Skip to content
  • Print


Office of the President
University of the Pacific
3601 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95211

April 25 2000

University of the Pacific
Institutional Priorities Committee
Taylor Conference Room
April 25, 2000

IPC Members Present: Benedetti, Borlik, Brock, Cavanaugh, Chambers, Fletcher, Fox, Gilbertson, Myers, Oppenheimer
Guests: Tom Rajala

Minutes from April 18 meeting were reviewed and approved.


The time to reconsider the budget based on recent changes is now. Due to some changes in the budget caused by outsourcing the bookstore and other circumstances, funding initiatives will be discussed. The Second Tier will be considered, plus new budget requests of all of the Vice Presidents and ASUOP's Recycling Proposal.

Next week's agenda will include a presentation from the school of Dentistry from 3-4pm and then 4-5 will be allotted for budget discussions concerning Second-tier, recycling, and other budget initiatives.

May 5th, Bill Weary will discuss the MVP workshop with the committee. We will be planning the June 6th workshop.

Agenda Items:

Tom Rajala on Competitor Institutions. Tom Rajala, Associate Provost for Admissions, discussed the problems with defining a competitor institution for Pacific. However, he also talked about the information received in his department concerning Admitted Student Questionnaires.

Competitor institutions

There are three ways the Admissions Office can gauge competition for students.

  1. Ask student where else they have applied for admission.
  2. Find out where else students send their SAT scores.
  3. The Admitted Student Questionnaire is the best method. Out of 2100 surveys sent out, 1059 responded, or around 49%. Out of the 1059 respondents, 475 enrolled here. 71% were female, and 76% were from California. 40% were within 100 miles of campus. These numbers reflect a true representation of the students that go to this school.

These qualities the students stated as being both important for them and evident at UOP:

  1. availability of majors
  2. commitment to undergraduate education
  3. personal attention from the faculty
  4. Only 7% of the students considered UOP a "National" University.
  5. 93% of students relied on college produced publications for their primary information about a school.

It is surprising that our competitors are mostly state schools.

According to the data, the #1 competitor is UC Davis, and the conclusion is that we are doing well against them (from the numbers that choose UOP compared to the numbers that choose UCD. UOP does not do well in competing for students against Santa Clara, but in general we are strong competitors to all of the other small privates in California (LMU, USF, St. Mary's, and USD). Right now, we are not in the position to compete against a Stanford quality institution.

There is a concern that the new UC Merced will draw at least 50 students from our admitted pool. The Provost and Joe Hartley have discussed creating partnerships with UC Merced.

There is a need to educate potential students on financial aid possibilities. This comes from or competition analysis that tells us how we can talk among ourselves to improve our image.

CSU schools seem to be at an image level lower than UOP's for admitted students. However, UOP does not have the prestige level of the UC system from the data. We can conclude that the UCs are UOP's main competition.

Possibly, Pacific should consider expanding our presence in Oregon and maybe Colorado. Although there are lots of cross-applicants with NYU and BU, the Northeast is a developmental market at best. Most of the cross-applicants can probably be considered California residents. In terms of comparing ourselves to competitor schools, the comparison would be futile. Santa Clara and University of San Diego have the most cross-applicants of all the small privates. A comparison with the UCs would not be helpful.

Rajala will ask ASQ for a follow up order to see to what extent COP students are professionally driven.

What should IPC do to more effectively compete? Work on improving housing, social life, recreational facilities, and academic facilities. Viewbooks should look at surroundings of UOP. Crime is what is most unfavorable for applicants. The perceived image of Stockton must change.

V.P. Cavanaugh suggested that these numbers are extremely important for the upcoming MVP retreat. Dr. Oppenheimer added that we should know about the majors selections in order to find out in what areas we are competitive and where we are not.

Budget Discussions. Due to budget changes, like the bookstore, there are changes in the financial projections. UOP is still projecting 710 students for budget purposes. We could easily have 760 though, like last year. We assume the yield rate of admitted to confirmed will fall because we are competing for better students.

New initiatives to discuss for inclusion in the second tier:

1. Recycling $32,661

2. Existing Academic Facilities Improvement Fund $50,000

3. Learning Assessment $25,000

4. Honors Program Supplement $25,000

5. General Education Faculty Development unknown

Also, UOP is projecting a $200,000 shortfall in gift assessment, which will be around $400,000 instead of $600,000. The budget shortfall makes this a strong potential first tier item.

The meeting was adjourned at 5pm.