OSU Logo
_________________
The Ohio State University-www.osu.edu
Office ofAcademic Affairs

---
---

Report on the Impact of Selective Investment and Academic Enrichment Funding at The Ohio State University


Table of Contents

Introduction and Background

Selective Investment

Overall Indicators of Impact of Selective Investment Units
Graduate Student Indicators
Research Indicators for SI Units
Research Indicators: Comparing SI Units to Overall University

Selective Investment Units: Notable Accomplishments

1998 Award Recipients:
Electrical Engineering
Materials Science Engineering
Physics
Psychology

1999 Award Recipients:
Chemistry
History
Neuroscience
Political Science

2000 Award Recipients:
Cardiovascular Bioengineering
Economics
English
Law
Mathematics

Academic Enrichment

Selected New Programs and Centers: Notable Accomplishments

FY 1995 Funding Year:
Microscopic and Chemical Analysis Research Center
Emerging Technologies Studio
Technology-Based Interdisciplinary Education in Statistics

FY 1996 Funding Year:
Wireless Systems: ElectroScience Lab

FY 1997 Funding Year:
Institute for Ergonomics
Spectroscopy Institute
Justice for Children Practicum
Computational Linguistics Program
Net Tutorial
Music Cognition

FY 1998 Funding Year:
Design Studio 2000
Ophthalmic Optics Laboratory
Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing
Electronic Course Reserves

FY 1999 Funding Year:
Institute for Collaborative Research and Public Humanities
Mathematics and Statistics Learning Center
Collaborative Midwifery Graduate Program

FY 2000 Funding Year:
Ethnomusicology
Research, Training and Service Through a Legislation Clinic

FY 2001 Funding Year:
New Works Laboratory
Comparative Ethnic Studies
Initiative in Population Research

Appendix: Tables (Excel file)

Table A: Selective Investment Faculty Hires, by unit
Table B: Selective Investment Expenditures (2003, Annual Rate only)
Table C: Graduate Student Indicators for Selective Investment Units
Table D: Academic Enrichment Projects and Award Amounts
Table E: Comparison of Publications and Citations Data for Selective Investment Units and All OSU, 1997-99 and 2000-02 averages
Table F (and Chart 1): OSU National Ranking among Universities for NSF Awards to Division of Mathematical Sciences, 1998-2003

Introduction

The Selective Investment and Academic Enrichment funding programs served to help encourage, identify, and strengthen areas of excellence within the university. While the effects of these programs will continue building for years to come, there are many examples of ways in which the university has already benefited.

To help assess some of the impacts of these funding initiatives on the University, information was gathered about the Selective Investment units and Academic Enrichment projects. To help gauge the scholarly impact of the units funded by Selective Investment, data on publications and citations were analyzed. Also, to help evaluate the degree to which the Selective Investment units are attracting and serving graduate students with better qualifications and preparation levels, data on graduate student enrollments and GRE scores are reported here.

Next, information was gathered on the activities in Selective Investment units since funding was initiated, with special attention paid to accomplishments of faculty hired as part of Selective Investment planning, impacts on students in the units, and research and scholarship outcomes.

To assess the impacts of projects that received Academic Enrichment funding, information was gathered about those projects that were focused on the establishment or substantial early funding of new programs or centers. Sources of information on these projects included reports submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs, information published on project websites and other published reports, and communication with those involved directly with projects. Notable accomplishments are included in this report, focusing on those efforts that may have inter/multi/transdisciplinary effects, may impact students particularly, and scholarly awards and research achievements.

The Appendix includes tables of additional information, including faculty hired as part of Selective Investment, Selective Investment unit expenditures in annual rate, and Academic Enrichment project award amounts.

Background

Selective Investment

The Selective Investment initiative was begun in 1997 to identify some of our strongest departments and programs and to give them the resources they need to move to the very top of their fields. The program represents a shared financial commitment. Up to one million dollars in continuing funding is dedicated to implementing the plan of each recipient, with half provided from central funds and matching funds from the college and department.

From 1998-2001, a total of thirteen units were chosen to receive Selective Investment funding. All were selected based on their importance to our academic mission; their existing high level of excellence; their ability to promote inter-program collaborations and interdisciplinary activities; and their contribution to university outreach goals with business, industry, and the community.

Units chosen for Selective Investment awards were:

Criteria for evaluation of Selective Investment Proposals included the following:

(Source: Office of Academic Affairs)

Academic Enrichment

The Academic Enrichment Program is a centrally-funded initiative that began funding proposals in 1996. The program selected outstanding proposals from across the university each year based on their merit, interdisciplinary nature, promise of future benefit to the university, and potential to enhance Ohio State's reputation, competitiveness, and future research funding. In the seven years that the Academic Enrichment Program operated, it provided $8.7 million in matching continuing central funds and over $5.8 million in cash to specific initiatives, representing the cash equivalent of almost $175 million in central investment that is matched by college and department funds. These funds helped individual Ohio State departments and centers to hire approximately 85 faculty, and researchers to rise to national and international prominence.

The evaluation criteria for Academic Enrichment proposals included the following:

(Source: Office of Academic Affairs)

Selective Investment: Impact of Selective Investment funds

Graduate Student Indicators

The Selective Investment initiative sought to provide the resources necessary for departments demonstrating particular excellence to move toward becoming truly outstanding. Such efforts are certain to impact students in a positive way over the long term. Departments regarded as outstanding are likely to be able to draw greater numbers of students to apply and enroll, and these students are likely to have better qualifications and higher levels of preparedness for study than students enrolled by departments that are less highly regarded.

Students are also likely to benefit from pursuing a degree in a department that is striving to be outstanding. Top-level faculty hired into these departments may bring with them their research programs as well as the ability to obtain new funding, providing additional opportunities for student exposure to and involvement in academic research projects. This is particularly true for graduate students, who may choose to pursue their advanced degrees at The Ohio State University specifically in order to work with faculty considered to be at the top of their field. Research projects conducted by these faculty also may help provide funding for graduate students as research assistants, as well as opportunities to collaborate in the presentation and publications of research results. Doctoral students seeking faculty positions themselves in particular may benefit from the increased reputation of the department and the faculty with whom they worked.

Applications and Enrollment Yield

Graduate student data on applications, admissions, and enrollments in the departments that received Selective Investment funding were collected for Autumn 1998 (the year funding began being awarded) and Autumn 2003 (the most recent available). (See Table C in the Appendix.) It should be noted that while indicators of graduate student quality are likely to increase as each department's national stature rises, such a shift takes time to develop. There is a natural lag between the increase in a department's reputation and widespread knowledge of that improvement, including the delay in the publication of new rankings.

Data were analyzed for domestic applicants and students only in order to eliminate the possible influence of more-restrictive student visa policies (one exception was the Mathematics department data, for which domestic-only numbers were not available for one of the comparison years). Of the eleven Selective Investment departments for which graduate student data were available, six had higher numbers of graduate applicants in 2003 than they did in 1998. The average increase in applicants across the eleven departments was 12.6%. The overall increase in graduate applicants for these departments is positive in that it suggests a strengthening of Ohio State's reputation, and provides a larger pool from which units may select students for admission.

Graduate student yield, or the percentage of admitted students who enrolled in graduate study, decreased in eight of the eleven departments when Autumn 1998 and Autumn 2003 are compared. The average change in yield across the eleven departments was 6.3% (Source: Data from University Technology Services; Analysis by IRP). There are many possible factors that may help explain this decrease, including the expected delay in noticeable improvement in graduate student indicators mentioned previously. In addition, as departments recruit higher-quality graduate students, they begin competing with a higher-ranked and better-funded tier of universities for those students, which may result in a lower yield but the enrollment of better-prepared graduate students than in previous years.

GRE and LSAT Scores

Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores of enrolled students were also evaluated for the Autumn 1998/Autumn 2003 comparison for the eleven Selective Investment departments for which the data were available. Overall GRE scores (all three sections combined) improved for nine of the eleven departments. The overall average change, weighted to represent accurately the numbers of scores reported by each department, was an increase of 100 points. Each section of the GRE exam (verbal, quantitative, and analytical) also showed improvement in the average weighted score (Source: Data from University Technology Services; Analysis by IRP).

GRE chart statistics from 1998 - 2003

Among students in the College of Law, the median LSAT score for enrolled students improved from 156 in Autumn 1998 to 160 in Autumn 2004, and the LSAT 25th and 75th percentiles improved from 152 and 160 in 1998 to 156 and 162 in 2004 (Source: College of Law Selective Investment Report 2004). Also among Law students, first-time pass rates for the Ohio Bar exam improved from 84% in 1999 to 92% in 2003 (Source: OBOR Performance Report 2003).

LSAT chart from 1998-2004
Bar Exam Chart 1998-2003

Impact of Selective Investment units: Research Indicators

Publications and citations

Faculty productivity, as measured by number and market share of journal articles published by faculty as well as citations of faculty publications, is commonly used as an indicator of improvement in the quality of university faculty and departments. While using the database of publications and citations provided by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has some limitations for evaluating productivity at the department level , it remains a useful gauge of the quantity and quality of scholarship in a given field.

Nine Selective Investment units that could be correlated to fields in the ISI database were analyzed for the average number of papers published, percentage of market share in the fields, and percentage of market share of citations. Results are provided in two three-year averages: 1997-1999 and 2000-2002. The results show that the average number of papers published each year from 2000-2002 increased by 8.3, or 13.1%, over the average from 1997-1999. There was also a small increase in the average market share of publications, with a gain of .01% from 1997-1999 to 2000-2002, despite a competitive publishing environment. Average market share of citations increased 0.1%, suggesting improvement in the relative importance of faculty publications to their respective fields (Source: ISI University Science Indicators, analysis performed by IRP).

Chart of Papers published in 2000-2002

The ISI database of articles and citations is organized by the discipline with which each journal is most closely associated, rather than by the department in which the author resides. For example, if a faculty member were to publish an article in a journal that is categorized as belonging to a different field, that work would not be counted in the faculty member's field. Because of this limitation, department-level publications and citations data should be interpreted with caution.

Fields included were: Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics, Economics, Psychology, Electrical Engineering, Materials Science Engineering, History, and Law.

Average percent of papers in field for 9 selective investment
Average percent of citations

Comparisons between SI units and OSU overall

The same publications and citations data were collected for the university as a whole. (See Appendix Table E.) The comparisons between the Selective Investment units and all of OSU show that while the university is improving overall all these measures, the Selective Investment units are demonstrating greater improvements. The average number of publications for all OSU improved by 4.7% from 1997-99 to 2000-02, while the average for Selective Investment departments improved by 13.1%, making the change for the Selective Investment units equal to 2.75 times that of the university as a whole.

The average percentage of publications (in appropriate fields, for Selective Investment units, and in all fields, for OSU) showed a similar difference between the Selective Investment units and the full university. The improvement for all OSU between 1997-99 and 2000-02 in percentage of all publications was .004%, while the Selective Investment departments improved by .012% in that time period. On this measure, the Selective Investment units demonstrated improvement that was three times the improvement of the overall university.

A comparison of the change in average percentage of citations of faculty publications received per year between 1997-99 and 2000-02 also shows that while OSU as a whole showed improvement, the Selective Investment units had a greater rate of improvement than the overall university. The overall university had .078% more of the market share of citations in 2000-02 than in 1997-99, while the improvement for the Selective Investment units was .100%. In other words, the Selective Investment units' improvement was 1.28 times the improvement shown by the full university.

 

Selective Investment Units: Notable Accomplishments

Selective Investment units report annually on their progress in reaching the goals set forth in their proposals. The following information comes primarily from the 2003 and 2004 Selective Investment Assessment reports.

Units funded in 1998

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Materials Science and Engineering

Physics

Psychology

Units funded in 1999:

Chemistry

History

Neuroscience

Political Science

In U.S. News & World Report, the department ranked 15th in 2001, up from 18th in 1998. The department was also highly-ranked in three of the four major fields in the discipline: 7th in American Politics, 13th in international politics, and 14th in comparative politics.

Units funded in 2000:

Cardiovascular Bioengineering

Economics

English

Law

Mathematics

Academic Enrichment: New Programs and Centers

A number of programs and centers across the University were funded under the Academic Enrichment initiative. In many cases, Academic Enrichment funding represented the first substantial commitment of resources to a promising new program. With funds to hire scholars and staff as well as to purchase much-needed equipment, many of these programs have already taken major steps toward becoming centers of excellence that advance the broader goals of the University and are a focus of recognition. The following is a list of selected new programs and centers funded through Academic Enrichment, with information on progress and notable accomplishments where available.

FY 1995 Funding Year

Microscopic and Chemical Analysis Research Center

(Source: Project report summary 2003)

Emerging Technologies Studio

(Sources: Project report summary 2003; College of the Arts FY2000 College Statement report)

Technology-Based Interdisciplinary Education in Statistics

FY 1996 Funding Year

Wireless Systems: ElectroScience Lab

(Sources: Project report summary: ElectroScience Lab 2003 Annual Report.)

FY 1997 Funding Year

Institute for Ergonomics

(Sources: Project summary; Institute of Ergonomics website; 2003 Institute Newsletter; "2003 Year in Review: Research" publication by Institute)

Spectroscopy Institute

(Sources: Project report summary; Spectroscopy Institute website.)

Justice for Children Practicum

(Sources: Project report summary; Justice for Children Project website; communication with Prof. Katherine Federle, Director of the Justice for Children Project.)

Computational Linguistics Program

(Sources: Project report summary; Computational Linguistics Program website.)

Net Tutorial

(Sources: Project report summary; "Report on 1997 Academic Enrichment Award: Net Tutorial" submitted by Nancy O'Hanlon April 23, 2003.)

Music Cognition Program

(Sources: Project report summary; Music Cognition program website)

FY 1998 Funding Year

Design Studio 2000

(Sources: Project report summary, Design Studio 2000 web page, College of the Arts FY 2000 College Statement report.)

Ophthalmic Optics Laboratory

(sources: Project report summary; Center for Ophthalmic Optics Research website)

Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing

(Sources: Project report summary, CSTW website.)

Electronic Course Reserves

E-Reserves Electronic Course Reserves project

(Sources: Project report summary; Libraries Annual Report 1999; Usage data provided by Jana Murphy, University Libraries)

FY 1999 Funding Year

Institute for Collaborative Research and Public Humanities

(Sources: Project report summary; Institute website)

Mathematics and Statistics Learning Center

(Sources: Project report summary; MSLC website; 2003 Success Challenge report.)

Collaborative Midwifery Graduate Program

(Sources: Project report summary; Graduate Nurse-Midwifery Program website; communication with Joyce Roberts, Director of Nurse-Midwifery Program; American College of Nurse-Midwives website.).

FY 2000 Funding Year

Ethnomusicology

Notable Accomplishments:
  • ® Offered a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Cognitive Ethnomusicology in 2002-2003.
  • ® Program has four faculty and builds interdisciplinary relationships with various departments and scholars.
  • ® Constructing research facilities including Cognitive Ethnomusicology Lab.
  • (Sources: Project report summary; Ethnomusicology website.)

    Research, Training and Service Through a Legislation Clinic

    (Sources: Project report summary; Legislation Clinic website.)

    FY 2001 Funding Year

    New Works Laboratory

    (Sources: Project report summary; Theatre department website; communications with Mark Shanda, Professor and Assoc. Chair of the Dept. of Theatre.)

    Comparative Ethnic Studies

    University Initiative in Population Research

    (Sources: Project report summary, Initiative in Population Research website.)


    Back to Reports Page
    Back to OAA Home Page