I would like particularly to thank Dr. Richard M. Englert, Associate Vice
President for University Administration (and presently Acting Dean of
the College of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance), as
well as the faculty, students and administrators for their ideas and
efforts in the preparation of this report, including Professor Kyriakos
M. Kontopoulos and members of the Executive Office of the President.
On June 26, 1997, the Board of Trustees approved "A Special Report by the President on Strategic Initiatives." The product of many months of study and review by President Liacouras and the Board's Strategic Planning Committee, this Report underscores the regional, national, and international character of the future Temple University.
These Strategic Initiatives represent the next phase of a future that was begun three years ago in "The Plan to Renew Temple's Mission." As President Liacouras points out, colleges and universities must either embrace enormous change or risk becoming irrelevant in today's "volatile educational marketplace."
Temple has boldly faced the need to change: its academic programs are stronger; its faculty and administration are more productive, its campus environment is dramatically improving, and services to students are being streamlined -- all within the framework of balanced budgets and financial stability.
The University embarked on a review of all graduate programs, launched the innovative Learning Communities, and enhanced the Honors Program, Writing Center, and Math and Science Resource Center.
Among the many other initiatives undertaken in recent years are the Advanced Academic Technology and Student Recreation Plans; the Academic Resources Center; renovation of Rock Hall as Philadelphia's premier chamber music venue; and construction of a new Student Residence Hall, the SEPTA rail station, The Tuttleman Learning Center, the Temple University Children's Hospital, projects at Temple University Ambler; and The Apollo of Temple, which is the linchpin for the dramatic revitalization of the Temple community.
The Report on Strategic Initiatives is an important blueprint for action that focuses on Six Priorities: repositioning Temple as a regional university, reinvigorating Temple's flagship Main Campus, preserving academic excellence, attracting the best and brightest students from the suburbs, responding to students, and continuing the effort to increase productivity.
It offers a challenging, exciting path to renewing a great 113-year old institution of higher learning near the dawn of a new millennium.
I urge everyone who cares about the future of Temple University to read it.
Priority 1:
Repositioning Temple as a Regional University
[See Exhibits 6 through 8 for this section]
To fulfill its mission as a public research university in the future (discussed
in Priority 3, below), Temple must become a full-fledged regional
university.
This involves initiatives taken alone and with partners, new courses of
study, advanced academic technology, new modalities of instruction, and
a variety of regional and international sites. It also requires a change
in those "mind-sets" that equate "Temple" with "City"
and "North Philadelphia" and "crime."
The fact is that Temple is already a regional institution but too often
acts as though it exists only on its Main and Health Sciences campuses.
Temple's urban component is obvious. It will be here for generations to
come.
The issue is not one of exclusivity, of black or white, of male or female,
of urban or suburban. It's a matter of extending Temple's education to
all parts and persons in the region. It's a matter of reaching prospective
students around the nation and world in response to the technological, demographic
and economic changes forming the new context.
Developing a Coordinated "Temple University System of Higher
Education"
Expanded in scope and size, Temple University Ambler is central, though
not exclusive, in Temple's regional strategy. Other suburban sites in the
Greater Philadelphia Region, in Harrisburg, and at Temple University Center
City will play important roles as "hubs." So will Distance Learning
at every site. Vice President and Dean Caldwell is providing leadership
on these fronts.
The population in the 8 counties surrounding Philadelphia has now reached
3.7 million. The City's population has declined from 2 million in 1950
to 1.5 million. This demography must be reflected in Temple's strategic
plans. Not to do so is akin to institutional suicide.
Temple's growth as a regional institution will come primarily from the eight
counties ringing the City of Philadelphia. These suburbs are growing.
They have a large and expanding pool of qualified applicants from all backgrounds.
They are better-prepared academically for a rigorous university curriculum.
They are more likely to graduate. Their financial condition is better
than the average city resident, which means that retention and graduation
are more likely, too. That's important because the University's goal is
to prepare its students to become key players in the Information Age and
Global Marketplace, and to be constructive citizens.
Temple is establishing itself as an attractive alternative for this target
market. In doing so, a coordinated "Temple University System of Higher
Education" will evolve.
There will, over time, be affiliations, consolidations, and mergers with
other institutions. A fully developed "System" will emerge.
The intent is to fulfill the public mission of making high quality education
conveniently available to the widest range of qualifying University students
at an affordable tuition.
To repeat: the intent is not to reduce this or that demographic
group, but to expand Temple's reach to all groups in the region.
In the accompanying document titled "Timelines for Actions," specific
initiatives are described. These initiatives are intended to meet the needs
of the entire region. Achieving the goal requires simultaneous expansion
of the residential nature and appeal of the Main Campus.
The national reputation of Temple is good. Students from around the nation
increasingly form part of the student body, especially in the residential
student population on the Main Campus (discussed next, in Priority
2).
It bears emphasizing that the two priorities - - regionalization
and a strong residential Main Campus - - are
complementary, not contradictory.
International Components
Paradoxically, Temple's good reputation leap-frogs from the "City,"
to the nation and world, by-passing many of the immediate suburbs. While
correcting this suburban misconception, Temple's regional strategy will
also build on its international strengths.
Temple's international programs are acknowledged as among the best.
Priority 2:
Reinvigorating and Transforming Temple's Flagship Main Campus into a
Residential Community of Scholars ("Temple Town")
Commuting patterns have changed along with the exodus of the population
from the city to the suburbs, and with new technology.
Automobiles have replaced public transportation as the major source of travel
to college for suburban commuters. Staying close to home or work, rather
than taking long commutes, is an imperative for today's students. And with
new technology (Distance Learning, including the Internet), the home or
office will occupy a more important, if not central, position for higher
education and for increasing numbers of students, at the expense of commuting
and "commuter schools."
Residential campuses will be less affected. In Temple's future, growing
residential life on the Main Campus is a priority.
In pursuing the regional strategy of campuses and sites and in developing
the "Temple University System of Higher Education," the Main Campus
will play a critical role. It will be the center of a vibrant, appealing
residential "Temple Town."
The Main Campus can not flourish simply as an overwhelmingly "commuter"
campus.
Presently, 80% of Temple's students come from within the televised beam
of Channel 6, 20% from outside. In comparison, the University of Pennsylvania's
"mix" is the exact reverse. This means that, within this regional
market, a highly-publicized series of crimes in the city, even on the Penn
campus, potentially affect Temple's future enrollment multiply more than
Penn's because for their 80% (compared with our 20%), it's "out of
sight, out of mind." The statistical safety of a specific city-based
campus is drowned out by stereotypical generalizations about all city-based
campuses or about the larger geographic section of the city in which a campus
is located. From constant media bombardment, people become reluctant to
enter those zones.
An ongoing challenge is to educate the public and convince the media to
be factually discriminating in its perceptions. Part of the challenge requires
a sufficient size and personality for a campus to be differentiated from
otherwise undifferentiated geographic sections of the city. "Temple
Town" with its own personality and identity is an essential development
in this future.
One way or the other, over the next several years, Temple must change its
present "mix" of 80% - 20% to more like 70% - 30%, with the Main
Campus housing the additional students from outside the region.
The Main Campus as a Residential Community of Scholars
So, the flagship of the Temple University System will develop into a more
residential Main Campus. Marked improvement in the quality and breadth
of campus life on the Main Campus has been, and continues to be a major
priority.
Tremendous recent investments have been made by the University, the State
and friends of Temple to encourage this development. They include: The
Apollo of Temple, The Learning Center, a new Student Residence Hall, new
student dining facilities, Shusterman Hall for seminars and conferences,
the Law School's College Hall Annex, the possible relocation of Tyler School
of Art and parts of the College of Allied Health Professions to Main Campus,
additional Student Recreational facilities, and the continued development
of the "Avenue of the Arts, North" with Rock Hall and Boyer Theater
(within the Convocation Center of The Apollo of Temple).
Those projects will, predictably, stimulate other investments in the area
by the private sector and create a sufficient Temple-connected "mass"
to separate Temple's identity from an undifferentiated North Philadelphia.
Even before it opens, The Apollo of Temple is creating considerable interest
among developers in blocks adjacent to the Main Campus. A hotel and conference
center serving all of Temple's needs (presently satisfied in Center City),
new retail stores, live-music restaurants and entertainment, renewal of
the business district along Cecil B. Moore Avenue, and housing rehabilitation
- - all of these - - are now more probable than hopeful.
Temple's goal is to create a critical mass of 5,500 to 6,500 students and
staff living on or within a short walking distance of its campus by the
Year 2002, including as many as 1,500 additional University student beds.
Combined with an additional 25,000 other students, faculty, staff and visitors,
and those who will be customers of The Apollo of Temple and related projects,
the purchasing power in the Main Campus area will then be sufficient to
entice additional business and cultural investments. A vibrant, lively
Temple Town with educational, cultural, recreational, and athletic activities
will, in turn, help attract students, employees and visitors to this academically
excellent and socially diverse public university.
In all these developments, Temple will continue being a good and progressive
neighbor in North Philadelphia while working together to improve the ambience
of the community.
Intercollegiate Athletics on the Main Campus
As we all know, a successful intercollegiate athletics program is a cornerstone
of strong campus life. Athletics play an important role in recruiting and
retaining many good students, in raising revenue from sources not otherwise
available, and in attracting many people to the campus. Athletics have
certainly helped raise Temple's name recognition and reputation across the
nation. Intercollegiate athletics at Temple are honest and good.
Driven by financial pressures, and because of their high visibility, these
programs are critically evaluated on every college campus. At Temple, it's
been (you'll excuse the expression) a "political football." There's
literally been open season on football by vocal faculty and news media,
for generations.
The major task for Athletics at Temple is to increase its revenues from
football and basketball ticket sales, television, sponsors and merchandise,
while also raising substantial endowment funds ($10 million) for the financial
aid awarded to the nearly 500 talented student-athletes in 20 sports at
the University.
Winning football games is, of course, indispensable to being a viable program.
Attracting substantial spectators is a companion need.
But, for Intercollegiate Athletics as a whole to be successful over the
long haul, two specific obstacles must be overcome.
The first is a combination of relative alumni apathy and active faculty
opposition to Division 1A football. For Temple, it's Division 1A football
or none (unless the Internet became a "home" field). Without
Division 1A football, Temple's basketball programs face a very steep, uphill
climb to maintain a national profile. That's because the NCAA's complex
restructuring of 1997 is grounded on enormous financial incentives for the
relatively few colleges in conferences that are deemed 1A, and "let
them eat cake" for the rest.
The new NCAA system rewards a college which has a majority of its sports
programs in a Conference where the majority of member schools play Division
1A football. The new system relegates all other Conferences and their members,
whether or not they have a 1A football program, to "have nots."
This is an unparalleled change in the athletics-entertainment context because
of the business nature of 1A football, with anti-trust implications.
A majority of Temple's athletic teams compete as members of the Atlantic
Ten, a non-1A Conference. The potential effect on Temple from the NCAA's
restructuring has not begun to be comprehended by the critics concerned
about their costs. But it is fully understood by Temple's Director of Athletics.
Correctly, he is seeking to educate the community and develop the broad-based
support he needs for long-term success.
The second obstacle to Intercollegiate Athletics relates to inadequate open
spaces for this Division 1A institution. All "home" games (excluding
Crew and Golf, of course) should be moved to Main Campus to increase spectators
and school spirit. For fourteen years, the University has sought such open
space from the City and School District, adjacent to Main Campus as playing
fields for soccer, baseball and softball.
We must bring closure to this issue. With substantial increase planned
in the undergraduate residential student population on the Main Campus during
the next five years, success on this second obstacle can then be overcome.
A Vibrant Health Sciences Center
During the past 15 years, the Health Sciences Center has been the object
of tremendous investments by the University in its Hospitals, the Medical
School, the Dental School, and the School of Pharmacy.
Those investments include the new Temple University Children's Hospital
with the companion Shriners Hospital for Children (opening in December and
early next year, respectively). The University's investments in the Health
Sciences have yielded outstanding educational and clinical results as well
as national and international recognition. The University's support for
the Health Sciences Center will continue in the context of today's wrenching
financial market in the delivery of health care.
May 22, 1997Priority 3:
Preserving Temple's Academic Excellence As A Public Research University
With Outstanding Graduate And Professional Education; Or, As Some Prefer,
Preserving Temple's Status As A"Carnegie Research I University"
[See Exhibits 9 through 15 for this section]
Academic excellence must be the consistent standard for Temple to succeed
in all its priorities.
Building on a broad range of strong undergraduate programs, Temple fulfills
a second important public service by offering outstanding graduate and professional
education at an affordable price for most students, and in supporting research
by its highly competent faculty.
"The University" is an expansive concept that develops the broadest
perspectives and interests through positive synergism among its parts.
It's not a parochial or limiting concept. It's not an undifferentiated
forum for competing interests of persons, groups, disciplines and costs.
It is, instead, a civilizing concept that develops and expands its component
parts into a larger, dynamic whole. Everyone benefits from being part of
"The University." Larger society also benefits in the long run
from the University's contributions - - educationally, culturally, aesthetically,
scientifically, technologically, and financially. Much more, then, is involved
than simple calculations of the financial costs and benefits of its various
parts.
Universities include a wide range of programs and interests, with differentiated
costs. Some programs "pay for themselves"; others are net financial
"losers." Some programs entail one-on-one instruction or expensive
laboratories; others include 200-student lecture classes.
Temple's Student "Mix" Must Be Improved to Maintain
Research I Status
To afford the graduate-research-professional mission, universities (including
Temple) engage in reallocating revenues. They recover some of the costs
in higher-cost academic levels or subject areas from an excess of net revenues
in lower-cost offerings.
This process of reallocation is a constant and necessary feature of research
universities. Without it, there would be no music, fine arts, theater,
or dance programs because they're considered too expensive even with the
great benefits they yield for the University and society. They can be sustained
only when the overall student body includes sufficient students and revenues
in less-expensive disciplines. (In health care, as another illustration
of this point, there would be little free hospital care for the indigent,
without a reallocation of revenues from commercially insured patients.)
Reallocation is a compromise within the University because "differential"
tuitions and fees cannot, as a practical matter and consistent with a public
mission, fully fill in the gaps. (For specific school-by-school cost-comparisons
at Temple, see Exhibit 15, "1996-97 Budgeted Subsidy Per Full-Time
Equivalent Student," derived from the "Full Revenue, Full-Expense
Budget for 1996-97.")
As indicated, Temple is having trouble in this area because it's an academically
top-heavy university, and therefore top-heavy in costs. Some 35% of the
students are in the highest academic levels - - Graduate or Professional
(Law, Medicine, Dentistry). This is a higher percentage than at any other
public research university in the region.
Correspondingly, whereas Lower Division Undergraduates (Freshmen and Sophomores)
constitute at least 50% of the overall student body at its peer public research
universities, Temple's Lower Division students account for only 34% of its
total. This is a lower percentage than at any other public research university
in the region.
Differences in costs among academic levels and among subject areas can reach
as much as a factor of 6. To afford a Research I University, it's therefore
imperative to have enough Lower Division students, and those in lower-cost
subject areas, to help "pay" for the graduate and professional
students' education, and for faculty research. (See the
Exhibits on
this
point.)
Temple's present student ratios (or "mixes") place undue cost
pressures on the University to fulfill this mission. A considerable increase
in undergraduate students, particularly in the Lower Division, is needed
for Temple to continue this mission. A critical decision for the Board
of Trustees will be to establish a timetable for reaching an appropriate
academic level "mix" following university-wide discussion led
by CFO Dorph on "Responsibility-Centered Management" during the
next academic year.
Selective Investments in Research
Beyond the issue of "mix," the University, to maintain this research
priority, should also redirect its research investments to specially-targeted
areas, centers and faculty, while reducing its support to others. The question
becomes: Which have the highest probability of future success, using a
cost/benefit analysis? Which deserve institutional research support (e.g.,
through "release time" from teaching), based on recent track records,
external findings, and probabilities of success? Which have the greatest
potential benefits for society?
With an improved student "mix," with a strategy of selective excellence
through targeted investments in research and graduate programs, and with
innovative use of technology, Temple can maintain its "Research I"
status, placed comfortably among the 100 top research universities in the
nation.
The Professional Schools
The professional schools are excellent. Two are also costly. Under the
leadership of Senior Vice President and Dean Malmud, the Medical School
is reviewing its strategic plan to insure its continued excellence through
increased productivity and forward-looking academic reforms.
The Dental School has grown strong academically and clinically. It is at
the top of the nation's dental schools in the number of applications for
the D.M.D. degree.
The Law School has reached national rankings in several areas, including
trial advocacy, and is a leader in developing international programs while
innovating in technology-based education.
Review of all Masters and Undergraduate Programs
In 1995, the University, under the leadership of Provost England, completed
a 5-year review of all Doctoral programs, reducing the number to 50. Each
program is obliged to maintain a high quality based on national benchmarks.
By the end of 1998, the University will have completed a multi-year process
reviewing all Masters programs. Some will be strengthened; others with
a low priority or demand will be terminated; and new Masters' programs will
be introduced in response to student- and employer-driven market demands.
All Undergraduate programs, including the Core Curriculum, are also being
reviewed to insure appropriate responsiveness to the market.
Finally, Provost England's provocative and forward-looking proposals to
reorganize administratively Temple's 14 schools and colleges, will reach
the Board in December 1997 for a decision.
In this era where the market and competition are driving down costs and
forging increased productivity, it bears repeating that Temple will sufficiently
differentiate itself and fulfill its mission only if it maintains programmatic
excellence. The University cannot be "all things to all people."
It cannot depend on under-cutting lower-cost, lower-quality "competitors"
at the expense of its own programmatic integrity and quality. "Business
as usual" won't work. And neither will "full-time faculty in
every classroom."
May 22, 1997Priority 4:
Undergraduate Admissions
[See Exhibits 16 through 17 for this section]
During its 113-year history, Temple has been a leader in providing higher
educational opportunities for generations of Americans. Between 1884 and
1965, when Temple became a State-related University, Temple's "safety
nets" in undergraduate admissions targeted and produced an abundance
of students in four groups.
1. Enterprising students who had to work during the day, and could attend
college only at night
This novel approach of Temple's Russell Conwell, also pursued by CCNY
and similarly city-based colleges at the close of the 19th century to meet
the "market-driven" demands and growing expectations of ambitious
immigrants, has long since become commonplace among American colleges.
2. Excellent students facing invidious bars ("quotas") because
of religious, ethnic, racial, gender or other bias
While discrimination exists in society and in the overall composition
within sectors of public and private higher education, the controlling factor
appears to be family income. The earlier explicit bars ("quotas")
have been substantially eliminated at most American colleges.
3. Highly motivated but academically under-prepared students, seeking a
chance to prove themselves (a variation on "open admission")
This "safety net" was a significant Temple contribution through
the 1960's.
Prior to the establishment of Community Colleges in the late part of the
1960's and before Temple became State-related in 1965 and evolved into a
Research I University, this "safety net" mission was important
and made sense. Today, it's a financially inappropriate and programmatically
questionable rationale for admissions.
Upon entrance, freshmen should be academically prepared for the rigors of
a university education. Too many freshmen are not, and "remediation"
is commonplace in the great majority of four-year colleges. The precise
causes may differ, but families and preparatory schools bear substantial
responsibility. The students involved are usually bright, committed and
determined; but their language skills (reading, writing) or math skills
are inadequate to meet the challenge of the University's freshmen curriculum.
For generations, Temple has been a leader in remediation. Careful analysis,
however, challenges the wisdom of that policy.
The University is investing substantial and scarce resources in extensive
remediation now available at Community Colleges at one-third the cost.
False expectations are created about possibly graduating from Temple without
adequate earlier preparation in high school or at Community College. Indeed,
with retention and graduation rates among "special admission"
students at half the rates of regularly admitted students at Temple, it
also makes little human sense for the University to continue this effort
on a grand scale.
Furthermore, and relevant to the enrollment issues facing the University:
soft enrollment from the suburbs raises the perception of an "admissions-enrollment
corollary" to Gresham's Law at work: "weak" students could
be driving away "good" students.
You may recall that Temple High School, disbanded in 1967 after 80 years,
was a staple for decades in dealing with inadequate pre-college preparation.
In later years, Temple has worked closely with individual Philadelphia
schools and the District on vertical and horizontal remediation programs,
with marginal success. And, Temple continued to offer extensive college
preparatory programs for its own specially-admitted students.
Those "remediation" activities will be diminished by the changes
in admission results described in the "Timelines for Action,"
and in the Provost's "Guidelines on What Preparation the University
Expects of its Freshmen" (available from the Office of Undergraduate
Admissions).
4. Highly-qualified students desiring quality higher education at affordable
costs and at convenient locations
This represents today's major, ongoing rationale and the main pool for Temple's
undergraduate admissions. It is not unlike the rationale in the
mid-19th century that led to establishing "Land Grant Colleges."
This pool reaches all demographic lines. As its suburban populations and
wealth have increased, Philadelphia's dominance in population, institutions
and convenience have eroded. Modest family incomes, however, do not stop
at the city line.
Temple cannot survive as a major university relying primarily on Philadelphia
students. Temple must attract a larger percentage of suburban students.
Compared with 20 years ago, many suburban students prefer to commute to
nearby suburban locations rather than to travel into the city as undergraduates.
Temple must attract as many as 25% more students from outside the region.
The issue for Temple is not race or gender or national origin or religion
or sexual orientation. The issue is: Who can benefit and add to the University's
mission? Who is likely to graduate without undue remediation? Who will
be motivated and rewarded through the education offered by a loyal, outstanding,
committed faculty?
May 22, 1997Priority 5:
Responding To Students, With Simplified Systems And Responsive People
[See Exhibits 18 through 36 for this section]
Ongoing efforts are seeking to insure simplified systems and a "Hi,
may I help you?" attitude with students. The goal is to develop an
efficient, caring, responsive, "can do" attitude and student-friendly
administration at all stages from pre-admissions to matriculation, advising,
graduation, and alumni.
This is ongoing priority #1.
In a large and entrenched bureaucracy, this is a continuous, ongoing challenge
for everyone who works and studies at Temple.
The Plan to Renew Temple's Mission and the "Six Clusters of
Priorities" in 1995-96 triggered this latest quest. The Kearney Report
is being implemented to reflect student-friendly, quality practices involving
all student ("customer") contact and service.
We also ask our students how to improve our services. Earlier in Spring
1997, a Student Opinion Survey was placed on the University e-mail system,
asking students to respond to a series of questions about services and college
life. A total of 857 students responded - - candidly and sometimes with
passion. The University received good grades for affordable tuition, accessible
professors, telephone registration, small classes, breadth of course selection,
security, and diversity. Low grades were given for bureaucratic red tape,
academic advising, the cost of parking, and long lines.
We are acting on these suggestions. We will continue listening to students
to improve and simplify their services.
For instance: a major structural ("systems") change becomes effective
this month with the merger of two offices: "Student Financial Services"
and "Student Financial Aid." To reasonable persons, this sound
like one service. But at Temple it's been two. They've been separated
for generations, to the detriment of good student relations. This single
service will now be provided at one place on each campus site, including
a newly-renovated (Spring 1998) location on the Main Campus.
The Registrar's central role is also changing. Over the next few months,
the registration of students is being decentralized within the 14 schools
and colleges, and campuses, through a combination of telephone, on-line
and in-person registration, increasing the focus on student information.
The staff of Undergraduate Admissions is being strengthened and retrained
in the months ahead to meet the imperatives of the competitive marketplace.
Another example of putting students first academically and socially, can
be gleaned from recreation. Students were the third priority in use of
recreational facilities, following higher priorities given to the College
of HPERD's academic classes and to Intercollegiate Athletics, respectively.
Student Recreation is now the first priority for new or existing facilities
dedicated to students. Students will also set the policies and oversee
all new student recreational facilities, including, for instance, who else
may use them, and under what terms and conditions.
Priority 6:
"The Plan To Renew Temple's Mission" And Increased Productivity;
Financial Stability And Restraint; Tuition Policies And The State's Annual
Appropriations; Fund-Raising
In view of the entire context, Temple University is on sound financial ground
in pursuing its mission and the priorities advanced in this report.
Standard and Poor's, in recently granting the University a bond rating of
"A," described the University's financial outlook on November
30, 1996, as follows:
"The outlook has been revised to stable from negative to reflect Temple's
successful implementation of university-wide cost cutting measures, program
restructuring, increased enrollment management and recruitment efforts,
successful fund raising efforts, and stable state support."
The Plan to Renew Temple's Mission
Two years ago, Temple embarked on a major internal restructuring as part
of The Plan to Renew Temple's Mission. The Plan is a vehicle aimed at Temple's
becoming the finest university of its kind by the Year 2000.
This was achieved primarily through the leadership of Executive Vice President
White.
Even so, Part I of the "Plan" represents only half of Temple's
full needs ($80 million) in advanced academic technology during the next
several years. Once again, as a public university, Temple is dependent on
the State for a substantial portion of the funds for Part II of the "Plan"
as a "match" to the University's own limited resources.
The State's Annual Appropriation and Tuition Policies
As a public university, Temple has basically two funding sources: tuition,
and the State's appropriation.
What is missing in Pennsylvania is a long-term commitment by the State to
contribute a fairer share of the funds to public universities. Specifically,
Temple's self-help to achieve its ambitious objectives can take it only
so far. Temple needs additional, targeted funds from the State to continue
doing its job well.
Temple people appreciate the State's support whose major function is to
maintain both a high quality education and an affordable tuition. But the
State's appropriation to the University has come up short for two decades.
If Pennsylvania were at the median point (25th of 50 States), Temple would
now be receiving (under the existing base distributions), $52.4 million
more annually in appropriations.
Investment Policy, Private Fund-Raising
On another front, the University's earlier conservative Investment Policy
has been criticized by some persons for not taking sufficient risks to increase
the principal of Temple's modest "true" endowment of $58 million.
But that "no-risk" policy performed reasonably well in "bear"
periods. It has since been diversified.
In private fund-raising, a bright spot is "The Commonwealth Challenge,
Plus" Campaign. Its original goal of $30 million and revised goal
of $40 million have been exceeded. A total of $46 million has been
raised as of May 1997, and the total is expected to reach $47.5 million
by October 31. As a result, all specific goals envisioned in creating "The
Commonwealth Challenge, Plus" Campaign have been achieved.
A new campaign is on the horizon. "The Campaign for Temple" is
expected to dwarf all earlier fund-raising campaigns in Temple's history.
It will focus on endowments for student scholarships, faculty support,
and academic programmatic excellence. As indicated last year when preliminary
planning was set in motion for a new campaign, an official launching of
"The Campaign for Temple" is anticipated during the 1998-99 academic
year.
May 22, 1997Concluding Remarks
In approaching the tasks we have outlined, we should remember that Temple
has terrific assets.
Each year, more than 29,000 students from all backgrounds choose Temple
as their University. Temple is an educationally superior institution with
great people and a proud history. It has an excellent faculty, incredibly
motivated and resourceful students, very successful graduates, a dedicated,
hard-working staff, and a worthy mission.
The current preoccupation is with critical margins, not the soul of Temple.
It's with adjusting for a long-term future in a rapidly changing context.
Financially, Temple's house is in order and the focus is where it should
be: on the strategic future of the University.
It's a future filled with opportunities, challenges and assorted risks.
Temple has always been resilient in those situations.
Temple's actions are aimed at taking a qualitative leap forward over a multi-year
period. Temple is continuously reforming, refining and improving its mission
in terms of changing needs, technologies, demography and the economy of
the future.
Temple is rededicating itself as a critical provider of quality higher education
for the highly motivated, bright, ambitious, talented, diverse, hard-working
students of all backgrounds and locations in this region, nation and world.
Critical to our future are innovation and the creative use of new technologies.
We are molding a University of the Future different than a University of
the Past. Founder Russell Conwell accomplished this feat in a less complicated
era 113 years ago. The challenge for everyone at Temple is to think creatively,
to take chances, to devise breakthroughs similar to Conwell's. Success
will be built on simple concepts satisfying the human and educational needs
of tomorrow rather than those of yesteryear.
The Temple family, I believe, will succeed.
Return to Main Page