Letter to the Community

October 18, 2006
TO: The University Community
FROM: Philip E. Austin

Download a PDF of this Letter

As we move past the halfway point in the Fall semester, I want to take this opportunity to provide an update on the University’s progress, goals, opportunities and challenges.   

Let me begin by welcoming the new members of the UConn community who arrived this term.  In August more than 7,000 new students (including new freshmen, transfers, graduate and professional students) joined us at Storrs, the regional campuses, the Law School, and the Health Center, and many new faculty and staff members came here as well.  Not all were net additions to our ranks; most of the new students replaced last year’s graduates, and many of the new professors and staff filled the shoes of people who retired or took other positions.  Nevertheless, we are growing, and, especially with regard to faculty, it is a key University objective to have us grow faster.

The new arrivals serve to remind us that as we come to the end of our 125^th anniversary year, the University is as vibrant and appealing as it has ever been.  The overwhelming majority could have chosen to go elsewhere; they opted to come here.  Each individual goes through his or her own decision process, but these people decided in one way or another that this is the best possible site for learning, teaching, research, and experiencing the life of a university community. 

Enrollment Update

The enrollment news continues to be excellent. This is due in no small measure to the efforts of our enrollment management, admissions and communications staffs, who do a wonderful job of marketing the University within and outside the State of Connecticut.  It is more fundamentally a function of the reputation of our faculty, the underlying quality of our academic and student life program, and the accurate perception that for residents of our state UConn represents one of the best higher education values in the country.

The easiest way to tell the story is through a simple presentation of data over time, using 1996, the first year of UCONN 2000’s implementation, as a baseline.  (All enrollment figures are for Fall semesters) 

None of these numbers come as a great surprise to faculty, who see evidence of our students’ growing strength in their classrooms.   Nor, increasingly, is it any surprise to our state’s elected leaders or to the public at large.  The Sunday before the start of classes the Hartford Courant had a page-one story headlined, “UConn Freshmen:  Better and Brighter.”  The article quotes one student:  “I can see it right in all my classes.  I can see freshmen who are coming in who are very well informed….There is a lot of demand from the university for this excellence and students are responding.  People who didn’t realize they had it inside them (are) responding to this.”

These are good words to hear.  But I should add two provisos.  First, as the article reported, some professors see that our students, like their bright counterparts across the nation, are a bit too caught up in the Ipod and cell phone mentality and still need to work on study skills, a frequent problem for young people who sailed through high school.  Second, it is important to note that UConn has always had many good students. The point is that now exceptional quality is the norm.  This leads professors and students to expect a lot from each other.

The dynamic in graduate school is a bit different, since each program has its own standards and, to some extent, its own culture.  A few data points are, however, worthy of note.  Aggregate applications were up slightly this past year (about 2%, paralleling the national average for graduate school applications); international applications climbed 12% over the prior year, suggesting that, like other universities, we are experiencing a rebound from the post-9/11 drop.  Perhaps most significant, and highly gratifying, is the fact that 87% of the students to whom we made offers of admission decided to come to UConn.  Given the strong applicant pool in most disciplines, this is a clear indication that the combination of academic reputation, effective recruitment, and financial support is producing a positive result.

In the professional schools, UConn continues to be a national leader.  This holds true not just at the starting point, where the figures above speak for themselves, but at the finish line.  Our student success rates on state or national examinations are nothing short of outstanding: 

The Research Agenda

Aided by the dramatic expansion of facilities at Storrs, the Health Center, Avery Point and the other campuses, the University now offers an infrastructure wholly compatible with our aspiration of national leadership in a few key areas and significant quality in many others.  Moreover, what has often been said before bears repeating:  at a major university, excellence in research complements and supports excellence in teaching and community service.

In the early 1990s, and in some cases before, UConn began to make a significant mark in such fields as gifted and talented education, psychology, linguistics, ecology and evolutionary biology and, a bit later, AIDS and cancer prevention, kinesiology, and animal cloning.  Concurrently, thanks to private giving, we increased the number of endowed chairs nearly threefold, from 29 in 1995 to 78 today.  External funding grew as well, from about $100 million ten years ago to about $190 million in FY 2006.

In the past year, consistent with national trends, funding has leveled off.  There are a multitude of reasons, but the most significant is the fact that the national investment in basic research has plateaued, particularly in terms of NIH funding, which is critical to much of our work in the sciences.  In addition, and more specifically related to UConn, the Health Center’s lab space reached a point of full utilization, and without new facilities there would not likely be an expansion of activity.  While outstanding new faculty, some nationally renowned (including some in endowed chairs), joined us, a significant number left in various early retirement programs, to be replaced by newcomers of tremendous promise but not yet at their peak.  Given these realities, the maintenance of funding at or near its highest historic level has been no small achievement.

Now it is time for us to prepare for a rational, carefully designed and implemented move to the next level.  The Health Center continues to implement and refine the strategic research plan, developed six years ago, that identified several signature programs that build on pre-existing strength to meet public needs.  At Storrs and the regional campuses, Provost Nicholls is giving the highest priority to formulation of a research plan, and under his guidance the colleges and schools are in the midst of a strategic planning process.  This is certainly not a brand new initiative at UConn; every department has engaged strategic planning over the past decade, and the process has played a central role in recruitment and facility decisions.  What is new is, as the Provost says, the goal of “synthesizing and expanding unit-based plans into a University-wide plan that is truly synergistic and interdisciplinary.”  The plan will be driven by criteria that include a focus on areas of existing strength, the potential for national and international prominence, and relevance to the needs of the state and nation.

People in jobs like mine always face the challenge of explaining to the public why some kinds of basic research, especially in seemingly esoteric fields, merit public support.  The arguments for work in fields like higher mathematics or existentialism are powerful, but they need explication.  Perhaps the simplest way of making the case is to demonstrate that these are the things that make a good university a great university, and thereby justify the state’s investment.  We have not been hesitant in presenting that case.

In other areas, particularly where the possible applications of research are readily apparent, the rationale is easier to convey.  At present we have three prime examples.

The first is fuel cell research, which I have mentioned before in these reports and where our work is attracting significant notice.  Since the 1970s there has been a national consensus about the need to develop alternative energy sources, but at times it seems that the level of public interest and financial support varies with the level of turmoil in the Middle East and the cost of gasoline at the pump.  Those with a longer-term view realize, however, that creation of new, clean, cost-effective energy is essential to economic growth and national security.

Fuel cells—devices that convert chemical energy to electrical energy—are highly efficient, give off minimal emissions, can make power where it is needed (avoiding the difficulty of transporting electricity from central power plants), and are inherently durable.  Measured against other alternatives, fuel cell systems are comparatively simple. 

In 2001 UConn established the Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center in partnership with Connecticut Innovations and Connecticut Industry, which brings together more than 40 faculty in engineering, chemistry and biology who are working on a range of projects; among them are two professors on endowed chairs (Nigel Sammes, who holds the UTC Chair in Fuel Cell Technology and Kenneth Reifsnider, who holds the Pratt & Whitney Chair in Design and Reliability), and we have funding for four additional chairs.  The University’s infrastructure also includes tangible assets:  a 16,000 square foot fully equipped state-of-the-art research and development building exclusively dedicated to fuel cell research.   The University’s commitment and accompanying resources helped us lure Professor Reifsnider as Director of the Center; he came here in 2002 from Virginia Tech and is an internationally recognized leader in this area.

Fuel cell research has generated support from entities that include the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the EPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and, in the private sector, from such Connecticut firms as UTC Fuel Cells, FuelCellEnergy, Proton Energy Systems, General Dynamics/Electric Boat, Hamilton Sundstrand, and multiple other firms in the United States and abroad.  This June, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman visited the Center and was quoted as saying, “Thanks to research centers like this one, Connecticut has become a real pioneer in renewable energy technology.”  A few weeks ago Congressman John Larson, a steadfast advocate of our work in this area, also came to Storrs and expressed his ongoing support.   

I write about this activity at some length in part because I think it’s important that every member of the community appreciate how far along we are in this area, but also because opportunities to meet so many objectives simultaneously are rare.  The Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center puts the University’s technological and scientific expertise to work to meet a clear national priority, builds on areas of existing faculty strength, enhances our state’s knowledge-based economy, helps meet environmental as well as energy concerns, provides educational opportunities in an emerging field, and demonstrates the capacity of a research university to promise something of easily understandable value to the wider community.

The second example is stem cell research.  Connecticut is one of five states—the others are California, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Massachusetts—that are committing state funds to research involving human embryonic stem cells.  Over the past year UConn has organized to take full advantage of this initiative.  Under the leadership of Professor Marc Lalande of the Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology in the School of Medicine, a University Working Group including faculty at the Health Center and Storrs has reviewed current stem cell-related activities and provided guidance to Provost Nicholls, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Deckers, and myself about how best to proceed.

We have already made substantial progress.  After identifying those faculty whose research programs already include stem cells or could be advanced through stem cell research, the Working Group organized a day-long symposium at which UConn researchers shared their ideas and plans.  Additionally, the Working Group kept the UConn research community informed about the Connecticut process for developing and submitting grant requests for state funding, and our faculty submitted 39 applications for grants from the $20 million now available (out of a total $100 million state commitment) this year.  The projects proposed range from funding to support the research of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Professor Jerry Yang into somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques, to seed funding for faculty who are just getting started in this important field.  Funding announcements are expected in mid-October.

The largest UConn grant proposal was a request for funding to support creation of a core human embryonic stem cell lab.  As I announced in last semester’s letter to the community, the University moved prominently onto the international stem cell scene by recruiting Dr. Ren-He Xu from the University of Wisconsin.  Dr. Xu worked at that institution for several years under the leadership of stem cell research pioneer James Thompson, and he came to UConn with the charge of leading our efforts in developing stem cell lines and training our researchers in their use.  The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core facility has now been established at the Health Center, and this laboratory is already culturing, testing and banking stem cell lines approved by the National Institutes of Health for research.  If the proposal for state funding is successful, Dr. Xu will be able to develop additional human embryonic stem cell lines.

In previous messages I have discussed the steps UConn is taking to create policies and guidelines for ethical conduct in this sensitive area.  Last year I appointed an Embryonic Stem Cell Oversight Committee (“ESCRO”), chaired by Dr. Anne Hiskes of the Department of Philosophy and including representatives from Storrs, the Health Center, and the external community.  The ESCRO has sign-off authority on all UConn funding proposals involving human embryonic stem cell research.  Its procedures provide assurance that protocols in this area meet eight specific requirements relating to objectives, justification for utilization of human embryos as opposed to other options, documentation, and tracking.  Development of a comprehensive audit and compliance system is now well underway. 

On a more fundamental level, the ESCRO is working in conjunction with public agencies and other universities to develop a general set of principles to guide research in this rapidly evolving area.  Our policies are wholly consistent with the Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research published in 2005 by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, outlined in the following nine principles: 

1.      Respect for human dignity and the inherent value of human life.

2.      Respect for human anatomy and self-determination.

3.      Promotion and protection of human health and well-being.

4.      Respect for free and informed consent by all donors of human tissues.

5.      No direct or indirect payment for tissues collected for stem cell research, and no financial incentives.

6.      Respect for privacy and confidentiality.

7.      Respect for freedom of inquiry and the value of knowledge.

8.      Respect for the diversity of moral positions regarding human embryonic stem cell research.

9.      Research undertaken should have a strong rationale in terms of its potential contribution to biomedical knowledge and human health.

The third example is based primarily at the UConn Health Center, but demonstrates collaboration between faculty at the Farmington campus and their colleagues in Storrs and in area hospitals.  The NIH has recently established a new initiative designed to expand clinical and translational research (i.e., research that “translates” laboratory advances to clinical applications) at academic medical centers.  The Health Center recently was awarded a planning grant for the development of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) application under this program, and faculty across UConn’s campuses are working together on the next steps.  Clinical affiliates in the greater Hartford area, including Hartford Hospital and the Connecticut Children’s Health Center, are also engaged. 

As part of our UConn’s overall strategy in this area, the Health Center plans to replace its current General Clinical Research Center with a Clinical and Translational Research Unit.  This new entity will provide the infrastructure to support both investigator-initiated clinical research and industry-sponsored clinical trials.  The University’s recently approved Master’s program in clinical and translational research is another important educational component of this initiative, and will help develop a cadre of faculty with needed expertise.  The ultimate outcome of our work in this area will be to translate laboratory discoveries into new and more effective therapies for patients.  It will, as well,  further support the signature programs in cancer, cardiology, musculoskeletal medicine and public health.

The work in these three areas represents, of course, just a few of the more vivid examples of UConn’s capacity to play a role of national leadership in research and scholarship.  In research as well as instruction, I recognize that progress depends in large part on continued expansion of our faculty.  As our State’s flagship public university, we accord equal importance to teaching and scholarship and we need adequate resources if we are to excel in both areas simultaneously.  At Storrs and the regional campuses, we had an  increase in faculty this September, but to drop our student-faculty ratio from 17:1 to 15:1—a figure recorded by some of the institutions we regard as peers—we will need an increase of about 175 faculty over the next five years.  We are pursuing this goal vigorously.

Similarly, we maintain a commitment to service to our state, and this too involves a need for additional faculty positions.  This year the Connecticut General Assembly appropriated $2 million for UConn to recruit eminent faculty in areas of pre-existing research strength that are critical to Connecticut’s economic growth and quality of life, such as nanotechnology, fuel cells, and other science and technology fields.  The program calls for a match of private dollars to accompany the public investment.  We are working with the relevant schools and colleges to identify hiring possibilities, and making progress in developing the required matches.

External Reviews

One of the defining and, I believe, relatively unique aspects of American higher education is that in many respects the system is governed by processes of peer review.  Colleges and universities are accredited by regional bodies, including (in UConn’s case) the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).  Professional schools are evaluated by entities such as the Association of American Law Schools, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Dental Association, and the Council on Social Work Education.  Academic programs are customarily reviewed by committees of external peers.  Selected graduate and research programs are examined periodically by the National Research Council (NRC).  Similarly, Division I athletic programs are now “certified” by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). 

Institutions are, of course, also subject to scrutiny by reviewers whose primary audience is the general public, including potential applicants and their families.  We all know about U.S. News and World Report, which consistently ranks UConn number one among public universities in New England and in the top 30 (27 this year, up a notch) among all public universities in the nation.  We also hear from time to time about other, more anecdotal evaluations that make it into the news.  For example, we read in Princeton Review that “(m)any students feel that UConn is ‘a fantastic representation of the Northeast in all respects,’ especially the ‘actively involved’, ‘down-to-earth,’ and ‘pretty friendly’ student body’” and that “the party animal is a vanishing breed here (though the speed at which he or she is vanishing is open to debate).” 

But our primary concern is, appropriately, with more systematic evaluations by our peers.  Accreditation processes are University-wide endeavors.  This year’s NEASC review has already involved about 150 faculty, staff and students in various aspects of a comprehensive self-study process, and many others have been asked to contribute their views.  I invite you to review the documents (www.neasc.uconn.edu) and, when the external review team visits in January, participate in the open meetings that will be part of their site visit.

Concurrently, UConn’s intercollegiate athletic programs will undergo a ten-year recertification review.  The NCAA instituted reviews in the early 1990s; UConn passed with flying colors on its first go-round in 1997-98, and is now up for its first recertification.  Again, this is a community-wide endeavor.  The self-study is, in fact, explicitly (by NCAA mandate as well as our own preference) predominantly the responsibility of individuals outside of the Division of Athletics, though members of the division play a significant supporting role.  More than 60 faculty, students, staff and alumni are serving on self-study committees, and, again, all members of the community will be invited to contribute their thoughts on our athletics program.

UConn is clearly in substantial compliance with all the basic accreditation standards set forth by NEASC and NCAA, and our accreditation and certification are not at issue.  I look upon the self-study process, and, later, the site visits and external evaluations as opportunities to do two things:  first, to identify areas of potential concern, now or in the future, as we seek to assure an ongoing commitment to excellence; and second, to begin the process of developing plans for improvement in all areas, no matter how strong we are at present. 

The NRC rankings that will be conducted next year are a bit different.  The NRC is now well into the next iteration of its review of programs nationally.  In prior reviews, “reputational judgments” have played a significant role, and the focus has been on the overall relative national rankings.  This time around, the NRC is making a major effort to gather explicit data on faculty in programs, and will use nationally available databases on federal funding, book and journal publication rates, and citation indices, along with some reputational assessments.  The NRC’s expectation is that the data should be of particular service to prospective graduate students in making choices about the programs they might wish to consider.  The information will also, of course, serve a broader audience of faculty and others.

The ultimate outcome is a ranking of our graduate and research programs in the sciences, the humanities, and engineering.  I agree with those who say that any such “rankings,” even those undertaken by an eminent panel of experts, cannot and should not be taken as absolute affirmation that one university’s program in a particular field is “better” than another’s.  Nevertheless, the NRC listings receive close attention and do give a general sense of our program’s measurable quality and reputation.  We want to make sure that the evaluators have a clear sense of where we stand according to each of their criteria, and over the next several months will be devoting considerable effort to assuring that we present a full and accurate picture.  To that end, Associate Dean James Henkel, the University coordinator for the NRC rankings, and his colleagues in the Graduate School have been working intensely to assemble the required data.  I have been asked to point out that the next step, fundamental in the process, is for faculty to complete forms that will be sent to them by the NRC.  The response from each unit will play a major role in the rankings.

Leadership Searches

Great universities operate on the principle of shared governance, and UConn is no exception.  This year we are engaged in the recruitment of leaders for seven major  positions, and in every case the primary responsibility falls to a faculty-staff committee, generally with significant student and alumni involvement.  By last count about 80 members of our community were serving on senior position search committees, and in all cases the search process involves the opportunity for other faculty, students and staff to weigh in.

The searches, at varying stages, include recruitment for deans of the Schools of Engineering, Business, Dental Medicine, Law, Nursing, and Social Work, and the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.  In every case we are fortunate that either the incumbent dean will remain in place until a new dean is appointed or highly qualified individuals are holding the position on an interim basis.  The normal activities of the schools and colleges (or, in the case of the Vice President/COO, the University’s administrative operation) continue without interruption.

The units seeking new leaders are all well positioned for ongoing progress, and the search committees should be able to attract a large pool of highly qualified candidates.  I have asked that all recruitments be national in scope, not because there is a shortage of qualified individuals close to home, but because I want us to attract the best possible individual from a pool that is diverse in terms of gender, cultural background, education, and perspective.  (This is, of course, also a commitment we also make in recruitment of faculty and staff.)  In every case we will choose the best candidate in terms of qualifications and vision, and a diverse pool makes it more likely that the final outcome will be a diverse leadership team.

Good searches tend to produce good leaders.  But, more than that, the search process itself gives everyone involved—and not just the people on the committee, or the members of the affected school—the opportunity to think seriously about where we are and where we want to be going.  Challenges that might otherwise be ignored come to light, and so do opportunities.  In defining what we want in a leader, we also define what we want in a school, college, administrative unit, or the University as a whole.  The review of candidates and the interview process give us an insight into what other institutions are doing, what works, what doesn’t work, and why.  Because, as one noted executive recruiter once put it, the job of the search committee is to “sell” as well as to “buy,” the search also serves to remind ourselves of how good a place UConn is.

Subject to change depending on circumstances, I expect that we will be able to have new Deans of Dental Medicine and Law on board during the spring term, and new Deans of Business, Engineering, Nursing and Social Work later in 2007. 

Fiscal Challenges Facing the UConn Health Center

Health care, which consumes about one-seventh of every dollar spent in the American economy, presents fiscal challenges that seem to come in new forms with every passing year.  Most Americans regard access to quality care as a right.  As Connecticut’s public university, we regard the preparation of excellent health care professionals—along with high quality treatment in our hospital and other facilities—as a central responsibility.  Seven years ago John Dempsey Hospital at the UConn Health Center faced serious budgetary difficulties, generated by a combination of Medicare cutbacks and managed-care regulations.  With the support of the State of Connecticut, the University dealt successfully with those challenges.

This year the Health Center faces fiscal difficulties of a different origin.  The network of entities that operate in Farmington—first-rate Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, graduate programs in health-related fields, and, in John Dempsey Hospital, an outstanding clinical facility—represent a set of public activities that function in a fiercely competitive environment.  The fiscal year that ended on June 30 closed with a $6.9 million aggregate deficit.  Energy expenses, the cost of maintaining malpractice reserves, and temporary vacancies in our physician ranks contributed to this shortfall.  That deficit would have been much more severe were it not for the successful financial turnaround of the hospital since the year 2000.  As is generally the case at academic health centers, the hospital helps subsidize the research and education mission of the medical and dental schools.  While this helps alleviate immediate fiscal problems overall, the medium- and long-term consequences are not positive.  If John Dempsey Hospital uses all its surplus revenues to support research and education, that comes at the cost of reinvestment in facilities, programming and staff essential to maintenance of exceptional quality.

The reasons for the deficit in education and research are relatively simple to explain, if more difficult to remedy.  The Health Center budget for the current fiscal year is $660 million.  The State of Connecticut provides about 16% of that amount, all of it devoted to education and research.  (No state dollars support the hospital.)  The remaining 84% comes from non-state sources including clinical and research revenues and philanthropy.  As recently as Fiscal Year 2003, the state’s support (when combined with tuition and research revenue and gifts) was sufficient to meet our academic and research needs.  But over the past six years state support, while still significant, has increased by only 1.1% in total, while costs for personnel, equipment, and all other aspects of research and training have gone up approximately 5% every year.  Thus an “academic gap” has developed and, now, has grown to an extent that neither hospital revenues nor tuition increases can close it.  (In fact, were we to rely solely on students to cover the deficit, we would need to more than double medical and dental school tuition.   We abandoned long ago the idea that these professions are the exclusive province of the rich, and I do not want to go back to that way of thinking now.)

We have begun conversations with the state’s Office of Policy and Management and members of the General Assembly to outline our needs, explain the reasons they arose, and request a significant increase in the Health Center’s basic state appropriation.  Our goal is to get ahead of the problem and, in partnership with the state, avoid a fiscal crisis that could have severe impacts on the Health Center and, ultimately, the people we train and serve. 

Expanding Private Support

A fundamental reality in public higher education at this point in time is that state support as a proportion of total operating budget is at best stable, and more likely declining over time.  By national standards the State of Connecticut is relatively generous, though of course we believe greater levels of investment would strengthen our capacity to address the state’s goals.  Nevertheless, the need to generate strong private support grows stronger each year.

Under the guidance of the UConn Foundation, our development efforts continue to be highly successful.  Last year favorable fundraising efforts, coupled with investment returns in excess of 14%, brought endowment funds to approximately $300 million as of June 30.  This was a 10% increase over June 30, 2005, and our rate of growth was among the best in the nation.  The Foundation received $51.5 million in cash gifts, making this the second consecutive $50 million + year.  More than 34,000 donors contributed, including a remarkable 24% of alumni.  This puts us seventh among national public universities (according to U.S. News and World Report) in terms of breadth of alumni financial support.

Thanks to this generosity, 39 new endowments were established, bringing the total number of endowments (i.e., accounts devoted to specifically defined purposes) to more than 1,000.  Among those established this year were a faculty chair in Mechanistic Toxicology in the School of Pharmacy, established by Boehringer-Ingelheim; the Lockean Distinguished Chair in Mental Health Education, Research and Clinical Improvement at the Health Center, held by Dr. Daniel Connor; and the Manfred J. Sakel Distinguished Chair in Psychiatry, also at the Health Center, held by Dr. Andrew Winokur.  Moreover, philanthropic support plays a crucial role in attracting and retaining outstanding students.  This past year $10.3 million in Foundation funds enabled us to give merit-based aid to more than 1,000 students, supplementing additional merit-based aid from other sources.  (In addition, University, federal, state and other funds provide about $44 million in need-based grants to about 6,800 students.)

Our last major fundraising effort, Campaign UConn, raised $471 million in cash and in-kind support (more than 50% over its $300 million goal) by the time it reached its conclusion in 2004.  The Foundation, working closely with University leadership and engaging faculty and students as well, is now in the planning phase for the next campaign.  Grenzebach Glier Associates, a firm that ranks among the premier campaign consultants to higher education, has been retained to work with us.  During the period leading to the campaign’s public launch, the Foundation will undertake concerted efforts to secure major gifts that will set the tone for what we expect will be the most ambitious fundraising effort ever undertaken on UConn’s behalf.  

Student Life

In the mid-1990s, just as we were revitalizing our physical infrastructure, the University began a major effort to upgrade the quality of student life.  In part this was a response to market forces:  we knew we were losing students to other universities—and Connecticut was losing bright young people to other states—not because of our academic program, but because many students did not want to come to what they perceived as a suitcase school at which there wasn’t much to do.  It was also, quite simply, an integral part of our effort to move to the top ranks of American public higher education. 

The enrollment numbers cited earlier indicate that we have been successful even beyond earlier expectations.  A beautiful campus, plus an excellent academic reputation, plus a strong student affairs program is a prescription for an outstanding applicant pool.

In the past few years we have taken several important steps in this area: 

·        The number of academic advisers in the “ACES” (Academic Counseling for Exploratory Students, i.e., students who have not yet chosen a major) rose from one full-time advisor and one intern in 1999 to ten full-time advisors this year.  This has been helpful in moving our retention rates up into the 90% range, and will also play a key role in helping students finish their programs in four years—thus opening places for more students. 

·        In response to the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on Substance Abuse, we implemented several dozen recommendations, including creation of more substance-free venues, alcohol education programs, strengthened enforcement of University policies (including parental notification), and programs to support students with serious substance abuse issues.  We have not solved the problem at UConn, but we have made significant progress, and our leadership has won state and national recognition. 

·        The First Year Experience course, which helps students make a successful transition to college (and also plays a role in our retention success) now reaches 3,606 new students in 214 classes at Storrs and the regional campuses.  In 2004 we added a new “Senior Year Experience” class, which now enrolls 180 students in ten sections.  The SYE class recognizes the tremendous gap between college and “real life,” and helps students successfully complete undergraduate studies, prepare for careers and/or graduate school, and generally prepare for life in their early 20’s. 

This Fall, we made two notable enhancements to student life on campus: 

·        The expanded and vastly renovated Student Union is now fully open.  In 1998 a committee of student affairs staff, students, and administrators began making plans for the new Student Union, and an eight-year process of design and construction began.  The product is one of the finest facilities of its kind in the country.  Home to the University’s Cultural Centers, the Office of International Programs, and the Offices of Student Activities and Fraternity and Sorority Life, the Student Union features several lounges and other spaces where students can study, read, check e-mail, visit with friends or even catch a nap.  The new Food Court provides numerous options (including Wendy’s, Blimpie’s, Panda Express and Union Street Market).  A vast ballroom, a 500-seat theater, a game room, nine new meeting rooms, and a full-service restaurant (“Chuck and Augie’s,” named, with some trepidation, for Charles and Augustus Storrs) create in toto one of the most outstanding university facilities of its kind in the country.  The addition later this year of a convenience store, a full-service hair salon, and an outdoor recreational experience shop will make the UConn Student Union an even more valuable addition to the Storrs campus. 

·        Like virtually every postsecondary institution, UConn’s relationship with the surrounding community has presented some challenges.  Two factors make it especially important that the University and the Town of Mansfield work together toward common goals.  First, about 7,000 of the undergraduate and graduate students at Storrs live off-campus.  They need services on campus that are as high quality as we can make them, and their presence in town—as tenants, consumers, drivers, and citizens—is something that calls for attention from University and Town officials alike.  Second, the Mansfield Downtown Partnership is moving full-tilt toward development of a “college town” community in the center of Storrs.  In fact, construction of the first building will begin early in 2007.  The University and municipal leaders have worked closely together within the partnership, but it is now time for an additional, more formalized level of engagement.

To deal with both these issues, we have designated Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs Julie Bell-Elkins to serve as our primary student services professional dealing with issues relating to off-campus students and the Town of Mansfield.  Along with Mansfield Mayor Betsy Paterson, Dr. Bell-Elkins co-chairs the Mansfield Community-Campus  Partnership, and is involved both in long-term issues (e.g., student issues that relate to the emerging Storrs Center) and more immediate concerns regarding student needs.  

Closing Thoughts

No letter, not even one as long as this one, can present more than a representative sample of events at this large, active institution of higher learning.  In addition to the issues discussed above, over the last several months the University implemented the restructuring of schools approved by the Board of Trustees last winter; began to look closely at national issues that affect UConn students, ranging from textbook affordability to proposed changes in federal financial assistance; examined, with some concern, the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Education that may seriously undermine the independence of higher education; hosted several important conferences; finalized a Code of Conduct, initiated with broad community input; explored cooperative ventures in the area of international education; addressed important social and human rights concerns; and graduated 5,353 students.

For me personally, the Fall semester always brings vivid reminders of our range, scope and quality.  Early this term, I hosted a lunch for new honors students at which I was reminded yet again of how many outstanding young people choose to come to UConn, and how glad they are to be here.  A few days later I had lunch at the African-American Cultural Center in the Student Union; again, I saw UConn through the eyes of students who see this as a place as culturally diverse as it is intellectually vibrant.  The next week I welcomed the new group of fellows at our Humanities Institute, and saw that this perception of UConn is shared by some of our most outstanding faculty and by visitors from other institutions.  Other events followed, including, just a few days ago, our traditional “Family Weekend,” at which we welcomed thousands of parents and let them see for themselves what their sons and daughters experience every day.

Of course we have our challenges.  So does every important university and, for that matter, every significant institution of any kind.  But as we come to the end of our 125^th year, UConn is in a very strong position to meet what lies ahead.  The academic program grows stronger every year, the organizational structure is fundamentally sound, the quality of our student body has never been higher, and our faculty is nothing short of outstanding.  Moreover, though we do not have and would not want unanimity of thought on any important issue, there is a general consensus across the community that we are working well together toward a set of important shared goals.  I appreciate your good work, and you have my best wishes for a productive and rewarding academic year. 

c:   Board of Trustees