On Wednesday, Feb. 8, President Farvardin held a review of the Stevens’ Strategic Plan. Farvardin covered the central goals of the strategic plan as well as some of the details of its effects on the university. Although the plan was developed five years ago, the time has come to make some minor revisions and improve the plan. In order to make improvements, President Farvardin is looking to receive input from students, staff, alumni, and many other sources.
“We want to think big- in a visionary way- to ensure that our university remains at the forefront to offer a better experience,” he noted to the audience.
President Farvardin began by providing a brief overview of how the strategic plan came to be. In Oct. of 2011, President Farvardin had just joined the Stevens community and had a very limited knowledge of the school. In order to learn more about the school and what direction it was headed in, he met with over 100 people including students, faculty, alumni, the board of trustees, deans, and high-level administration officials. It was then clear to him, from these conversations, that Stevens had no unified direction, and it would be his goal to create that unified direction. This lead to the development of a steering committee and many intensive meetings to eventually end up with a final document that would guide the university for ten years. The plans were approved on Aug. 1, 2012 and work began the next day.
The plan was developed around the central idea that “Stevens will become a premier student-centric technological research university.” This main theme leads to five key strategic areas to develop the university: student-centrism, excellence through collaboration, impact, technology at our core, and strengthened reputation and prestige. Each of these areas leads to ten board areas; these board areas are headed by one person, usually a vice-president of the university, and have annual goals to meet. This means that the person in charge must make progress in their area to succeed at their job. The implementation has been very disciplined and transparent.
“The main message is to encourage you, and that we welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts,” according to President Farvardin. There are two main reasons for providing this update: First, after five years of working towards this goal, all involved are more knowledgeable about the competition and the landscape of higher education, and more experienced. Second, the world has changed and there is a need to change with it. President Farvardin put it best when he used the metaphor of climbing a mountain. After being more experienced a climber would reevaluate where they were and how to best reach the summit of the mountain.
Some of the progress that the university has made over the past five years has been astounding: Undergraduate applications are up 106%, with an additional 13% increase this year; freshman enrollment is up 32%; freshman retention rate is up to 95%; total undergraduate enrollment is up 28%, due to increased student retention and enrollment. The median SAT score is up 60 points to 1350 (on a 1600 scale). According to Farvardin, it is very rare to see a university both increase enrollment and the academic profile. Usually, one of the two must be sacrificed for the other to see any improvement.
The graduation rate is up to 83% (on a 6-year scale)- the university is expected to see a significant improvement in this number in roughly two years due to the strategic plans implementation time. Career placement is up to 92% of total graduates; Graduate applications are up 130% and graduate enrollment is up 16%. The research funding for the university has increased as well.
The university’s finances are looking up. The operating budget of the university is up 28%, with an operating surplus of 8.2 million dollars. The cash balance has gone from a debt of 14 million to a surplus of 60 million dollars, however, Farvardin still considers this to be an area of weakness for the university. Gifts to the university are up 338% to 20.6 million per year, with a total donor increase of 16%. The improved finances of the university have helped the university to see a credit upgrade from BBB+ to A-.
These positive financial numbers allow the university to contribute to key areas such as more faculty, physical infrastructure, and technological infrastructure. The size of the faculty is up 23%. The new physical infrastructure includes the ABS engineering center, Gianforte Academic Center, the North building, Babbio garage with new stairway, and much more. The technological infrastructure has been improved with state of the art systems that offer unparalleled capabilities.
All of this has allowed the university to move up 17 places to 71st place, from 88th, in the US News and World Report Rankings. The university has also seen a jump in the Payscale return on investment rankings to 12th place. Stevens is considered one of the fastest-rising universities in the country. This progress has helped the university to surpass many big name schools, in terms of prestige. Stevens has surpassed multiple Ivy-league colleges in terms of return on investment.
A chart was then projected onto the screen which showed the progress of the strategic plan. The majority of the chart rated progress as either completed or good. However, some were marked in red for their minimal progress. Ms. Beth McGrath then took over and continued the presentation. She began by noting that input on the strategic plan will close at noon on Feb. 17. After this period, the plan will undergo a revision period in which a final draft will be created and presented to the public on Mar. 31. The university is looking to hear from not only individuals but clubs and other groups of students. All of the available information about the plan can be found on myStevens.
Ms. McGrath then opened the floor to discussion. Unfortunately, due to the small audience, the questions were limited. The first question regarded where President Farvardin felt the university needed the most work. Farvardin responded by discussing the research and Ph.D. programs in the university and how they need a big push in the right direction. On the other hand, the following question asked where the university is excelling. Although Farvardin could not name a specific area, he mentioned student success and how he felt that we are moving towards an Ivy League level. Questions then ranged from the lack of diversity, which is not a focus of the plan, to the inclusion of senior design projects in the universities future infrastructure. The final question presented asked if there would be any more town halls on this plan. As of now, the answer is no, but that is up to the steering committee to determine.
Be First to Comment