3.1.1. The institution should be the same 'type' of college or university; that is, the mission, role assignment, and clientele to be served should be similar.

3.1.2. The institution should have a comparable size enrollment insofar as this may be appropriate. It is not intended that the size of student body be identical, but institutions with much greater student enrollments should not be included unless other factors under consideration are very strong and compelling.

3.1.3. Generally, only institutions that are state supported should be included on the list of comparable institutions. However, comparisons with private institutions may be included if there is strong justification for the same.

3.2. Specific Considerations - In proposing institutions to be included in a total list of comparable institutions, the following specific comparisons should be made in guiding decisions:

3.2.l. Institutions with specific functions beyond the scope of the Utah institution with which it is to be compared should be excluded as may be appropriate. (For example, land-grant universities with strong programs in agriculture and natural resources should not be included on comparison lists with the University of Utah. Institutions with doctoral programs should not be on comparison lists with Weber State University. Institutions with law schools and medical schools should not be included on comparison lists with Utah State University. Two-year institutions serving special functions and special clientele schools should not be included on comparison lists with our rural community colleges. Urban community colleges, for example, usually have a large student body of minority and disadvantaged students, and the student body and program offerings would be quite different from our rural community colleges. Our urban community colleges should be compared with two-year colleges with extensive applied technology program offerings, and two-year colleges of a similar size but with a stronger emphasis on academic offerings should not be considered since they would not be recruiting the same type faculty as would our urban community colleges.)

3.2.2. The ratio of graduate students (and especially doctoral-level graduate students) should compare favorably with the ratio of such students in the Utah System of Higher Education institution under consideration. (This criterion will be particularly important in considering comparable institutions for the two universities.)

3.2.3. Sponsored research is a very important responsibility of the universities. In considering other institutions for inclusion on lists of comparable institutions with the University of Utah and Utah State University, the scope and volume of sponsored research should be appraised.

3.2.4. To the extent that information is available, consideration should be given to institutions to which and from which persons holding faculty appointments have been successfully recruited over the past five year. (This includes recruitment of faculty from Utah institutions as well as recruitment of faculty by USHE institutions.)

3.3. Reporting of Salaries for Comparison Purposes - Both salary and total compensation (including fringe benefits and other forms of compensation) should be considered in making comparison of salaries. These calculations should show a breakdown for each academic rank and a percentile of the total range of salaries and other compensation.

3.4 Changes in Lists of Comparable Institutions - Consideration for changing lists of comparable institutions will be given annually prior to or during budget hearing time in September. The institution applying for a change should submit to the Commissioner the necessary supporting data and the same will be reviewed and verified by the Commissioner prior to her or his making a recommendation to the Board. Once an institution has been placed on a comparable list, it will generally not be removed for at least three years.