Honey of a deal

By Kevin Fitzsimons David Heilman, apiarist at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, explains the fine points of honey to Katie Kumbongsi, systems engineer at the Medical Center, right, and Sheila Stovall, an accountant at the Research Foundation, during the Hidden Benefits Fair held Dec. 13 at French Field House. More than 1,100 Ohio State employees visited the annual fair, sponsored by the University Staff Advisory Committee to showcase the many not-so-obvious benefits of working at the University.

Report confirms OSU is affordable, diverse, productive

A public institution performance report issued Dec. 13 by the Ohio Board of Regents reinforces Ohio State's status as the most diverse, affordable and productive research institution in the state. It also shows that Ohio State serves the broad cross section of Ohio's college students while consistently increasing its freshman retention rate -- which now stands at 84 percent -- and providing an average student time-to-completion rate of 4.7 years for undergraduates, well below the statewide average of 5.3 years it takes to graduate.

"The State-Supported Ohio College and University Performance Report: Student Outcomes and Experiences" was released to Gov. Bob Taft and the public after a yearlong analysis of data contributed by the 38 public universities and medical, community and technical colleges in the state. The report examines performance measures ranging from the types of faculty teaching first-year students to employment outcomes for graduates. The full document is available on the Web at www.regents.state.oh.us/perfrpt/student_outcomes.html.

Ohio State is supportive of the statewide push to assess higher education, said Executive Vice President and Provost Edward J. Ray. "The Ohio State University is committed to measuring and evaluating the quality and effectiveness of all of our programs and the success of our students, and we strongly support the state effort to do so for all of higher education in Ohio," he said. "As a public university, we have an obligation to provide evidence of our effective use of public resources to the people of Ohio."

In fact, Ohio State has a history of self-assessment, and since 1997 has measured its performance against nine national benchmark institutions that are similar in organization and of highest academic standing. In addition, Impact Ohio: An Academic Plan for the 21st Century, a five-year strategy designed to transform Ohio State into one of the world's truly great teaching and research institutions, includes a built-in "Academic Scorecard" to ensure that the University constantly monitors its progress.

Taft requested the annual performance report in November 1999, outlining four reasons for the analysis: to provide accountability, justify Ohio's financial commitment to higher education, help prospective students determine which institution is best suited to their needs, and create benchmarks to help institutions identify their strengths and weaknesses.

The report notes that public institutions in Ohio vary widely in their missions and traditional populations served. The report also focuses strongly on the first-year experience in response to Taft's suggestion that its findings would help prospective students select a school.

Peer schools in Ohio

Ohio State has prepared a separate analysis in which Ohio State's data are compared to its closest peers: Ohio, Kent State, Bowling Green State and Miami universities and the University of Cincinnati. UC and Ohio State are the only two public Research I institutions in the state. Among the findings of that comparison:

• Ohio State's in-state undergraduate tuition, at $4,383, is lower than tuition at the five peer schools and below the $4,616 overall state average, which factors in all four-year institutions. Graduate tuition, at $6,048, is lower than all but Kent State and below the $6,113 overall state average.

• Ohio State's 1998 external research funding, $124.2 million from federal sources, $40.4 million in industry funds and $23.2 million in other support, exceeds all other public schools in the state by a significant margin. The second-highest in the state, the University of Cincinnati, received $90.3 million, $24.4 million and $5.5 million, respectively.

• Ohio State's percentages of Asian American and Hispanic students is equal to or higher than its peers; OSU matches Kent State in enrollment of African Americans at 8 percent. UC enrolls the highest percentage of African Americans among the peers, at 15 percent.

• Ohio State's 4 percent enrollment of international students exceeds all other peer schools' percentages of international students.

• 84 percent of OSU law graduates pass the bar exam and go on to work in Ohio at an average salary of $52,500, compared to the overall state average of 78 percent bar exam passage and overall state average salary of $44,500.

• Ohio State's 56 percent six-year graduation rate exceeds the overall state average of 50 percent, but is fourth among the closest peers. Miami's 79 percent six-year graduation rate is the highest in the state.

The whole story

Because of its focus on undergraduate education, the report "tells only part of the story," said Martha Garland, vice provost and dean of undergraduate studies. "If you're going to measure the performance of Ohio State University, you have to draw a much bigger picture."

For example, the report does not take into account Ohio State's impact on the state through its Extension network, its far-reaching graduate education offerings and professional programs, the University's commitment to advancing education-industry technology partnerships or its attention to P-12 education. Ray said these and other activities "add significantly to the student experience we provide and contribute greatly to the state, as well."

When placed in the context of "Measuring Up 2000," a report produced by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, the Regents' report underscores how well Ohio students do when they attend college, considering that they do so in a state in which higher education appears to have been undervalued historically, Ray said.

The national report issued Ohio a grade of D- in affordability. Ray said the report "failed to explain that tuitions at Ohio schools are higher than in some states because our level of public support has been lower historically than that of many states. It also showed that our students are less prepared for college than those in other states, noting as well our citizens' below-average participation rate in higher education.

"The good news, which the Regents report shows, is that when Ohio students do attend college, they finish at high rates."

Crunching numbers

Regents analysts used the Higher Education Information (HEI) System, the Board of Regents' information system, to compile parts of the report. HEI previously had been used to determine the state's subsidy to institutions, providing data on credit hours taught. Ohio State officials believe the use of the data for the performance report purposes produced unexpected and sometimes puzzling results.

"The Regents have made a good-faith effort to respond to the governor's request for information," Garland said. "The current study asked questions that the information system wasn't really designed to answer, and we think some of the results need further assessment before we can feel absolutely comfortable with what the data say.

"We are confident that once appropriate adjustments are made, the process begun this year will prove to be a valuable benchmark instrument for the institutions and the state's policymakers."

Ohio State officials say the future is undoubtedly brighter for higher education in the state because of what the Regents report says about colleges and universities' role in Ohio citizens' quality of life.

"We thank Gov. Bob Taft for asking the Regents to prepare this report," Ray said. "Governor Taft understands the need for our graduates to be prepared to live and work in a 21st century knowledge society. We look forward to continued work with him and the Ohio Board of Regents to improve the state of higher education in Ohio."

Units form alliance to elevate primary care research at Ohio State

Funded by a $1.15 million Department of Health and Human Services grant, the Ohio State Primary Care Research Institute is being established to dramatically expand the primary care research conducted at the University.

The project responds to Ohio State's Academic Plan, which seeks to develop 10 nationally recognized interdisciplinary research centers over the next decade, said Larry Gabel, director of the institute.

"As a group, we want to be one of those 10 centers that the University is going to give extra support to," Gabel told charter members of the institute gathered recently for an organizational meeting. "We're going to do that by combining the forces of Internal Medicine, Family Medicine and Ambulatory Pediatrics."

Charter faculty are appointed from each of those three academic units, from selected other University departments, and from the Columbus Neighborhood Health Centers (CNHC).

The collaboration is being coordinated by Mary Jo Welker, chair of family medicine; Robert A. Murden, director of general internal medicine; and Olivia Thomas, director of ambulatory pediatrics.

"I think we know that primary care has not been one of the primary forces at OSU," Welker told institute members during the meeting. Combining the talents of the three units, and others, would dramatically increase the potential for grants and research results, she said.

According to organizers, the main objectives of the institute are to:

• Staff, organize and maintain the institute with a core group of senior and junior faculty from those departments involved.

• Partner with seven neighborhood centers (all in health care shortage areas) to establish a community-based primary care network.

• Enhance the primary care research environment at Ohio State to achieve parity with other clinical research units as measured by external funding, numbers of publications, and impact of research findings on clinical practice and teaching.

The neighborhood health centers, with a 40 percent minority patient load, will serve as the research "laboratories." Research will be multifaceted, Welker said, based on interests and expertise of senior faculty who also will mentor junior faculty to develop research skills and, eventually, serve as principal investigators themselves.

Target populations served by CNHC are individuals and families at risk for poor health outcomes, Welker said, including those who are low income, the uninsured, minorities, pregnant women, the elderly, persons with special needs such as mental illness, HIV-infected persons, the homeless and substance abusers. CNHC is primarily intended to serve people excluded from health care because of inability to pay.

The major health problems to be researched include diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity, stroke and HIV/AIDS, Gabel said.

"One of the main foci of research will be disparities in minority health care compared to the majority population," Gabel said.

Research also will focus on how to capitalize on new technology in order to better communicate and interact with patients.

"There are new opportunities that are available to us because of technology that will change the way medicine is practiced," Gabel said.

The timeline organizers have developed calls for the institute to be up and running by January. By March, organizers expect to develop a strategic plan for the next five years that will get them past the three years of funding provided by the grant.

Through its grant application, the group also is committed to three ongoing large (such as National Institutes of Health) grant projects and three smaller research projects, Gabel said.

"I would like to think that by June we would have developed at least 10 NIH-type grant applications," Gabel said.

Other key dates for implementation include:

• September 2001 -- Link the institute to CNHC's HealthPro Solutions computer information system and the Pharmacy Database, the largest and most comprehensive available in the nation.

• December 2002 -- Submit an Academic Center Proposal following the University's
• guidelines.

The proposal will be submitted to the Council on Academic Affairs (CAA) and forwarded to various committees and groups for review. The CAA then recommends to the Senate, which recommends to the Board of Trustees, which is empowered to establish academic centers.