OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Table of Contents

Summary

Options

Option A

Option B

Option C

Option D

Recommendation

Questions and Answers

Capital Requirements

MGT Work Plan / Time Line

Engineering and Technology Industry Council Recommended Investments for 2001-2003

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Purpose

This report responds to institutional and Board interest in structuring a budget priority that focuses on improving engineering programs or schools to a level of national visibility. The budget request, based on national comparative data, would seek to build operating budgets and capital inventories to the levels of aspirational peer institutions. Four options have been created from a combination of the consultant (MGT of America) findings and the approved request of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF). The relationship between the EEIF and Tier I/Spires of Excellence is particularly important in understanding how similar objectives affect budget decisions.

Connecting EEIF and MGT Objectives

The EEIF enhancement request consists of a $30 million state General Fund component and a $17 million industry match focused on the addition of faculty to double the output of engineering and computer science degrees awarded by OUS. The MGT findings estimate funding requirements necessary to improve national ranking, with specific attention to funding for added faculty, staff, scholarships, operating and faculty start-up costs. There is overlap between the EEIF and MGT objectives in that the added faculty and other resources in the EEIF request will contribute to the targets underlying the Tier I / Spires of Excellence objectives.

The MGT findings for additional faculty at OSU and PSU are based on the median number of faculty of aspirational peers; while commonly accepted averages/ratios are used to calculate the number of staff, graduate assistants, scholarships, research start-up costs, and operating funds. UO and OIT utilized similar cost factors as OSU/PSU for faculty, staff, operating, etc., and assumed a doubling of enrollment of their programs. (The consultant suggests that aspirational peers of OSU/PSU are more than double the size in enrollments and faculty, which supports parallel logic for OIT/UO.)

Four Options

Four options have been developed that use the MGT findings as a starting point to determine funding required to reach aspirational levels. Option A suggests that the MGT findings can be modified through a reduction in funding for (50%) that should be funded through EEIF. It allocates the request over a three-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $16.09 million in state General Fund and $16.1 million from other sources.

Option B goes a step further and modifies the MGT findings by reducing faculty (50%) and scholarships (25%) that could be earmarked through the EEIF. The 25% reduction (shift to EEIF) was chosen not because there was a clear-cut match in the EEIF request, but because of emphasis on degree production. The priority need to double degrees suggests a greater commitment to attract and retain top students. It also requests funding over a three-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $14.17 million in state General Fund and $14.18 million from other sources.

Option C reflects the same budgetary assumptions as Option A (i.e., assumes 50% of faculty funded through EEIF), but allocates costs over four biennia. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $12.06 in state General Fund and $12.08 million from other sources.

Option D (recommended option) reflects the same budgetary assumptions as Option B, but allocates the costs over a four-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $10.63 million in state General Fund and $10.63 million from other sources.

Establishing Reasonable Funding Objectives

There is no precise way to determine the extent of overlapping costs between the EEIF request and MGT findings. No "reduction" was included for research start-up costs, graduate assistants, or staff, yet the EEIF request will, to varying degrees, include such costs. The clearest connection is the number of faculty estimated by each initiative. Options B and D assume a 25% share of scholarship costs borne by EEIF given the emphasis on the growth in number of students and necessity for financial aid. Institutions will be able to create expenditure plans that reflect the best mix of expenditures by category and fund source for their purposes. If they can raise more scholarship funding privately, state support can be allocated for other purposes. The funding request is a biennial target that recognizes the EEIF / Tier I interrelationship and will require annual assessment of expenditures against program objectives (i.e., increased research expenditures, increased degree production, etc.).

Options A and B do not seek to earmark additional EEIF resources against the MGT targets given the EEIF objectives of supporting pre-college programs, distance education enhancements, and laboratory improvements. The basic staff support, graduate assistants, research start-up costs, and continuing operating costs appeared less of an objective or a function of the EEIF and more of a requirement of the MGT peer improvement initiative. Table V in each option presents the total funding requested--EEIF and Tier 1/Spires--for 2001-2003. The combined commitment ranges from $79 million in Option A to $68 million in Option B (state and other sources).

Options C and D extend the achievement of Tier I / Spires of Excellence objectives an additional two years. As time lines are lengthened, costs will grow, thus increasing the total cost of implementation. (The current value of costs is reflected in all options; possible market and price changes are not considered in total funding.)

Enhancing Engineering Programs
Summary Fact Sheet
(in millions)

	OPTIONS
	A	B	C	D	MGT
Total Funding (per biennium)	$96.58	$85.04	$96.58	$85.04	$113.00
State General Fund Share (per biennium)	$16.10	$14.17	$12.06	$10.63	25-67%
Other Funds Share (per biennium)	$16.10	$14.18	$12.08	$10.63	33-75%
Biennia phase-in	3	3	4	4	multi-year
50% Faculty Salaries - EEIF	Y	Y	Y	Y	n/a
25% Scholarships - EEIF	N	Y	N	Y	n/a
Number of Added Faculty	111	111	111	111	222
Number of Added Staff	45	45	45	45	45
Number of Added Graduate Assistants	178	178	178	178	178

•Option A is the MGT finding less 50% of faculty salaries and allocated over three biennia.
•Option B is the MGT finding less 50% of faculty salaries and 25% of scholarships and allocated over three biennia.
•Option C is Option A allocated over four biennia.
•Option D is Option B allocated over four biennia (recommended option).

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option A is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) limited modification of MGT findings in acknowledgment of the EEIF funding request; 2) a three-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources.

The EEIF request, approved by the Board, consists of $30 million for additional faculty, laboratory enhancements, research, pre-college programs, and distance education expansion. The primary objective of the funding is to increase degrees awarded in engineering and computer science by 85%. An additional $17 million is expected as an industry match.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

	Total Need (Annual)
Unit	State	Other	Total	Biennial
OIT	$ 3.95	$ 3.95	$ 7.90	$ 15.80
OSU	16.40	16.40	32.80	65.60
PSU	5.40	5.40	10.80	21.60
UO	2.50	2.50	5.00	10.00
Total	$28.25	$28.25	$56.50	$113.00

• Assumes a 50%-50% split between state and non-state sources

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $48.29 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:
•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) = $48.29

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Faculty	$ 1,225,000	$ 4,877,000	$ 1,388,000	$ 730,000	$ 8,220,000
Graduate Assts	-	1,770,000	630,000	270,000	2,670,000
Staff	261,000	696,000	232,000	116,000	1,305,000
Operating	612,500	2,439,000	694,400	365,100	4,111,000
Scholarships	4,576,000	12,272,000	4,368,000	1,872,000	23,088,000
Start-up	-	5,900,000	2,100,000	900,000	8,900,000
Total (Annual)	$ 6,674,500	$27,954,000	$ 9,412,400	$4,253,100	$48,294,000
Total (Biennial)	$13,349,000	$55,908,000	$18,824,800	$8,506,200	$96,588,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise nearly 50% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students).

Staffing Requirements

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Number of faculty*	22	59	21	9	111
Number of staff	9	24	8	4	45
Number of graduate assistants	-	118	42	18	178
Total	31	201	71	31	334

* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

	Biennial Request
Unit	State	Other	Total
OIT	$2.22	$2.22	$ 4.44
OSU	9.32	9.32	18.64
PSU	3.13	3.14	6.27
UO	1.42	1.42	2.84
Total	$ 16.09	$ 16.10	$32.19

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-third, $32.19 million, of the $96.58 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

• A three-biennia phase-in.
• Support for faculty start-up costs, undergraduate scholarships, operating funds, graduate assistants, and 50% of faculty.
• 50%-50% split of state General Fund and Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
• Costs reflect current value, future requests will have to be adjusted for price increases.
• Supplemental support from EEIF for faculty hires.
  
  

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

	EEIF		Tier I / Spires Enhancement		Total
Unit	State	Other	State	Other	State	Other
OCECS	$ 1.77	$ 1.69	-	-	$ 1.77	$ 1.69
OGI	3.73	.86	-	-	3.73	.86
OIT	2.45	.60	2.22	2.22	4.67	2.82
OSU	11.00	3.20	9.32	9.32	20.32	12.52
PSU	6.30	6.30	3.13	3.14	9.43	9.44
UO	3.75	3.20	1.42	1.42	5.17	4.62
Research	1.00	1.00	-	-	1.00	1.00
Total	$30.00	$16.85	$16.09	$16.10	$46.09	$32.95

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $79.04 million, $46.09 million from the state and $32.95 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take three biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following two biennia and through EEIF.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option B is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) more extensive modification (than Option A) of MGT findings due to increased expectation of EEIF funding to support Tier I/Spires of Excellence initiatives; 2) a three-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources. Simply put, Option B places a greater reliance on EEIF for funding undergraduate scholarships than Option A.

The EEIF request, approved by the Board, consists of $30 million for additional faculty, laboratory enhancements, research, pre-college programs, and distance education expansion. The primary objective of the funding is to increase degrees awarded in engineering and computer science by 85%. An additional $17 million is expected as an industry match.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

• Assumes a 50%-50% split between state and non-state sources

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) - $5.77 (scholarships) = $42.52

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
•EEIF or other source will support $5.77 million annually in scholarships.

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Faculty	$ 1,225,000	$ 4,877,000	$ 1,388,000	$ 730,000	$ 8,220,000
Graduate Assts	-	1,770,000	630,000	270,000	2,670,000
Staff	261,000	696,000	232,000	116,000	1,305,000
Operating	612,500	2,439,000	694,400	365,100	4,111,000
Scholarships	3,432,000	9,204,000	3,276,000	1,404,000	17,316,000
Start-up	-	5,900,000	2,100,000	900,000	8,900,000
Total (Annual)	$ 5,530,500	$24,886,000	$ 8,320,400	$3,785,100	$42,522,000
Total (Biennial)	$11,061,000	$49,772,000	$16,640,800	$7,570,200	$85,044,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise 41% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students). Also 25% additional funding for undergraduate scholarships will be supported through EEIF and is not reflected in Options B or D.

Staffing Requirements

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Number of faculty*	22	59	21	9	111
Number of staff	9	24	8	4	45
Number of graduate assistants	-	118	42	18	178
Total	31	201	71	31	334

* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

	Biennial Request
Unit	State	Other	Total
OIT	$1.84	$1.85	$ 3.69
OSU	8.29	8.30	16.59
PSU	2.78	2.77	5.55
UO	1.26	1.26	2.52
Total	$14.17	$14.18	$28.35

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-third, $28.35 million, of the $85.04 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

• A three-biennia phase-in.
• Supports faculty start-up costs, undergraduate scholarships, operating funds, graduate assistants, and 50% of faculty.
• 50%-50% split of state General Fund and Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
• Costs reflect current value, future requests will have to be adjusted for price increases.
• Supplemental funding from EEIF for faculty hires and scholarships.

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

	EEIF		Tier I / Spires Enhancement		Total
Unit	State	Other	State	Other	State	Other
OCECS	$ 1.77	$ 1.69	-	-	$ 1.77	$ 1.69
OGI	3.73	.86	-	-	3.73	.86
OIT	2.45	.60	1.84	1.85	4.29	2.45
OSU	11.00	3.20	8.29	8.30	19.29	11.50
PSU	6.30	6.30	2.78	2.77	9.08	9.07
UO	3.75	3.20	1.26	1.26	5.01	4.41
Research	1.00	1.00	-	-	1.00	1.00
Total	$30.00	$16.85	$14.17	$14.18	$44.17	$31.03

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $75.20 million, $44.17 million from the state and $31.03 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take three biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following two biennia and through EEIF.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option C is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) a modification of MGT findings (same level as Option A) based on overlapping funding with EEIF; 2) a four-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources.

The basic variation of Option C from Option A is to spread costs over a four-biennia period. It maintains the same budgetary conditions as Option A (i.e., costs total $48.29 million annually and are split 50%-50% between state and non-state sources).

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

• Assumes a 50%-50% split between state and non-state sources

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $48.29 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) = $48.29

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing requests for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Faculty	$ 1,225,000	$ 4,877,000	$ 1,388,000	$ 730,000	$ 8,220,000
Graduate Assts	-	1,770,000	630,000	270,000	2,670,000
Staff	261,000	696,000	232,000	116,000	1,305,000
Operating	612,500	2,439,000	694,400	365,100	4,111,000
Scholarships	4,576,000	12,272,000	4,368,000	1,872,000	23,088,000
Start-up	-	5,900,000	2,100,000	900,000	8,900,000
Total (Annual)	$ 6,674,500	$27,954,000	$ 9,412,400	$4,253,100	$48,294,000
Total (Biennial)	$13,349,000	$55,908,000	$18,824,800	$8,506,200	$96,588,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise nearly 50% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students).

Staffing Requirements

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Number of faculty*	22	59	21	9	111
Number of staff	9	24	8	4	45
Number of graduate assistants	-	118	42	18	178
Total	31	201	71	31	334

* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

	Biennial Request
Unit	State	Other	Total
OIT	$1.66	$1.67	$ 3.33
OSU	6.99	6.99	13.98
PSU	2.35	2.35	4.70
UO	1.06	1.07	2.13
Total	$12.06	$12.08	$24.14

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-quarter, $24.14 million, of the $96.58 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

• A four-biennia phase-in.
• Support for faculty start-up costs, undergraduate scholarships, operating funds, graduate assistants, and 50% of faculty.
• 50%-50% split of state General Fund and Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
• Costs reflect current value, future requests will have to be adjusted for price increases.
• Supplemental funding from EEIF for faculty hires. (Also, increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
  
  

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

	EEIF		Tier I / Spires Enhancement		Total
Unit	State	Other	State	Other	State	Other
OCECS	$ 1.77	$ 1.69	-	-	$ 1.77	$ 1.69
OGI	3.73	.86	-	-	3.73	.86
OIT	2.45	.60	1.66	1.67	4.11	2.27
OSU	11.00	3.20	6.99	6.99	17.99	10.19
PSU	6.30	6.30	2.35	2.35	8.65	8.65
UO	3.75	3.20	1.06	1.07	4.81	4.27
Research	1.00	1.00	-	-	1.00	1.00
Total	$30.00	$16.85	$12.06	$12.08	$42.06	$28.93

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $70.99 million, $42.06 million from the state and $28.93 million from other sources.

The expectations for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take four biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following three biennia and through EEIF.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option D is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) more extensive modification (than Option A) of MGT findings due to increased expectation of EEIF funding to support Tier I/Spires of Excellence initiatives; 2) a four-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources. Simply put, Option D, like Option B, places a greater reliance on EEIF for funding undergraduate scholarships than Option A.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

• Assumes a 50%-50% split between state and non-state sources

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) - $5.77 (scholarships) = $42.52

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
•EEIF or other source will support $5.77 million annually in scholarships.

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Faculty	$ 1,225,000	$ 4,877,000	$ 1,388,000	$ 730,000	$ 8,220,000
Graduate Assts	-	1,770,000	630,000	270,000	2,670,000
Staff	261,000	696,000	232,000	116,000	1,305,000
Operating	612,500	2,439,000	694,400	365,100	4,111,000
Scholarships	3,432,000	9,204,000	3,276,000	1,404,000	17,316,000
Start-up	-	5,900,000	2,100,000	900,000	8,900,000
Total (Annual)	$ 5,530,500	$24,886,000	$ 8,320,400	$3,785,100	$42,522,000
Total (Biennial)	$11,061,000	$49,772,000	$16,640,800	$7,570,200	$85,044,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise 41% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students). Also 25% funding for undergraduate scholarships will be supported through EEIF and is not reflected in Options B or D.

Staffing Requirements

	OIT	OSU	PSU	UO	Total
Number of faculty*	22	59	21	9	111
Number of staff	9	24	8	4	45
Number of graduate assistants	-	118	42	18	178
Total	31	201	71	31	334

* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

	Biennial Request
Unit	State	Other	Total
OIT	$1.38	$1.39	$ 2.77
OSU	6.22	6.22	12.44
PSU	2.08	2.08	4.16
UO	.95	.94	1.89
Total	$10.63	$10.63	$21.26

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-quarter, $21.26 million, of the $85.04 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

• A four-biennia phase-in.
• Supports faculty start-up costs, undergraduate scholarships, operating funds, graduate assistants, and 50% of faculty.
• 50%-50% split of state General Fund and Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
• Costs reflect current value, future requests will have to be adjusted for price increases.
• Supplemental funding support from EEIF for faculty hires and scholarships.
  
  

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request

(in millions)

	EEIF		Tier I / Spires Enhancement		Total
Unit	State	Other	State	Other	State	Other
OCECS	$ 1.77	$ 1.69	-	-	$ 1.77	$ 1.69
OGI	3.73	.86	-	-	3.73	.86
OIT	2.45	.60	1.38	1.39	3.83	1.99
OSU	11.00	3.20	6.22	6.22	17.22	9.42
PSU	6.30	6.30	2.08	2.08	8.38	8.38
UO	3.75	3.20	.95	.94	4.70	4.14
Research	1.00	1.00	-	-	1.00	1.00
Total	$30.00	$16.85	$10.63	$10.63	$40.63	$27.48

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $68.11 million, $40.63 million from the state and $27.48 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take four biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following three biennia and through EEIF.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
Recommendations -- 2001-2003

A number of assumptions underpin the decision-making process for additional funding of Oregon engineering programs.

Assumptions to Achieve Tier and Peer Improvement

•The Board accepts the findings of the MGT study concerning peer comparisons with OUS institutions, including the factors that best measure resources and quality levels.
•A definite gap exists between the OUS institutions and the resources available at their respective aspirational peer institutions. To close the gap will require significant growth of faculty size as well as associated administrative support, facilities, and equipment.
•Statewide engineering objectives, as established by the Board through OCECS and ETIC, are further clarified and connected to qualitative and quantitative goals. Funding is recommended for multiple institutions in recognition of a comprehensive approach to providing engineering education.
•Funding necessary to attain the peer improvement must be derived from at least 50% of non-General Fund sources (i.e., grants, contracts, tuition and fees, and private gifts). Increased support beyond the 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged and may be critical to attain the desired levels.
•Measured growth in faculty in conjunction with necessary facilities expansion represents a realistic approach to capital and operating budget growth.
•Facilities will require expansion and modernization to support increased capacity in faculty and student growth. Significant enhancement in sponsored research is critical and will dictate more and improved space.
•Each institution must develop an expenditure plan based on their allocation of the General Fund request. The Board should approve the plan and underlying program objectives.

Recommendation
The System recommends Option D as the alternative that best addresses a number of competing concerns. The following reasons support Option D:

•addresses qualitative demands for enhanced engineering and computer science programs (computer science at SOU, WOU, and EOU, while outside the scope of the MGT study, will require additional state General Fund and Other Funds investment) ;
•connects with the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request to create an integrated response to long-range engineering program requirements;
•recognizes and builds on the strengths of engineering programs at OSU, PSU, OIT, and UO;
•requires a substantial non-state commitment to funding and, ultimately, success;
•supports institutional goals for peer improvement including OSU Tier I aspirations;
•establishes a four-biennia time frame to actively seek non-state support, build state programs, and acquire necessary capital resources; and
•represents the least cost scenario ($10.63 million General Fund on a biennial basis), thus allowing for funding opportunities of other OUS priorities.

Options A through D are relatively similar in addressing points 1 through 4, but Option D (the lowest cost option allocated over four-biennia) increases the chances for leveraging all resources in a measured and meaningful fashion.

As highlighted in the summary, the identification of overlapping or duplicated costs between EEIF and MGT is imprecise. It is critical, however, to recognize that achievement of a number of the objectives in the EEIF proposal will contribute to peer improvement and close the funding gap that presently exists. (An annual process of assessment could be developed that reviews actual expenditures from state and other sources with the intent of providing a set of measures against those factors that define peer improvement.)

The success of all of the options is dependent on gaining sufficient support through the EEIF and substantial non-state sources. Realistically, if the projected faculty and scholarship funds from EEIF are not realized, the success of the Tier 1/Spires of Excellence enhancement will be even more dependent on non-state resources.

Option D provides an additional margin of time to react to circumstances driven by financial considerations. The alternative does not restrict institutions from soliciting operating and capital funds that allow for achieving the objectives in a reduced period of time. In fact, it encourages all institutions to seek non-state funding that exceeds the 50% target.

Board Action:
Approval of Option D to include:

•$85.04 million total funding target (evaluated each biennium based on appropriate price adjustments);
•$10.63 million 2001-2003 biennial state General Fund request;
•$10.63 million 2001-2003 biennial commitment in Other Funds;
•four-biennia time frame (reassessed each biennium); and
•biennial allocations by institution:

(In millions)

Unit	State General Fund	Other Funds	Total
OIT	$ 1.38	$ 1.39	$ 2.27
OSU	6.22	6.22	12.44
PSU	2.08	2.08	4.16
UO	.95	.94	1.89
Total	$10.63	$10.63	$21.26

•Require annual progress reports on the program and funding status of engineering and computer science programs

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Questions / Answers

Q: How does the commitment to enhancing engineering programs benefit Oregon?

A: Assuming success in attaining aspirational levels, the state would have: "local" resources to support engineering job demand; substantial grants and contracts enhancing economic development; creation of jobs supporting programs; expanded research components to better address industry R&D; and a greater source of pride, driven by program quality and reputation, higher quality educational experience (instruction, laboratory, and advanced research) in engineering and computer science programs. This results in greater ability by the campuses to attract and retain quality faculty and students.

Q: What measures or standards will be used to determine success of the investment?

A: The MGT findings offer a number of indicators which will be benchmarks to assess progress:

•student / faculty ratios by level of instruction
•number of doctoral students
•number of master's students
•number of full-time teaching faculty
•gross square feet per faculty member
•research laboratory space
•teaching laboratory space
•research expenditures
•degrees granted--by level

An annual report assessing progress toward program objectives in conjunction with a funding review would ensure accountability.

Q: How do other nationally recognized colleges of engineering view the initiative for Oregon universities to move to a Tier I status?

A: Engineering officials from a number of schools did not want to speculate. There seems to be consensus that state and institutional commitment to achieving such objectives is necessary but dependent on a number of variables (i.e., funding availability, attracting "star" faculty, meeting statewide goals, industry support, etc.).

Three leaders, who wished to have their comments remain confidential, suggested that a number of conditions had to be addressed to attain top tier status.

•The quality of facilities was of particular importance in attracting and retaining top notch faculty.
•If funding for research start-up is limited, then the quality of faculty attracted to the institution(s) will be adversely affected.
•A priority should be placed on admitting top graduate and undergraduate students. Good faculty seek strong graduate students.
•The time frame for accomplishing both operating and facilities improvement will likely extend beyond a four-biennia period.
•More emphasis might be placed on the ranking / improvement of specific disciplines as opposed to a school of engineering as a whole.
•Peer competitiveness extends to all aspects of program development and delivery, including faculty, students, and facilities.

Q: What prevents institutions from reallocating funds to engineering programs?

A: Institutional priorities would be the most apparent factor influencing whether or not institutions reallocated funds. Answering the question "Where does enhancing engineering programs fit with priorities such as access, fully funding the RAM, employee compensation, and others?" reflects an important institutional decision. There are obvious limitations to an institution's ability to shift program emphasis, not the least of which is the desire and mission to offer students sufficient course alternatives. Overall funding constraints, such as an underfunded enrollment model, limits further flexible reallocations.

Q: What is a reasonable return on investment with the estimated infusion of personnel and funding?

A: The consultant refers to the multiplier effect; how a $1 investment drives $2 to $3 of business sales. The effect of engineering research can range from 3.5 to 7.0 times with business sales associated with the transfer of technology. The findings indicate a $56.5 million annual increase (consultant estimate) in operating support to attain peer levels, a portion of which must be driven from research-based grants and contracts, will generate a healthy return. The options recommend an increase of 334 faculty, staff, and graduate assistants over a four-biennia period. The benefits of an annual expenditure of nearly $12.5 million in salaries from 334 added positions have obvious economic impacts.

Q: Should the System have a policy or strategy that connects the needs of state and national economies? (Is there a vision?)

A: The System's EEIF request is built on estimated growth in state engineering graduates ("2x"-doubling degree production) continuing to 2005 and beyond. The following are the Board's vision, and goals and objectives, approved in December 1996:

Vision
To meet the needs that exist as a result of Oregon's economic growth, the following vision provides guideposts and a foundation for measuring success:

•Oregon will become a preferred location for working engineers as a result of access to a rich menu of continuing education and advanced degree and course offerings.
•Educational offerings will be customized to meet the needs of professionals through the use of innovative packaging and delivery mechanisms, and will draw on and attract talent from throughout Oregon and the world.
•The independent college sector has a significant role to play in addressing Oregon's higher education needs. Private educational resources will be called upon to meet specific public needs.
•Oregon will provide educational offerings that will produce and attract the quantity and quality of undergraduate and graduate students from within and outside of Oregon that are at least equal to industry's demand.
•Oregon will also be a center for research in engineering and computer science as the result of strengthening publicly and privately supported graduate and research programs.
•As a result of its demonstrated commitment and investment in quality engineering education, Oregon will be able to attract and retain the highest quality faculty.

Goals and Objectives

•Establish an Engineering and Technology industry council to guide and review the programs and operations of the college.
•Provide high quality engineering and technology education for a broad range of students.
•Conduct research, provide specialized consulting, and transfer technology that is at the forefront of the fields.
•Provide for continuing education and professional development programs that are responsive, flexible, accessible throughout Oregon, and up-to-date.
•Focus the College's resources in disciplines of highest priority to Oregon industries and communities.
•Increase the System's educational capacity to graduate more students.
•Implement uniform policies and practices and provide a supportive and productive experience for students, faculty, and staff.
•Enhance the offerings of engineering programs by cooperating and collaborating with other public and private educational providers, both in Oregon and elsewhere.
•Operate in an efficient, open manner at a level of performance consistent with the vision for the College.

Q: Is there difficulty in ranking "collaborations" rather than single institutional colleges of engineering?

A: There is no national data base that identifies rankings on a multi-institutional basis (i.e., PSU/ OGI/OHSU collaboration). Discrete institutional colleges of engineering or separate disciplines are ranked. It can be assumed that where there are program collaborations and related resources, the combined "programs" are strengthened. (MGT could not offer an analysis of the collaboration that paralleled OSU, but did review the national peers in comparison with PSU programs.)

Q: Could all of the state public universities participate in a collaborative model?

A: The degree to which a multi-institutional collaboration would be successful would depend on the willingness of all parties to modify individual agendas to meet statewide program objectives. That is, where institutions have overlapping or mutual strengths (such as PSU/ OGI/OHSU in the metro model), then strengthening programs would require substantial coordination. In those instances where program strength is located in a single institution, then expanding and building on that strength would offer new statewide opportunities.

Q: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a single institution (OSU) approach in achieving engineering goals?

A: MGT's survey of OSU's aspirational peers suggests that OSU is best positioned among the OUS campuses to make progress toward achievement of Tier I status over a period of several biennia. This is based on current program rankings, the comprehensiveness of its current engineering programs, and the University's explicit desire to achieve this objective, as well as the strong support it is receiving from ETIC's leadership. An advantage would be a singular focus on engineering program development, faculty requirements, degree production, etc.

The logistics of student access, however, would be problematic. If all students had to attend the one campus in Corvallis, access would be a major drawback. If they could attend throughout the state, access concerns would be lessened and costs would increase. Another principal disadvantage of pursuing this approach is the very large resource gap between OSU programs today and its aspirational peers with Tier I programs. It is clear from MGT's study that this goal will require a large inf8usion of both state funds and other revenues which must be sustained over several biennia. A disadvantage of identifying one institution as the sole provider would be a contradiction to the Board's 1996 position in establishing a statewide college. The magnitude of growth (2x) in degrees awarded envisioned through the Engineering and Technology Investment Council (ETIC) suggests a broad-based approach to engineering education.

The distributed approach would also permit the Board to address the issue of opportunity costs of such directed state funds from other high priority program needs within the engineering and computer science program offerings from other OSU institutions today (PSU, UO, and OIT) as well as enhancements in teacher education to meet the state's needs for additional teachers given the current projected shortages in Oregon.

A continued focus on expanding and strengthening existing programs statewide provides continuity with the 1996 Board position and allows for institutional initiatives in achieving selected excellence.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Enhancing Engineering Programs
Capital Requirements

Attached is a table displaying the current projects proposed by OSU and PSU in the 2001-2006 Capital Budget. These projects may be considered the Capital Budget correlate to the Operating Budget proposals associated with a doubling of enrollments in engineering and computer science and attainment of campus goals concerning research and program growth.

The information displayed compares the projects proposed against the needs identified by the MGT study, and are displayed in terms of whether a given project would support enrollment growth or research growth, principally, and by time frame.

OSU
The MGT study identified a net new need of from 320,960 gsf to 418,900 gsf, associated with adding 118 new faculty and their associated support staff, graduate assistants, and laboratories, and using (a) an MGT space standard as well as (b) gsf of their aspirational peer medians.

OSU's facilities department independently calculated space needs associated with a doubling of enrollment in the College of Engineering and associated faculty increases. However, they did not carry out a specific building programming exercise as did PSU (see below). Using OSU space standards, the department identified that an incremental 400,000 gsf would be needed to house its growth. This figure is within the MGT range.

The 2001-2003 OUS Capital Construction Budget request for OSU identified one project, a $40 million research-oriented facility, specifically to address the Engineering growth. To fund the OSU proposal, the campus requested $10 million of Article XI-G bonds, $10 million of General Fund and $20 million of gifts and grants. This building would add 89,671 net new gsf (117,000 total gsf minus 27,329 gsf in the existing Merryfield Hall, which would likely be replaced). No separate instructional building was identified; rather, at least initially, the College of Engineering intended to use space in a new $14.4 million, 48,000 gsf Classroom and Distance Education Building proposed in the 2001-2003 budget as a general purpose classroom for the campus as a whole.

The remainder of the needs associated with growing into the 400,000 gsf projected need have yet to be identified in terms of specific building plans.

PSU
The MGT study identified a net new need of from 114,240 gsf to 210,000 gsf, associated with adding 53 new faculty and their associated support staff, graduate assistants, and laboratories, and using (a) an MGT space standard as well as (b) gsf of PSU's aspirational peer medians. These figures excluded the faculty and graduate students at OGI and, to a lesser extent, at OHSU, who would partner with PSU under the metropolitan collaborative model.

PSU's facilities department independently identified an incremental 273,843 gsf would be needed to house PSU's specific goals under its metropolitan collaborative proposal. This figure is higher than the MGT range. However, PSU's figures were generated as a result of a two-year professional feasibility study which included department-by-department curriculum review, space analysis and enrollment growth. OUS space standards were used, supplemented by others where no exact equivalent existed in the OUS data. The study calculated the need by department and by year based on a rate of growth consistent with the OUS overall enrollment projections for PSU.

In the 2001-2003 OUS Capital Budget, PSU identified a single $60 million project having three phases, two renovation projects and a new building, summarized below:

•Phase I: The first renovation would renovate 38,814 gsf for faculty being vacated from the Portland Center for Advanced Technology (PCAT) Building; there is no net new space gained in this project. This project, at $7.2 million, would be entirely paid for by Article XI-F(1) bonds supported by lease payments of tenants in the Engineering building. (NOTE: PSU will be requesting the Board approve this project for submittal to the Legislative Emergency Board at its November meeting in order to provide space for the faculty being relocated.)
•Phase II: A smaller renovation project for $3.16 million would provide 6,033 net new gsf. It would be supported by $1.58 million in Article XI-G bonds, matched by gifts.
•Phase III: A 133,600 new tower would then be constructed to house the bulk of enrollment growth, as well as assist in some consolidation of scattered faculty. At $51 million, this project would require $25 million in Article XI-G bonds, matched by gifts.

The funding requested for this single combined project is $27.5 million of Article XI-G bonds, matched by $27.5 of private gifts/grants and $5.0 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds. No General Fund support is sought.

For the period 2005-2007 and beyond, PSU has identified an additional $19 million renovation project that would provide 67,667 net new gsf and a new $75 million research building, half of which would be for the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences and the remainder for other sciences and mathematics units. This large building would add 72,570 net new gsf, as it would make possible the relocation of faculty from their current space into new, consolidated quarters.

Recommendations

In sum, both campuses have plans underway to address the facilities needs they would face were they to attain their aspirational peers' median requirements. In addition to the new space needed to meet enrollment growth, the campuses are greatly hampered by deferred maintenance, code and academic modernization needs of their current facilities. Providing sufficient space to meet the median of aspirational peers for research will require considerably greater resources beyond those identified solely for 2001-2003.

Staff recommend the Board approve as requested the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget submittals offered by OSU and by PSU, as shown on the following table. The rationale for this recommendation is as follows:

OSU

• OSU's 2001-2003 request is for a $40 million contemporary research facility. The space that would be provided, approximately 89,000 gsf, is only about 22% of the facilities "gap" as compared to the MGT findings.
• Further, with the exception of Owen Hall, which houses Electrical and Computer Engineering, and was built in 1985, OSU's existing research facilities are old and obsolete for research. They are too small and they lack electrical power, fume hoods, cooling capacity, hazardous waste systems, special shielding and other features necessary for the conduct of technology-based research.
• In order to attract the faculty needed to build the depth and range of OSU's proposed program, even to half the scale associated with their aspirational peers, at least one additional research facility is needed in the near future.

PSU

• PSU's 2001-2003 three-phased project request is driven almost entirely to meet enrollment growth associated with doubling enrollment in engineering and computer science -- including the partnership with OGI - and has only a modest amount associated of space added for with expanded research.
• Because of their requirement to empty the PCAT building, and the University's emphasis on building rehabilitation and renovation of existing space, the initial two phases, totaling $10 million, generate a net new gsf of only about 6,000 gsf against an identified need (in 1998-1999) of 23,700 gsf. It is only with the addition of the third phase of their 2001-2003 project, a new South Tower planned to come on line in 2006-2007, that PSU would provide significant space for enrollment growth. The Tower would house approximately half the enrollment growth associated with a 10-year plan.

Engineering Enhancements for Oregon State University in the OUS Capital Construction Budget for 2001-2003 (in millions)
	Total Funding Requested
	State Funds		Other Funds		TOTAL
Campus	G Funds	XI- Bonds	XI-F(1) Bonds	Gifts		Net New GSF to Meet Median Peers	Net New GSF per Campus Plans
OSU GSF Current College of Engineering Science: 258,943 gsf						320,960 to 418,900 gsf	400,000 gsf
(A) Enrollment-driven instructional space	$4.8	$4.8		$4.8	$14.4		48,000 gsf , shared within general purpose class/lab uses
(B) Research-intensive 2001-2003: Replacement of Merryfield Hall (117,000 gsf, 89,671 net new)	$10.0	$10.0		$20.0	$40.0		89,671 net new planned to date; additional projects to be planned.
Separate project included in the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget: (A) OSU Classroom & Distance Education Building (for general campus and College of Engineering needs) - Est. new 48,000 gsf. Additional projects to be planned. . (B) Replacement of Merryfield Hall - 117,000 gsf; 89,671 net new. Additional projects to be planned.
2001-2003 ENGINEERING ENHANCEMENTS PSU Current College of Engineering and Computer Science - 150,811 gsf						114,240 to 210,000 gsf	273,843 net new (371,114 total replaced & new) over 12-15 yrs
(A) Enrollment-driven instructional space
2001-2003: Phase I - Renovations
(a) Replacement of PCAT (38,814 gsf, no net new)			7.20		7.20		no net new gsf
(b) Renovation of leased space (6,033 net new gsf)		1.58		1.58	3.16		6,033 net new gsf
Phase I - New (c) New South Tower (133,600 net new gsf)		25.48		25.48	51.36		133,600 net new gsf
Total renovation & new:		_____ $27.06	______ $7.20	_____ $27.06	______ $61.72		______________ 139,633 net new gsf
Engineering Enhancements for Portland State University in the OUS Capital Construction Budget for 2005-2007 (in millions)
	Total Funding Requested
	State Funds		Other Funds		TOTAL
Campus	G Funds	XI- Bonds	XI-F(1) Bonds	Gifts		Net New GSF to Meet Median Peers	Balance of Net New GSF per Campus Plans after 2001-03
(A) PSU Enrollment-driven Future date to be determined (d) Potential to renovate Pacificorp lease (67,667 net new gsf)		$7.6	$3.8	$7.6	18.95		Balance: 134,210 67,667 net new gsf
(B) PSU Research-driven 2005-2007 Phase II: Engineering & Science Bldg shared with Science & Math (see below)	$25.0	$25.0		$25.0	$75.0		250,000 gsf bldg, shared equally with Science, Math; translates to 125,000 gsf, with 72,570 net new gsf for Engineering
Full project as included in the 2005-2007 Capital Construction Budget: (A): This project is dependent on existing tenant lease terminating without renewal; it is possible this space would be combined into the following project; it would then increase in size to accommodate remaining enrollment need to meet 10-year doubling of enrollment. (B): PSU Research-Intensive Building (for housing Science, Math, and Technology as well as Engineering & Computer Science, split approximately 50%-50%) - Est. 250,000 gsf

REVIEW OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS WITHIN THE
OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Proposed Work Plan and Time Line
(as of August 8, 2000)

PROJECT WORK PLAN

1.0 Project Kick-Off Telephone Conference Call

1.1 Obtain complete listing of OUS engineering and engineering-related programs by institution and degree-level.

1.2 Schedule project kick-off telephone conference call with OUS Project Officer to:

• introduce MGT project team members;
• discuss project goals and desired outcomes
• review and finalize draft work plan and schedule
• confirm the scope of OUS engineering programs to be covered by this study;
• identify system office and institutional contacts for study; and,
• identify and request existing data sources and related studies.

1.3 Hold project telephone conference call.

1.4 Revise and submit final work plan (if necessary).

2.0 Conduct Brief Review of Existing National Rankings of Engineering Schools and Specific Engineering Programs and Underlying Ranking Methodologies

2.1 Conduct brief review of the literature to determine existing national rankings of engineering schools and specific engineering disciplines.

2.2 Review methodologies used in rankings and develop list of variables and factors used.

2.3 Summarize existing ratings of OSU and PSU engineering schools and specific disciplines from the rankings.

3.0 Obtain Relevant, Necessary Data from Existing National Sources, OUS, OSU and PSU Related to Ranking Methodologies.

3.1 Prepare list of discrete data elements related to ranking factors in Task 2.2 above.

3.2 Identify and obtain national data sources for data elements (e.g., ABET, ASEE, IPEDS, NSF, discipline-based associations).

3.3 Work with OUS Project Officer and institutional contacts to identify and obtain supplemental data sources for data elements (preferably in electronic format).

3.4 Review data sources for accuracy and consistency.

3.5. Create electronic data base(s) using data obtained in Tasks 3.2 and 3.3.

4.0 Interview OUS, OSU, PSU, UO and OIT Staff Regarding Current and Future Engineering Program Goals

4.1 Schedule 2-3 day period for on-campus interviews with OUS Chancellor, Project Officer, and institutional representatives (OSU, PSU and UO only); and schedule phone interview with OIT.

4.2 Develop interview guides focusing on the following areas:

• short and long-range plans/goals for engineering program enhancements and other modifications;
• distinctive program attributes;
• current program strengths and weaknesses;
• identification of aspirational peers (for OSU and PSU only); and,
• anticipated resource needs (including start-up, operating, and capital resources) in order to meet short- and long-range plans/goals.

4.3 Conduct on-campus interviews with OUS, OS, PSU and UO representatives.

4.4 Conduct phone interviews with OIT representatives.

4.5 Summarize interview findings.

5.0 Develop Initial List of Aspirational Peers for OSU and PSU Engineering Schools

5.1 Create lists of aspirational peers for OSU and PSU based on interviews in Task 4.3 and verify with institutional contacts. NOTE: We suggest a list of 5-10 peers for each institution.

5.2 Identify national rankings of aspirational peers based on research conducted in Task 2.0

5.3 Perform independent assessment of appropriateness of aspirational peers using data compiled in Task 3.0.

5.4 Review findings with OUS Project Officer and institutional contacts (as appropriate), including alternative aspirational peers, if necessary.

5.5 Finalize aspirational peer lists for OSU and PSU.

6.0 Develop Total Cost Estimates for OSU and PSU to Reach Aspirational Peers

6.1 Develop descriptive profile of OSU and PSU aspirational peers in tabular format regarding faculty, students, finances, research activities and facilities using available data.

6.2 Identify current "position" of OSU and PSU engineering schools and specific programs relative to aspirational peer lists.

6.3 Simulate enhancements needed to reach aspirational peers for both OSU and PSU using data compiled in Task 3.0 as well as other relevant information gathered through this study (e.g., additional faculty; additional research funding; additional financial support for graduate students; additional scientific equipment).

6.4 Develop cost estimates for OSU and PSU to reach aspirational peers based on simulation results.

7.0 Prepare Final Report

7.1 Develop draft summary report that incorporates major study findings and submit to OUS Project Officer for review.

7.2 Hold telephone conference call to review draft report with Project Officer and institutional representatives.

7.3 Incorporate edits and suggestions as appropriate and issue final report.

8.0 Make Presentation of Final Report to OUS Officials/State Board of Higher Education

8.1 Prepare formal presentation based on final report.

8.2 Make presentation at Board meeting (or other venue as appropriate).

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
REVIEW OF OUS ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

October 5, 2000
Version 5.0

Executive Summary:
This proposal describes how Oregon's engineering and computer science programs can take a large step towards meeting the Governor's goal of doubling the number of engineering and computer science graduates by 2005.

Proposal. This document proposes that $30 million be allocated to the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund during the biennium starting July 1, 2001. Oregon companies are expected to invest about $17 million during this same period, producing a total investment of almost $47 million. These funds will be used to

•Hire 39 new professors who will strengthen Oregon's ability to educate its young people and its workforce in the areas of engineering and computer science.
•Expand laboratories to serve the needs of the increased student population and increase the quality of the educational offerings.
•Enhance distance delivery capabilities, allowing faculty with specialized knowledge to teach courses at multiple locations and students to take classes at other campuses without leaving their home campus.
•Enhance programs that will encourage young people to pursue majors in engineering and computer science, with a goal of touching 2,450 middle school and high school students over the next two years.

These and related investments will result in an increase in the number of undergraduate degrees awarded of engineering and computer science programs by 85% by 2005. In addition, the number of graduate degrees awarded will increase by 40% by 2005.

ETIC. The Engineering Technology Industry Council (ETIC) includes executives from some of Oregon's top high technology employers, key public organizations and education partners.

• CH2M HILL, Inc. Eastern Oregon University
• Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
• ESCO Corporation Oregon Institute of Technology
• Hewlett Packard Company Oregon State University
• Intel Corporation Oregon University System, Chancellor's Office
• LSI Logic Corporation Portland State University
• Novellus Systems Southern Oregon University
• Oregon Economic and Community University of Oregon
• Development Department Western Oregon University
• Oregon State Board of Higher Education
• RadiSys Corporation
• Tektronix Inc.
• Xerox Corporation
• Eastern Oregon University
• Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
• Oregon Institute of Technology
• Oregon State University
• Oregon University System, Chancellor's Office
• Portland State University
• Southern Oregon University
• University of Oregon
• Western Oregon University

Process. Each campus has done a careful analysis of how it can contribute to the goals described here. The members of ETIC have reviewed each campus's analysis for relevance to industry needs and its ability to contribute to a dramatic growth in degrees awarded. This review process has resulted in the set of investments initiatives described in this document. The members of ETIC are committed to the success of this effort.

Proposal Structure. The remainder of this proposal is divided into sections describing the undergraduate and graduate components of the proposed investments. An appendix provides summaries of the individual investments. ETIC is working on another proposal that will focus on bringing Oregon into the top tier of engineering programs in the United States. This latter proposal will be distributed at a later date.

(Table 1: The effects of the proposed funding on degree production)

(In millions)	State Funds	Industry Funds	Expected Follow-on Request	1998-99 Degrees Granted	2004-05 Result Degrees Granted	% of Increase 1999 to 2005 Goal
Undergraduate	$ 11.82	$ 6.20	$ 2.99	927	1,718	85%
Graduate	$ 17.18	$ 9.65	$ 3.49	383	535	40%
Research	$ 1.00	$ 1.00
Total	$ 30.00	$ 16.85	$ 6.48	1,310	2,253	72%

Summary:

1. $14.0 million invested in hiring additional engineering and computer science faculty.
2. $2.8 million invested in continuing support of faculty hired with previous OEEIF allocations.
3. $1.0 million matched dollar-for-dollar by industry to sponsor $2.0 million in research.
4. $12.2 million invested in supporting engineering and computer science programs.
5. Undergraduate Engineering and computer science degrees awarded increased by 85% and Graduate degrees increase 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.

Industry Matching:
Each campus is working with industry representatives to obtain donations, grants, and other support that will leverage the Oregon's investment in engineering and computer science education. We currently project that Oregon companies will invest almost $17 million during the 2001-2003 biennium. These investments will provide significant leverage to the state's investment and help assure that the combined investments will be made in areas that will produce measurable results and have the maximum impact on the growth of Oregon's economy.

The following table presents the 2001-2003 proposed investments by campus and by degree type and shows the expected industry investments during the biennium as well as the state funding requests that are anticipated for the 2003-2005 biennium.

(Table 8)

	Investments by Campus and Degree Type Assuming $30M Investment of State Funds
(In millions)	State Funds			Industry contributions	Follow-on Request
	Undergraduate	Graduate	TOTAL
OGI		3.73	3.73	0.86	0.83
OIT*	2.45		2.45	0.60	1.38
U of O	1.18	2.57	3.75	3.20	0.56
OSU	5.00	6.00	11.00	3.20	2.00
PSU	3.04	3.26	6.30	6.30	1.58
OCECS	0.15	1.62	1.77	1.69	0.14
Subtotal Investments	11.82	17.18	29.00	15.85	6.48
Research		1.00	1.00	1.00
Total Investments	11.82	18.18	30.00	16.85	6.48

* Includes collaborations with OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, WOU, EOU, SOU

Undergraduate Category:

Goal: Increase the number of graduates by 85% by 2005 (vs. the 1998-99 Academic year)

Proposal: $11.82 million from the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund and almost $6.2 million matching dollars from Oregon industry will be used during the biennium starting July 1, 2001. These funds will be used to

•Hire additional faculty to support more undergraduate courses to be offered.
•Expand laboratories to support the additional students and courses.
•Enhance distance delivery capabilities to allow students to take elective courses from faculty on campuses other than their own.

Pre-College:

•Enhance programs that will encourage young people to pursue majors in engineering and computer science. These programs include apprentices, clubs, and workshops (Saturday Academy, OPT for Co-op and other pre-college outreach programs) administered by OGI, OIT and OSU that expose approximately 1,225 young people per year to the field of science and engineering and gives them insights into careers in these fields.
•The pre-college line items are exceptions when calculating a follow-on request, as these line-items are funded year to year and have no tuition or other revenue sources.

These and related investments will result in an increase in the number of undergraduate degrees award by engineering and computer science programs by 85% by 2005.

Outcomes:

•Expand undergraduate student credit hours by 52% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.
•Increase the number of undergraduate engineering and computer science degrees awarded by 85% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.

⁽¹⁾ This forecast assumes the anticipated industry contributions and follow-on investments shown in Table 4 on the next page.
⁽²⁾ Includes collaborations with OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, WOU, EOU and SOU. Also includes pre-college programs; see Table 4 on next page.
⁽³⁾ Includes distance education investment. See Table 4 and Addendum 1.

UNDERGRADUATE INITIATIVES
Goal: To increase capacity and graduates

(Table 4: Proposed undergraduate investments during 2001-2003 biennium by campus)
(See Addendum 1 for program descriptions)

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OIT and Collaborations (OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, SOU, EOU, and WOU)
OIT, SOU, EOU, WOU	OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of IT Degrees	$ 0.40	$ 0.15	$ 0.10
OIT & Saturday Academy (OGI)	OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs: OPT for Co-op/Saturday Academy/student contacts	$ 1.10	$ 0.07	$ 1.18
OIT	OIT (with OSU) Extending Technology: A Business Retention and Expansion Pilot Project collaborative partnership OIT, OSU, and OECDD	$ 0.35	$ 0.33	$ 0.10
OIT	OIT: Information Technology Educational Programs for Working Students. * Certificates and Degrees	$ 0.60	$ 0.05	$ -
	Subtotal (Including OGI Sat Academy)	$ 2.45	$ 0.60	$ 1.38
U of O
U of O	Networking	$ 0.55	$ 0.05	$ -
U of O	Building Science in Architecture	$ 0.20	$ 0.08	$ 0.05
U of O	Expanded Capacity for Undergraduate Majors in CIS	$ 0.43	$ -	$ -
	Subtotal	$ 1.18	$ 0.13	$ 0.05
OSU
OSU	Continuation of 1999-2001 Growth Initiative	$ 1.00	$ -	$ -
OSU	Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support	$ 2.90	$ 2.38	$ 0.58
OSU	Growth II: Add Degrees	$ 1.10	$ -	$ 0.22
	Subtotal	$ 5.00	$ 2.38	$ 0.80
PSU
PSU	Faculty Continuation	$ 0.63	$ 0.79	$ -
PSU	Enrollment Services	$ 0.64	$ 0.49	$ 0.12
PSU	Electronic Packaging	$ 0.10	$ 0.06	$ -
PSU	Material Science and Engineering	$ 0.13	$ 0.22	$ 0.13
PSU	Computer Science	$ 0.66	$ 0.64	$ 0.17
PSU	Mechanical Engineering	$ 0.24	$ 0.23	$ 0.12
PSU	Electrical and Computer Engineering	$ 0.17	$ 0.16	$ 0.08
PSU	Civil Engineering	$ 0.48	$ 0.46	$ 0.12
	Subtotal	$ 30.04	$ 3.06	$ 0.73
OCECS
OCECS	Campus-to-Campus Digital Video	$ 0.15	$ 0.04	$ 0.03
	Total	$11.82	$ 6.20	$ 2.99

The Graduate Category

Goal: To provide and expand lifelong learning opportunities and enhance access to programs, to enhance quality and excellence of graduate programs.

To address the goal of increasing the graduate engineering and computer science degrees by 40% by 2005, the proposal calls for an investment of $17.18 million in State Funds and $9.65 million in industry funds during the 2001-2003 biennium.

(Table 5: The State Funds required in the 2001-2003 biennium to meet graduate goals by campus.)

	In millions	1998-99 Academic Year Actual		2004-05 Academic Year Forecast (1)		Increase 2004-05 over 1998-99			In thousands
	State Funds	Student Credit Hours	Degrees Awarded	Student Credit Hours	Degrees Awarded	Student Credit Hours	Degrees Awarded	# of Incr. Degrees	State Funds Per Incr. Degree
OGI	$ 3.73	4,508	89	5,246	122	16%	37%	33	$ 113.03
OCECS (2)	$ 1.62	600		2,400		300%
OSU	$ 6.00	12,870	164	16,542	230	29%	40%	66	$ 90.91
PSU	$ 3.26	8,685	109	11,286	142	30%	30%	33	$ 98.73
U of O	$ 2.57	2,486	21	5,254	41	111%	95%	20	$ 128.50
Total	$ 17.18	29,149	383	40,728	535	40%	40%	152	$ 113.01

Outcomes:

•Expand graduate student credit hours by 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.
•Increase the number of graduate engineering and computer science degrees awarded by 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.

The table on the following page presents the 2001-2003 proposed investments by campus and shows expected industry investments during the biennium as well as the state funding requests that are anticipated for the 2003-2005 biennium.

⁽¹⁾ This forecast assumes the anticipated industry contributions and follow-on investments shown in Table 7 on the next page.
⁽²⁾ Includes distance education investment. See Table 7 and Addendum 1.

GRADUATE INITIATIVES

(Table 7: Proposed graduate investments by campus)
(See Addendum 1 for program descriptions)

		(In millions)
Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OGI
OGI	Faculty Continuation	$ 0.33	$ 0.20	$ -
OGI	Faculty Expansion	$ 3.30	$ 0.65	$ 0.83
OGI	Webcast - OGI portion (with PSU)	$ 0.10	$ 0.01	$ -
	Subtotal	$ 3.73	$ 0.86	$ 0.83
U of O
U of O	MSI Graduate Internship Program	$ 1.82	$ 2.95	$ 0.46
U of O	Networking	$ 0.55	$ 0.05	$ -
U of O	Building Science in Architecture	$ 0.20	$ 0.08	$ 0.05
	Subtotal	$ 2.57	$ 3.08	$ 0.51
OSU
OSU	Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support	$ 1.00	$ 0.82	$ 0.20
OSU	Growth II: Add Degrees	$ 5.00	$ -	$ 1.00
	Subtotal	$ 6.00	$ 0.82	$ 1.20
PSU
PSU	Faculty Continuation	$ 0.63	$ 0.79	$ -
PSU	Enrollment Services	$ 0.21	$ 0.16	$ 0.04
PSU	Electronic Packaging	$ 0.57	$ 0.34	$ -
PSU	Material Science and Engineering	$ 0.29	$ 0.51	$ 0.29
PSU	Computer Science	$ 0.54	$ 0.52	$ 0.14
PSU	Systems Engineering	$ 0.10	$ 0.03	$ 0.10
PSU	Mechanical Engineering	$ 0.06	$ 0.06	$ 0.03
PSU	Engineering and Technology Management	$ 0.60	$ 0.58	$ 0.15
PSU	Electrical and Computer Engineering	$ 0.14	$ 0.13	$ 0.07
PSU	Civil Engineering	$ 0.12	$ 0.12	$ 0.03
	Subtotal	$ 3.26	$ 3.24	$ 0.84
OCECS
OCECS	OMSE	$ 0.80	$ 0.23	$ -
OCECS	OGEIP	$ 0.37	$ 1.29	$ 0.09
OCECS	Campus-to-Campus Digital Video	$ 0.15	$ 0.04	$ 0.03
OCECS	Desktop Video Feasibility Study	$ 0.20	$ 0.06	$ -
OCECS	Video Delivery TQM Program	$ 0.10	$ 0.03	$ -
	Subtotal	$ 1.62	$ 1.65	$ 0.12
	Total	$17.18	$ 9.65	$ 3.49

Research Category

Goal: Enhance research programs that can help drive Oregon's economic growth.

Proposal: $1 million will be allocated from Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund. These funds together with matching funds from industry will be used to enhance research programs on Oregon's campuses. The following process will be used:

During July 2001, a Request For Proposals (RFP) will be issued to all of Oregon's engineering and computer science programs.

•During September 2001, proposals will be received and screened by the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science for completeness and conformance to the criteria described in the RFP.
•During October 2001, a committee of reviewers representing Oregon's high technology companies will be established, which will review the proposal for quality and relevance to the needs of Oregon's industry.
•During November 2001, a set of finalists will be reviewed by the Engineering Technology Industry Council.
•By the end of December 2001, awards will be made to the research teams.
•Between January 2001 and June 2002, each research team will submit quarterly reports identifying the status and issues of their project, with final reports being due by June 30, 2002.

Outcomes:

•Expand industrially relevant research by $2 million dollars during the 2001-2002 biennium.
•Strengthen the relationships between Oregon's engineering and computer science programs and Oregon's technology companies.

Addendum 1 - Investment Descriptions

Investment Descriptions: Summaries of the Undergraduate, Graduate, and Research investments proposed in this document. More complete proposal narratives are also available at the ETIC website
- - http://www.jbj-oregon.com/etic/

Undergraduate Programs:

OIT & Collaborative Programs w/OGI for Saturday Academy, WOU, SOU and EOU

OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of Information Technology (IT) Degrees

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OIT, SOU, EOU, WOU	OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of IT Degrees	$ 0.40	$ 0.15	$ 0.10

During the 1999-2001 Biennium, a collaborative proposal involving Eastern Oregon University (EOU), Western Oregon University (WOU), Southern Oregon University (SOU), and Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) was partially funded by ETIC. The project is currently underway and is addressing the need to expand information technology (IT) education in rural Oregon.

The proposal described herein would continue the collaborative work currently underway among key faculty and staff at the collaborative institutions to increase capacity and numbers of graduates in the key IT fields of Computer Science, Information Technology Management, and Computer Systems Engineering Technology. IT graduates enjoy good salaries, are in high demand by all segments of business and industry, and may be employed in large or small communities.

The proposed project will provide continued support for a Project Director hired during the 1999-2001 biennium funding cycle. The Director, an expert in an appropriate information technology field, will continue to manage the creative efforts of adjunct faculty and other IT professionals in the development of on-line courses, self-paced course modules, and supplementary multi-media course materials targeting Freshman-level courses (especially computer programming) in Computer Science at WOU and SOU, Computer Systems Engineering Technology at OIT, and Information Technology at OIT. Also, the Director will coordinate the sharing of faculty and articulation of curricula at all of the institutions in collaboration with the appropriate academic personnel, and will actively assist in recruiting students to one of the IT programs.

OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs:

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OIT & Saturday Academy (OGI)	OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs: OPT for Co-op/Saturday Academy/student contacts	$ 1.10	$ 0.07	$ 1.18

The following proposal is being submitted to ETIC by OGI's Saturday Academy and OIT's OPT for Co-op program to address the need for pre-college engineering projects in the State of Oregon which will increase the awareness of students, teachers and parents about science and engineering professions. This collaboration between Saturday Academy's programs and OPT for Co-op's programs will allow for broader, statewide delivery of all programs and an opportunity to make an impact on more individuals, thus increasing the number of students entering the engineering pipeline.

Oregon Institute of Technology, Opt for Coop Program
The OPT for Co-op program is designed to increase the pipeline of students enrolling in OIT's engineering and technology majors. This is accomplished by providing career information and exploration opportunities to high school students that consist of workshops, summer camps and internship opportunities.

A new addition to this project is the development of workshops for parents and teachers. These workshops would provide an overview of Oregon's high tech industries and the career fields and college majors that are needed to support these industries. These workshops are directed at the people who have the most impact on a student's career decision making.

Saturday Academy, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology

Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering (ASE) and Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (AWSEM).

The ASE Program will serve up to 140 additional high school students in its established eight-week full-time summer mentorship program for a projected total of 520 apprenticeships over the biennium. The focus of these new positions will be to increase statewide participation of both mentors and students, thereby introducing more students to science and engineering professions. The ASE Program (Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering) includes a mid-summer academic and career exploration conference, use of internet/web for communication and research, and a final symposium at which students present their work to the public. The AWSEM Program (Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics) will develop after-school clubs for middle and high school girls statewide to stimulate interest in these fields and to introduce students to women science and engineering professionals. Clubs will be led by graduate and undergraduate women science and engineering majors.

Extending Technology (OIT with OSU)

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OIT	OIT (with OSU) Extending Technology: A Business Retention and Expansion Pilot Project collaborative partnership OIT, OSU, and OECDD	$ 0.35	$ 0.33	$ 0.10

This pilot project is a collaborative effort between OIT's Oregon Technology Center (OTC) and OSU's Extension Service to expand technology resources outside the Metro area. The pilot's initial activities will be in five counties: Jefferson, Jackson, Deschutes, Klamath and Lake. The focus is to provide new and existing businesses technologies for retention and expansion activities and extend IT into the 4-H youth curriculum.

IT Educational Programs for Working Students

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
OIT	OIT: Information Technology Educational Programs for Working Students. * Certificates and Degrees	$ 0.60	$ 0.05	$ -

A serious shortage of information technologists currently exists. There is an urgent need to prepare more students in this important field.

In response to this need, last fall Oregon Institute of Technology launched a Bachelor's degree program in Information Technology (BSIT) at their Klamath Falls campus. This spring, the BSIT program will also be offered at the Capital Center Portland campus. This new program emphasizes the development of business (management and accounting) software, primarily using desktop and server programming tools. Students have opportunities to learn by doing, including project-based capstone courses and practical experiences in real-life environments (e.g., summer externships and cooperative education). IT program majors will graduate with essential skills to meet the current IT industry standards, as well as be prepared for future innovations in the industry.

U of O

Networking

Entity	Program	State Funds	Industry Contributions	Follow-on Requests
U of O	Networking	$ 0.55	$ 0.05	$ -

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce projects that Oregon's technology work force will triple in the next six years, with networking being one of the most intense areas of growth. In response to this need and as the recognized leader in networking in the state, the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Oregon has a 3-4 year plan for expansion of the networking curriculum and faculty. (See http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~lo/intel.html) The heart of this plan involves the creation of seven new practical, laboratory-based courses in networking and operating systems to complement established computer science courses currently offered in these areas. These new laboratory courses will be integrated with our strong research program through research internships, on the one hand, and with real world experiences through industrial internships, on the other. (The UO CIS Network Research Group is at http://www.nrg.cs.uoregon.edu and recently received a $1 million grant from NSF.) We have strong industry support from CISCO and Advanced Relay, and possibly Intel through the recent grant proposal we submitted. We anticipate that increased investment by ETIC in our networking research program will allow us to seek NSF Graduate Training money, as well as increased research grants from NSF's ITR program. The expected increase is another $1 million in the next three years.