" [Appendix 11].

Town meetings led by the president and open workshops conducted by the Rensselaer Assessment Leadership Committee (RealCom) brought together students, faculty, staff, alumni, and retirees. The first draft of the plan was based on the results of these gatherings and on intensive assessments conducted by each of the schools and administrative divisions (the portfolios) as well as on objective third-party evaluations of the Institute prepared by the Washington Advisory Group (WAG) and the senior vice president for administration at MIT. During the assessment phase, each portfolio discussed and developed mission and vision statements and analyzed in depth its internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats. (A complete list of the portfolios appears at the end of this section.)

The initial plan draft, prepared by the president and cabinet, was widely circulated. It was posted on the Web from December 15, 1999, until January 31, 2000. It also was distributed to alumni, the Key Executives group, the entire campus (students, faculty, and staff), the Board of Trustees, and friends in business and industry.

RealCom distilled comments and led the revision process. In mid-February, the revised draft was then distributed for a month-long structured review to the Faculty Senate, Student Senate, Deans' Council, Rensselaer Alumni Association Board, Key Executives, and Board of Trustees. By April 1, the Cabinet had made final revisions and submitted the plan for the president's review. The final document was submitted to, and approved by, the Board of Trustees in May 2000.

Performance Planning

Performance planning began in the spring, even before The Rensselaer Plan had been approved. A retreat of the performance planning leadership group (the portfolio owners) developed Performance Planning Guidelines [Appendix 12] and identified the first-year highest priorities for positioning the Institute:

In developing its own Performance Plan, each portfolio first reviewed the results of its original portfolio assessment with respect to the completed Rensselaer Plan. Each portfolio then addressed its contribution to each of the Institute's first-year highest priorities and the full array of Rensselaer Plan commitments.

Initial drafts of the Performance Plans, which comprise a complete blueprint of each portfolio for the next three years, were shared among portfolios to identify crosscutting issues and ensure a coordinated approach to joint efforts. Drafts of academic performance plans were also distributed to the Faculty Senate Planning and Resources Committee (FPRC). Student leaders reviewed the Student Life Performance Plan, and leaders of research centers performed crosscutting reviews of research proposals.

On December 1, 2000, revised Performance Plans were submitted to the president. Then began a detailed process of comprehensive review of each portfolio's Performance Plan by the President's Cabinet.

Performance Budgeting

Based on its revised Performance Plan, each portfolio owner then prepared a Performance Budget showing how that school or division will achieve its Performance Plan. In these activity-based budgets, spending is keyed to performance planning, which in turn is consistent with strategic planning and the overarching goals of The Rensselaer Plan. {See also See BUDGETING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING..}

Feedback, Performance Plan revisions, budget discussions and review, and resource loading extended through January 2001; resource allocation and performance budgeting followed, with President Jackson submitting the Institute budget to the Board on February 16, 2001.

Continuous monitoring of progress toward goals will inform performance planning and budgeting in the years to come.

 

 

_____________

The Portfolios:

Schools: School of Architecture, School of Engineering, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Lally School of Management and Technology, School of Science, Rensselaer at Hartford

Academic Functions: Undergraduate Education, Graduate Education, Education for Working Professionals, Enrollment Management, Faculty of Information Technology

Vice Presidential Divisions: Information Technology Infrastructure and Services, Research (including interdisciplinary centers and activities), Student Life, Administration, Advancement, Finance, Government and Community Relations, Human Resources, Economic Development and Technological Entrepreneurship

Institutional Research

Institutional research at Rensselaer is concentrated largely in the office of Enrollment Management, where data related to students and educational programming is gathered and analyzed.

During the approximately two years of wholesale information-gathering, self-assessment, planning, and prioritizing that culminated in approval of Rensselaer's first performance budgets, every division, school, department, and office participated in extensive internal and external research and cross-cutting review. The Rensselaer Plan is the university's documentation of that research and the master plan for the future. [Please see Appendix 11 for a copy of "Building the Rensselaer Plan," the initializing document, and Appendix 3 for The Rensselaer Plan itself.]

ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

Undergraduate Students: Troy Campus1

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of
total 2000

Full-time/Part-Time Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full-time

4,346

4,137

4,296

4,501

4,850

5,088

99.7%

Part-time

14

12

11

19

17

15

0.3%

Total

4,360

4,149

4,307

4,520

4,867

5,103

100.0%

Intellectual Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

250

249

255

253

250

247

4.8%

Engineering

2,783

2,513

2,531

2,558

2,641

2,682

52.6%

H&SS

65

101

147

196

246

267

5.2%

Science

912

871

899

949

1,027

1,059

20.8%

Lally M&T

328

395

454

481

546

517

10.1%

IT

0

0

0

57

124

278

5.4%

Undecided

22

20

21

26

33

53

1.0%

Gender Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

3,334

3,110

3,208

3,402

3,708

3,872

75.9%

Female

1,026

1,039

1,099

1,118

1,159

1,231

24.1%

Ethnic Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African-American

168

134

145

170

173

206

4.0%

Hispanic

188

153

173

185

202

244

4.8%

Asian-American

606

584

531

579

542

589

11.5%

Native American

13

11

11

15

17

19

0.4%

International

278

235

238

288

211

212

4.2%

Graduate Students: Troy Campus2
Headcount Enrollment Trends

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of
total 2000

Full-time/Part-time Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full-time

1,634

1,602

1,577

1,408

1,394

1,500

79.9%

Part-time

406

350

352

431

405

378

20.1%

Total

2,040

1,952

1,929

1,839

1,799

1,878

100.0%

Intellectual Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

43

34

33

38

55

80

4.3%

Engineering

991

888

852

853

819

836

44.5%

H&SS

195

198

166

182

178

181

9.6%

Science

375

361

319

321

343

392

20.9%

Lally M&T

311

361

451

445

404

362

19.3%

Interdisciplinary/IT

125

110

108

0

0

27

1.4%

Gender Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

1,596

1,489

1,427

1,355

1,303

1,348

71.8%

Female

444

463

502

484

496

530

28.2%

Ethnic Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African-American

43

40

40

26

31

39

2.1%

Hispanic

55

45

48

48

43

30

1.6%

Asian-American

103

102

106

106

80

73

3.9%

Native American

6

6

4

3

3

2

0.1%

International

608

615

677

705

740

840

44.7%

Education for Working Professionals
Headcount Enrollment Trends: Professional and Distance Education

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of
total 2000

Gender Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

480

439

481

556

635

668

75.6%

Female

57

132

221

188

216

216

24.4%

Total

537

571

702

744

851

884

100.0%

 

Headcount Enrollment Trends: Hartford Campus3

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of
total 2000

Gender Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

1,197

1,329

1,337

1,505

1,499

1,318

72.9%

Female

575

574

548

584

549

489

27.1%

Total

1,772

1,903

1,885

2,089

2,048

1,807

100.0%

Ethnic Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African-American

42

51

60

75

65

61

3.4%

Hispanic

22

24

27

26

42

51

2.8%

Asian-American

70

73

93

129

150

143

7.9%

Native American

2

2

3

6

3

3

0.2%

International

29

41

52

29

93

101

5.6%

First-Year Students
Admissions Data

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Applications

4,543

4,549

4,680

4,664

5,264

5,479

Acceptances

3,848

3,723

3,905

3,757

4,126

4,011

Enrolled

963

899

1,069

1,141

1,323

1,304

Selectivity (% apps accepted)

84.7%

81.8%

83.4%

80.6%

78.4%

73.2%

Yield (% accepts enrolled)

25.0%

24.1%

27.4%

30.4%

32.1%

32.5%

Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

% women

25%

25%

25%

23%

22%

26%

% underrepresented minority

6%

6%

10%

10%

8%

11%

School Distribution

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of
Total 2000

Architecture

64

54

57

59

67

47

3.6%

Engineering

597

482

629

620

722

695

53.3%

H&SS

8

38

41

49

63

64

4.9%

Science

221

223

256

277

303

294

22.5%

Lally M&T

68

87

70

72

88

68

5.2%

IT

0

0

0

48

57

101

7.7%

Undecided

5

15

16

16

23

35

2.7%

Freshman Quality

 

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

SAT-Verbal (mean)

605

608

607

614

611

SAT-Math (mean)

660

659

659

667

671

SAT-Total (mean)

1265

1267

1266

1281

1282

 

Retention and Graduation Rates
Retention

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Freshmen retention rate4

90.3%

89.3%

90.1%

92.4%

90.4%

92.1%

Year Freshmen Cohort Entered Rensselaer

 

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Six-Year Graduation Rate5

68.1%

69.6%

71.0%

70.2%

73.0%

75.2%

 

Degree Completion by Level, School, and Year

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Bachelors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

61

77

54

66

91

79

Engineering

648

640

583

561

535

547

H&SS

22

19

13

22

37

58

Science

171

203

182

211

212

185

Lally M&T

68

70

56

95

98

152

IT

0

0

0

0

0

3

Total

970

1,009

888

955

973

1,024

Master's

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

16

22

11

8

6

11

Engineering

384

373

320

351

337

298

H&SS

42

43

49

52

46

39

Science

86

96

89

91

102

114

Lally M&T

160

133

164

201

242

239

IT

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

688

667

633

703

733

701

Doctorate

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

0

0

0

0

0

0

Engineering

84

86

76

80

63

57

H&SS

7

7

10

7

13

7

Science

53

49

36

34

34

20

Lally M&T

10

3

5

4

4

7

IT

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

154

145

127

125

114

91

 

Total Degree Awarded6

 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

 

1,812

1,821

1,648

1,783

1,820

1,816

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competitive Position

Summary of undergraduate competitors identified through the College Board's annual Admitted Student Questionnaire. Sorted in descending order of cross-applications in instances where students submitted applications to both Rensselaer and the institution listed. "Win rate" is defined as percentage of students enrolling at Rensselaer from those admitted to both Rensselaer and the other institution.

 

Fall 2000 Admitted Student Questionnaire

Institution

Cross
Apps

Cross
Admits

% Cross
Admits

Enrolled
RPI


Other


Win Rate

Fall 98
Win Rate

Cornell

874

447

51%

36

185

16%

22%

MIT

783

164

21%

2

98

2%

13%

Carnegie Mellon

641

473

74%

46

104

31%

30%

RIT

588

573

97%

249

81

75%

75%

WPI

547

540

99%

222

64

78%

61%

Rochester

467

373

80%

78

52

60%

63%

Lehigh

387

309

80%

84

35

71%

60%

Boston University

355

310

87%

78

81

49%

83%

Clarkson

336

334

99%

126

69

65%

85%

SUNY Binghamton

319

289

91%

93

35

73%

88%

Syracuse

285

277

97%

69

58

54%

68%

Penn State University Park

278

257

92%

89

23

79%

89%

SUNY Buffalo

264

257

97%

124

17

88%

76%

Johns Hopkins

245

173

71%

11

58

16%

39%

Union College

227

171

75%

44

46

49%

73%

Georgia Tech

214

191

89%

29

29

50%

43%

Case Western Reserve

207

190

92%

16

23

41%

40%

 

Other Competitive Measurements7

 

Freshman Retention

6-yr. graduation rate

U.S. News Ranking

Cornell

96%

91%

10

MIT

97%

91%

5

Carnegie Mellon

91%

78%

23

RIT

85%

57%

*

WPI

89%

75%

2nd tier

Rochester

93%

74%

33

Lehigh

93%

80%

38

Boston University

85%

69%

2nd tier

Clarkson

86%

71%

2nd tier

SUNY Binghamton

91%

81%

2nd tier

Syracuse

91%

72%

2nd tier

Penn State University Park

93%

80%

44

SUNY Buffalo

83%

55%

3rd tier

Johns Hopkins

95%

87%

15

Union College

92%

83%

*

Georgia Tech

86%

69%

35

Case Western Reserve

 

91%

73%

Enrollment Projections

 

Undergraduates

 

Actual
Fall 2000

Projected
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Freshmen

4,788

4,785

4,799

4,712

4,660

4,660

Transfer

300

308

262

242

238

238

Total Undergraduates

5,088

5,093

5,061

4,954

4,898

4,898

 

Troy Graduate Students8

Full-time

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Masters

775

792

792

792

792

792

Doctorate

725

741

800

864

933

1008

Subtotal

1,500

1,533

1,592

1,656

1,725

1,800

Part-time

378

386

386

386

386

386

Total Troy Graduate

1,878

1,919

1,978

2,042

2,111

2,186

Distance Students9

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

884

1,060

1,060

1,060

1,060

1,060

 

Hartford Campus10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1,807

1,825

1,825

1,825

1,825

1,825

FISCAL TRENDS

Comparative financial information showing Rensselaer's financial position and financial activities for each of the last five years follows. {For an analysis of these data, please see See FINANCIAL RESOURCES..}

Combined Statements of Financial Position at June 30, 1996-200011

 

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

$19,397

$17,865

$21,102

$18,542

$22,507

Accounts receivable, net

 

 

 

 

 

Student related and other

12,111

14,283

16,685

10,627

13,152

Research and other agreements

7,060

10,554

10,163

10,892

18,664

Pledges receivable

5,000

9,813

9,076

20,866

10,679

Inventories

2,473

1,954

1,785

1,800

1,592

Prepaid expenses and other assets

16,368

14,266

12,446

13,599

16,403

Deposits with bond trustees

18,768

26,945

18,972

33,932

18,547

Student loans receivable, net

35,936

32,897

32,084

32,186

31,817

Investments, at market

387,854

444,888

497,431

564,621

766,238

Land, buildings and equipment, net

203,621

210,881

218,763

229,836

252,185

Total assets

708,588

784,346

838,507

936,901

1,151,784

Liabilities

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable/accrued expenses

$18,032

$23,351

$23,094

$23,684

$30,476

Deferred gift obligations

15,441

16,516

18,377

16,846

17,804

Deferred revenue

6,523

6,959

6,167

10,949

10,244

Short-term portion of long-term debt

7,768

7,856

8,828

6,569

6,087

Notes payable

2,900

2,200

1,800

1,600

1,300

Deposits

1,125

1,380

456

486

602

Accrued post retirement benefits

11,669

11,694

11,677

11,856

11,982

Refundable government loan funds

20,545

20,357

21,415

22,507

23,213

Long-term debt

105,708

111,083

102,308

114,354

108,140

Total liabilities

189,711

201,396

194,122

208,851

209,848

Net Assets

 

 

 

 

 

Unrestricted

355,947

399,462

442,067

495,798

677,424

Temporarily restricted

54,246

67,375

79,580

98,490

123,024

Permanently restricted

108,684

116,113

122,738

133,762

141,488

Total net assets

518,877

582,950

644,385

728,050

941,936

Total liabilities and net assets

$708,588

$784,346

$838,507

$936,901

$1,151,784

Combined Statements of Activities for the year ended June 30, 1996-200012 13

 

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Operating Revenue

 

 

 

 

 

Student related revenue, net

$114,081

$115,080

$125,714

$134,935

$145,225

Gifts

26,446

19,178

16,617

27,029

27,063

Grants and contracts

42,094

40,709

43,668

44,075

48,514

Investment return

19,282

19,922

20,117

20,831

23,355

Rensselaer Technology Park

4,064

4,912

4,866

5,184

5,772

Other

6,171

6,048

6,703

5,982

8,969

Total operating revenue

212,138

205,849

217,685

238,036

258,898

Operating Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

Instruction

83,262

80,879

90,268

96,919

108,149

Research

38,663

36,910

38,916

40,311

43,588

Student services

5,569

5,416

5,754

6,189

7,531

Institutional and academic support

35,120

37,501

39,458

46,100

50,406

Externally funded scholarships & fellowships

5,956

6,362

6,621

6,835

6,585

Auxiliary services

23,006

22,697

22,693

24,254

26,898

Rensselaer Technology Park

3,665

4,130

3,967

3,957

4,727

Voluntary Separation Program

--

4,124

--

--

--

Other

3,826

2,721

--

--

--

Total operating expenses

199,067

200,740

207,677

224,565

247,884

Change in net assets due to operating activities

13,071

5,109

10,008

13,471

11,014

Non-operating:

 

 

 

 

 

Realized and unrealized gains, net

43,327

52,593

49,335

60,660

196,888

Loss on extinguishment of debt

--

--

--

(889)

--

Life income and endowment gifts

4,166

8,488

6,265

9,463

8,300

Change in value of deferred gifts

(957)

(1,068)

(2,053)

1,666

(958)

Loss on disposal of assets

(779)

(1,049)

(2,120)

(706)

(1,358)

Change in net assets from non-operating activities

45,757

58,964

51,427

70,194

202,872

Total change in net assets prior to cumulative effect of accounting change

58,828

64,073

61,435

83,665

213,886

Cumulative effect of accounting change14

(11,555)

 

 

 

 

Total change in net assets

47,273

64,073

61,435

83,665

213,886

Net assets at beginning of year

465,743

518,877

582,950

644,385

728,050

Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center beginning net assets

5,861

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net assets at end of year

$518,877

$582,950

$644,385

$728,050

$941,936

 

BUDGETING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING

Rensselaer's budgeting process over the past five years reflected the implementation of the long-term educational goals of the Institute. Rensselaer used a flexible budgetary model where revenue-generating units such as the schools and auxiliaries were accountable to a margin or profit to the Institute. Therefore, expenditures were contingent on revenue generation, enhancing program growth while promoting cost efficiency. External factors were assessed in the financial planning and calculation of the margin targets, and indirect costs were managed by applying aggregate growth constraints. The capital budget was included in the annual budget approval process.

The Rensselaer Board of Trustees unanimously approved The Rensselaer Plan on May 12, 2000, setting in motion changes that have had significant impact on the budget and the budgeting process. Designed to be revised on a regular basis, the Plan guides Institute decisions and provides the framework for school and divisional performance plans, which, in turn, serve as the basis for each year's operating plan and budget. With the creation of the Plan and initiation of performance planning, the Institute is establishing a new performance-based operating and capital budgeting and reporting process that links directly to the Performance Plans and allows meaningful assessment of progress against the Plan.

Beginning with the 2001-02 budget, Performance Plans define the means by which the Institute's academic and administrative units will achieve the overarching goals of The Rensselaer Plan. Performance Plans identify priorities, lay out clear milestones, and form the basis of resource allocation through prioritization, restructuring, reordering, and realignment. Performance planning will also identify the means, or "metrics," for measuring progress toward achieving goals.

This past fall (fall 2000) all academic and administrative portfolios engaged in a disciplined, Institutewide performance planning process to define their respective roles in realizing The Rensselaer Plan and to prioritize activities in alignment with the Plan.

In addition to new investment, Rensselaer will efficiently and effectively focus its use of existing resources on Plan objectives while cultivating and growing new resources to achieve the commitments of The Rensselaer Plan. The budget planning, submission, and approval cycle also has been accelerated to facilitate anticipated increases in faculty hires and timely investment in other Plan priorities.

Concurrent with the development of Performance Plans to execute the strategies outlined in the Plan, a new budgeting process was implemented that requires linkage of Plan strategy with specific portfolio actions on a prioritized basis.

By design, resource allocation decisions have focused on first-year highest priorities. Galvanized by a transformational gift from an anonymous donor, planning has been initiated on two of these top priorities: a biotechnology research facility and an electronic media and performing arts center. Internal construction management will be enhanced to provide the level of oversight necessary for significantly increased capital activities.

In response to Rensselaer Plan priorities, a nationwide search for "constellation" faculty in information technology and biotechnology also has begun under the direction of the provost. It is anticipated that two of the six planned constellations will be formed in fiscal year 2002. In addition, 30 new faculty, including the new dean of Management, will be hired within the next year to complement the constellations and to support core strengths.

Consistent with the recommendations of a task force, an office has been established to initiate and oversee new activities designed to improve and enrich the overall experience of first-year students. Process revisions and managerial improvements also are under way, most notably with the substantial transformation of the Institute budgeting process. Promotion and tenure standards for faculty as well as performance criteria for staff, are being elevated and renormalized in parallel with the initiation of an Institutewide, rolling compensation study.

In addition to addressing first-year highest priorities, investment will be made to improve both the administrative and facilities infrastructure necessary to support significant growth in research

Lastly, an increased mix of operating and capital activities will sustain Rensselaer's robust information infrastructure, increase custodial and maintenance capacity in regard to providing clean and safe facilities, and begin to address deferred maintenance and ongoing capital renewal of facilities needed to meet strategic needs.

As stated previously, the new budgeting process implemented this year represents the culmination of an integrated planning approach designed to resource load activities that have been prioritized in alignment with achieving Rensselaer Plan goals. Each portfolio owner built his or her fiscal year 2002 budget request from the "ground up," (e.g., zero-based) based on specific, prioritized steps and actions described in the respective portfolio Performance Plan to achieve the goals outlined in the Plan.

A fundamental premise of the process was that portfolio owners define resource needs rather than derive such needs based on historical patterns. By definition, first-year highest priorities were the highest priority of an impacted portfolio. Certain portfolios incorporated realignments and or/reorganizations geared toward achieving their stated goals.

All operating activities, regardless of funding source (e.g., educational and general operating support, research grants, restricted endowment income, utilization of reserves), were incorporated in the respective portfolio budget submission. In addition, each portfolio had to further prioritize resource loading of its activities based on a series of funding scenarios that were greater or less than a given level of support heretofore provided to the portfolio. This exercise was designed to force further discipline into the budget development process.

While refinements continue, the process resulted in a more comprehensive understanding of budgeted activities within each portfolio and how such activities correlate among portfolios and with Rensselaer Plan initiatives. In addition, resource loading of activities has become more transparent.

 

 

LIST OF APPENDICIES

APPENDIX 13 Response to Issues Raised in the Last Review

 

APPENDIX 1 Periodic Review Report Committee Members Appendix 1-1

APPENDIX 2 Honoring Tradition, Changing the World: Rensselaer in the 21st Century Appendix 2-1

APPENDIX 3 The Rensselaer Plan 7

APPENDIX 4 Organization Charts for President's Office 9

APPENDIX 5 Academic and Research Centers 1

APPENDIX 6 Performance Management Tool 3

APPENDIX 7 Constellation Ads 5

APPENDIX 8 Organization Charts for Provost's Office 7

APPENDIX 9 A History of Rensselaer at Hartford 1

APPENDIX 10 Professional and Distance Education:Degrees andCertificates 1

APPENDIX 11 Building the Rensselaer Plan 3

APPENDIX 12 Performance Planning Guidelines 5

APPENDIX 13 Response to Issues Raised in the Last Review Appendix 13-1

Appendix 13-1

APPENDIX 1 Periodic Review Report Committee Members

 

Gary A. Gabriele, Chair

Vice Provost for Administration and Dean of Undergraduate Education, Provost Office

 
Charles Carletta
Secretary of the Institute and General Counsel, President's Office
 
Loretta Ebert

Director, Libraries and Information Services

 

Gail Gere

Director, Information Technology

 

Ken Gertz
Director of Research Development & Administration, Office of Vice President for Research

 

Jim Gordon

Director of Corporate Relations and Marketing, Hartford

 

Dennis Gornic

Assistant Director, Graduate School

 

Mike Hanna

Associate Professor, Biology

 

Isom Herron
Professor, Mathematical Sciences

 

Oliver Holmes

Acting Senior Director, Campus Planning and Facilities Design

 

Sharon Kunkel

Director and Registrar, Student Records and Financial Services

 

Linda Layne

Associate Professor, Science and Technology Studies

 
Jack Mahoney

Director of Enrollment and Institute Research, Enrollment Management

 
Robert Messler

Associate Dean, School of Engineering

 
Mark Mistur

Associate Dean and Associate Professor, School of Architecture

 

Deborah Nazon

Assistant Provost, Institute Diversity

 

Victor Rauscher

Controller, Vice President for Finance

 
Robert Sands

Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Programs, Lally School of Management and Technology

 

Kim Scalzo

Director of Professional and Distance Education Programs

APPENDIX 2 Honoring Tradition, Changing the World: Rensselaer in the 21st Century

 

Shirley Ann Jackson Ph.D.

Inaugural Address
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Houston Field House
September 24, 1999

Thank you. Chairman Heffner, distinguished platform guests, for your charge and your kind greetings.

Let me begin with a salute to you -- the Rensselaer community:

I salute our students, our raison d'etre and our future
I salute our faculty, the intellectual core of our academic enterprise
I salute our staff, the great enablers of all that we do
I salute our alumni, our heritage and our presence in the larger society

I especially salute my family, whose encouragement, support and love have sustained me throughout my life and brought me to this day

And I salute our honored guests and friends of this great university who share our belief in Rensselaer, its mission, its history and its promise for the future.

You, all of you, have created and continue to transform this great institution.

As I stand before you this morning, I am proud to accept the charge and the challenge of serving you as the 18th President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

As you might expect of a scientist, I believe in the power of the fundamentals. Let me share with you my fundamentals:

Excellence is the mantra and the metric--in all that we do.
Leadership must be claimed--in research and in pedagogy.
Community is what we are--for there is but one Rensselaer.

With this foundation, let us reflect on the theme for today's Inauguration: "Honoring Tradition, Changing the World: Rensselaer in the 21st Century."

Rensselaer enjoys a storied history, 175 years of leadership in technological education and scholarship. Throughout that time, it has remained true to our founder's mission, "the application of science to the common purposes of life." Through the pursuit of that objective, down through almost two centuries, Rensselaer people, in fact, have changed the world.

We honor that tradition by extracting our founder's values to move Rensselaer to the forefront of the world's great technological universities.

As we approach a new millennium, an ever-shrinking world, inexorable population growth and migration drive our common purposes to human health and welfare, communications in all its meanings and forms, and environmentally sustainable development.

The application of science to these common purposes requires that we enhance our vital undergraduate program, reinvigorate graduate education, invest in research, extend the reach of our programs for working professionals, and foster the entrepreneurial actualization of technological innovation.

Make no mistake. Our ambitious plans will place demands on us all. We will be challenged to maintain balance in critical areas, to nurture and to extend our strengths, to take risks on entirely new initiatives, and to make difficult choices about programs that have outlived their vitality.

As you might imagine, I have done more than a bit of reading as I have thought about today's remarks, and the foundations of my presidency.

Many people--among them Dr. Frank Rhodes, former president of Cornell University--have described scholarship as a public trust -- and have pondered the balance between the creation of knowledge and the application of it--the balance between the "basic" and applied research.

We must recognize the need to maintain this balance. Even as we celebrate and extend our long history of technological innovation, I believe we must embrace Dr. Rhodes' view of basic research as a public trust and a fundamental for a great technological university. We must nurture and support, at Rensselaer, the most basic of research--in areas where we claim the underlying skills and capabilities, and--in areas which undergird our technological innovations and entrepreneurial activity.

Greatness also demands balance among the range of disciplines that comprise a fully realized technological university. To innovate, to offer the best education, each of Rensselaer's schools must be excellent in research and recognized in its own right.

We also must maximize the synergies that can be achieved from a robust range of strong research programs. Today, more than ever, we see that much of what is important and exciting lies in interdisciplinary areas--at the interstices (as it were) of traditional disciplines. We say that we have low walls at Rensselaer. Let us "walk that talk," completely.

But the balance between research and teaching also is fundamental. Great research universities have never neglected the primacy of undergraduate education. Rensselaer has an advantage in this regard because it is recognized--and deservedly so--as a world leader in teaching undergraduates. We have given enormous attention to these innovations--and will continue to do so. The challenge is: Whither to now? How do we reach the next level of excellence in pedagogy?

My final word on balance is this: Teaching and research are the clasped hands of the university. I quote John Slaughter, former president of Occidental College: "Research is to teaching as sin is to confession. If you don't participate in the former, you have very little to say in the latter."

Just as we are challenged to maintain balance, we are challenged to make choices. Where will Rensselaer focus to address today's and tomorrow's societal and global priorities? Where does Rensselaer claim leadership now? What bold new initiatives should we undertake to assert unquestioned research preeminence?

I pose three examples for us to consider. Each offers a distinct promise. Each offers a distinct challenge. Each illustrates the choices that lie ahead.

Today, Rensselaer is leading a new wave in information technology. We have established a Faculty of Information Technology, and our undergraduate major in information technology (IT) is drawing students in record numbers. We have a long-established and highly respected program in microelectronics. Additional research programs cover a wide spectrum of related disciplines. Information technology's relevance to all fields of human endeavor is unquestioned, and Rensselaer is poised for great opportunity. Still, we face choices of where to invest for leadership, and how much to invest, even as we extend our presence in this arena.

Applied mathematics provides a second example. Here we enjoy considerable strength, yet to secure genuine leadership will require focus and new investment. Because it embodies modeling, analysis, algorithmic development, even new mathematics, applied mathematics, as a discipline, can be viewed as a common core which undergirds all the sciences and engineering. It is inherently interdisciplinary. We must study this and decide whether we can propel ourselves to a true leadership position.

Finally, I challenge you to take the bold step of choosing for investment an area in which Rensselaer is relatively unknown--but one that holds out great promise and great value to humanity.

Imagine that a biosensor gives you the ability to communicate directly from the brain to the computer, to give instructions to a machine, without the intervention and use of a keyboard. Such a linkage between the human mind and solid state capabilities would revolutionize communication and analysis. Further, consider this assertion: in the 21st century, genomics, combinatorics, and their marriage with information technology, will impact the human condition as strongly as quantum science did in the 20th century. In fact, at the nanostructure level, they overlap. Will such ruminations be realized? The answer lies in integrated research in the biological sciences, engineering technology and computer simulation, in short, in a uniquely focused biotechnology at Rensselaer. This is a field whose impact is so great, so full of promise, so well-suited to Rensselaer, that we simply must drive our stake into the ground of this new frontier.

Why not create a Biotechnology Institute for Rensselaer that would encompass fundamental research, industrial partnerships, technological innovation, and undergraduate and graduate education?

Why not create Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D. programs with an emphasis in either engineering or the biological and life sciences, and with projects and courses designed to immerse students at the interface of these disciplines? With careful evaluation, focus and strategic growth, can Rensselaer emerge as a leader in biotechnology in the next decade? I challenge you, I challenge us to think about this -- indeed -- to do this.

Leadership, however, does not refer only to the leading edge of scientific research, and its applications, but also to pedagogy. We have demonstrated our skill and resourcefulness in developing the studio classroom, in our innovative use of computer-enhanced instruction, in redesigning large enrollment courses. We have extended our leadership through the Rensselaer Center for Academic Transformation. We must, and we will maintain our position on the leading edge.

But what is the next innovation? Can we use our knowledge and understanding of other cultures and the virtual representation of distant locations to solve real world engineering, health or design problems--through remote interactions with another country using information technology? Can we create a laboratory experience for our students to do this? I do not know, but, we must be open to such ideas--in fact, we must seek out these challenges.

If we are committed to being leaders in research, in education, and in the marketplace, we must understand other cultures. We must nurture all human talent and draw upon it for technological leadership to sustain global prosperity. We must then achieve an overall diversity at Rensselaer that reflects the role we intend to assume, and the world we hope to serve.

One hundred and seventy-five years ago, Amos Eaton founded his revolutionary pedagogy on what he called the "Rensselaerean Plan." As the new century beckons, Rensselaer demands the forceful expression of a new "Rensselaer Plan"--one that will articulate new ideas -- new ideals -- and bold action. This Rensselaer Plan will capture our vision and guide our choices -- in short, it will secure Rensselaer's position as a world-class technological research university with global outlook and global impact.

Our goal demands the rigor and discipline that underlie all greatness. The Rensselaer Plan will require answers to five questions. These questions are exact and exacting:

First, what defines the intellectual core in key disciplines at Rensselaer? Is it important, and why? True excellence requires such definition and examination.

Second, in these disciplines, are we in a leadership position? Do we set the standard and the agenda? These areas will serve as our foundation.

Third, if we are not in a leadership position, do we have the underlying strengths and capabilities necessary to move rapidly into a position of primacy with the proper focus and investment? We will build on these areas of strength.

Fourth, are there areas that are so vital that we must create a presence in order to stand in the community of world-class universities? We will stake out an identity in these critical disciplines.

And finally, what areas of current endeavor must we be willing to transform--or to give up--in order to focus our resources and our energies to create the impact we envision? We will make the difficult decisions that are required by a fundamental commitment to our highest ideals.

The realization of the Rensselaer Plan -- the Rensselaer dream -- requires greatness from all of us, places demands on all of us, and will elevate all of us.

As the 18th President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, I pledge that I will give my utmost to realize this vision. As I have said on many occasions, I will work with you, and I will work for you.

I ask each of you for your counsel and your full support. The goals of the Rensselaer Plan are ambitious, and our commitment must be no less so.

Let us begin.

Thank you.

 

 

APPENDIX 3 The Rensselaer Plan

 

APPENDIX 4 Organization Charts for President's Office

 

APPENDIX 5 Academic and Research Centers

 

 

The Institute currently has 23 research centers focused on a variety of technologies:

 

Center for Academic Transformation

The Academy of Electronic Media

Center for Advanced Interconnect Sciences and Technology (CAIST)

The Anderson Center for Innovation in Undergraduate Education (CIUE)

Archer Center for Student Leadership

Center for Automation Technologies

Center Composite Materials and Structures (CCMS)

Darrin Fresh Water Institute (DFWI)

Center for Digital Video and Media (Next Generation Video)

Electronic Agile Manufacturing Institute (EAMRI)

The Focus Center - New York, Rensselaer: Interconnections for Gigascale Integration

Center for Image Processing Research

Center for Infrastructure and Transportation Studies

Center for Pre-College Education (CIPCE)

Center for Integrated Electronics, Electronics Manufacturing and Electronic Media

International Center for Multimedia in Education

Lighting Research Center

Center for Multiphase Research (CMR)

New Media Center

New York State Center for Polymer Synthesis

New York State Center for Studies of the Origin of Life

Scientific Computation Research Center (SCOREC)

Severino Center for Technological Entrepreneurship

 

APPENDIX 6 Performance Management Tool

 

APPENDIX 7 Constellation Ads

 

APPENDIX 8 Organization Charts for Provost's Office

 

APPENDIX 9 A History of Rensselaer at Hartford

 

In 1955, United Aircraft, now United Technologies Corporation, approached several universities about offering a master's degree program in engineering at a location near their operations. The company wanted to advance the education of its employees without requiring them to travel to an established campus. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute accepted the invitation and established what is now Rensselaer at Hartford.

1955-1961 The Hartford Graduate Center of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In September of 1955 the Hartford Graduate Center (HGC) of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute began in South Windsor, Conn., as a division of the graduate school of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

1961-1975 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Connecticut, Inc.

A 1961 change in Connecticut law allowing nonprofit organizations to be taxed prompted a change in HGC's corporate structure. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Connecticut, Inc. became a legal entity in the fall of 1961 with its own Board of Trustees charged with managing the property and business of the corporation.

In the fall of 1971, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Connecticut, Inc. moved to a new campus at 275 Windsor Street in Hartford. Rensselaer at Hartford continues to occupy this site as its primary Connecticut location.

1975-1996 The Hartford Graduate Center, Inc

The next stage in the evolving relationship with Rensselaer came in 1975. While the Boards of Trustees at both Hartford and Troy saw value in a continued relationship, Rensselaer had no other "branch" entities and asked Hartford to suggest a different identification. The result was an affiliate status. It was agreed to:

  1. change the name to The Hartford Graduate Center, Inc. (in affiliation with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute);
  2. continue having an independent Board of Trustees govern the Hartford campus;
  3. adopt "in affiliation with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" as part of Hartford's legal and public relations profile;
  4. have Rensselaer's faculty and administration conduct periodic reviews of Hartford's degree programs to assure continuity and quality;
  5. pay Rensselaer a program fee for the affiliation status and degree-granting privilege;
  6. continue awarding to graduates of The Hartford Graduate Center the following Rensselaer degrees: the MBA and the M.S. in computer science, electrical and mechanical engineering, engineering science, metallurgy, and management. The Center offered, in its own right, the Master of Science in biomedical engineering and in management (with a concentration in health care management).
The Groton Site.

In 1977, when the University of Southern California (USC) experienced difficulty staffing its course offerings for personnel at the U.S. Navy's Submarine Base in Groton, Conn., USC turned its program over to the Hartford Graduate Center. Classes were offered in Groton by Hartford faculty for the first time in March 1977. Enrollment has grown to a high of 225 graduate students from the Groton-New London region.

Rensselaer Learning Institute

In 1992, an innovative and entrepreneurial unit now known as the Rensselaer Learning Institute was created with the support of United Technologies Corp. This Institute delivers credit and nondegree professional development programs from multiple suppliers to students in corporate client sites.

1997- present Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center, Inc.

The most recent change to the Center's structure and relationship to Rensselaer began in 1994 when the Hartford Graduate Center determined that its goal of achieving growth and receiving accreditation from the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business would be advanced by a closer affiliation with Rensselaer. Hartford therefore approached Rensselaer and ultimately demonstrated value to both campuses of a closer tie.

The affiliate status and its conditions remained in place until January 1, 1997, when The Hartford Graduate Center, Inc. officially became Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center, Inc. (Rensselaer at Hartford) and became once again a "branch" campus. This date marked the conclusion of two years of discussion, planning, and broad constituency involvement, and also marked the start of expanded curricula for working professionals.

 

APPENDIX 10 Professional and Distance Education:Degrees andCertificates

 

All degrees and certificates available via distance learning are thesame as those available to on-campus students, and the degree notation on adistance studentŐs diploma is indistinguishable from that of a campusstudent.

Distance programs have the same or equivalent admissions standardsand requirements, the same curriculum or subset of courses, and the same orequivalent degree completion requirements as the equivalent on-campuscertificate and degree programs. These standards and requirementsare set by the faculty from the department and school awarding the degreeor certificate.

Academic programs are approved first at the department level, then bya curriculum committee within each academic school, and then by theInstitutewide Curriculum Committee. Oversight for all graduate programs isalso provided by the Graduate School.

In the case of interdisciplinary programsthat cut across multiple departments or schools, a committee of faculty isidentified to establish the academic standards and requirements andappropriate faculty are identified to review applications and plans ofstudy for individual students. All degree programs must be approvedby the School awarding the degree and all programs must meet theappropriated guidelines established by the Graduate School.

Faculty from theappropriate academic units across campus are responsible for thedevelopment, delivery, and oversight of all distance programs. Thesefaculty are generally appointed by their department/school curriculumchairs or curriculum committees according to the same standardsapplied to on-campus degree and certificate programs.

Master's Degrees Currently Offered Via Distance

Master of BusinessAdministration

M.S. inComputer Science

M.Eng. in Computer and Systems Engineering

M.S. and M.Eng. in Electrical Engineeringwith a Concentration in Microelectronics

M.S. and M.Eng. in Electric PowerEngineering

M.S. inEngineering Science with a Concentration in Management of Technology

M.S. in EngineeringScience with a Concentration in Manufacturing Systems Engineering

M.S. in EngineeringScience with a Concentration in Microelectronics ManufacturingEngineering

M.Eng. inIndustrial and Management Engineering

M.S. in Information Technology

M.S. in Management

M.Eng. inMechanical Engineering

M.S. inTechnical Communication

 

Current Graduate Certificates

Bioinformatics

Computer Graphics and Data Visualization

Computer Networks

Computer Science

Database Systems Design

E-Business

Electric PowerEngineering

Global Logistics

Graphical User Interfaces

Human-Computer Interaction

Information Technology

Management and Technology

Manufacturing SystemsEngineering

MechanicalEngineering

MicroelectronicsManufacturing Engineering

Microelectronics Technology and Design

Quality and Reliability

ServiceSystems

SoftwareEngineering

Supply ChainManagement

Technical ProgramManagement for Commercial Businesses

 

APPENDIX 11 Building the Rensselaer Plan

 

APPENDIX 12 Performance Planning Guidelines

 

APPENDIX 13 Response to Issues Raised in the Last Review
 

In 1996, the Middle States Evaluation Team chaired by James Wei of Princeton University, prepared the "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" after review of Rensselaer's Self-Study Report and visiting the campus. In that report, the evaluation team identified some "areas that require attention."

Many specific issues have been addressed by the appropriate School or Division in the body of this Periodic Review Report. Those that remain are discussed below.

Page 3

ˇ "Rapid changes in leadership positions and re-focusing of mission can lead to significant constituents of RPI feeling isolated from decision making and not adequately informed about the future.... Timely and continued dialogs between the top leaders and various constituencies of RPI would enhance feeling of shared objectives and purposes."

Rensselaer continues to move at a very fast pace, and although change is never easy, involvement of all constituents has markedly improved. Input to The Rensselaer Plan came from all fronts, and participants were literally able to see the effect of their suggestions on the evolving document. Many sections of this reports show wide ranging participation in and support for the current planning model. The recent gift of $360 million is but one example of the remarkable support generated by the new vision.

Page 4

ˇ Issues related to Admissions and financial aid are addressed in ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT.

ˇ "There is a perceived lack of campus socialization opportunities in the surrounding geographic area."

The Capital District is seeing growth on several fronts as new businesses take hold, area colleges and universities develop new initiatives, and improved transportation options give the region greater accessibility. As Rensselaer grows in stature and reputation, the surrounding communities will certainly benefit. Increased efforts to build "communiversity" have included programs designed to engage the city of Troy in campus events and programs. It is expected that the new performing arts center will have a significant impact on the cultural and intellectual vitality of the region.

ˇ"... the number of faculty members has decreased by approximately ten percent.... [Also of concern,] the relatively high percent of tenure among faculty members and the need to increase the number of faculty from underrepresented groups."

Faculty numbers are on the rise after several years of decline. Aggressive recruiting keyed to the goals of The Rensselaer Plan aims to add another 16 new faculty lines in the coming academic year alone. International searches for "constellation" faculty in information technology and biotechnology has also begun. Recruitment of underrepresented minority faculty is an institutional priority that is seeing slow but steady progress.

ˇ Issues related to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences are addressed in section 2.5.

ˇ "This program [splitting tuition income with departments] needs careful monitoring of the quality of students to avoid downgrading the quality reputation of RPI.

As can be seen in the section ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS, the quality of students has been rising over the last 5 years. More importantly, the budgeting policy cited (splitting tuition income with department), has been replaced by the Performance Planning and Budging process described in BUDGETING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING.

ˇ Issues related to interactive learning are addressed in sections See UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE. and See SCHOOL OF SCIENCE..

ˇ "The concept of 4x4... needs flexible application which permits the co-existence of 1, 2, and3 credit courses."

The concept of the 4x4 curriculum did result in a predominance of 4 credit courses. However, a number of 1, 2 and 3 credit courses still exist.

Page 5-6

ˇ Issues related to the School of Architecture are addressed in section See SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE..

ˇ Issues related to the School of Engineering are addressed in section See SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING..

ˇ Issues related to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences are addressed in section See SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES..

ˇ Issues related to the School of Science are addressed in section See SCHOOL OF SCIENCE..

Page 6

ˇ "A stable funding for annual replenishment of the libraries collections and academic computing hardware are necessary..."

As described in section See LIBRARY AND COMPUTING RESOURCES., the library is addressing this issue by transferring a significant amount of funding from print versions to online journals and other electronic resources. With the implementation of the laptop requirement, which ensures that all students will have state-of-the-art hardware and software each year, academic computing is focusing much of its attention on providing support for Web-based curricula and supporting students and faculty using laptops.

ˇ "...there is a need to institutionalize assessment activities, such as surveying alumni and monitoring interactive learning impacts on educational effectiveness."

The Provost's Office has recently participated in The Knight Higher Education Collaborative which has sponsored the development of a Collegiate Results Instrument (CRI). The CRI is designed to provide colleges and universities with a portrait based on the experiences of their alumni six years after graduation. Additionally, a 4 year longitudinal study of interactive learning here is being concluded this summer.

ˇ "There may be a need for some updating and consolidation of the results of these planning activities [those in place at the time]." There is also a need "to improve the connection between the budget cycle and long range planning issues."

With implementation of The Rensselaer Plan, planning and budgeting are inseparable. This issue is best addressed in sections See THE RENSSELAER PLAN AND PERFORMANCE PLANNING. and See BUDGETING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING..

Page 7

ˇ "There was also some indication that not everyone feels appropriately engaged in the strategic planning process, and that the current processes are difficult to keep track of. There is need for better coordination among the various activities under the general rubric of `strategic planning,' and a better communication to the community."

A stated above, creating The Rensselaer Plan engaged every constituency. Assessment measures are built into the Performance Plans in such a way that everyone can clearly see progress. Coordination among the various portfolios has been excellent, with every portfolio required to explain its role in achieving all of the Plan's 140-plus goals.

ˇ "Students and alumni... feel too little sense of loyalty and support of RPI. This should be improved for RPI to achieve the ambitious increase in annual giving it envisions."

Alumni relations has fully transitioned from its principally social orientation to one that carries a full range of customer relationship management responsibilities designed to serve alumni, promote productive involvement with each other and the Institute, provide a flow of volunteers to Institute programs, and increase alumni investment. Additionally, new programs being developed in the Office of the First-Year Experience are designed to create, a lasting, positive connection between Rensselaer and its students.

ˇ "There are some concerns raised by the gap between identified deferred maintenance needs and provisions for them, by the short-term demands for new educational space and the absence of comprehensive plans to provide for them; by the aggressive time frame to taking space out of service; and by the dependence on external gifts to provide for key elements of the computing infrastructure."

In 2000, the President and the Vice President for Administration completed an external audit and review of our physical plant and usage. This was fed into the Performance Planning process and has resulted in a long range plan for addressing these issues. Significant investment has begun in the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

ˇ "Academic support services, including libraries, laboratories, and technical staff have experienced reductions that some RPI faculty believe cannot continue. The issue is one that deserves attention, and any future plans on further reductions must be weighed in the light of reductions on the quality of the academic programs."

Academic and administrative units are addressing this issue as part of the annual performance planning process.


1. Source: Official Registrar 5 th week statistics.

2. Source: Official Registrar 5 th week statistics

3. Source: IPEDS data reported to Connecticut Department of Higher Education

4. Retention is the percentage of freshman returning for their sophomore year. For example, 90.3% of the 987 students that started in fall 1994 returned in the fall of 1995. Similarly, 89.3% of the 963 students that started in fall 1995 returned in the fall of 1996.

5. The six-year graduation rate is calculated off the original entering cohort after six years.

6. Source: Official Degree Statistics of Degrees awarded August, December, and May

7. Source of all data is U.S. News, fall 2000 education issue. All institutions considered "National Universities" except RIT (4 th among "Northern Universities" grouping) and Union (35 th among "National Liberal Arts Colleges" grouping). Rensselaer was ranked 49th in this issue.

8. Assumes 2.2% total growth in fall 2001. During subsequent years doctorate enrollment grows at 8% per year. This growth is necessary to achieve the Rensselaer Plan goal of reaching 250 Ph.D. graduates per year after ten years.

9. Assumes 20% growth first-year, leveling off in subsequent years. New initiatives account for the growth in fall 2001, including allowing individual students to participate in online programs, and joint degree and certificate programs.

10. Assumes 1% growth first-year leveling off in subsequent years. A market analysis of Rensselaer at Hartford will be complete spring 2001 and will further inform potential future changes in enrollment.

11. On December 31, 1996, Rensselaer and Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center, Inc. (the "Center"), in Hartford, Connecticut, signed an Agreement for Governance whereby the Center became a membership corporation with Rensselaer as the sole member of the Center. In accordance with accounting guidelines, Rensselaer has combined the accounts of the Center in its audited financial statement retroactive to July 1, 1996.

12. On December 31, 1996, Rensselaer and Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center, Inc. (the "Center"), in Hartford, Connecticut, signed an Agreement for Governance whereby the Center became a membership corporation with Rensselaer as the sole member of the Center. In accordance with accounting guidelines, Rensselaer has combined the accounts of the Center in its audited financial statements retroactive to July 1, 1996.

13. The Combined Statement of Activities represents the aggregate total of unrestricted, temporarily restricted, and permanently restricted activity.

14. The accounting change is the result of adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 116, "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made."

Go to Previous Go to Main