Currently the model uses single-year comparisons which are subject to greater annual variation. A better approach would be multiple-year comparisons which are better for tracking trend data. Two possible methods we might suggest would be (a) comparing 2005/06 data to either a prior 3-year or 5-year average or (b) comparing the most recent 2- or 3-year averages to prior 3- or 5-year averages.  Either
of these methods would help to reduce the misleading results that can arise from single-year data comparisons. 

The model excludes a significant proportion of undergraduate students from eligibility for additional points (non-Florida students).

The model fails to recognize students who may be working and as a result take longer to graduate. We believe it is important to differentiate between fulltime versus part-time enrollment when calculating these rates.  

Also, it is important to recognize that some degree programs, particularly those in the medical professions have required clinical practice requirements and as a result take longer then 4 years to complete.

By awarding the same 4 point value to 4 year students who graduate in 4 years and AA students who graduate in 2 years, Universities would be encouraged to focus on AA students. Additionally, why use
3-year graduation rates for AA transfers as opposed to 2 and 4-year rates?  The 2 and 4-year rates seem to be the standard used across the country.

By rewarding the speed of graduation, Universities would be encouraged to admit only the top students as well as those without previous academic credit that may push them beyond the 4 year window.

It is interesting to note that UNF’s graduation and retention rates exceed those at other institutions that enroll commuter/non-traditional, part-time students (UWF, FGCU, FAU).  Such comparisons to our closest peers may be more appropriate than against universities that have traditional full time student bodies (UF, FSU, etc.).

Additionally, a mechanism needs to be put in place that provides credit for students that transfer to other Florida Universities.  It might be better to track students who start at institutions like UNF to see if they graduate from other state institutions (e.g. UF). If we are talking about system successes, it might be beneficial to track students from their first admitting university.

The listing of emerging technologies is open for discussion because some areas are not supported in the current job market place.

Based upon the comments above, the Faculty Association Budget Advisory Committee believes the current State University Undergraduate Performance Model is flawed and more importantly that a single model may not be appropriate to evaluate the diverse institutions that compose the Florida SUS. Therefore, the committee recommends that the State University System look at its Mission statement and develop a Performance Model or Multiple Performance Models that provide appropriate incentives to meet its mission while recognizing the unique characteristics of the Universities and their constituencies.

From a performance improvement perspective, the Faculty Association Budget Advisory Committee supports recently instituted UNF university-funded financial aid programs for merit scholarships as well as need-based scholarships. These scholarships should have a positive impact on both student retention rates and graduation rates. Additionally, the Faculty Association Budget Advisory Committee supports a new student tracking system that allows Advising to work with students to optimize their scheduling of academic courses as well as better assist students having academic difficulty.