Good afternoon, I am really pleased to see so many of you here. This afternoon this is an opportunity for me to begin a conversion with you about some directions and policies and goals for the institution, I think it is important that we begin to debate these as a campus. And what I hope to be able to do today with the beginning of that conversation is direct us to some of the most important challenges and themes and opportunities that face the university. I think what I would like you to first reflect on with me is that for us to be a distinctive institution, for us to begin to frame ourselves in ways that will be important for the future, we should begin to be today what we want to become in the future. And I think that that is going to require some difficult choices for us. I think that is going to require that we opt for challenges of change over the comforts of the current. Those are going to be some difficult choices. My assessment of the institution is that it has the capacity to make those changes, it has the capacity for those challenges, and I hope you agree with me. Let's talk about five goals that I have begun to express for the institution. I want to organize my comments today around these five goals. Talk a little bit about in each case what we have achieved or are achieving and perhaps in each case some new directions that we might consider as a university. So these five I believe, would allow us to become a distinctive institution one upon which Missouri and increasing the nation would come to depend as a leading university, come to see us as an outstanding institution. Those are to Democratize society, to be an institution where we incubate new ideas, an institution that is capable of imagining Missouri's future, also one that helps makes Missouri's future, and then finally an institution that is known for the quality of how it does its work: a model of ethical behavior.
Let's start with the first goal of democratizing society. I will try to move through this presentation fairly briskly. So that we have time for your questions, we will bring the lights up; people can come down front and ask questions of me so that in fact a conversation does begin today. I am prepared to stay here until about 1:30, I know that many of you will need to leave at 1:00, so I hope to get done in time to afford you that chance to ask or at least listen to questions. Higher education is going to be increasing crucial for citizens to be able to succeed in the 21st century. If you think about mandatory high school education as something that was essential for success in the industrial age, I think we are approaching a point where for success for the 21st century, for success in what has sometimes been called the knowledge economy, or the new economy, or the creative economy. That people are going to have to participate at a greater level in advanced education. That may not always mean four year degrees or master's degrees or doctoral degrees. But it is clear that the rewards for creativity and for knowledge and for talent are going to be so considerable that to have people well equipped for success they are going to have to receive the advanced educations that institutions like Missouri State are here to deliver.
Let me give you then a second perspective on the democratization of society. And that is that I think that this institution accomplishes that goal by insuring access to high quality public education to students that come from diverse backgrounds. And when I talk about diverse backgrounds, I want to emphasize that means ethnic, socio-economic backgrounds with different ideas, different lifestyles, people who come to us reflecting the diversity that's out there in the world. And there are some areas here that there that should trouble us, not just for this institution but for public higher education in general. Your chances of receiving a baccalaureate degree by the age of 24 is about 1 in 2 if you come from a family that makes more than $90,000 a year. If you come from a family that makes between $35,000 and $61,000 a year, your chances of earning that baccalaureate degree drop to 1 in 10. And if you are raised in a family in which the annual income is less than $35,000 a year, right know you have about a 1 in 17 chance getting a baccalaureate degree. That's not the measure of meritocracy that this society should stand for, and there are a number of reasons I think that account for it. Some of them are ones that we have to face and some of them that society has to grapple with. Why is it that those chances for a college degree diminish so rapidly associated with family income? I do think part of the reason is the wide spread pursuit and acceptance of ACT and SAT scores as our measure for what constitutes a well-achieved and a well-prepared student. I think another is the shift to merit based scholarships that became so popular in the '90s. Missouri participates in it, almost all states do and why wouldn't they? It's a very politically popular thing to do with people who vote. And it's also not an unreasonable thing to do because students do benefit from being in classrooms and experiences and residence halls, and athletic games where they are competing against the best. So I don't want to be on record as criticizing the use of merit based scholarships, I am concerned about the degree to which our financial aid policy has shifted in that direction and what it does to students from lower social economic backgrounds. I think it is in part due to universities being in this race to the top of the ratings game--ratings by US News and World Report for example which puts a big premium on ACT/SAT scores. Is that going to be the measure that we want to use when we assess the quality of institution this one is, when we assess whether we are achieving what we need to be achieving for the state of Missouri? And of course it also comes down to the fact that funding for higher education has shifted dramatically in the past five or six years from the public domain to the private domain and that's a real important public policy issue for us. One that we have to debate and hopefully help all policy leaders see that continuing to fund high quality public education is an investment in youth, it's an investment in Missouri, and it's an investment in the nation, it's an investment in the talent that is going to be necessary for this nation to continue to thrive and succeed. Right now the estimate is that there are 300,000 students out there this year who are fully capable of going to and succeeding in college and they're not doing it because they can't afford to. That is a significant problem not just for the nation but specifically for us some of the things I will talk with respect about tuition policies originate out of my concerns about the particular fact.
Let's look at a map, this shows the projected high school demography for the nation. And I'll show you some details in a minute, but you see that Missouri is projected over the next ten years to lose about 2% of the high school population, a decrease of about 2%, we'll go from about 61,000 dropping down to somewhere between 1500 to 1800. If you look around us you see to the south, to the east and to some extent to the west, populations of high school students increasing. If you look to the north particularly in the northwest you see those decreasing. Let's look at a little more specifically, you will not be able to read these numbers, and I apologize but you can certainly see the significance here on the graph, this top part shows projected high school graduates for the nation. If we go right here there about 3 million if you go out 10 years there is going to be about 3 million. It ascends and then there is a gradual decrease. If you look here for Missouri you see about 61,000 it ascends just the way it does national cohort and then declines and bounces back up. But over here it is about to 1500 to 1800 students smaller in Missouri. By the way, what happens across that same 10 years by all projections that I've seen is that college enrollment is estimated to increase by about 12% nation- wide. So what that means is that more students who are completing high school are going to be going to college, and it also probably means that students who have been out of high school for a while are going to realize and decide they need to come back to college. So that is a challenge for us to think that with respect to the enrollment management of this institution and where our students come from and where the demand is going to be and I'll return to that in a little bit . Let me talk a little bit about Missouri's need for higher education. This is the context in which we are operating and this is very significant for us as a campus to come to grips with, with respect to Missouri's economy, Missouri's future, Missouri's growth. This first box right here shows the percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree. And you can see Missouri is at 15.4 the nation is at 16.9 we are if you think about the level of that difference we are about 9% behind the nation. If you look at graduate degrees, Missouri is at 8.6 of adults, the US at 9.7 we are down there about 11% in terms of the difference. And then look at the per capita income for 2004, you see here about a $2,000 difference between the nation and Missouri: a 7% gap. For any of you that look at the relationship between education and earning power, and we will come back to a figure for those of you who haven't studied that, these data will come as no surprise at all. What about some other measures of how Missouri stacks up with respect to the nation? Here's our six-year graduation rates, if you look at Missouri all institutions after six years we graduate 53.4% of the students who began with us. This is typically measured in terms of full-time students. In the US it is a percentage point higher, 1 % this is something for us as an institution to get I think for us to get a bit more serious about. I'll show you in a little bit that we are not there. Where we are unfortunately ahead in Missouri is the price of a college education. This $700 difference is about a 16% difference between the average public four year tuition in Missouri than in the United States. And again when you have data like this many of you in the audience perhaps everyone knows we have to be very careful about drawing cause and effect conclusions but the correlations aren't the ones that you think are going in the right direction, I'll acknowledge that.
Now I want to talk to you a little bit about the benefits of education, again thinking about the economy, thinking about the economy's investment in higher education, thinking about Missouri's investment in Missouri State University. What I really want to focus on is this difference between the earning power of $30,800, this is 2003 data, with a high school graduate and $40,900 of a college graduate that premium across a lifetime of what we think that individual is going to work 40-45 years is over $800,000 in terms of measuring a private benefit from a baccalaureate degree. That private benefit of course immediately begins to translate into public benefits because even without any change in your tax rates think about how much public revenue is associated with that increase in earning power. If you want to talk about a Master's Degree you tack on another $10,000 worth of premium above the baccalaureate degree in terms of earning power. And so the advantage for a master's degree and I'll talk about this as a credential that I think is going to be more and more important to this part of the state's economic development and a high school diploma becomes about $1, 250,000 over a lifetime with respect to the increased of earning power and associated with that the public revenue that flows from that increased earnings. Alright let's go to some of our data real quickly. I want to look at enrollment, and graduation, and retention a little bit for Missouri State this is the West Plains data I wanted you to see this, the rest of the presentation is going to focus on Springfield. What you can see here is that across the last five years, West Plains in terms of its applications, in terms of its enrollments, and pretty much in terms of those two it has been pretty flat. There has been a nice pick up over the prior years in terms of the degrees that haves been granted and obviously we don't know about this fiscal year yet. West Plains has been holding its own in the application and enrollment competition and it looks to me like they have been doing a little bit better in terms of converting those enrollments into degrees.
Let's look now at our freshmen number of, this is a busy table, there are a number of things to look at first is our combo of class standing and act across these past six years we have marched this up steady a 7% increase in that index. If you look at enrollment of freshman, new freshman, here is an area that gives me some concern about our price, about our marketing, about whom we are attracting to come to Missouri State we hit a high water mark back in 2002 in terms of enrollment and you see a little drop and then a drop of 106 students here about 4% off of the 2689 we had last year. The ACT has remained really pretty constant across that six year period. It's nice for us this year to be about to talk about the highest average ACT of our entering freshman all of you I think recognize that the difference between this and the moving average before probably not as statistically significant as it was before, but none the less you brag about things when they show like that and it is nice to have that particular figure. But the institution does not appear to me in terms of first year freshmen to be growing at this point I think we have for whatever reason perhaps hit some plateau. This more dramatically shows the shift in the ACT scores of our students. I guess I better say maroon bar here shows the distribution of ACT scores in 1994 and the pale bars shows the distribution of ACT scores in 2005. And what you see here is a pretty significant shift to the right with respect to students coming to Missouri State first-time freshmen with higher ACT scores, clearly a reflection of that selectivity index. Clearly an indication that our students ought to be coming to us better prepared more capability of success perhaps also though carrying with it some of those socio-economic corrects that At least give me pause and I'm interested in how you feel about that as well. Here is the admissions summary looking at it a little bit differently again, thinking about the institution's future capability of attracting and educating high quality students. Across a six year period you see our applications going up a little bit , the admits going up a little bit, the enrollment staying really pretty constant across this six year period. Here are the yield rates and as you know yield is the pert of how many students enroll versus how many students were admitted. It's been pretty flat; I'm a bit concerned it's nice to see it go up from last year. But actually we are a bit down if you took the moving average of this group, we are a bit down this year in terms of yield rates from those prior five years but it is a nice bounce up off the 486. Same data for our fall semester transfer students: you see an increase in the apps, an increase in the admitted, and some pretty steady increase although again falling off here this year on the enrollment. A nice trend when it comes to yield with respect to our transfer students across this six year period we are up about 4%, so that's one that I think we can feel good about. Admissions summary for fall semester graduate students here you see apps again, admits, enroll, this one concerns me. The yield rate for students being admitted, for enrolling who have been admitted to our programs has fallen here by about five percentage points and I think that one of the main reasons for that is the financial aid policies we have for our graduate students, this is going to be an area that I will talk a little bit about in terms of some initiatives. I don't much care for that, given the importance that graduate education and master's degrees in particular areas the importance of those for economic development for good jobs, for impact for by the institution, this is the one that is troubling.
Fall semester American minority enrollment, we have this broken out then by African American, Asian American, Asian American, Hispanics, and Native American, a nice trend we have picked up about 100 students in total representing these four minority groups. That's a good direction to be going and that's ahead of I think of the demography of Springfield and the Ozarks with respect to this measure, this particular measure of diversity it's not where I think it needs to be. We are going to have to be a leader for Springfield and the Ozarks, if the institution is really going to have an impact on changing the diversity of the community. This is one where we are really going to take some bold steps to try to improve the mix and make this institution look more like the world increasingly is going to look.
This just breaks down a little bit the enrollment by our student types. This totals out to the 19,000 and some students who are on the Springfield campus. Graduate- degree seeking students have fallen to 12% of that total. If you look at master's level lets not talk about doctorate level if you look at master's level institution who are going to be offering a good array of graduate programs and having a strong impact then through the graduates from those I think you will find that 12% is too low and we probably need to be thinking about a target that brings us more into the range of 15-20%. Distribution of students by residents the quick way to think about this is first of all 50% of Missouri State students are still southwest Missouri's high school graduates. Only 9% come from outside of Missouri, 91% of our students total are Missouri residents. Again I'd suggest to you if you look at institutions that we might aspire to be more like, ones that we are capable of being as good as or better than but maybe a little ahead of us on some of the important dimensions that we will talk about later, 9% is probably to low. We probably should moving more into a 15% maybe even 20% range with respect to students coming from outside of Missouri. Retention this is our retention rate of first time freshman 72.4 you can read that as well as I can. I think that this rate is too low. And there are various explanations for the fact that it doesn't change much. It may be a reflection of economics; it may be a reflection that we don't have the programs that sophomores and juniors decide they want to major in so they transfer out. It may be students get homesick. It may be there are academic casualties although with our selectivity index, I don't think there should be that many of them. Whatever the reasons this is one we have to pay attention to and I think it would be reasonable for Missouri State University to set a goal of first time of retention of first time freshman at 80%.
Graduation Rate, I've broken this one out for a five period showing the four year graduation rate in green, the five in gold, and the six year graduation rate in orange. And then a little more so you can see the specific percentages here below. You'll see that we have made nice progress on the four year up over 3% that's good five years a little bit of progress. What I'm concerned about is the six year graduation rate has not changed dramatically. In fact we fell back this year and this is too low. I think that again if you look at the institutions that we want to push and ultimately bypass, get ahead of, we need to be thinking about a six year graduation rate of 55% and I'd suggest that s a reasonable goal to shoot for in the next five to six years. It's tough to move this one dramatically from one year to the next, so we have to be reasonable about what is a good increment. If you can make steady progress of a percent or a little bit more each year, you are doing a great job of beginning to turning around six year graduation rates . And then finally this just shows our degrees granted by the last five years and puts Missouri State at that level of 3300 degrees that we have awarded between bachelor's, master's, and specialists.
Tuition and fees and again, I'm sorry you are not going to be able to read this. In 2000-2001 our tuition was 3564 this for I think 15 credit hours now its 5454 in 2000-2001 we were the eighth least expensive of the 13 institution in Missouri, we are now the fifth so we have held our price very, very well. We have relative to the other institutions become less expensive. The question that posses for us is are there more, have we undercharged our tuition that's a possible interruption of those data but another one in light of some of the things I'm talking about with respect to socio-economic factors and looking at our enrollment whether we have undercharged our not, we may have be hitting some upper limits with respect to what students are prepared to pay for programs that are being offered here and we have to have a very serious discussion about tuition policy. So that's one of the initiatives for the conversation is to develop for the institution a long-term tuition policy that is predictable for parents and students, that is affordable, and that offers high value and there four options that I want to suggest to us as a possible entries on a menu. The first is prepaid tuition, where we say to a student or to their parents this is what tuition will be for the next year or two years or three years if you pay that entire period right now that would then allow the institution to take that extra money realized in that first year, invest it and perhaps be able to have our cake and eat it too. Which is some tuition increase and yet protecting families against the full brunt of that tuition increase. Another option is guaranteed tuition, where we say to parents and students this is what you can expect to pay for each of the next two or three or four years assuming various parameters that the state appropriation is this and that it doesn't fall below this if the state appropriation is at another level the increase will be adjusted in a way that will say right upfront to those parents and students. A third thing for us to look at is what I call a full time rate tuition. Which is if a student takes 16 hours or more perhaps we ought to look at whether we basically hold tuition flat at that 16th hour and above or whether we discount those hours at 16 hours or above dramatically, because that will encourage students take full loads, that will encourage students to graduate more quickly, and ultimately that is one of the ways, probably the best way student, a family can strains the cost of education across their life is get their degree in as timely a manner as possible. The final is differential tuition, I would think of this primarily for graduate, perhaps exclusively for graduate programs. Where we have some graduate programs in this institution that I think we are probably not charging their full market value, and we ought to look at whether some premium isn't put on those programs. That premium then is used to reinvest in the program, some percentage of it coming back to the institution. As a lot of you know may institutions have gone to some premium pricing for graduate programs when there is a market that justifies it and when that additional tuition is reinvested in ways that benefit the students who are paying it. Not necessarily 100% of it, because there is still a lot support that goes to a student in a specific program that is independent of that specific program. But together these may offer us a range of things to discuss as an institution as we think about a reasonable forward-looking tuition policy.
We do need to expand our scholarships. I want to go quickly through these. First, attract and retain excellent students both undergraduates and graduates. Our scholarships programs have focus on undergraduates, and that's wonderful we need to continue to do that. We have done very little for graduate students, and it's predictable that you are beginning to see that we are not competitive for graduate student enrollment at this university at a level that we should be. I would like us, and I have a proposal that I'm asking Dr. Einhellig to take to graduate council, to develop merit based scholarships for non-resident graduate students where we reduce the non-resident portion by a considerable amount for students that have a certain levels of academic credentials out of their baccalaureate experience. We simply will not be able to compete for these outstanding students without that. And yes, if you are wondering non-resident would include international. We need scholarships that are devoted to diversity enhancement. This gives me a chance to thank once again Jim Ferguson who was one of the people whose scholarship we announced this past Friday as far as an endowment aimed at improving the diversity of the student body at Missouri State University. We are going to have to do more of this because we are in a competition with many other places for students who will broaden the perspectives, broaden the learning, change the complexion, the face, the nature of the discussion that goes on in classrooms. Need-based scholarships, I have already talked about the tilt that has occurred toward merit, I am interested in what people have to think about that. Obviously the president is not going to declare by fiat that we are going to shift from merit to need based it wouldn't do any good to do that, the state still invests dramatic sums of money in merit based. But should we be looking at putting more of our dollars in this direction? And then finally you are going to hear me talk about the scholarship endowments, where we are way behind. This is an area that again last week, we announced eight new endowed scholarships for students. We need to be dramatically increasing the endowments that we have for scholarships because the institution is spending a lot of its general fund to underwrite, to discount scholarships probably and this is a figure I am trying to remember and didn't look at closely before I got here. I would suspect it's between $20-30 million that we are discounting off tuition that we need private endowments to help begin to absorb.
The second goal: the incubation of new ideas. Universities will continue to be the source of most new scientific discoveries and technological innovations why is that important, if you look at economic development in united states in the past four years, 75% of it nation wide has been derived from scientific discoveries or technological innovations and college campuses are where almost all of those began. Missouri State is going to have to be an institution that expands its investments in research and in initiatives in research. This expansion is going to need to be strategic we are not going to be able to it in every single area, we certainly are not going to be able to do it in every single department and if we were to do it in every single department, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot because funding and the new direction for research in many areas, not just life sciences but social sciences as well is multi-disciplinary and I'll come back to that in a minute. Finally, I don't want research to be isolated from the impact it has on students or from its connection to an enriched curriculum. It is very important that we demonstrate here what we always preach, which is that research makes for better teaching. Well it should, it doesn't always frankly, it doesn't if we aren't careful about making sure if students are at the elbow of the scientists and the researchers: our undergraduates as well as our graduate students. It doesn't make for better teaching if it doesn't find its way into the curriculum either in terms of new programs or new courses or enriched courses. So we have to be sure we don't just pay homage to this particular principle, but that we are serious that if we expand research, we improve education. Let me show you some data on our sponsored program activity. Here is a column that shows the proposals submitted for the past six years. If I go just five years we have pretty much leveled out at about 300-320 proposals a year. This then shows the breakdown by the category and that's not very important because I think it is an artifact of how they are self-monitored, or self-referred so the fact that educations have dropped while services have increased I think is probably a labeling issue as opposed to a real issue. What is nice to see out here, however; is that since 2001 our research awards have increased by more than 100%. We are not necessarily requesting a lot more, we are not necessarily getting more awards, but they do tend to be bigger and we are doing better in this particular measure of yield which is how many of the ones we request are funded. This breaks down just quickly these awards this $16,600,000 by colleges again there are artifacts in this as a result of case being taken out of natural applied sciences and being credited to the academic affairs total. But You can see the change here from '05 to '04 these data are going to be on the web the PowerPoint presentation for you, and you can go back and look at what some of the changes at the unit level are. This is just a graphical display of proposals submitted, not a whole lot of change. Awards received: looks like we have tightened up the gap here at little bit that's the measure of yield, but a real nice trend on the funds awarded across these six years. And here's a dramatic way of looking at the cumulative dollars for these periods of time in each of the months. In '05 and I suspect that what we are talking about here is the case money coming in that accounts for that big bounce late in the fiscal year.
Initiatives in the incubation of new ideas area, the futures committee I think is extremely important in this regard. They have been charged with assessing the current status of the university's scholarly and research enterprise and saying what are the best opportunities we have for moving this forward and I have asked them to recommend up to 12 areas of scholarship that should be priorities for investments. These investments are either going to be new dollars or they are going to be the reallocation of dollars we already have when we decide this is a higher priority, this new area, than what we are already doing and that's part of that challenge of change over comfort of the current that I talked about that the institution is going to have to be prepared to engage. I have also asked the futures committee to propose options for restructure and reorganization that will promote innovations particularly interdisciplinary innovations. We are no different than any other university that tries to do research, everyone struggles with this issue of turf and boundaries between the classic academic departments and the multi-disciplinary efforts especially in the physical and life and social sciences and even in the humanities that are necessary. Other institutions grapple with that and are finding ways to solve it. We're going to have to do the same thing. We are no different on this score than any other institution who accepts the challenge of multi-disciplinary with respect to the scholarly work that we do. Let me suggest as I look at Missouri and this is only by way of suggestion, there are wonderful people of the futures committee; they will come up with very good recommendations. But as you look at Missouri's opportunities and needs and how it fits in nationally and internationally here are some areas that occur to me, ones that this institution ought to be giving very serious attention to. Material Science and of course the investment in the Center for Applied Science and Engineering Case is devoted to the exploitation of nanotechnology, to polymers, to a variety of important new materials and the exciting properties they have in defenses and in all kinds of civil engineering trades and in biomedical applications. The Life Sciences and Biotechnology: some real strengths of this institution here that I think that we can develop further. Perhaps I should call this risk-related behavior. Risky behavior is what we engage in when we do things that aren't good for us or aren't good for us individually or aren't good for us as a society. But we could broaden this and think about just how people assess risk and when they asses risk what do they do about it. If you need a great example of what we don't know just think about Katrina and Rita and how poorly people assessed risk, how poorly they responded after they assessed it. This is an area that we think about risky behavior as a behavioral science this may be as much an actuarial as a cognitive science and even within risk if you think about how people responded to Katrina. The difference between people who were "probabilists" and people who were "possibilists" in terms of their definition of risk were considerable and the implications of those differences cost probably thousands of lives. So this is a place were this institution I think could really put a marker down as far as a point of emphasis. Environmental and Energy Sciences, it's obvious that the Ozarks struggling with this particular issue. Springfield had an energy task force devoted to the problems of power, capacity, their impact on the environment. Our water resource institute puts us in good position to further that work. Exceptionality and by this I mean exceptional characteristics in human beings: either in a positive or in a negative direction. We are particularly looking at exceptionality as it affects early childhood, but it can extend into the age range beyond that. The design and media disciplines, a wonderful area of creativity increasingly important in society, a place where a lot of good jobs are migrating, and where a lot of talent is being attracted. The Performance Arts, this campus has a wonderful history in performance arts. They do help our lives be at least felt like they are worth living and enjoyable and I think we need for this region and for the state to continue to be a leader in that area. Health: many opportunities for us here. Business development and commercialization, of all these intellectual properties. And then finally American culture, which I think is an area that again we have some real expertise in and opportunity to move forward with.
One other thing I would like to commend to you for consideration is the Community and Social Issues Institute this is a new one that we developed that the board just approved the mission was to catalyze and organize the research and service capacity of the university to assist institutions addressing important problems in Springfield, in the Ozarks, and in Missouri. It's to be a partner in a broad network of organizations that promote collaboration and social entrepreneurship. One of the important things about this institute in you want to think of it this way is that it is a strategy for organizing inter-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary efforts beyond what it may do specifically for social issues lets think of it as a test bed for how we can do a better job of being that kind of flexible institution with respect to academic boundaries. That will allow us frankly to do better work in the long run when we bring the talents of many departments or programs or faculty or students together on a program rather than having them isolated.
We need to look at how we deal with our indirect cost those are the overhead cost that come from external grants and contracts. I would like us, and I have asked a group to get together and to make some recommendations about our current IDC policy which tends to be pretty fractionated in terms of where the IDCs go. I think that we need to develop a new IDC policy. First, the priority for those IDC dollars should be to reinvest funds in the research enterprise that what got them here in the first place- that's where those overhead costs were generated from. I think we need to look at a formula, a specific formula, for allocations back to departments, colleges, centers and university-wide uses. The application of these IDCs should always be to advance and reward multidisciplinary scholarship and we are going to have to look at the institution for ways to advance and support core functions and facilities. We are not big enough or rich enough for everybody to have a dedicated piece of scientific equipment. Core functions include the support of graduate students. I think we are probably going to need to take more of these IDC dollars and use them to support research assistance and fellowships and other forms of support for the professional development of graduate students. So I'm interested in how do we take these IDCs, these indirect costs, and use them to the maximum benefit for the institution, moving its research and other grant supported activity ahead.
Third, imagining Missouri's future as a goal. I think we should be an institution that becomes known for educating about choices among priorities and values, hopefully that's some of what we are doing right here today. But if we do make progress in technological discoveries, and in scientific innovations, and in social science and the humanities, it still leaves big questions about whose values are supported, what are the goods to which those discoveries should be put, who decides that. So we need to be a campus where we champion informed dialogue and scholarly engagement about big public policy issues and some of those, as you know, are very politically charged. We are going to have to be a campus that is comfortable with the charge that comes from debating difficult matters like this, if not here where would we propose that it be done. So, I am going to continue to call on the campus to be a place where we bring in people that disagree with us. Eventually you'll have somebody that's agrees with you presumably if you have that kind of spectrum of intellectual opinion but we need to be a university that champions that.
A leader in the region and the state in global education and I have written a lot about this. I've gotten a lot of responses back from people who I know are supportive. And I've gotten responses back from people who question it leader whether we should be a leader in global education. If we are does that mean we are leaving Missouri students behind does that mean we are shifting our investment away from the taxpayers of Missouri? That's an important question, that's not an illegitimate question. I think there are very good answers for that. And I think that the primary one is we are actually shortchanging our students in Missouri if we don't give them that experience of being educated with, competing against and collaborating with students from different nations, but it's a legitimate question.
With respect to our curriculum in imaging Missouri's future, I think we have some real successes that we should champion at Missouri State. We do have a coherent liberal arts core here. I know you worked hard on that and I appreciate the fact that we don't have quite the menu of almost unlimited choices that you find at some other universities in the general education requirements. I think that we have done a reasonably good job of attacking that particular issue. I think our public affairs mission is a real success and it's been recognized as a success and with national awards from the Templeton foundation and the Princeton Review. I think our initial efforts at internationalization have been particularly ambitious for an institution like this. I don't think they are sufficient, but we are ahead on this score of many institutions with similar size, similar profiles to ours.
Where do I have some concerns? These retention and graduation rates concern me. There may be very good explanations for 48% graduation six year graduation rate. There may be good explanations for 72% first year retention rate even with those good explanations those numbers just don't strike me as good enough. For an institution that has capable students with our selective admissions we are bringing students here who can do the work. Somehow we are going to have to do better on that score. I think that we need to continue to have very rigorous expectations for our students. And I have talked to some faculty groups about this that we need to be hard, but helpful with our students. I think college should be challenging. We don't do our students any service by not having it be rigorous. On the other hand we don't want to just shove that in their face and say its hard, period. We need to help students succeed in curricula that are hard. The faculty and the staff and fellow students can do that. But that expectation for rigor needs to be matched with a responsibility we have for helping students be successful. Finally, I would like to make sure we are looking at our major requirements carefully. My own major and thinking back in the days when I was more concerned about psychology as a curriculum and psychology as a department. We were always tempted to creep up the requirements for the major. And the number of hours required would grow, anything that was good should be required. I want to be careful that we don't fall into that trap. And maybe this is an area that I don't know in the detail that hopefully I will soon. But I want to be sure that we don't have our major requirements overwhelmed. A broad education for students, one that will allow them to be versatile, as well as be good specialists when they graduate.
What is the definition of a well-educated student? I think Missouri State has had a very good dialogue about this. What we meant by a well-educated student historically I think has been quite solid actually. I have put a little different language on it perhaps a little different emphasis there are five qualities that I like to think about with respect to the well-educated student aimed at helping them be versatile. You have on the one side general education you have on the other end of the dimension a specialist education, or one grounded in the major but ultimately we need to be thinking about the fact that most of our students are going to change careers in their adult lives. They are not going to do for forty years what they begin to do after they graduate from here. So versatility may be that kind of goal and mean between the generalist and specialist emphasis. And the five qualities that I like to talk about for our students in particular and I know that there are several of them, many of them that are here today. I we first of all want you to be serious readers. This is the last time that formal education is going to have the chance to convince you how important a habit this is to develop. How empowering personally it is, how politically empowering it is, how important it is for your ability to communicate is to grapple with great literature and big ideas. And I don't know any other way to do that but to develop a daily habit dedicated to serious reading. This is the way you begin to explore and understand your own interior is to come to grips with the challenges in serious reading. I think all of our majors need to and certainly our general education courses need to be devoted to that particular habit. Cultivated tastes, I do think that some art, and some music, and some drama is better than others I won't say what I think it is, but many of you know and this an opportunity for students to experience aesthetic challenge, aesthetic expectations, this is a campus that does a very good job of creating and offering a smorgasbord in that area. Critical thinkers, particularly we need to be scientifically literate and capable of some strong quantitative reasoning. A private curiosity that is the demand for students to become interested and dedicated to a major and then engaged citizens. Let me go quickly initiatives for discussion. I want us to continue the public affairs mission I think it is very important. But I do think we need to find new vehicles to express it, the Community and Social Issues Institute is one of those. But this is place where really I need the faculty's help because the institution's commitment to the public affairs mission needs to be more closely linked to academics and research and the faculty are the only group that can do this, to find ways that we express that, find way to make sure we turn out engaged, ethical, energetic, and eloquent citizens. It requires more than just the fact that many of our students volunteer, which they do and that's wonderful. It requires more than they give a lot of community service, which they do and that's terrific. We need to have mindful attention to the public affairs mission and ultimately this will depend on the faculty helping us to find ways to do that.
International Education in terms of imagining the future. Build on successes that we have already had I would like us to move forward with an undergraduate major in international studies. We need to double quickly need-based study abroad scholarships so that more of our students study abroad. I don't think we have the organizational structure in place for coordinating our international education and international efforts. And I would like to have a further discussion with you about that.
Help make Missouri's future is the fourth goal. Here is the aspiration I would have for our students that they would be well-informed, confident, and conscientious. The result of what that they have of both in terms of a breadth of opportunities and a depth of learning and that comes from rigorous standards we have in the classroom, but also, in terms of extracurricular activities, extra opportunities outside of the classroom. Missouri State should be an institution that allows students to get out of here and be prepared not just to take jobs, but to make them they are going to have to be informed risk takers to do that they are going to have to have public consciousness that goes beyond just the private benefits of employment they might think about, but this is a place where we can make a real difference as far as the distinctive quality of our graduates.
What would set our students apart? We have many of these in place we just need to think about the emphasis, the sequencing, and the expectations for these. Our first year experiences, our capstone courses, our internships, undergraduate research opportunities I suspect we are short on these. And the emphasis on having students more at the elbow of our active researchers needs to find expression in more undergraduate research opportunities. The scholarship in action which we have talked about as far as making sure we are doing research that matters to some important problems. Let me quickly say if you are not doing research that matters to some important social problem or some other kind of problem, but its good research, keep up, keep up with it. This is not a call for the institution to dedicate itself exclusively to applied research. It is a call to make sure that when there is good implied research to be done we are looking at how to do it. But People who are involved in scholarship simply for the purpose of knowing more about the world than we know today, you should keep on doing it. And then our students somehow being connected to higher purposes: to public affairs, to public benefits, we are having a conference by the way here on November 8, which looks at the public benefits of higher education. I would urge you to attend that conference, this is a way we begin to express to Missouri why this investment in higher education is so important.
Let's continue to look at higher expectations for our students. There are two of these I want to mention: increasing the study abroad and second increasing our students' ability to compete for external scholarship and fellowship awards I'd like to see Missouri State University students begin to win Truman, Marshall, Goldwater, and ultimately a Rhodes scholarship. Now a Rhodes is tough and that doesn't come easily neither do any of these, but we have students with the ability and the motivation to win these. What we have to do is begin to groom them; they need to be groomed the first day they set foot on campus, they need to be groomed by going abroad and studying, by taking foreign languages, by being involved in a lot of stretch activities. And so I am going ask for a team to be assembled that can help us promote this kind of ambition, and this kind of success for our students.
Another way we make Missouri's future is to expand joint and cooperative degree programs. Let me mention three that we need to talk about. One is engineering with University of Missouri at Rolla and I will go up there tomorrow to talk with the Chancellor about the possibility of asking for state appropriation in support of a joint program like that. The second is looking at opportunities between the University of Missouri at Columbia and Missouri State in the area of health related fields. And third, I'd like to see the possibility of our accelerated master's programs being made available to seniors at our local colleges to students at Drury, at Evangel and at the College of the Ozarks where they in their senior year can begin to get into our graduate programs, start to work towards their master's degree, have that credit count towards their undergraduate requirements at their home institution.
We do need to look at Economic development initiatives as a way to make Missouri's future. There a number of these that I want to stress. The obvious one is that we are a major community employer; I think the fifth largest in one Springfield. We need to look at ways to commercialize intellectual property that our faculty and staff discover. We are a magnet for economic expansion case illustrates these two very well. We need to look at what kind of workforce preparation is most important in this area. That is why I think engineering is particularly of interest I think to us as well as some areas in health. Remember that for every R & D dollar that this university brings in, if we are like any other university in the country, it multiplies by 1.8 the economic impact in Springfield. For every dollar we begin in that multiplies up to $1.80. We need to look at the new economy clusters those are some of the areas that we talked about earlier with respect to the futures committee and the University needs to continue to invest in Springfield, particularly downtown Springfield. The way the university ultimately contributes to economic development, and remember when we do that we make support of higher education possible this is a nice cycle. There are three areas we need to look at. I would urge you to look at the work of Richard Florida in this respect who has written about the creative economy. We need to be involved in the development technology that's always been the case in terms of economic development, whether we move from an agrarian to an industrial economy, whether we move from an industrial to an information, whether we move from an information to the 21st century. Second, we need to be places that attract talent. That's what universities should do is attract talent. And third we have to be a force of communities being tolerant, being places where people want to live. If you are a talented individual right now, you have a lot of choices about where to go. Doesn't just have to be Missouri, doesn't have to be the United States. There are many, many countries who are making it very attractive for talented people to come and live and work there in Canada, in Australia, in Eastern Europe, in Western Europe. This university needs to be a factor for all three of the Richard Florida "T's": technology, talent, and tolerance.
Final goal, modeling ethical and effective behavior where this institution is know as much for the way we go about our work as for the quality of what we achieve. Three areas that I think are particularly important for how us in terms of how we do our work: inclusiveness and social progress; creativity, flexibility, and being entrepreneurial here with our resources; and then fiscal integrity. Being inclusive, I've started a President's Commission for Diversity I meet with that group this afternoon to talk about what steps, what policies, what long term thinking do we need to do to improve the climate for diversity so that we can recruit excellent faculty and students, and that we can begin to look more like the world, and have our students, therefore; prepared to function well in the that world. And now of course some people take diversity to literally. And if Dr. Elliott thought he was going to get off the hook, just because Dr. Keiser wasn't making the presentation. Here we have what perhaps is a bit too literal an interpretation of diversity he is exaggerating the dimensions of some object up here, perhaps a fish but he is obviously very happy with it. So, Anson are you out there? Good, good.
Being entrepreneurial, making sure we take our resources and do the best we can with them. That's why I appointed a Compensation Committee to give us some recommendations about how we do compensation at the university. That's why we are interested in moving budget responsibility and accountability down to units. Why we are going to a three signature rule on appointments, that's the streamlining that we are taking about here, moving from a vertical organization to a more horizontal one. The three signatures is just an example there are more of these changes I'm sure that need to be made. The fact that we are going to have to look at reallocating some of our internal budget to our priorities, unless everybody is content with the priorities that we have right now. And so while this time talked about 1% of the personal budget reallocation I want us to begin to think about and plan 1% reallocation of entire operating budget in years two and three. We really have to be here willing to have open discussions about these. We have to be able to recognize, I think, the fact that there are some policies for compensation, for rewarding faculty that this institution needs to be prepared to adopt. I know that the history of looking at merit-based or performance-based compensation has been a rocky one at the institution, but I would ask that this not deter us from this discussion. Over the weekend, I read a paraphrase by Richard Hurst of G.K. Chesterson who said "Its not a matter of being tried and found wanting, is more of a matter of being found difficult and left untried." Talking about merit or performance based compensation may be difficult but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have that discussion.
I would like us to think about some audacious goals for the institution. I think that it is an institution that is capable of establishing and maintaining very high standards for academic achievement for our students. I think that we are an institution that can be known for having never being content with just status quo. And that we insist for all of us, an expectation of excellence the work that our students do, the work that our staff does, the scholarship and teaching of the faculty, and the ability of the administration to get barriers out of your way and to get resources for you that allow you to do high quality work. Two areas that I'd invite us to think about then is that we need to begin to discuss and plan a FIRST Capital Campaign for Missouri State. We just completed a successful campaign for Southwest Missouri State University but I don't believe that it has been directed, as wonderful as that was it was, has been directed enough at what the institution's priority really needs to be and that's people that's faculty and staff and students. And so it was particularly pleasing for me last week to be able to talk about these fourteen new endowments that our donors have stepped up and prepared for us. We went from four endowed chairs and professors to ten last Friday. And I said at that press conference that the next goal is to double that ten to twenty. I don't know how low that will take, I want to do it promptly but we will not be able to attract and retain the kind of faculty that our students and that Missouri deserves at this institution without that extra margin of help and excellence that comes from endowed support from private individuals, foundations, and corporations that's why I'm leveraging endowments. And you would have seen in the paper, that on the receipt of a pledge, I'm willing to begin to start to pay the interest, the annual interest that that pledge would generate so that we can begin to feel the impact of that gift immediately, that student gets to meet the donor immediately, that the endowed professor or chair begins to work and power this campus forward immediately. We all need to cultivate donors; this is another request I would have for the faculty is your relationships with people outside of this institution can help cultivate loyal, inspired donors who believe in the institution and dream of its behalf. So I would ask you to help me and others develop this people so that they have a confidence in the institution that will translate into investments for us.
Finally, we need a public report card. Something like eight to ten measures where we put out publicly how we are doing. I am aware that we have a large number of strategic indicators at the institution some seventy. That is not going to work, that is too many. The public is not interested in what percentage of our classrooms between 2:00 and 5:00 on Friday are occupied. They are going to be interested in products, educational products, research products, the access issues for students to come here. So we need a public report card that measures our performance that provides very visible accountability to people who watch us that builds trust with them and that prioritizes the performance indicators that we have. So we, trying to keep a symmetry with where I began the address, should begin to measure today what we aspire to be for tomorrow and that's the purpose of the public report card. Where Missouri State goes ahead says, these are the things that are important to us we are going to put it out there for you to see how we are doing, when we do well and succeed, we need your support; when we fall short we need to look at ways to address that short fall and do better. I'll take your questions, thank you very much.
"Thank you very much, would you care to speak to us about your views on out-of-state tuition as it relates to our competition in surrounding states in particular?"
Right, the question is about marketing and out-of-state tuition, my emphasis right now, and I think our emphasis should be on graduate out-of-state tuition for a number of reasons I think that is our best possibility as far as beginning to turn around some of the yield that we get on admitted students and actually improving the quality of admitted graduate students. I would like to begin then also, a look at a strategy for merit-based, and I'm much more willing to consider merit-based scholarships for non-resident students as a reasonable way to go. I not sure it's Missouri's obligation to address financial needs for students from other states. So I would think that there is room for a revised tuition policy with respect to nonresidents that is hinged on merit. Now we already have some of that, I am aware, in terms of scholarships but perhaps we need to look at making it a bit more aggressive. Because we are not moving the needle much on this 9% if anything I think we have probably slipped a little bit off of where we had been before of that 9% of nonresidents and that's a tricky thing to talk about. I recognize that we can sometimes engender criticism by turning to students outside and urging them to come in. Ultimately I think that Missouri will benefit from it and that Springfield and the Ozarks will benefit from it because we get students here and we can help them start to not just love the university, but love this area. And then what happens? They are more inclined to stay. So there is a real I think argument to be made that a bit more aggressive merit-based nonresident tuition policy can help strengthen the pull that Missouri State has back into Missouri's economy. Other questions? We've got mics down here, but if don't want to come down and you just want to yell, I will be able to hear you.
"You spoke earlier about what we aspire to be what institution do you have in mind that institutions we can aspire to?"
Well we have a committee looking at that actually. Rather than give you individual institutions, let me give you the concept which is would be peers of aspiration. Institutions that on important dimensions that we recognize are a little bit ahead of us they do some things that we'd like to be able to do more of. And so what I have asked that committee to do is come back with a list of ten to fifteen institutions like that that we can begin to examine and see is it reasonable for us to compare ourselves to this group to this group of aspirational peers. First for the purpose of what our outcomes are, how well do we do our work? But if you are going to that you also need to compare yourself to how are they funded, what sort of resources do they have? So I am not interested in developing a set of aspirational universities that say here is the group we are going to be as good as or beat, in terms of outcomes, but we are going to compare ourselves to a different group as far as resources. I think we need to look at those both ways. The outputs as well as what's there to get those outputs. So that's been the challenge that what I've asked for. They need to be institutions that pull us, that stretch us, but I think that we can probably find a group like that that we'll feel that we going to have to push, but we can go ahead and bring ourselves up on some of those important dimensions, be more like them. This university is good enough that if we stake ourselves to that progress, we can start to swagger a little bit more about what kind of institution we are. I don't think this place has had enough swagger, you're in many ways better than you may have realized and once you get to the point where you except that, you then welcome the challenge of getter even stronger. So the swagger comes from a confidence that have done well, but we are going to be more, we are going to be bigger. And I mean bigger in a psychological sense not just a numerical sense.
"I have a major concern the over the last year, the last several years about the tuition for our students and your first item on the rethinking of the program, had to do with prepaid tuition. I would like to know what is the state, what is the condition of that and has that been tried throughout the country? And what are the facts that starts all that and do you think really a good way to go?"
The prepaid tuition has been more a phenomena at private institutions, frankly, and it's been more of a process there because you have a higher percentage of parents there that can afford to do it. So I am presenting that as one of several options I don't think it will be the answer to many parents, many families as they think about how they can best afford a college education for their child. On the other hand, looking at our tuition it wouldn't surprise me, that if you had a prepaid plan, if it were reasonable you might even have people even borrowing money to do it, they'd be ahead of where they would have been had they simply had to absorb and pay for the tuition increases that institutions in Missouri have passed on. You go back and look at our tuition now, verses what it was five years ago, it's 50% higher. If a parent had known that, they'd have taken the loan out for prepaid tuition and they'd be ahead. So I think it largely is a private institution phenomenon there's no reason it couldn't be done publicly. But I don't think it would be the answer for many, many people, it would be the answer for some slice of people. And then perhaps guaranteed tuition which it will only go up assuming certain parameters helps other people. And then maybe for a third group of people this idea that we will cap your tuition at 16 hours. So you can work like the devil for four years and get out of here and actually have it be cheaper than if you had taken five years and simply paid per credit hour, now that's one where many public universities have gone where they cap the tuition at a certain amount of credit hours. Of course the secret is do the number of students that take those increased hours help offset the loss of revenue that comes from the hourly credit hour increase that occurs as you go from 16, 17, and 18. Generally the answer to that is yes, but we are now modeling it here to see if there are some unusual characteristics here that would change that formula for us and maybe make it not a wise way to go. We are not going to go on anyway with any of these without putting it out so people can see what the implications would be and give some idea about who are we aiming this toward. This whole area of tuition is one where you need I think to give people a lot of information so they can gage what's best for them. One of the reasons I would applaud President Floyd for going out and taking about the fixed tuition idea not because that's necessarily the best policy, my own view is that it probably isn't, but he started a conversion and took it statewide we learned a lot from that, in some ways he sort of took some of the arrows the rest of us sat back and learned some things from it. One of the things that you learned was that students weren't in particular weren't very enthused about it because of their understandable concern that you are going to balance a budget shortfall on their backs when they are the new entering class and they are right, that is what has happened at states like Illinois that have done this. Other questions?
"You were referring to increasing graduate education, in particular idea that we would have these interdisciplinary programs. Could you speak about the idea of interdisciplinary and undergraduate preparation?"
I have talked about this balance between size and quality of I want to get better but not necessarily smaller and I think we can do that. If you look at really very selective institutions, their applications continue to rise, their yield rates continue to do very well even though they are now very expensive which is a problem but they are very expense and they are very, very selective, you don't see applications falling at those institution. Now we can't mimic that for a number of reasons, what I think we can be more thoughtful and mindful of who are our various markets out there both at the graduate and undergraduate level where do they live? What are interested in taking and hopefully aim our enrollment management in ways that align with those groups out there.
"What are your views about bringing back senior citizen to teach?"
I'd be interested I think more at looking at a bit more modern policy with respect to retired faculty and post retirement appointments and phased retirement. I think we have not taken good advantage of outstanding teachers who reach a point where they do want to retire but still would like to be fairly heavily involved in the teaching mission of institution. Because of their credentials, because of the fact that they have had a demonstrated success in the classroom, I'd favor that we'd look at that as one of the really good opportunities for the institution to move perhaps more than from simply the retired population in general. There are a lot of policies with respect to faculty that I think that this institution needs to reexamine. I talked about compensation, but promotion and tenure. We are too much, in my view we depend too much on the ticking of the clock for advancement from associate to full professor. I think we have not been encouraging enough with respect to sabbaticals for faculty, particularly full-year sabbaticals. We ought to find ways to incentivize faculty to do full-year sabbaticals. This doesn't mean that we eliminate half-year sabbaticals because for many of us, that's all we could do. We have family constraints or other kinds of limits that just won't make a full-year possible. But in general, it is much better for the development of a faculty member to take a full-year sabbatical. I think we need to look at some incentives that go to faculty who are extremely successful in research and teaching. I don't think our old "rolls and rewards" process was necessarily getting it quite right, but we do need to look at some incentives that are tied to performance beyond just base compensation. So I think I'd prefer to look at are there ways that unintentionally we are holding faculty back with policies here. In the interest of some kind of mean before we think about people outside of the academy as a preferred answer to the instructional mission.
"I wonder about the change in faculty merit-policy and how do you incorporate it to have when you do have height and rigor in the classroom?"
Yes, there is this expectation that height and rigor is going to lower your student evaluations. And that's one of the big concerns. I'll tell you a bias about that but again, notice what I called it, was a bias. My experience in looking at student evaluations of faculty and at my prior institution I did that for ten years in an administrative role, was look at quantified student evaluations of faculty performance. Students didn't punish faculty who were hard. They punished faculty that were hard and gloated about it and shoved it in their face. They did not penalize faculty who had high expectations and were fair and took the time to help students. The only way I know you evaluate that, though, is through peer review. I don't know how any administrator does it. The faculty, if this is important to you, this is one that you are going to have to help us find a way to evaluate. I would urge us not to immediately jump to this notion that because I am demanding, because I am rigorous, students are going to give me low evaluations. That has not been my experience. They will really punish you if your attitude toward them is demeaning: "I'm hard and you are too stupid to success here." Yeah, you are going to get a low evaluation for that. "I'm hard but I know that you can do it with the following kinds of activities, the following kinds of advice or support," students respect that has been my experience. How to evaluate it? Need to look to you, if the faculty wants to evaluate this you'll find a way. Other institutions do it, if you don't, we probably won't have fair rigor reward.
"You did a very good job of telling us about your views on tuition policies and interests and how to get endowments for private money coming in to our institution. Can you tell us your strategy for state appropriations?"
There is short term and there is long term strategy. The long term strategy obviously is grow the economy even if you have policies that aren't necessarily all that rewarding to higher education. If you grow that economy if you educate students now to appreciate the value of higher education for society you ultimately do begin to give yourself a better foundation. For now, I think what we need to look at is a reasonable expectation for higher education funding with respect to the cost of continuing. We need to look at is it is possible to get to some kind of formula for funding that does pay off, not exclusively but that does pay off for enrollment growth that has occurred at institutions. That's what has hurt Missouri State, that's what we refer to traditionally as inequity in funding is we weren't paid off for enrollment growth. We do need to look at a possible formula to address that. I don't think the language of inequity will work. Frankly, because all that means is you are taking money from some other institution and giving in to us. Well, guess what? There will be several institutions that don't think that is a very good funding policy. So everyone should be willing to applaud the idea of enrollment growth as one part of a formula for higher education funding. I think that's maybe the battle that we need to try to take here in the near term and the second is, give us some reasonable cost of continuing. Higher education is not the one industry in the world whose cost doesn't go up. In fact, I think you could be a pretty good claim that when you use CPI you are actually underestimating the cost of higher education because CPI is what people buy. But institutions have to buy something different than that. And so the percentage of our increases I suspect are in areas that go up more quickly than CPI. If we could get to a position where the state recognizes we need to increase the appropriation at least by some inflationary and I include in that faculty and staff salaries, by the way, as cost of continuing then I think in the short run that my be our best strategy. But you see the economy and you see where Missouri is right now. The idea that higher ed. is going to get a big increase I don't think is realistic right now I do think its realistic to say you've got to continue to invest if us if you want to get out of the doldrums that the state has been in economically. If states to keep up with the states who are getting out of those doldrums maybe a little quicker than we are. Other questions?
"What are your thoughts on differential fees for undergraduate, you mentioned graduate?"
The question was what's my position on differential tuition for undergraduates at Missouri State. I don't like it too much and the reason is a policy issue. I'm not sure it should cost more for a student who wants to be an engineer, which we need, or who wants to be someone who works in the health field than someone who wants to be a teacher. So I worry a little bit about the unintended consequences about differential tuition at the undergraduate level as far as deterring students potentially from some careers or disciplines. I'm more comfortable with it at the graduate level, because it is more easily tied to decisions students have already made about specialization, it's more easily tied to market so I think that's kind of the quick reaction to it. Now I had some experience doing differential tuition at the undergraduate level before. And that experience even makes me like it less. And if I had to do it all over again, I not sure that that would have been the way to go. Because it bothered me to see a kid from Eastern Kentucky, where they have a horrible shortage of engineers, have to pay more money to be an engineer, to be trained to an engineer. Others? Okay you are being respectful of the 1:30 hour, is that it or you are just sick of sitting here? Thank you very much, I appreciate you being here.