document resume consolazio, william v. title the dynamics … · 2013-12-24 · document resume. he...

ED 057 738

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 002 721

Consolazio, William V.The Dynamics of Academic Science.National Science Foundation, Washingtdn, D.C.Jan 67196p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 20402 ($.60)

MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58*Educational Finance; *Federal Aid; *Government Role;*Higher Education; *Science Education; ScienceFacilities

ABSTRACTThe interaction of the American system of higher

education with the Federal Government represents an exceedinglycomplex system that requires considerable study for properappreciation and understanding. It is the broad objective of thisreport to further such appreciation and understanding specificallyby: (1) developing a profile of the sources of production ofscientific and technological manpower of U.S. universities andcolleges; (2) assembling meaningful data on the nature, level, anddistribution of Federal funds for academic science; (3) evolving andimproving concepts and measuring techniques for ascertaining thecontributions of academic institutions to scientific andtechnological manpower resources; and (4) testing a model for theperiodic examination of the relation of Federal funds to academicscience in particular, and to institutions of higher education ingeneral. (HS)

SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICEThe ERIC Facility has assignedthis document for processingto:

In our judgement, this documentis also of interest to the clearing-houses noted to the right. Index-ing should reflect their specialpoints of view,

THE -

DYNAMICSOF ACADEMICSCIENCE

A DEGREE PROFILE OF ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

p AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE

Pc'TO UNIVERSITIES AND`COLLEGES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY'AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.

National Science FoundationWashington, D.C. 20550

,:lanuary 1961 NSF: 67-6

3

THEDYNAMICS

OF ACADEMICSCIENCE

A Degree Profile of Academic Science and Technology

and the Contributions of Federal Funds for AcademicScience to Universities and Colleges

William V. ConsolazioNational Science Foundation

Washington, D.C. 20550

January 1967

2,

t???

t:

For sale hy the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 - Price 60 cents

FOREWORD

The Dynamics of Academic Science

The interaction of the American system of higher educationwith the Federal Government represents an exceedingly

complex system whkh requires considerable study for properappreciation and understanding. The National Science Founda-tion is very much concerned with this interaction and carries outa continuous program of analysis to obtain a better understand-ing of the important factors of the Government-university rela-tionship. This program of evaluation involves both studies whichare financed by the National Science Foundation and are carriedout by non-Government institutions or individuals, as well asstudies carried out by NSF organizational units or individualsin those units.

The report, The Dynamics of Academic Science," is the prod-uct of a study carried out by Dr. William V. Consolazio at atime when he was assigned to the NSF Planning Organization.The study introduces some novel and useful indices .to relatesuch factors as institutional funding, degree production, etc., toFederal support, and reveals several interesting trends. The con-clusions reached in the study are those of Dr. Consolazio (arrivedat, of course, after many discussions with other staff membersand interested individuals) and do not necessarily reflect opin-ions of the National Science Foundation. However, this doesnot detract anything from this document, which represents animportant step in our attempt to obtain further understandingof the dynamics of academic scicnce and the relationship of theFederal Government to this system.

January 1967

LELAND J. HAWORTH,Director, National Science Foundation.

111

PREFACE

The academic institution probably has contributed more toscience and to learning generally than any other of man's socialinventions. It may be the most vital social force in Westerncivilization.

In the United States the institution of higher education issteeped in a tradition of local autonomy. This localized inde-pendence now faces new challenges. Under the pressures of along-term and persistent economic need, new forms of institu-tional funding have gained influence and now pose a challengeto the institution's ability to determine its own destiny. In 1940Federal funds for higher education were relatively negligible. Infiscal year 1963 the institutions of higher education in the UnitedStates received in excess of $1 billion in Federal funds for aca-demic science. This sum constituted about 21 percent of thetotal income of the 700 it: stitutions of higher learning receivingthis aid. With what effects?

One approach to an upderstanding of the relationships whichhave developed between the Federal Government and the aca-demic institution is statistical. This approach requires the identi-fication, characterization, and subsequent analysis of all institu-tional resources. To accomplish these ends necessitates specializedeconomic and educational resource data based upon the aca-demic institution's total income, the size and character of itsstudent body (with special reference to graduate students andstudents of science) , the size and character of its faculty, andthe nature of its facilities. These are the inputs. There needsto be, furthermore, some specialized statistical techniques: somewhich are now readily available and some which must be fash-ioned for the purpose. These techniques must seek out therelationships between an institution's output of trained sciencegraduates at various academic levels and productivity in scienceand technology. With such data and their related analyses, onemay partially gauge the Federal impact on academic science.

If national planning for academic science is to have validity,then the resources availablemanpoWer, facilities, incomemustbe examined periodically and in a consistent fashion. To plansensibly the Nation's educational future, meaningful compari-sons are required which can be applied to individual institu-

tions and to various classes and types of institutions. In turn,Federal funds to these institutions must be provided in the lightof such comparisons and such plans.

For much valuable assistance and advice I thank the rnembf..rsof NSF's Planning Organization and specifically these membersof the Foundation: Charles Cohen, Joyce Flamaty, Nathan Kas-sack, Richard Mayer, and Dominic Sorrentino. I especially wishto express my indebtedness to Henry Birnbaum, Charles Falkand Louis Levin for their contributions to the organization andreview of the manuscript. I am also very much indebted tomy former associatesHarry Alpert, Samuel Aronoff, W!'liamColman, Arthur Grad and Alan Watermanfor having read themanuscript and for many constructive suggestions. Finally, Iwant to express my appreciation to Leland J. Haworth, theDirector of the Foundation, for his understanding of the needfor studies of this type and for his encouragement in this effort.

This manuscript is, of course, the effort of one man and sub-ject to his biases and inadequacies. Thus, the conclusions andinterpretations reached are solely my own and not necessarilythose of the National Science Foundation.

VI

WILLIAM V. CONSOLAZIO,January 1967.

1.7

CONTENTS

PageI. GLOSSARY OF SPECIAL TERMS 1

IL STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 5Objectives 5Summary 5

Conclusions 7

'JAI. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS 9State of Statistical Information 9Statistical Measures for Universities and Colleges 9Gains Attributable to Federal Funds 10Marginal and Nonrecipients of Federal Funds 11Institutions Dependent on Federal Funds 14Federal Funds and The Future of Academic

Science 15

W. GOVERNMENT-ACADEMIC SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS 17World War II and Its Consequences 17The Influence of The Sputniks 19The Present 20The Need for A Public Policy for Academic

Science 22

V. STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS 25Objectives 25Basic Premises 25The Academic Institution 27The Substance of Academic Science 30Funding Characteristics 31Manpower Characteristics 34Comparative Measures (Indices) of Institutional

Productivity and Federal Influence 35

VI. THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND ITS RESOURCES . . . 39The Universe of Higher Education 39A ProfiTe of the Degree-Accredited Institutions 41The Economics of Higher Education 45

VII

PageVII. PATTERNS OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE 53

Distribution by Agency 53Federal Funds by Institution Class and Control 54Federal Funds by Level of Support 57Federal Funds and Multiple Support of Aca-

demic Science 58

VIII. THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDS ON THE ACADEMICINSTITUTION 61

The Academic Budget and Federal Funds 61Federal Funds and Productivity in Science

Education 61Federal Funds and Institution Types 67Institutions with Major Dependence on Federal

Funds 70

IX. NONRECIPIENTS OE FEDERAL FUNDS 73A Profile 73Interpretation of Data 74

X. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ENROLLING NEGROSTUDENTS PREDOMINANTLY 77

A Profile 77Interpretation of Data 79

XI. UNIVERSITIES ENGAGED IN MEDICAL EDUCATION 81A Manpower Profile 81Funding Characteristics 82Interpretations and Implications 82

XII. STATISTICS AND PREDICTABILITY 87Medical Education and the Level of Institu-

tional Funding 87A Profile of the Individual University 90A Profile of the Individual Liberal Arts College 92The Value of Academic Statistics 92

XIII. NOTES AND REFERENCES

FIGURES

I. The Relationship of Total Enrollment to theEducational and General Income for Class AInstitutions

2. The Relationship of Graduate Enrollment to theEducational and General Income for Class AInstitutions

VIII

95

47

48

FIGURES (Cont'd)3. The Relationship of Science and Technology De-

gree Productivity to the Educational and Gen-eral Income for Class A Institutions

4. The Relationship of the Educational and GeneralIncome for Universities and Colleges to theGraduate Education Index (Re) 51

5. The Relationship of Federal Funds for AcademicScience to the Educational and General Incomefor Class A Institutions 62

6. The Relationship of Degree Productivity in Sci-ence and Technology in Universities and Col-leges to the Federal Funds for Academic ScienceImpact Index (Rf e) 63

7. The Relationship of Federal Funds for AcademicScience in Universities and Colleges to the Sci-ence Education Index (Rs) 64

8. The Relationship of Science and EngineeringDoctoral Degrees to Federal Funds for AcademicScience for Class A Institutions 65

9. The Relationship of Federal Funds for AcademicScience in Universities and Colleges to Degreesin Science and Technology 66

Page

49

TABLES

1. Enrollment and Degrees Granted by All U.S. In-stitutions of Higher Education in AcademicYear 1962-1963 40

2. Total Degrees Granted in Science and Technologyin the United States in Academic Year 1962-1963 41

3. Enrollment and Degrees Granted in Science andTechnology by Class and Control in 1063Degree-Accredited Universities and Colleges inAcademic Year 1962-1963 42

4. Enrollment and Degrees Granted in the Sciencesof Academic Institutions Rank Ordered by theEducational and General Income, AcademicYear 1962-1963 46

5. Federal Funds for Academic Science by Agency, byClass and Control of Institution, Fiscal Year 1963. 55

6. Federal Support of Academic Science by Agency,Ordered by Level of Federal Funds for Aca-demic Science, Fiscal Year 1963 56

IX

PageTABLES (Cont'd)

7. Frequency With Which Academic Institutions Re-ceive Multiple Support from Funds for Scienceby Federal Agencies 59

8. Funding and Manpower. Characteristics of Degree-Accredited Institutions by Class and Control ... 68

9. Manpower and Funding Characteristics of MedicalEducation Associated Universities by Control ... 83

APPENDICES (Tables)

A-1 Selected Funding and Manpower Characteristicsin Science and Technology of Degree-AccreditedInstitutions Receiving Federal Funds for Aca-demic Science in Fiscal Year 1963 and AcademicYear 1962-63 Arranged Alphabetically by Stateand Class 106

A-2 Selected Funding and Manpower Characteristicsin Science and Technology of Degree-AccreditedInstitutions Not Receiving Federal Funds forAcademic Science in Fiscal Year 1963 and Aca-demic Year 1962-63 Arranged Alphabetically byState and Class 140

B-1 Accredited D2gree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered 13); Level of Federal Fundsfor Academic Science Fiscal Year 1963 158

B-2 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Educational and Gen-eral Income Academic Year 1962-1963 159

B-3 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institut-tions Rani- Ordered by Research and Educa-tional Incon.- Academic Year 1962-1963 160

B-4 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Total Enrollment Aca-demic Year 1962-1963 161

B-5 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Enrollment for Gradu-ate Studies Academic Year 1962-1963 162

136 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Commitment to Educa-tion in the Sciences (S&T DP) Academic Year1962-1963 163

APPENDICES (Tables) Cont'd PageB-7 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-

tions Rank Ordered by Doctoral Degrees inScience and Engineering Academic Year 19621963 164

B-8 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Master's Degrees inScience and Engineering Academic Year 19621963 165

B-9 Accredited Degree-Granting Educational Institu-tions Rank Ordered by Bachelor's Degrees inScience and Engineering Academic Year 19621963 166

C-1 Manpower Dynamics of Degree-Granting Accred-ited Universities and Colleges by InstitutionClass in Academic Year 1962-1963 167

C-2 Manpower Dynamics of Dcgree-Granting Accred-ited Universities and Colleges by InstitutionClass in Academic Year 1962-1963 168

C-3 Federal Agency Obligations for Academic Scienceby Class and Control of Academic Institutions 169

C-4 Comparison of Federal Funds for Academic Sci-ence Data to Data Reported in Federal Fundsfor Research, Development and Other ScientificActivities for Fiscal Year 1963 170

C-5 Manpower Resources of Universities ancl CollegesOrdered by Level of Federal Funds for Aca-demic Science Fiscal Year 1963 171

C-6 Influence of Federal Funds on Academic Scienceby Agency 172

C-7 Profile of Degree-Accredited Institutions ReceivingFederal Support for Academic Science by Agency 173

C-8 Relationship Between the Academic Budget ofUniversities and Colleges and Federal Funds forAcademic Science 174

C-9 Manpower Dynamics in Higher Education and theTotal Research and Education Budgets of Uni-versities and Colleges 175

C-10 Academic Institutions Receiving in Excess of FortyPercent of Total Income from Federal Fundsfor Academic Science 176

C-11 Comparison of Recipient Institutions to Nonrecip-ients of Federal Funds for Academic Science . . 177

XI

11

cf, T.7717,

PageAPPENDICES (Tables) Cont'dC-12 Manpower and Funding Characteristics of Uni-

versities and Colleges Enrolling _PredominantlyNegro Stucknts 178

0-13 Comparison of Manpower and Funding Charac-teristics of Medical Education and NonmedicalEducation Engaged Universities 179

0-14 Funding and Manpower Characteristics of ClassA Private Control Medical Education AssociatedUniversities Rank Ordered by Federal Funds . 181

C-15 Rank Order of 200 Academic Institutions by Fund-ing and by Productivity in Science EducationAcademic Year 1962-1963 (Fiscal Year 1963) .. 183

I. GLOSSARY OF SPECIAL TERMS

Academic Science: All those aspects of science and technology whichare part of the curriculum, teaching, or study (research) activitiesof institutions of higher education, exclusive of the activities ofFederal contract research centers:

AEC: Atomic Energy Commission.Class A Institution: An institution of higher learning that in academic

year 1962-1963 awarded at least one doctorate in science or engineer-ing, or at least one doctor of medicine or dentistry.

Class B Institution: An institution that in academic year 1962-1963awarded at least ate master's degree in science or engineering or atleast one doctor of -veterinary medicine, but no doctorates in scienceand technology, nor any degrees in medicine or dentistry.

Class C Institution: An institution that in academic year 1962-1963awarded at least one baccalaureate in science or engineering, butneither master's degrees nor doctorates in science and engineering,nor degrees in medicine, dentistry, or veterinary. medicine.

Class D Institution: An institution that in academic year 1962-1963awarded at least one baccalaureate in any field of learning but nodegrees in science and engineering, medicine, dental medicine, veteri-nary medicine, agriculture, or paramedical subjects.

Contract Research Center, Federal: An organization exclusively or sub-stantially financed by the Federal Government, which in mostinstances was established to meet a particular research and develop-ment need of the Federal establishment. In this instance, it is admin-istered on a contractual basis by educational institutions.

Degree Accredited Institution: An academic institution granting atleast a bachelor's degree, accredited by a regional board of educationor a national professional society for the year of the study.

DOD: Department of Defense.EGI (Educational and General Income) (Academic Budget): University

and college income reported or received during the year under studyand used specifically by an institution for educational purposes.Contract-grant research (science) funds are exduded.

FFAS (Federal Funds for Academic Science): -All direct grant or contractobligations for fiscal year 1963 of individual Federal agencies in sup-port of all scientific and technological activities associated with the

1

educational process to all degree-granting academic institutions orindividuals associated with academic institutions. Excluded are allidentifiable appropriations for contract. research centers, constructionof graduate and undergraduate facilities, and loans.

MEEU: Medical Education-Engaged University.NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Nonrecipients (Nonparticipants): Academic institutions not receiving

Federal funds for academi science in fiscal year 1963.NSF: National Science Foundation.Obligations: Funds for contracts and grants awarded during the year

of the appropriationfiscal year 1963 in the case of the present study.Other (Agencies): Departments of Interior, Commerce, Labor and

State, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Veterans Administration.R&D (Research and Development) (Federal): Includes all direct, indi-

rect, incidental, or related costs resulting from or necessary to researchand development, regardless of whether the research and develop-ment are performed by a Federal agency (intramural) or performedby a private individual or organization under contract and grantarrangement (extramural) . The terms research and developmentexclude routine product testing, quality control, mapping and sur-veys, collection of general purpose statistics, experimental production,and activities concerned primarily with the dissemination of scientificinformation and the training of scientific manpower.

Re (Graduate Education Index): A measure of an institution's compara-tive contribution to graduate educationthe ratio of graduate studentenrollment to total enrollment.

Rfd (Federal Funds Impact IndexScience Education): A measure of theimpact of Federal funds on an academic institution's educationalprogram (productivity) in science and technologythe ratio of Fed-.eral funds for academic science to educational productivity in scienceand technology (S&T DP) .

Rfe (Federal Funds Impact IndexTotal Income): A measure of the im-pact of Federal funds on the academic institution as a whole (orits total income) the ratio of Federal funds for academic scienceto the institution's total income.

Rs (Science Education Index): A measure of an institution's comparativecontribution to education in the sciencesthe ratio of an institution'stotal educational output in science and technology education (S&TDP) to its total educational potential (total enrollment) .

S&T DP (Science and Technology. Degree Productivity): A weighted 'sys-tem of reducing all degrees awarded in science and technology interms of a base unitthe bachelor's degree in science and engineering.

2 14

Total Educational income: Theoretically, the total income of an aca-demic institution from any and all sources available for educationalor scholarly (research) purposes; in reality, the sum of the educa-tional and general income (EGI) and Federal funds for academicscience (FFAS) .

University: Every institution of higher education associated with grad-uate or professional education even to and including institutes ofscience and technology and/or independent medical colleges.

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.USOE: United States Office of Education.USPHS: United States Public Health Service.

_:4,

II. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

Objectives

1. Develop a profile of the sources of production of scientificand technological manpower of United States universities andcolleges.

2. Assemble meaningful data on the nature, level, and dis-tribution of Federal funds for academic science.

3. Evolve and improve concepts and measuring techniquesfor ascertaining the contributions of academic institutions toscientific and technological manpower resources.

4. Test a model for the periodic examination of the relationof Federal funds to academic science, in particular, and to insti-tutions of higher education, in general.

Summary

1. The universe of higher education in the United States inacademic year 1962-1963 consisted of 2,136 institutions-1,442degree-granting (four-year) and 694 junior (two-year) colleges.Of the 1,442 degree-granting institutions, 1,257 were accredited.

The 1,063 institutions that are the science education contrib-uting component of the degree-accredited institutions, constitutethe population of universities and colleges investigared.

2. The study population included 3.4 million degree-listedstudents, of whom 370,000 were in graduate studies. The studygroup accounted for practically all those individuals who wereawarded bachelor's, master's, and doctorates in science and engi-neering in the year studied, and all the veterinarians, dentists,and 95 percent of the doctors of medicine.

3. A total of 711 degree-accredited institutions, two-thirds ofthe studied population, received $1.10 billion in Federal fundsfor academic science from 13 agencies in fiscal year 1963. Thissum constituted 21 percent of the entire income of the recipientinstitutions.

4. Less than 16 percent of the degree-accredited institutions(166) received 96 percent of the Federal funds for academic

10

science. They enrolled 51 percent of the degree-registered stu-dents and 72.5 percent of all those in graduate studies. Theyaccounted for 75 percent of the Nation's educational produc-tivity in science and technology (S&T DP) . They awarded 56percent of all the bachelor's degrees, 88 percent of all the mas-ter's, and 99 percent of all the doctorates in science and engi-neering, as well as 99 percent of the degrees in veterinary medi-cine, all the degrees in medicine in the study population (95percent of the total trained in that year) and 95 percent of thedegrees in dentistry.

5. Four hundred sixteen degree-accredited, recipient-of-Fed-eral-funds institutions, almost 40 percent of the study popula-tion, received only one percent of the Federal funds for academicscience. They enrolled 22 percent of the degree-registered and10 percent of all graduate students. They accounted for 11 per-cent of all the Nation's educational productivity in science andtechnology (S&T DP units) . They award ..!cl 20 percent of thebachelor's and 4 percent of the master's degrees in science andengineering. They produced, however, only 24 (0.3 percent)of the doctorates in science and engineering, and none of thedoctors of medicine or dentistry.

6. Private institutions, numbering 229, received $485 millionor 44 percent of the Federal funds obligated for academic sci-ence. Public insitutions, numbering 354, received $547 millionor 50 percent of the total. Denominational institutions, num-bering 480, received $67 million, about 6 percent of the Federalfunds.

7. The nonreripient institutions of Federal funds for academicscience, one-third of the study population, totaled 352. Theyenrolled 10 percent of the degree-listed and 3 percent of thegraduate students. They accounted for 8 percent of the bache-lor's, 0.3 percent of the master's degrees, and none of the doc-torates produced in science and engineering.

8. There were 69 degree-accredited institutions that enrolledNegro students predominantly. These institutions enrolled 2.7percent of the degree-registered students; they produced 2.2percent of the bachelor's in science and engineering, 0.6 percent ofthe master's, and 0.1 percent of the doctoral degrees. They re-ceived 0.5 percent of the Federal funds.

9. There were 80 universities engaged in medical education.They received 69 percent of the Federal funds for academicscience and they accounted for 43 percent of the educationaland general income (academic income) of the 1,063 universitiesand colleges studied. They further accounted for 48 percent of

6

the Nation!s productivity (S8cT DP units) in scientific and tech-nological manpower. They received the bulk of their Federalsupport-55 percent of all the Federal funds for academic sci-encefrom the U.S. Public Health Service.

10. The U.S. Public Health Service obligated 45 percent of allFederal funds for academic science; the National Science Foun-dation, 21 percent; and the Department of Defense, 18 percent.Ten other agencies share the remaining 16 percent.

11. The National Science Foundation was the sole support of272, and the U.S. Public Health Service of 51 academic institu-tions. The Foundation supported 648 institutions out of a total711 receiving Federal funds; the Public Health Service contrib-uted support to 398 institutions.

Conclusions

Statistically speaking, there appears to be:1. a direct linear relationship between the Federal funds for

academic science received by academic institutions and theireducational and general income (academic budget) . For every$10 million universities raised in fiscal year 1963 in academicincome, they raised approximately another $4 million in Federalfunds for academic science.

2. at least two identifiable levels in the graduate-total enroll-ment characteristics of academic institutions, wherein the eco-nomics of education show marked shifts. At the upper level insti-tutions budgeted approximately $12 million of their own forevery 1,000 graduate students enrolled; for every 1,000 scienceand technology degree units produced, they budgeted $17million.

3. a linear relationship between total enrollment and theacademic budget (the educational and general income) and,similarly, between this same income and institutional commit-ment to graduate education and the education of scientific man-power (S8cT DP units) .

4. a direct relationship between Federal funds for academicscience and the number of doctoral degrees produced in scienceand engineering. This relationship is a confirmation of the viewthat productivity in graduate education in the sciences and pro-duCtivity of quality academic research are closely related, if notdifferent faces of the same coin. On the average approximately$1 million in Federal funds is associated with the award of sevendoctorates in science and engineering.

1.7

!I

5. a mutually beneficial relationship between the FederalGovernment, as expressed by the funds provided for academicscience, and higher education. The institutions that are theprincipal beneficiaries of Federal funds for academic science alsoseem to be those that emphasize research and the training ofscientific and technological manpowerespecially at the ad-vanced degree level. These principal recipients of Federal fundsalso contribute their own financial resources in proportion totheir productivity in science education and advanced study.

6. the upwelling of a number of significant problems as aconsequence of this generally mutually beneficial relationship.

a. Patterns of support for academic science have evolved anddeveloped to a stage where large numbers of universities andcolleges participate marginally or not at all in Federal programs.These institutions may find it increasingly difficult in the yearsahead to attract competent staff and students.

b. A significant number of major private universities, spe-cifically those engaged in medical education and science andtechnology, receive a substantial proportion of their total in-comeupwards of 40 percentfrom Federal funds. To a largedegree this Federal income emanates from agencies whose basicmissions are other than those associated with the advancementof higher education and principally from the U.S. Public HealthService. It appears that academic institutions may be gravitatingtoward an irreversible, economic dependence on the FederalGovernment, principally on Federal agencies whose primary sci-entific and technological objectives are problem solving in thenational interest.

III. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS

State of Statistical Information

An enormous volume of statistical information dealing withhigher education has been examined during this study, but thedata relating to academic science and higher education havebeen by no means exhausted. Far too many issues were leftunexplored. Available data were not always precise nor mean-ingful and large gaps exist in the data banks.

There is a need to reevaluate the totality of information sys-tems dealing with higher education, academic science, and Fed-eral funding statistics associated with academic sciencenot onlywhat is collected and stored, but how it is processed, and madeavailable. Guidance and leadership, however, must include prob-lem-oriented specialists and individuals steeped in the traditionsof academic science and higher education. Reform must go tothe roots of data gathering and processing.

The time for such reevaluation is propitious. There is activeparticipation in academic science and in higher education byall sectors of the economy. There is a renewed interest by theCongress and the President in encouraging long-range thinkingon Federal programs and practices related to the strengtheningof academic science and higher education.

There is a need for more precise and a wider range of sta-tistics on American colleges and universities. More specific infor-mation is required directly related to the needs of academicscience and the patterns of the relationship developing betweenGovernment and universities and colleges. Required are datareduced to the Lasic individual bits and stored in systems whichmake possible any number of statistical compilations and manip-ulations. Such basic information must be collected and madefreely available in a fashion that is easily stored, updated andretrieved.

Statistical Measures for Universities and Colleges

The picture of the academic institution presented here ismore a silhouette than a profile. It is more a -g;-.5.--..plified view

of the university principally, and specifically, the scientific andtechnological component. of higher education. It seems obviousthat additional measuring techniques are needed that specifi-cally delineate the more affluent from the less affluent Class Ainstitutions, and yield a more precise picture of the Classes Band C. Certainly more studies are required in depth .and in time.

There are a number of obvious weaknesses in the study due,in the main, to the statistics used, the principal being enroll-ment data. Enrollment statistics that combine full- and part-time student information tend to exaggerate the size of theurban university--institutions with large evening study programsand equally large part-time enrollment characteristics. The sub-stitution of full-time statistics would have skewed the study in theother direction, by minimizing the size and educational contribu-tion of these same institutions. Full-time-equivalent data areequally unsatisfactory, for these statistics, at best, are funda-mentally guesses.

Despite the constraints placed upon the present study, suffi-cient value has been demonstrated to make it worthwhile toconsider a continuation and an expansion. The usefulness ofsuch an expansion is open-ended, ranging all the way from insti-tution planning to national stock taking in resource allocation.

Gains Attributable to Federal FundsFederal funds for academic science, on the whole, are primar-

ily appropriated fc;r research and for problem solving in thenational interest. In general, federally sponsored academic sci-ence is research directed, and to a large degree dominated byagencies whose objectives are not those principally associatedwith advancing or strengthening higher education. Furthermore,it can be correctly assumed, because peer-merit cystems of deci-sion making are used in the allocation of Federal funds for aca-demic science, that federally sponsored academic science, in themain, is also quality directed. Given these assumptions, onethen may conclude that, on the whole, Federal Tunds for aca-demic science are quality research directed but to a large degreerestricted to circumscribed areas of academic science.

Since research dollars are obligated principally for the sup-port of faculty, graduate students, postdoctoral associates, facili-ties, equipment and supplies, it stands to reason that such sup-port has its effect on science education at the graduate andpostgraduate levels primarily, rather than at the undergraduatelevel. This research by-product (the science education compo-

10

211.1"

4,44. 1Ve,

nent) , when combined with funds obligated specifically foreducation in the sciences, is not insignificant. These funds have aprofound influence at the educational level. They correlate di-rectly with manpower productivity in science and technology.(The energetic pursuit by college and university administratorsof an ever-increasing share of both the Federal academic scienceand the research and development dollar adds further proof ofthe educational value of academic science funds.)

Since, on the whole, the quality-competitiveness of the re-search supported is basic in Federal funding practices, it maybe assumed further that quality universities engaged in scienceand technology are also the principal recipients of Federal fundsfor academic science. This assumption is certainly corroboratedby this study, for data indicate that the principal recipients ofFederal funds are also the principal producers of advanced de-gree manpower in science and technology. In fiscal year 1963,166 institutions out of a total population of 1,063 degree-accredited institutions produced 99 percent of all the doctoratesin science and engineering, 88 percent of the master's, 57 percentof the bachelor's degrees, practically all the veterinarians, doc-tors of dentistry, and doctors of medicine. These institutions re-ceived 96 percent of the Federal funds obligated for academicscience. If one grants that this circumscribed group of 166 insti-tutions includes the major research universities of the Nation,then their educational product is bound to be of high qualityby virtue of the system of quality-competitiveness in selectingthem for Federal science support. Accordingly, the study rein-forces the value of the peer-merit system of Federal support toacademic science, for such a method of allocating funds seems toyield as an important by-product, high productivity and highqaulity advanced education in science and technology.

Marginal td Nonrecipients of Federal Funds

However, with this success, a number of probiem areas appearto have developed. There is the failure of 352 institutions ofhigher education, the smaller and less affluent, to profit fromFederal funds or participate in Federal science programs. Theseinstitutions appear to make little contribution to graduate edu-cation or education in the sciences. They, nevertheless, do trainabout 8 percent of the baccalaureates in science and engineering:These nonrecipients of Federal funds lack many of the educa-tional advantages of thir more prosperous relatives. The finan-cial and intellectual-educational problems faced by these less

11

privileged institutions must not be attributed solely to the lackof Federal funds. The majority of the nonrecipient institutions,in the main, face a condition which existed prior to the estab-lishment of Federal programs in support of science; rather thiscondition is the result of long-term cultural, economic, and edu-cational factors. Few of the nonrecipients, if any, have attainedacademic stature in scientific research or science education. Theirfinancial-intellectual-educational problems have, nevertheless,been aggravated during the past 10 years. The influence ofFederal funds has tended to make the recipient institutions evenmore attractive to faculty and students than their nonrecipientcontemporaries. By increasing the attractiveness of the recipientinstitutions, Federal funds are inclined to limit the availabilityof quality faculty and students, and in fact, to encourage theconcentration of high-quality people in a limited number ofselect institutions.

If one adds to the 10,000 baccalaureates in science and engi-neering produced by the nonrecipients, the 27,000 of the related416 institutions that receive some but little Federal aidaboutone percent of the Federal fundsthe number of students ex-posed to less than the best the Nation has to offer in scienceeducation increases severalfold. These 768 institutions (352 +416) constitute more than Tip percent of the Nation's accreditedinstitutions of higher learning granting at least the bachelor'sdegree. They trained 28 percent of the bachelor's and 2 percentof the master's degree graduates in science and engineering in1962-1963. It might be inferred that most of the 37,000 bache-lor's and 1,000 master's degree graduates in science and engineer-ing, the product of the marginal to nonparticipating institutionsin Federal programs, failed to receive an education even ap .proaching the best the Nation had to offer in the sciences.

The universities and colleges enrolling Negroes predominantlyconstitute a special problem. "A not inconsiderable number . . .struggle along toward the rear of the academic procession.""They constitute a special problem because their students at bestreceive a marginal education in science and technology. Othersources of higher education are unavailable to these students,both because of the inadequacy of their previous education andtheir financial limitations. Since institutions that enroll Negrostudents predominantly will continue for some years to comeas the backbone of Negro higher education in the South, theproblem of raising their educational capabilities is pressing andimmediate.

Within the group of 416 marginally supported institutionsare some rather distinguished liberal arts colleges. Accordingly,

12

23

the references to lack of quality need modification. However,quality statements related to depth and variety of the curricu-lum in science and technology still obtain. Those liberal artscolleges which have accepted educational roles in science andtechnology appear to stand high in rank ordering by whatevercriteria used, considering their small enrollment. They are activeparticipants in Federal programs for academic science and sub-stantial producers of the baccalaureate degree in science andengineering. Their educational and general income level is es-pecially significant in that it indicates a high degree of affluence,independence, and participation in quality education.

The survival of the liberal arts college, in some respects, de-pends on the degree to which it can continue to attract suffi-cient numbers of sophisticated faculty and students in thesciences. The value gained from the limited statistics availableand the critical and transitional state of liberal arts educationadds a sense of urgency to further exploration of the charac-teristics, aspirations, and direction of liberal arts institutions.

The educational and fiscal problems of the nonrecipient andmarginally participating academic institutions are not the resultof Federal programs in support of academic science. Basically,the primary purpose of Federal funds is the advancement ofscience and technology in the national interest. If these fundshave an influence on educational institutions, it is because ofthe intimate relationships that exist between academic researchand graduate and professional science education. Accordingly,the failure of Federal funds to reach each and every institutionof higher education should not serve as a basis for criticism ofthe present system of dispensing academic science funds. Suchcriticism, especially the failure to give aid to the vast populationof smaller and less affluent institutions, can only have validityif such aid were the prime objective of these funds. There hasbeen a tendency to hold Federal programs in support of scienceresponsible for failures that could well be attributed to lack oflocal initiative and regional responsibility, and inadequacy ofstandards for educational programs.

It is worth reemphasizing that Federal programs in supportof academic science have gained for the United States a positionof world leadership in research." They also have brought highstandards and quality to the Nation's science education andtraining programs. Since the basic purpose of the Federal sup-port program previous to fiscal year 1963 was the funding ofresearch, and since a large proportion of the program fundswere obligated for problem solving in the national interest, it

I3

2 4

is difficult to understand how issue can be taken with the presentsystem of funding science because it tends to concentrate theeducational benefits in a limited number of institutions.

Institutions Dependent on Federal FundsAnother problem area associated with Federal support of aca-

demic science is what appears to be a developing irreversibledependence of the Nation's principal universities on Federalprograms whose funds in support of science and technology areappropriated for problem solving in the national interest. Infiscal year 1963, 711 institutions received 21 percent of their totalincome from Federal funds for academic science. About one-halfthis sum came from one agency, the U.S. Public Health Service,whose mission is improving the Nation's health. Only 20 percentof the total Federal funds available came from Federal agencieswhose objectives were principally strengthening academic sci-ence and higher education.

The bulk of the funds (96 percent) were concentrated in 166institutionsprincipally the universities. Twenty-two of theseinstitutions, the Class A private institutions predominantly, re-ceived 40 percent or more of their total income from Federalfunds. Added to this, is the fact that 35 percent of the totalincome of the private and denominational, medical education-engaged universities came from this same source. That theprivate component, of the major advanced degree producer in-stitutions of scientific /manpower, depends so heavily on Federalfunds appropriated -f6r problem solving in the national inter-est, is sufficient cause for a reexamination of the Federal systemof support to academic science; it is also cause for the academicinstitution to reexamine itself and its relationship to the Fed-eral Government.

To make matters even more worthy of consideration, thelarge dependence of academic science on the support of the U:S.Public Health Service raises questions concerning the wisdomof continuing to bias the overall support of academic scienceand the related educational sequalae principally in terms of theinterests of one Federal agency. As academic science continuesto increase its dependence on Federal funds, the growth anddevelopment of the edutation component should not becomedependent on support programs that fundamentally fulfill theobjectives of the sponsor, irrespective of how enlightened thatagency's practices may be.

14

17,1

According to James Perkins:"It is the casual, unreflective, opportunistic development of interests forthe sole purpose of attracting funds for prestige which obviously violatesintegrity.

Allied to this question of academic institution dependence onone agency, are those that focus on institutional, regional, andfield-of-science distribution of Federal funds. The high level offunding by one agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, in alimited number of major universitiesthose principally asso-ciated with medical educationis one of the reasons for thepresent patterns of distribution of Federal funds. All considera-tions dealing with concentration or distribution of these funds,whether by region," by activity of science, or by discipline areweighted by the policies and programs of the U.S. Public HealthService. The sums made available to academic science by thisone agency are so large, and yet so circumscribed (because ofthe nature of their appropriation) , as to affect greatly anypolicy considerations related to allocation of scientific and edu-cational resources and Federal funds. Accordingly, Federal fundsare apt to converge in those areas of science and regions of theUnited States where medical education is concentrated.

Federal Funds and The Future of Academic Science

There is no simple answer to such questions. Restricting orreallocating the problem solving component of Federal fundsfor academic science to bring about a more equitable distribu-tion of funds among Federal agencies, hy fields of science, byregions, and institutions would do irreparabie damage at thistime to the Nation's basic research and science education pro-grams. In the first instance the concept "equitable distribution"too frequently has a personalized and biased meaning. But moreimportant, academic science and higher education even now areirreversibly dependent on such Federal funds. The answer cer-tainly does not lie in a policy that concentrates on institutionalsupport to the detriment of individual project research support,for there appears to be too beneficial a secondary effect on insti-tutional quality resulting from the direct support to scientistsand of research selected solely on the basis of merit. The sup-port of the institution at the expense of the individual scientistor project research can do irreparable harm to a system of qual-ity-competitiveness, whose results are high national standardsfor scientific research and for science education. Quality scienceeducation at graduate and professional levels can be pursued

15

0

only after quality research has become fairly well established andis a normal activity of the academic institution.

The use of Federal funds in support of individual projectresearch does not seem the proper vehicle for broadening theinstitutional and regional base of academic science. Objectivesto broaden the base can be served best by increasing the levelof Federal funds appropriated directly for higher education andscience education, funds specifically for strengthening depart-ments of science and institutions of higher learning. Programsare being introduced for these purposes. But in spite of theseaccomplishments there is still room for improvement; there isclearly a need for new and additional forms of support to aca-demic science. One such system could be a generalized scienceeducation support program based on nor institution's produc-tivity or potential in science education, W-'th the resources andthe talent available in both Go vo :;:rament id academic insti-tutions, it should be relatively sixnrAe to develop the necessaryadministrative tools and support programs to encourage andexploit the best in science education and to make quality educa-tion available to all.

Gerard Piel recently testified:". . . as against sotoe simple minded formula based upon population andincome, the availability of financing on the Federal scale invites the mostgenerous and wise imaginations in American higher education to join inthe framing of new objectives, new standards, and new kinds of fiscalinstrumert ts.

No Federal program in support of academic science, however,should be undertaken at the expense of existing quality insti-tutions or by denying adequate financial assistance to productivescientists. The encouragement of quality, research should con-tinue to be national policy. The ideal policy for the support ofacademic science should continue to be one that strengthensscience quality wherever it is found and that reaches for thehighest of quality standards in scientific research and scienceeducation.

16

,,, ..................................

IV. GOVERNMENT-ACADEMIC SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS

The Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862 set the stage forthe nurturing of academic science by the Federal Government.The Act donated:

. . . public lands to the several States and Territories which may providecolleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.

Then for the first time, the Government of the United States,without fully anticipating the consequences, began influencingthe course and strength of science at universities and colleges.The intention at that time was not to strengthen academic sci-ence for its own sake. The Congressional objective was morepractical and immediate. The Morrill Act had as its basic pur-pose the advancement of agriculture and the mechanic arts forthe very contemporary needs of an expanding Nation.

World War I saw the beginnings of the harnessing of academicscience to serve directly the needs of Government itself. Suchservice, however, as university and college scientists could pro-vide was disassociated from the institution and campus. Aca-demic scientists went to war, so to speak. They came underdirect military control, either as scientists in uniform or as civil-ians working for the various military, establishments, such as theArmy Signal Corps, the Navy Bureau of Ordnance, and the ArmyMedical Corps. According to Hunter Dupree:

Basic science . . . did not fare well during the war years. Long-rangeprograms suffered not only in Government bureaus, but also by absorptionof investigators from universities . . . by robbing the colleges, universities,and industries of trained scientists . . . but at the expense of basic researchand of training new men.

World War II and Its Consequences

Possibly based cn this experience and probably because of therecognition of the importance of military technology, WorldWar II witnessed a fuller interplay between the Federal Govern-ment and academic science through the establishment, by Execu-tive Order in June 1941, of the Office of Scientific Research andDevelopment (OSRD) 2 with Vannevar Bush as its Director.It was to serve:

2817

. as a center for mobilizing of the scientific personnel and the resourcesof the Nation in order to assure maximum utilization of such personneland resources in developing ana applying the results of scientific researchfor defense purposes.

The magnitude of the Office of Scientific Research and Develop-ment fiscal operations for its full life (1941-1946) just exceeded$550 million. Even though this budget was for all research anddevelopment and not restricted solely to academic science per se,the OSRD's impact on academic science was far-reaching.

The wartime research effort. and in particular the relation-ships established by the OSRD with academic institutionsfur-ther developed by the Office of Naval Researchbrought abouta number of significant changes in Government-academic sciencerelationships, many of which have persisted as po:icies and prac-tices of the several Federal agencies which currently supportscientific activities. The use of the contract as the basic vehiclefor the conduct of academic research, the fixing of substantiveresponsibility upon the individual scientist, emphasis on proj-ect research, the use of panels of scientists in decision making,dedication to high-quality researchall these set the tone andpattern for the present Government-academic science relation-ships.

The exigencies of war compelled the OSRD to focus on theapplied sciences, especially as they related to the pressing mili-tary needs of Government. This emphasis on applied science,to a degree, accounted for its demise almost immediately afterthe close of the war. The fact is that it was never intended topersist as a permanent organization of Government. In 1945Vannevar Bush advanced the concept of a National ResearchFoundation to continue the basic research aspects of the OSRD7-the strengthening of academic science. His report, Science, TheEndless Frontier,' is a landmark for its vision and its states-manlike persuasiveness. Under a program for action, Dr. Bushrecommended:

The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flowof new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in ouryouth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government .forthey vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our National security. It is inkeeping also with basic United States policy that the Government shouldfoster the opening of new frontiers, and this is the modern way to do it.

After a period of legislative soul searching shared by the sci-entific and academic community, the Congress, and the Presi-dent of the United States, Public Law 507 of the 81st Congress,the National Science Foundation Act; became law in 1950. Inthe meantime, the Atomic Energy Commission and the office ofNaval Research (ONR) had been established (1946) . By 1950

18

ONR had become the dominant force in academic science. TheNational Institutes of Health, established in 1930, underwentmarked growth and change during this same period. It had be-come a leader in the support of medical research; its researchand training programs were already a significant force in themedical schools of the Nation.

In fiscal year 1951, the year the National Science Foundationbecame operational, the Federal Government obligated $172 mil-lion to nonprofit institutions for scientific research and develo-ment." These funds, in contradistinction to funds for academicscience (that is, the broad spectrum of research and educationactivities) , were fundamentally for research, including plant andconstruction. An additional $122 million was obligated to con-tract research centers. In that year the National Science Founda-tion received an appropriation of $225,000.

The years 1945-55 were years of preparation, adaptation, andstabilization for Federal academic science programs. The Officeof Naval Research and the National Institutes of Health ac-cepted a substantial p,--rt of the burden for the academic sciencesformerly supported by the Office of Scientific Research andDevelopment. They had expanded their support far beyond theformer OSRD interests. The Atomic Energy Commission did notbecome a force in academic science until the turn of the decade,about 1950. For up until that time the Office cf Naval Researchhad either raanaged the Atomic Energy Commission componentof academic science or had been supporting this area with itsown funds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the only otherFederal agency with influence in academic science at the time,continued in its traditional support of university and State ex-periment stations at support levels similar to those of the pre-war years.

Between 1945 and 1952 the university research and develop-ment budget of the Federal Government (including funds for con-tract research centers) increased from $120 million to $280 mil-lion.' Probably not more than half of this amount was for thesupport of researith at academic institutions.

The Influence of The SputniksIn 1957 came Sputnik; it created the sort of national con-

sciousness of international competitiveness that usually arousesa nation to action. Sputnik brought about an awareness of theneeds and value of this country's science and technology, thusfocusing attention on scientific and technological manpower.

19

Nicholas DeWitt two years earlier had already documented thestate of Soviet professional manpowere so that, by the time theSputnik was orbiting the earth, the Federal Government was tak-ing steps to raise the quality of United States scientific andtechnological education. The years immediately following Sputniksaw the introduction of programs to upgrade science teachers(science institutes) and the promotion of programs to draw re-search talent into the system of science teaching. Mechanisms toevaluate and revamp teaching in secondary school physics (coursecontent improvement) were among the many innovations.

Sputnik also brought about a change in the political structureof the White House. For the first time science was formally repre-sented at the highest level of Government. James Killian, Presi-dent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, became the firstSpecial Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.Following the establishment of the Office of Science Advisor tothe President there was established by Executive Order the Fed-eral Council for Science and Technology (1959) , later followed bythe establishment of the Office of Science and Technology (Reor-ganization Act No. 2, June 1962) .

The Present

In fiscal year 1958, the level of Federal funds for support of sci-ence at colleges and universities proper was $282 million.' It roseto $802 million in fiscal year 1962, and to $1,178 million in fiscalyear 1964. The so-called total research and development budgetfor the Federal Government for fiscal year 1958 was $4.5 billion.It rose to $10.4 billion in fiscal year 1962, and $14.7 billion in1964.

It was the billions in the total Federal research and developmentbudget, especially beginning with fiscal year 1962 ($10.4 ,that aroused the Congress to the spectacular growth that hadoccurred in the Nation's research and development activities. Inthat year the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ac-counted for $1.4 billion of this total $10.4 billion obligated. Infiscal year 1963 the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion's research and development budget was $2.8 billion, and inthe following year it rose to $4.2 billion. The sudden rise in thetotal Federal research and development budget, resulting fromthe National Aeronautics and Space Administration's expansion,exposed a number of problems relating to the character of Fed-eral science support with which the Congress, the ExecutiveBranch of Government and the scientific community are still20

31

wrestling. In 1962 the first major investigation of a Federal re-search program was instituted by the Congress of the UnitedStates. The investigations whiCh began with those of the U.S.House of Representatives Subcommittee of the Committee on Gov-ernment Operations (ihe Fountain Committee) 8 have continuedinto this last Congressional year.

To some members of Congress the total Federal research anddevelopment budget became confused with the support of aca-demic research. The need for recognition of the distinction be-tween Federal research and development as such and Federal fundsfor academic science was underscored by the new Director of theNational Science Foundation, Dr. Leland Haworth, who drew at-tention to this problem by devoting a significant part of his 1964message' to a clarification of the issues ii-:ivolved. He asked:

What are the facts? How can the figures ne presented in their properperspective?

He then went on to say:. . the familiar term 'research and development' does not refer to asingle entity. On the contrary, it covers a very broad range of scientific andtechnological activities. These activities range from the most fundamentaland basic research to the development of highly complex devices. The con-venient abbreviation R&D can be dangerous in that it can lead to confusionand misunderstanding.

In 1963 the Subcommittee on Education and Labor of theU.S. House of Representatives (the Edith Green Committee) "published a most informative rep Drt on Federal support to edu-cation. A part of the report was statistical and focused on Federalsupport of science and its effects on higher education. In 1963an extensive study was undertaken by the Select Committee onGovernment Research of the U.S. House of Representatives (theCarl Elliott Committee) ." Ten reports and a resume were pre-pared by the Elliott Committee staff; they dealt with the admin-istration of science and technology, Federal facilities, scienceinformation, student aid, influence of Federal practices and poli-cies, coordination, and national goals. At about the same time theU.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, and espe-cially the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development(the Daddario Committee) , undertook a series of investigationson the state of the Nation's science. A number of reports wereissued of which the most significant are those dealing with basicresearch and national goals,' " scientific-technical advice forCongress," geographical distribution of Federal research anddevelopment funds," and a 15-year review of the National Sci-ence Foundation.' Concomitantly, the Committee on GovernmentOperations of the U.S. House of Representatives (the Reuss Corn-

32 21

mittee) undertook hearings and prepared a report on researchprograms and national goals for higher education."

The Need For A Public Policy for Academic ScienceIn March 1965 the Committee on Science and Public Policy

of the National Academy of Sciences (the Kistiakowsky Com-mittee) broke new ground by the preparation of a report for theU.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics on basic re-search and national goals." The 15 separately written essaysappearing in this monograph einphasized the complexity of thetask facing the Nation with respect to p'anning for the supportand promotion of research. Subsequent investigation of the Reussand Daddario Committees further emphasized the complexity ofthe issues involved in establishing national goals for science.Much of the testimony before these Committees scored the diffi-culties in reaching a consensus and the dangers of generalization.The Daddario Committee" endorsed the views of the NationalAcademy of Sciences Committee on Science and Public Policy. Itacknowledged:

. . the complexity of the two questions posed for advice, and the diffi-culties in the way of substantial agreement among the various disciplinesof the scientific community on specifics of these questions. Viewed in thislight, it is understandable that simple, clear-cut answers to these questionsare not likely to appear.

It went on to say:Nonetheless, answers must be sought.

As a consequence of a number of parallel studies undertakenby the Executive Branch of Government, the White House, on 13September 1965, issued the now famous Presidential memoran-dum"Strengthening Academic Capability of Science Through-out the Country."

This memorandum marked the significance of higher educa-tion and academic science in fulfillment of the Nation's goals. Itgave direction to Federal policy for academic science, establishingthat:

A strong and vital educational system is an essential part of the GreatSociety. . . The strength of the research and development program of themajor agencies and hence their ability to meet national needs, dependsheavily on the total strength of our university system.

The philosophy of the Federal Government has advanced to astage where the Establishment is now irrevocably committed tothe support of higher education," to the arts and motmanities,"and to science and technology. The rise in the Federal researchand development budget, the explosive growth of the techno-22 3 3

logical programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration, the confusion of the concepts "research and develop-ment" and "academic science," the establishment of substantivecommittees on science and technology in both houses of Congress,the expanding role of the White House in science and publicpolicy, the urgency for strengthening the system of educationand academic science in the United States, all have focused atten-tion on the need for further elaboration of public policy on aca-demic science, especially with respect to the role of the FederalGovernment and its instrumentalitiesthe Federal agencies.

If the goal to "Strengthen Academic Capability of ScienceThroughout The Country" is to be given meaning, it then isincunibent upon the Nation to appraise, on a continuing basis,the nature and the needs of academic science.

0 9R

V. STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS

ObjectivesThis study attempts in a limited way to assemble the perti-

nent academic institutional data, to develop concepts and hy-potheses, and to provide techniques for examining these data interms of a rationale which seeks to elucidate the impact of Fed-eral funds on academic science and on higher education. To bemore specific, the study objectives are to:

1. assemble meaningful data on the nature and level of Fed-eral funds for academic science.

2. develop a profile of the sources of production of scientificand technological manpower of United States universities andcolleges.

3. evolve and improve concepts and measuring techniques forascertaining the contributions of academic institutions to scien-tific and technological manpower resources.

4. test a model for the periodic examination of the relation ofFederal funds to academic science, in particular, and to institu-tions of higher education, in general.

Even with these limited objectives, the constraints on theavailable statistics restrict the extent and scope of this study.Nevertheless, data have been assembled and developed which makepossible analyses of the support of academic science by Federalagencies and of the related actirities of institutions of higherlearning in the education of scientists and technologists.

B-asic PremisesThe assumption basic to this study is that prior to fiscal year

1963 Federal funds for academic science (especially funds foracademic research) were obligated for research, for other activi-ties of science, and to scientists on the basis of quality, n----Aom-inantly. (Since this study was undertaken; a number of scienceprogramming changes have occurred throughout the Federal es-tablishment.) This assumption bears on the views expressed by-the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National

25

3a

Academy of Sciences:"The commitment of large public funds for the support of basic researchin universities has led not only to spectacular growth of the scope of sci-entific effort but also to advances in quality: American science has reacheda position of world leadership.

Accordingly, the level of scientific support for the universities"must be assumed to be indicative of the quality of the scientificresearch and can, in rough measure, be related to the qualityof the science education and hence the scientific quality of aninstitution. These quality inferences, therefore, are drawn fromthe level of Federal funds for academic science. (They pertain tothe study period under investigation only.) If such assumptionsand inferences are admissible, then one can invert the processof deduction and postulate that the quality institutions engagedin science and technologyprincipally the universitiesreceivethe largest share of Federal funds for academic science.

Academic science and science education although related arenot synonymous. The effect of Federal funds for academic science

f. on science education on the whole has been beneficial and is inthe nature of a bonus. In fiscal year 1963, Federal funds foracademic science directed specifically at science education werenot in large supply, for the bulk of Federal funds obligated werefundamentally for research. Therefore, though this study seeksto elucidate the educational relationships and influences of Fed-eral funds for science, it must be recognized that the impact(educational gain or loss) can be examined only indirectly. Therelationship is a tangential by-product of a larger program whoseobjectives are related but different: the strengthening and ex-ploiting of academic research.

Most academic research funds are obligated and used to reim-burse an institution for faculty salaries, postdoctorate associatestipends, or graduate assistantships, for the purchase of equip-ment and supplies, and for related indirect costs. Academicresearch is an integral part of graduate and advanced science edu-cation. When research funds contribute to education, the contri-bution is most apt to be at the graduate and professional levelsrather than at the undergraduate level. The contribution is ofmajor significance though its effect may not be directly measured.

If it is granted that the quality scientific universities are thosethat are the major recipients of Federal funds for academic sci-ence, and if it can be shown further that these same institu-tions are also the largest producers of scientific and technologicalmanpower, especially graduate and advanced degree manpower,then the study will have demonstrated another and important

263 o

contribution of Federal support programs for academic sciencethe strengthening of training_in the sciences.

This study undertakes to demonstrate, among other things,that some institutions (or groups of institutions) of higher edu-cation by virtue of their educational achievement (characterizedby contributions to higher education, by graduate educat it-put and capability, and by contributions to education it-. _ceand technology) attract more Federal funds than do others. fhestudy further seeks to demonstrate that there is a relatively sim-ple relationship between the level of Federal funds attracted byan institution and the extent of educational achievement. To over-simplify the argument: if funds for research are provided bythe Federal Government on the basis of merit, then the amountof such funds should provide a rough measure of the sciencemerit of institutions, and, in turn, such a relationship should bereducible to sets of indices and metrics. A case for such indicesand measures will be proposed. And if such metrics have value,it should be possible to detect strengths and weaknesses in theeducational fabric, and formulate plans and programs to dealwith problems in the system of science education, particularly atthe advanced study level.

These arguments are specifically, but not exclusively, directed toa consideration of universities. The liberal arts colleges are nottreated critically in this study on the same terms. On the whole,they are not major producers of research or of advanced de-grees in science and technology, although they train significantnumbers of potential scientists and engineers. Neither are theythe recipients of large quantities of Federal funds.

Quality considerations are limited specifically to the assump--dons developed in the preceding discussion, and only to academicinstitutions in the aggregate. No quality reference is implied withrespect to individual institutions, their faculty, or students. Thisinability to deal with individual quality is recognized as a basicweakness of this and all other statistical studies of a similarnature.

The Academic InstitutionThe principal sources for qualifying, classifying, or evaluating

academic institutions are the Office of Education's Education Di-rectory and the American Council on Education's AmericanUniversities and Colleges."

The academic institutions studied consist of 1,063 accreditedinstitutions of the United States which granted at least one bac-

3 7 27

calaureate in the academic year 1962-1963, with these excep-tions: seminaries and theological schools; maritime and militaryacademies; specialized professional schools not engaged in scien-tific education; business colleges; junior colleges; schools ofmusic, art, fashion, design and theater; and industrial and pro-prietary institutions.

Accreditation is an instrument by which state, regional, andnational organizationssome educational and others substan-tiveevaluate and qualify educational institutions. According tothe Education Directory, institutions qualified by one or moreaccrediting bodies are said to be accredited. Accreditation anddegree-granting characteristics were employed to qualify and de-limit the population of institutions in order to create a man-ageable and meaningful group of institutionsmeaningful in thesense that they contribute or produce something positive to highereducation for society generally or for science and technologyspecifically.

A new system of classificatiom of universities and colleges basedon the education and training of scientists and technologists isintroduced in this study in contradistinction to the more gen-eralized classification method emp.loyed by the Office of Educa-tion." Academic institutions are grouped into four classes accord-ing to the level of scientific and technological education (in theacademic year 1962-1963) The classification system is based ondata sources of the Office of Education,' the American MedicalAssociation," and the American Dental Association."

Class A: Institutions of higher learning that awarded at leastone doctorate in science or engineering, or at least one doctor ofmedicine or dentistry. (The choice of the word class in no wayimplies quality or value.)

Class B: Institutions that awarded at least one master's de-gree in science or engineering or at least one doctor of vet-erinary medicine, but no doctorates in science and technology,nor any degrees in medicine or dentistry.

Class C: Institutions that awarded at least one baccalaureatein science or engineeTing, but neither master.'s degrees nor doc-torates in science and engineering, nor degrees in medicine, den-tistry, or veterinary medicine.

Class D: Institutions that awarded at least one baccalaureatein any field of learning, but no degrees in science and engineer-ing, medicine, dental medicine, veterinary medicine, agriculture,or paramedical subjects.

Academic institutions are also classified according to the con-trolling body or responsible governing bodyprivate, public, or

28

denominational. The legal control of an institutionnot the sup-port or affiliationas reported by each of the institutions, is thefactor determining an institution's designation according to theEducation Directory. Public institutions may be municipal,county, district, State, regional, or Federal in control. Private in-stitutions are those institutions that are independent of churchor local, State, and national government, even though there maybe some affiliation or legal connection. Their legal control is pri-vate; their board of trustees is usually a self-perpetuating body.Denominational institutions are also private, but their legal con-trol is centered in a church or religious group, order, or organiza-tion. (Institutions controlled by such organizations as the FriendsSociety or the Young Men's Christian Association are hereclassified denominational.) There were a number of institutionswherein the control was mixed, e.g., Pennsylvania State Univer-sity and Howard University. They were classified according totheir principal source of supportpublic in both the above in-stances.

In many cases there are notable differences in student body,faculty, curricula, level of education, and income between privateinstitutions of higher learning and their counterparts, the de-nominational institutions. The denominational institutions makeup about one-half of the degree-accredited academic institutionpopulation; the vast majority tend to fall within the liberal artscollege group. An additional large number of the nonaccrediteddegree-granting institutions (those not studied here) also maybe denominational in control. It is the consensus that these de-nominational institutions as a group now yield limited contribu-tions to advanced education and to education in the sciences, butthey are potential resources for science-education growth in theNation.

Two additional variant segments of the degree-accredited aca-demic institution population also were studied. They are the in-stitutions engaged in medical education and those predominantlyenrolling Negroes. There has been reason to suspect that medicaleducation-engaged academic institutions as a group are the great-est recipients of Federal funds for academicscience and thatthey, in turn, are the highest producers of scientific manpower.It has also been suspected that academic institutions enrollingNegroes predominantly are at the other end of the spectrumthose least involved in academic research (as measured by levelof Federal funds) , and those least involved in advanced educa7tion in the sciences. Accordingly, measuring devices were soughtto test these hypotheses.

29

33

A surprisingly puzzling question was: What is an academicinstitution?" The guidelines established in the Office of Educa-tion's Education Directory were carefully followed except in casesof institution complexes. In such cases the rule followed was topreserve the identity of the institution basic subunit especiallywhen the subunit was clearly on its own and separately admin-istered, c.g., Pomona College of the Claremont Graduate Schooland University Center complex, or the University of Californiaat Berkeley of the multiversity system of the University of Cali-fornia. If, on the other hand, the complex was still in the forma-tive stage, as in the case of the emerging Duluth campus of theUniversity of Minnesota or that of the Milwaukee campus ofthe University of Wisconsin, and if the resource data were notavailable or only partially available for the emerging unit, thecomplex was treated as a single entity, e.g., the UniVersity ofMinnesota or the University of Wisconsin.

The Substance of Academic ScienceThe concept academic science adopted here is fundamentally

that developed in "Sustaining Academic Science, 1965-1975." "The substantive aspects include those undertakings in scienceand technology which are part of the curriculum, teaching, orstudy (research) activities of institutions of higher learning.Naturally such activities are educationally related. Briefly stated,the concept embraces all aspects of science and technologymathe-matics, physical, life, social, and engineering sciences as sup-ported by the National Science Foundation," and medicine,paramedic:ne, veterinary medicine, dentistry, and agriculture.

Federal funds for academic science include all those activitiesassociated with research, science education and training, scienceinformation, science development, institutional base grants, andcontract funds. They do not include those scientific activitiesassociated with loans; neither do they include activities associ-ated with obligations for plant and construction, nor with fundsfor contract research centers.' Specialized facilitiesaccelerators,oceanographic and space facilities, computers, biotrons, etc.and their bricks and mortar counterpart are included withinthe concept of academic science; graduate and undergraduatefacilities are not included. The bricks and mortar component ofspecialized facilities is not separated for at best it would havebeen the result of an arbitrary decision of an administrative orfiscal office of the supporting agency, and, therefore, such re-finement would have added little of value to the study.

30

40

. ,

Federal funds for academic science constitute the direct grantor contract obligations of individual Federal agencies in supportof science to academic institutions or individuals associated withacademic institutions. Accordingly, all science and technologyfellowship and training programs and their cost-of-educationallowance are charged as obligations to the institution hostingthe fellow or administering the grant. Funds associated with activ-ties dealing with upgrading science and mathematics curricu-

lum and education methodology and technique are included,though it is recognized that a number of the curriculum studygrants" contracted for with universities and colleges are locatedwithin particular institutions merely for convenience. Butsince a number of these studies contribute directly to the educa-tional life of the grantee institution, the inclusion of these dataare considered to be more, rather than less, proper. Financially,the total is not very large, so that at those institutions wherethe study is located for administrative convenience, the discrep-ancy is not too distressing.

All the activities of science and technology included withinthe boundaries of academic science as defined in this study prob-ably contribute to the advancement of academic science andtechnology. The definitions of "basic" science and engineeringimposed by the grant support characteristics of the NationalScience Foundation" and the addition of medicine, paramedi-cine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and agriculture create a suf-ficiently broad umbrella to cover just about every area andactivity of science and technology associated with academic in-stitutions.

The largest single portion of Federal funds for academic sci-ence comes from the U.S. Public Health Service, and a signifi-cant amouat comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.In this study, medicine, paramedicine, dentistry, veterinary med-icine, and agriculture are included as a part of the life sciencesjust as engineering is included as part of the physical sciences.The financial contributions made to these activities are exam-ined as are the related manpower characteristicsthe scientistsand technologists, doctors of medicine, paramedical specialists,veterinarians, dentists, and agriculturists.

Funding Characteristics

The fiscal data" assembled are principally of two typesaca-demic science support by Federal agencythat is by Federalsource; and academic institutioneducational and general

31

, 41

income (EGI) by individual college and universitythat is byacademic user or performer. Federal fun& for academic science(FFAS) data for the fiscal year 1963 are reported by supportagency and by class and control of individual universities andcolleges (Table A-1) . The educational and general income,"which is exclusive of all grant-contract research funds, is for theacademic year 1962-1963, and is used here as the inszitution'seducation expenditurethe academic budgetfor the year (Ta-bles A-1, A-2) .

The educational and general income is the university andcollege income reported or received during the year under studyand used specifically by an institution for educational purposes.It includes all income derived from investments, as well asdirect municipal, State, or Federal " appropriations to that insti-tution for educational purposes; it includes student fees andgifts or appropriations for- capital purposes and/or operationalpurposes. It excludes grant-contract research (science) funds,auxiliary income (income from sales, student rental fees, etc.) ,student aid, and income specifically earmarked for endowment.

The educational and general income, when added to Federalfunds for academic science, serves as a measure of an institution'sfinancial resources for research and education (total institutu-tional income) .

Federal funds are used as a mez6u-ri.- vif. an institution's totalcontribution to research, in lieu of tue grant-contract research(science) funds requirement." Fortunately, non-Federal grant-contract research funds and Federal funds for education in theyear stnclied are sufficiently sparse so as to give meaning to thesubstitution.

The source of the educational and general income statisticsin all but a few cases was the 9til edition of American Collegesand Universities." In a number of cases dtese data were notavailable. In Class A institutions where EGI data were not avail-able, the information was obtained directly from the institution.In the other classesB, C, and DEGIL estimates of some 25institutions were made, based on enrollment data. In each case,where estimates were made, they are so indicated (Tables A-1and A-2) . Analyses based on estimates were considered prefer-able to the exclusion of any institutions from the study.

Construction funds, in the sense of bricks and mortar, whereidentifiable (graduate and undergraduate facilities) , are ex-cluded so as to avoid the statistical perturbations caused by non-recurring obligations dealing with Federal funds for academicscience. All identifiable contract research center data also were

32

excluded from the study, though it was recognized that somecomponents of contract research centers and others in theirentirety' contribute to the education process. The decisiontaken to eliminate such data was based on the fact that theprincipal objective ef most of the contract centers is to meet thespecial needs of the Federal agency providing the support, hencetheir contributions to science education are generally peripheral.Extracting the pertinent educational component of Federalfunds from the research centers associated with educational insti-tutions would have been almost impossible. On the other hand,contract centers are so few and usually so large that their educa-tional impact can be ascertained, if needed, by individual casestudy.

Federal funds data were procured. principally from the annualreports of Federal agencies, nnd, in a few instances, from specialreports prepared for the Congress or directly from other officialsources of pertinent Federal agencies.

The obligations ascribed to the Department of Defense (DOD)are incomplete.34 The DOD reports depended upon, statedthat the compilation contained "awards of $10,000 or more toU.S. institutions." The missing elements probably do not affectappreciably the DOD and Federal funds total. The missing parts,however, may distort those analyses which deal with the Federalsupport to the less affluent institutions, and, as a consequence,may not adequately reflect the Defense Department's contribu-tion to the liberal arts colleges and to the smaller institutionsof higher education.

Recently the U.S. Office of Education (USOE) has become a.significant factor in Cie support of higher education. Unfortu-nately the data assembled here reflect only the beginning of theUSOE expansion period; they, accordingly, should be consid-ered only with these limitations in mind.

Thirteen Federal agencies reported programs in support ofacademic science in fiscal year 1963. The major support agencieswere the Department of Defense (DOD) , the National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration (NASA) , the Atomic EnergyCommission (AEC) , the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) ,the National Science Foundation (NSF) , the Office of Educa-tion (USQE) , and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) . Theother six agencies which provided lesser support for academicscience are classified as "Other." They were the Departmentsof Interior, Commerce, Labor, and State, the Tennessee ValleyAuthority, and Veterans Administration.

33

ILY

Manpower Characteristics

The manpower input and productivity" measures most reliedupon to weigh the size of an institution and its participati.on inand/or contribution to higher education in general, and scienceeducation in particular, are the well-established statistics devel-oped by the Office of Education for the academic year 1962-1963.They deal with total enrollment," graduate enrollment," andnumbers of degrees granted in science and engineering and inveterinary medicine." These manpower statistics are augmentedby those for doctors of medicine made available by the Ameri-can Medical Association," and those for the doctors of dentistrybased on studies of the American Dental Association."

Faculty statistics, which exist in quite some detail for someinstitutions, especially universities, would have been most help-ful in ascertaining quality in education. A measure of the ratioof the number of students to faculty might also have been in-formative. Unfortunately, a significant part of the data avail-able is much too unreliable. There is both a lack of definitionaluniformity and inadequate coverage of the institution universe.Postdoctoral data would also have contributed to the considera-tion of quality in science education. Such data as exist are inade-quate. The fact of the matter is that statistics in this area willbecome available only when there is agreement on what consti-tutes a postdoctoral associate. There is no doubt that highconcentrations of postdoctoral associates are characterist:: ofthose institutions at the cutting edge or frontier of scientificinquiry. Accordingly, the statistic could be of value in qualitydeterminations.

Dealing with more than 1,000 institutions, which are categor-izable into four classes and three legal entities, makes tabulationcomparisons for quality or quantity an exercise in futility. Inspite of thi-, t.he need to know an institution's total output ineducation and how it allocates its own educational resources isfundamental to any appraisal of the educational establishment.How it divides its energies and efforts between undergraduateand graduate activities and between science and technology andother academic activities is basic and essential to the pursuit .ofthis study. This need far outweighed the disadvantages. Accord-ingly, a metric was introduceda standard for measuring man-power productivity at all levels of science education.

In order to put together such a metric, a scale was requiredfor computing the institution's total ouput or its total produc-tivity in science and technologythe reduction of all degrees in

84

science and technology into- a unit system based on a commondenominator. The most logical base for expressing science andtechnology manpower productivity is, of ceurse, the bachelor'sdegree in science and engineering. Accordingly, a weighted sys-tem of reducing all degrees awarded in science and technologyin terms of the bachelor's degree in science and engineeringwas instituted." ,

The scale adopted--the science and technology, degree produc-tivity unit (S&T DP) refers to the baccalaureate degree inscience and engineering as the base. This bachelor's degree wasassigned the base value of one. The final numerical assignments,accordingly, are 2.2 S&T DP units for the doctor of veterinarymedicine, 2.5 for the master's degree in science and technology,4.0 for the doctor of medicine and the doctor of dentistry, and4.5 for the doctor of science and engineering.

Comparative Measures (indices) of InstitutionalProductivity and Federal Influence

To place the academic institution in proper perspective withrespect to productivity in higher education, with-, particular ref-erence to the sciences, requires an appraisal of_ its contributionsto the national specialized manpower pool. Absolute data onsize, productivity, and affluence only partly satisfy the require-ments for such an appraisal, for they give .no clear measure ofan institution's relative. (comparative) position in the academic-scientific community. In order to compare the resource utiliza-tion and productivity characteristics of one institution to -thoseof another, and in order to consider their comparative contribu-tions and potential, yardsticks are required in the form ofratios and/or indices. Only in a comparative sense will it bepossible to give meaning to an institution's contribution to theNation's trained manpower pool, especially to the graduateand advanced levels of science and technology.

The most obvious and simplest measurement to derive is anindex that measures an institution's comparative contributionin graduate education. To fulfill this requirement it is just' nec-essary to construct a ratio that includes the tet ms denotinggradute and total enrollment.

Re, the graduate education index," is, accordingly, a measureof an institution's comparative contribution or the extent towhich it contributes or participates in graduate education incomparison to its total educational potential. It is defined as the

4 535

ratio of graduate student enrollment (GE) to total enrollment(TE) ; Re = GE/TE.

There is also a need to know to what extent an institutioncontributes or participates in science education. A meaningfulindex can be constructed that relates total productivity (quan-tity) in science education to total enrollment (potential) . Againtotal enrollment is used as a measure of an institution's totaleducational capability. The weighted productivity measure ofeducation in the sciences (S&T DP) appears to satisfy the man-power output requirement in science and technology, for it isan integrated expression of the various levels of degreesgranted in the sciences.

Rs, the science education, index," is, accordingly, a measureof an institution's comparative contribution (the allocation ofeducational resources) to education in the sciences. It is definedas the ratio of an institution's total educational output in scienceand technology education (S&T DP) to its total educationalpotential in terms of enrollment (TE) ; Rs= (S&T DP) /TE.

With respect to a measurement of the impact or influence ofFederal* funds on the academic institution, two alternatives exist.One is a comparison of Federal funds to total institution obliga-tions or income, and the other is a comparison of Federal fundsto an institution's productivity in science and technology.

As with the derivation of Re, so with the derivation of anexpression that measures impact in terms of monies. An expres-sion embodying both total institutional income (EGI .+ FFAS)and Federal impact (FFAS) seems to contain the basic ingredientsthat satisfy the requirements for ascertaining the force of theFederal impact on the totality of institution fiscal obligations orcontributions to higher education.

Rfe, the impact index (total income) " is, accordingly, ameasure of the inipact or relative weight of Federal funds interms of an institution's total income according to the followingratio: Federal funds for academic science (FFAS) to the insti-tution's income (EGI + FFAS) ; Rfe = FFAS/ (EGI FFAS) .

The constraints inherent in the expression Rfe (the expres-sion EGI + FFAS in the true sense is not a ineasuve of insti-tion size or its intellectual contribution or participation inhigher education) encourage the exploration of other compara-tive systems of measuring the influence of Federal funds on theacademic institution. Unfortunately, the only other index pos-sible at this time is the one that is based on an institution'stotal educational contribution in science and technology. Anexpression that contains the terms Federal funds and educa-

36

46

tional output in science and technology can be fashioned. Fed-eral funds, as with the index Rs, again is made to serve as oneleg of the expression. The science and technology degree pro-ductivity unit (S&T DP) appears to satisfy the requirement forthe institution's output in science education.

Rfd, the other impact index (science education) ," is, accord-ingly, a measure of Federal impact or contributions to the insti-tution's educational productivity in science and technology. Itis defined as the ratio of Federal funds (FFAS) to the academicinstitution's educational productivity (output) in science andtechnology (S&T DP) ; Rfd = FFAS/ (S&T DP) .

The constraints inherent in the R indices (see Footnotes 39to 43) are elaborated to show that there is an element of soft-ness in the measures proposed, and also to focus attention onthe constraints themselves. The intent is to encourage furthersharpening of definitions and concepts and the attainment offuller coverage of educational and research funding statistics.It is even now possible to sharpen the R indices, especially Reand Rs. Re can be modified to reflect more precisely both thetotal number of students enrolled and those enrolled in gradu-ate study. Full-time student or full-time-equivalent statistics canbe substituted. Rs can be retained as is, or modified to reflectmore precisely the institution's contributions to graduate educa-ti-in in the sciences. By introducing more precise values for costof education into the derivation of S&T DP, it and the derivedRs and Rfe can be sharpened to become more meaningful andrepresentative of the resources and forces being quantified.

These measuring devices can be made more specific and pre-cise, and others can be fashioned but only if the base of thedata bank is broadened and if more reliability is built into dieacademic science and higher education statistics.

47 87

VI. THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND ITS RESOURCES

The Universe of Higher Education

The system of higher education in the United States in theacademic year 1962-1963 consisted of 2,136 institutions, dividedinto 1,442 degree-granting and 694 junior colleges (Table 1) .This system enrolled 4.4 million Qudents, of whom 375,000 werecommitted to graduate studies. In the same academic. year thesystem produced 134,000 graduates with bachelor's degrees,27,000 with master's degrees, and 7,970 with doctorates in sci-ence and engineering (Table 2) . It also produced 820 veterinar-ians, 3,180 dentists, and 7,270 doctors of medicine.

The 1,442 degree-granting institutions further subdivided into1,257 accredited and 185 nonaccredited institutions: Of the 1,257accredited degree-granting institutions, 1,063 constituted theacademic institUtion population selected for this study.

The study population of 1,063 institutions included 50 per-cent of all the institutions of higher learning and 74 percentof the degree-granting institutions in the United States. Thisstudy group enrolled 3.4 million degree-registered students inacademic year 1962-1963 (Table 1) , excluding correspondencestudents, and 370,000 in graduate studies-78 percent of the stu-dents enrolled in higher education, 96 percent of those in accred-ited degree-granting institutions, and 99 percent of all thegraduate students enrolled. These same institutions accountedfor 99 percent of all the bachelor's and master's degrees awardedin science and engineering in the year studied (Table 2) , andpractically all the doctorates. They further accounted for allthe veterinarian and dental degrees awarded, and 95 percentof all the degrees in medicine.

Only 1,866 bacheloi.'s (1.5 percent) and 267 master's degrees(1.0 percent) uanted in science and engineering in the aca-demic year studied were excluded. The individuals representedby these degrees were principally the graduates of proprietaryand military institutions, such as the General Motors Institute,the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Naval PostgraduateSchool. Since these institutions are fiscally self-sufficient, theireducational product in no way effects the study objective&

39

48

Table 1.Enroliment and Degrees Granted by All U.S. Institutions ofHigher Education in Academk Year 1962-1963

Number ofInstitutions

Enrollment

TotalGraduateDegrees

All Institutions of Higher Education 2,136 4,400,030 375,118

Degree-Granting 1,442 3,585,110 375,118

Accredited, included in study 1,063 3,425,456 369,964Accredited, excluded from study 194 83,213 4,506Nonaccredited, excluded from study 185 76,441 648

Non-Degree-Granting (excluded from study) 694 815,190 0

Accredited 410Nonaccredited 284

PERCENT

Degree-GrantingPercent of allHigher Education 67.5 81.5 100.0

Accredited, included in study:Percent of degree-granting 73.7 95.6 98.6Percent of all higher education 49.7 77.8 98.6

Accredited, excluded from study:Percent of degree-granting 13.5 2.3 1.2Percent of all higher education ^ 1 1.9 1.2

Nonaccredited, excluded from study:Percent of degree-granting 12.8 2.1 0.2Percent of all higher education 8.7 1.7 0.2

Non-Degree-Granting (excluded from study) 32.5 18.5 0

AccreditedPercent of non-degree-granting 59.1NonaccreditedPercent of non-degree-

granting 40.9

40 49

Table 2.Total Degrees Granted in Science and Technology in theUnited States in Academic Year 1962-1963

BA MA PhD DVM MD DDS

Accredited institutionsincluded in study 132.46 26,761 7,963 823 6,873 3,181

Percent of total 98.6 99.0 100.0 100.0 94.6 100.0

Accredited institutionsexcluded from study 1,866 267 2 0 392 0

Percent of total 1 3 1 .0 0 0 5.4 0

Nonaccredited institutionsexcluded from study 63 0 0 0 0 0

Percen4 of total 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

Total 134,365 27,028 7,965 823 7,265 3,181

.

A Profile of the Degree-Accredited Institutions

The study population is made up of 169 Class A institutions,197 Class B, 651 Class C, and 46 Class D (Table 3) . With re-spect to legal control, the population consists of 229 private,354 public, and 480 denominational institutions.

Class C institutions are the most numerous. They make up61.3 percent of the population of accredited degree-grantinginstitutions. Class B, the next most numerous, accounted for 18.5percent; Class A, 15.9 percent; and Class D, the smallest group,4.3 percent. Class D institutions by definition are those institu-tions granting no degrees in science or technology.

The Class A institutions enrolled the bulk of the Nation'sdegree-registered students. They accounted for 1.7 million stu-dents-49.7 percent of all the students in the study population.Class A institutions also enrolled the bulk of the graduate stu-dent population; they accounted for 264,000-71.3 percent ofall the graduate students.

Class A institutions are by far the largest institutions; theiraverage enrollment is 10,100 students. They are also the largestin terms of average graduate enrollment (1,600 graduatestudents) .

Class A institutions further participate to the highest degreein graduate education The Re value (graduate education in-dex) for Class A institutions is 0.155. Class C institutions, as isto be expected, contributed the least in graduate education Reis 0.027.

41

C.;

Tth

le 3

.-E

nrol

lmen

t and

Deg

rees

Gra

nted

in S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y by

Cla

ss a

nd C

ontr

olin

106

3 D

egre

e-A

ccre

dite

dU

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

olle

ges

in A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

62-1

963

BY

cL

ASS

NuM

ber

Inst

itutio

ns

Enr

ollm

ent

Re'

S&T

DP3

BA

MA

PhD

DV

MM

DD

DS

R.4

Tot

alG

radu

ate

TO

TA

L1,

063

3,42

5,45

636

9,96

40.

108

277,

149

132,

436

26,7

617,

963

823

6,87

33,

181

0.08

1

Ave

rage

3,22

234

826

112

525

71

63

Perc

cn1

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

190.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

Cla

ss A

169

1,70

1,68

726

3,69

90.

155

206,

533

71,5

2822

,902

7,96

381

46,

873

3,18

10.

121

Ave

rage

10,0

691,

560

1,22

242

313

647

541

19Pe

rcen

t'15

.949

.771

374

.554

.085

.610

0.0

98.9

100.

010

0.0

Cla

ss B

197

875,

843

81,3

720.

093

38,9

6729

,259

3,85

9-

9-

-0.

044

Ave

rage

4,44

641

319

814

920

0-

00

Perc

ent'

18.5

25.5

22.0

14.1

22.1

14.4

01.

10

0C

lass

C65

180

4,71

822

,060

0.02

731

,649

31,6

490

00

00

0.03

9A

vera

ge1,

236

3449

490

00

00

Perc

ent'

61 3

23.5

5.9

11.4

23.9

00

00

0C

lass

D46

43,2

082,

833

0.06

60

00

00

00

0.00

0A

vera

ge93

962

00

00

00

0Pe

rcen

t'43

130.

80

00

00

00

BY

CO

NT

RO

L

Num

ber

Inst

itutio

ns

Enr

o lm

ent

Re'

S&T

DP5

BA

MA

PhD

DV

MM

DD

DS

R,,*

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Den

omin

atio

nal

480

659,

965

39,2

120.

059

39,0

8427

,035

1,77

625

70

885

724

0.05

9A

vera

ge1,

375

8281

564

10

22

Perc

ent'

45.2

193

10.6

141

20.4

6.6

3.2

012

.922

.8iii

iree

,22

970

8,36

811

5,04

80.

162

73,9

9531

,543

8,67

43,

015

107

2,31

092

401

13A

vera

ge .-

---.

--,..

,,3,

093

502

349

138

3813

104

Perc

ent'

215

20.6

31.1

28.9

23.8

32.4

37.9

13.0

33.6

29.0

l' ub

lic35

42,

057,

123

215,

704

0.10

515

8,07

073

,858

16,3

114,

691

;16

3,67

81,

533

0.07

7A

vera

ge5,

811

609

447

209

461;

.12

-10

4Pe

rcen

t'33

360

.158

357

.055

.861

.058

.987

.053

.548

.21

Perc

ent d

etai

l may

not

add

to 1

00 b

ecau

se o

f ro

undi

ng2

Re

= G

radu

ates

stu

dent

enr

ollm

ent/t

otal

enr

ollm

ent.

''.a3

1134

4503

tWA

rizi

siga

Zaa

t,'A

fzua

wag

aars

eam

e...,

...-.

..--

3 S&

T D

P =

See

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Deg

ree

Prod

uctiv

ity.

4 R

. = S

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

ogy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity/to

tal e

nrol

lmen

t.

Denominationally controlled, accredited, degree-granting in-stitutions are the most numerous. These institutions n'imber480, and they constitute 45.2 percent of the study group. Pri-vately controlled institutions are the least numerous; they makeup 21.5 percent of the total studied.

The publicly controlled institutions enrolled the largest pro-portion of the degree-regis'.ered student body-2.1 million stu-dents, 60.1 percent of the total student study population. Theremaining 40 percent of the student study group is aboutequally divided--19.3 percent were enrolled at denominationaland 20.6 percent at private institutions.

Publicly controlled institutons also enrolled most of the grad-uate student population-216,000 (58.3 percent) . The denomi-nationally controlled institutions, on the other hand, enrolledonly 10.6 percent of the total graduate population.

With respect to size, as measured by total enrollment, thepublicly controlled institutions stand first. On the average theyenrolled about 5,800 students per institution, about twice thenumber enrolled by the average private institution (3,100) andmore than four times the number enrolled by the average de-nominational institution (1,400) . The public institutions alsoare largest when measured in Walls of graduate enrollment.But here the difference between private institutions and publicis noi: as large as is the case with total enrollment. Public insti-tutions average about 600 graduate students per institution,while privately controlled institutions average about 500. Thedenominational institutions average about 80 graduate studentsper institution.

Public institutions contribute most to the Nation's graduatestudent pool (58.3 percent) . Private institutions, however, hadthe largest proportion of students enrolled in graduate educa-tion (Re = 0.162) . The denominational institutions fall farbehind both-10.6 percent of the Nation's graduate pool and arather small effort in graduate education (Re = 0.059) .

Class A institutions accounted for 74. 5 percent of the Nation'stotal educational productivity in science and , technology in theacademic year 1962-1963-207,000 S&T DP Units. Class B andC institutions accounted for 14.1 percent and 11.4 percent, re-spectively. Class D institutions by definition are noncontributorsto the science and technology degree pool.

Class A institutions awarded 54.9 percent of all the bache-lor's degrees, 85.6 percent of the master's degrees, and all thedoctorates in science and engineering. They also granted all thedoctor of medicine degrees in the study population, all those

43

in dentistry, and 99, percent of the degrees in veterinary medi-cine. Class B institutions awarded 22.1 percent of the bachelor'sand 14.4 percent of the master's degrees in the sciences. Class Cinstitutions, as per definition, awarded only baccalaureates inscience and engineering-23.9 percent.

Class A institutions contributed more of their Ain educa-tional effort to science and technology than did any other classof institution. The Rs value (science education index) for ClassA institutions is 0.121; for Class B, 0.044; and for Class C, 0.039.

Public institutions were the major contributors to the Nation'seducational pool in science and technology (158,000 S&T DPunits, 57.0 percent of the total) in academic year 1962-1963.Private institutions contributed about one-hhlf this effortA3.9percentand the denominational institutions, the least-14.1percent.

Public institutions awarded the bulk of the bachelor's degreesin science and engineering in the year studied, 55.8 percent; ofthe master's degrees, 61.0 percent; and of the doctorates, 58.9percent. Public institutions also graduated 87.0 percent of theveterinarians, 53.5 percent of the doctors of medicine, and 48.2percent of the doctors of dentistry. Although denominationalinstitutions are the most numerous (480) , they contributekl theleast to education in the sciences. They accounted for only 14.1percent of the degree units produced in science education. Theircontribution to graduate education in science /and engineeringwas also the lowest; they accouuted for 3.2 percent of the doc-torates in science and engineering. The Rs value for denomi-national institutions (0.059) is also quite low when comparedto a Rs of 0.113 for private, and 0.077 for puNic institutions.

Class A public institutions appear to carry the brunt of theNation's load in higher education; they also carry the heaviestload in education in the sciences (Tables C-1, C-2) . Class Apublic institutions enrolled 33 percent of an the degree-regis-tered students and 38.9 percent of all the enrolled graduatestudents. They accounted for 45.8 percent of all the science andtechnology degree units (S&T DP) produced in the year studied.They awarded 36.8 percent of the bachelor's decrrees in scienceand engineering, 52.1 percent of the master's, and 58.9 percentof the doctorates. They also accounted for 87 percent of theveterinarians trained, 53.5 percent of the doctols of medicine,and 48_2 percent of the doctors of dentistry.

But it is the Class A private institution that scored highest inthe graduate education indexRe = 0.236. This same type ofinstitution was also the largest participant in educa tion in the.

44

sciences as demonstrated by a science education index (Rs) of0.154. These two values can be interpreted to mean that of theNation's institutions of higher learning, Class A private insti-tutions are the most highly committed (in terms of their totaleducational potential) to graduate education and to educationin science and technology.

Class B, C, and D institutions totaled 894; they make upabout 85 percent of the degree-accredited institutions. Theywere, for the most part, not as deeply involved in science educa-tion as were the Class A institutions. They enrolled 50 percentof the total degree-listed students but accounted for only about25 percent of the total S&T DP units. They did, however, con-tribute 46 percent of the bachelors in science and engineering.

The Rs value (science education index) of 0.026 for Class Cpublic institutions is the lowest of all institution types studied,indicating a low order of association with science education.

The Economks of Higher Education

There were 19 institutions that reported academic budgetsin excess of $40 million (Table 4) . These 19 institutions en-rolled 13.0 percent of all degree-registered students in the studypopulation and 24.8 percent of the students enrolled in gradu-ate training. They also accounted for 24.1 percent of the educa-tional productivity in science and technology (67,000 S&T DPunits) . They budgeted 23.9 percent of all the funds committedto higher education (educational and general income) .

There were 179 academic institutions-17 percent of the studypopulationwith budgets in excess of $5 million. These insti-tutions accounted for $3.13 billion or 72 percent of the totalacademic income. They enrolled 60 percent of the total studentbody and 81 percent of the graduate population. They accountedfor 78 percent of the Nation's educational contribution to sci-ence and technology (215,000 S&T DP units) for the year stud-ied. They awarded 62 percent of the bachelor's degrees in sci-ence and engineering, 89 percent of the master's, and 98 percentof all the doctorates.

The remaining 884 institutions, those with academic budgetsof less than $5 million, comprise 83 percent of the institutionstudy population. They enrolled 40 percent of the total studentbody, but only 19 percent of the graduate population. Theyaccounted for 28 percent of the total academic budget, and theyproduced 38 percent of the bachelors in science and engineering.

45

. IT

abie

4.-

Enr

ollm

ent a

nd D

egre

es G

rant

ed in

the

Sci

ence

s of

Aca

dem

ic In

stitu

tions

, Ran

k O

rder

ed b

y th

e E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

inco

me,

Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1962

-196

3

[dol

lars

in th

ousa

nds]

Lev

el o

f E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

(EG

1)N

umbe

rE

GI2

Enr

ollm

ent

S&T

DP3

BA

MA

PhD

11,4

1183

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Tot

al1,

063

$4,3

46,3

933,

425,

456

369,

964

277,

149

132,

416

26,7

617,

963

0.10

80.

081

Ave

rage

4,08

93,

222

348

261

125

257

Perc

ent'

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

Abo

ve $

40 M

illio

n19

1,04

0,19

544

6,34

091

,595

66,8

9320

,482

8,11

63,

386

0.20

50.

150

Ave

rage

54,7

4723

,492

4,82

13,

521

1,07

842

717

8Pe

rcen

t'1.

823

.913

.024

.824

.115

.530

.342

.5$2

0440

Mill

ion

2875

0,10

745

2,99

966

,882

49,2

6916

,722

5,28

42,

093

0.14

80.

109

Ave

rage

26,7

9016

,179

2,38

91,

760

597

189

75Pe

rcen

t'2.

617

.313

.218

.117

.812

.619

.726

3$1

0-$2

0 M

illio

n52

762,

914

598,

773

75,2

5054

,413

23,6

155,

542

1,47

90.

126

0.09

1A

vera

ge14

,671

11,5

151.

447

1,04

645

410

728

Perc

ent'

4.9

17.6

17.5

20.3

19.6

17.8

20.7

18.6

$5-$

10 M

illio

n80

576,

754

545,

101

66,1

6144

,406

21,2

704,

951

831

0.12

10.

081

Ave

rage

7,20

96,

814

827

555

266

6210

Perc

ent'

7.5

133

15.9

17.9

16.0

16.1

18.5

10.4

$1-$

5 M

illio

n46

996

9,99

81,

091,

741

64,9

0851

,487

39,9

862,

829

172

0.05

90.

047

Ave

rage

2,06

82,

328

138

110

856

0.4

Perc

ent'

44.2

22.3

31.9

17.5

18.6

30.2

10.6

2.2

Und

er $

1 M

illio

n24

6,42

529

0,50

25,

168

10,6

8110

,361

392

0.61

80.

037

Ave

rage

415

594

700

1326

25-

Perc

ent'

39.0

5.7

8.5

1.4

3.9

7.8

0.1

1 Pe

rcen

t det

ail m

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

.2

EG

I =

Edu

catio

nal a

nd G

ener

al I

ncom

e.3

S&T

DP

= S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y D

egre

e Pm

duct

ivity

.4

Re

= G

radu

ate

stud

ent e

nrol

lmen

t/tot

al e

nrol

lmen

t3

Rs

= S

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

logy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity/to

tal e

nrol

lmen

t.

For a better understanding of the economics of higher edu-cation the academic budget was examined in terms of three meas-ures of institutional concern with higher educationLotal enroll-ment (Figure 1) , graduate enrollment (Figure 2) , and scienceeducation (Figure 3) . The scatter diagrams are representativeof the Class A institutions only (169) , and so are the least squaresregression lines; the class interval points represent the meansof the 1,063 universities and colleges (Table 4) . These averagesare rank ordered by the educational and general income. (Afew of the individual institution points at the upper levels offunding were not included for graphic-representational reasons.)

The correlation coefficient for the relationship total enroll-ment to the academic budgetTE = 3400 + 390 (EG1 in mil-lions) is 0.79. Sixty-three percent of the variations in the totalenrollment data for Class A institutions can be accounted forby this expression.

The correlation coefficient for the relationship graduateenrollment to the academic budgetGE =200 + 80 (EGI inmillions) is 0.75. Fifty-six percent of the variation in graduateenrollment for Class A institutions can be accounted for by theexpression above.

The correlation coefficient for the relationship education pro-ductivity in the sciences to the academic budgetS&T DP =-210 + 60 (EGI in millions) is estimated to be 0.90, Eighty

Figure I.The Relationship of Total Enrollment to the Educational andGeneral Income for Class A Institutions

40,000

30,000

20,00

10,00

I

REGRE SSION

T.E.= 9400I

X CLASS I NTERVAL

I

LINE:390. (EGI I N

I

M EAN FOR

MILLIONS)

1069 INSTITUTIONS

.

. ' .X:

.-

X .7 4.

.

:

e.

tr

J

111

10 20 30 40 50

EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL INCOME-DOLLARS IN MILLIONS

513

60

47

Figure 2.The Relationship of Graduate Enrollment to the Educetionaland General Income for Class A Institutions

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

REGR ESSIONG.E. = zoo

X CLASS INTERVAL

I

LINE:+ no. (EGI IN

MEAL4 FOR

MILLIONS)

SOBS INSTITUTIONS.

.1

. .

.

a

.

.

.:..

. . ..

. ..

.

10 20 30 40 50

EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL INCOMEDOLLARS IN MILLIONS

60

percent of the variations in degree productivity units for ClassA institutions can be accounted for by the S8cT DP expression.

Although. each of the correlation coefficients are within ac-ceptable limits, the S8cT DP-EGI relationship shows up best.The class interval data means for the total population of uni-versities and colleges on the whole seem to fit th regression linesfor each of the projections very nicely, except in the case ofFigure 1. An exponential curve could be drawn through theclass interval data for the total enrollment-academic bildgetrelationship.

It is obvious that there is considerable scatter for the indi-vidual Class A institution points plotted for each of the threefigures, especially for those points at the upper levels of theacademic budget. But this is not unexpected, for the universi-ties represented by these points are among the most highly indi-vidualistic academic institutions of the Nation, if not in theworld. To complicate matters further, the Class A populationof universities studied is composed of three distinct groupspublic, private, and denominationaleach with unique charac-teristics of its own, varying widely in their association with un-48

Figure 3.The Relationship of Science and Technology DegreeProductivity to the Educational and General Income for

Class A Institutions

>-4000

1.7

ct00- 3000LaLa

(.9 a_CI

C2

8 - 9-2000

(I)0 I-zxt-o 1000

(.7)co

REGRESSION LINE:S & TDP = rso + so. (EGI IN MILLIONS)

X CLA.SS I NTERVAL MEAN FOR 1663 INSTITUTIONS

,i(=x - -10 20 30 40 50

EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL INCOMEDOLLARS iN MILLIONS

60

dergraduate, graduate, and science education and scientific re-search. The total enrollment data also complicate mattersbecause of the inclusion of the_.part-time element, and to makematters still worse, the educational and general income dataare not always compatible with expenditure. It is truly remark-able that the correlations turned out as well as they did. It isalso not surprising that the correlation coefficient for the degreeproductivity unit relationship to the academic budget turnedout better than the others. The S&T DP metric was introducedin the hope of establishing an integrated measure, at least indic-ative of total educational productivity in the sciences.

No inference is intended that the institutional budget is in-fluenced primarily by any one or all three variables investigated.An educational institution's business is much too complex forsuch simple deductions. However, the interpretation can bemade that the relationships showing the highest correlationsmay be more reflective of the principal business of an academicinstitution, and consequently may serve as a measure of its leveland degree of commitment to education or its economic needs.The data plotted in Figure 1 leave it unclear whether the EGI-TE relationship is exponential or linear. However, this is notthe place to argue this point, since both EGI and TE data

58 49

contain elements of uncertainty. At any rate, all three relation-ships relating the academic budget to enrollment characteristicsand educational productivity are sufficiently interesting to war-rant further study of these and related phenomena.

In seeking a further understanding of the relationship be-tween the academic budget and the enrollment characteristics ofinstitutions of higher education, it was logical to probe into therelationships between Re, the graduate index, and the educa-tional and general budget (EGI) The result is the exponentialrelationsbip depicted in Fieure 4. The plot is a slightly smoothedrepresemation of the class interval means of the 1,063 univer-sities and colleges ranked by EGI (Table 4) . The curve has arelatively sharp change in slope at the Re values between 0.10and 0.15, and EGI values between $7 and $20 million. Thisunorthodox plot' indicates that there appears to be a level ininstitutional enrollment characteristics, wherein the institution'sfundino- behavior chano-°es markedly. The level of maximumrate ofchange in slope for Figure 4 falls somewhere below the100th institution rank-ordered by the academic budget, wellwithin the Class A

°oroupof institutionsthose clearly associ-

ated with graduate andprofessional education.Two conclusions may be drawn from this p!ot: (1) that the

funding-educational dynamics of the first 100 institutions(ranked by size, budget, graduate program, etc.) are quite dif-

ferent from the other 1,000, and (2) that total enrollment isnot the principal force or the only measure in education dy-namics determinative of fiscal requirements. There is the likeli-hood that estimates based on total enrollment data may evenyield erroneous answers if used to ascertain the fiscal needs ofinstitutions heavily committed to graduate and advanced educa-tion.. The evidence makes it appear more than likely that, atsome value level in Rethe graduate indexit is the graduatephase of higher education that is principally determinative ofeducation budget policy; that at some critical level in an insti-tution's evolution (from emphasis on undergraduate educationto increasing identity with graduate studies) , it faces a radicaland major policy change in fiscal practice& Certainly the evidencein Figure 4 militates against the use of total enrollment as ameasure or as the principal factor in setting budget policy ofthe larger more affluent institutions.

If the evidence submitted (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4) and the chainof reasoning developed is admissible, one may tentatively makefurther interpretation& For it appears that once institutionsembark on programs of advanced education they seem to re-quire about $12 million in educational and gerleral income for

50

every 1,000 graduate students enrolled. This relationship seemsto be independent of the size of the total student body at somecritical enrollment level. One can go one step further by specu-lating that institutions engaged in science education appear torequire about $17 million in the educational and general in-come for every 1,000 S&T DP units committed to education inthe sciences. Neither of these figures is to be interpreted strictly,

of course. The educational and general income is a function of

a number of institutional activities other than graduate educa-tion and education in the sciences. But as a first approximationto an understanding of educational dynamics and economics,these numbers do give one an order of magnitude and a ruleof thumb with respect to the requirements and the costs ofgraduate education and education in science and technology-

It appears that the fiscal behavior of colleges and universitiesis size dependent. However, at the more advanced levels ofhigher education, it seems that graduate, professional, and sci-ence education are the more likely determinants of the academic

Figure 4.The Relationship of the Educational andGeneral Income for Universities and Colleges

to the Graduate Education Index (Re)

40

20

GRAOLIATM ENROLLMENT......6000000......l.,.r'E TOTAL ENROLLMENT

0 .05 .10 .15

GRADUATE EDUCATION INDEX (RE)

-20 25

51

budget. It also appears that the universities (Class A institu-tions) are the major producers of trained manpower, especiallyat the professional and graduate levels, and that it is thesesame institutions that train the bulk of the Nation's scientistsand technologists, especially at the graduate and professionaldegree levels. (Class A institutions are expected to dominatethe educational picture with respect to the award of doctoratesin science and engineering, the doctor of medicine, and the doc-tor of dentistry because of definitional constraints.) It furtherappears that the universities are the major generators and usersof academic funds. A fairly direct relationship seems to exist be-tween academic banding and institutional contribution to sci-ence education, and between funding and institutional effort ingraduate education.

52

' '4.:-.3-t

VII. PA1TERNS OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMICSCIENCE

Distribution by AgencyThirteen Federal agencies obligated $1.10 billion for academic

science in fiscal year 1963 (Tables 5 and 6, A-1, A-2, C-3) Theywere the U.S. Public Health Service$500 million (45.4 per-cent) ; the National Science Foundation$227 million (20.7 per-cent) ; The Department of Defense$199 million (18.1 percent) ;the Atomic Energy Commission$62 million (5.7 percent) ; theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration$42 million(3.8 percent) ; the U.S. Department of Agriculture$42 million(3.8 percent) ; the U.S. Office of Education$20 million (1.8percent) ; and six "Others"$7 million (0.7 percent)

The data can be considered to be fairly reliable (Table C-4) .4'The reported total for Federal funds for academic science isabout 17 percent higher than the total reported for Federalfunds for research and development to colleges and universi-ties proper. This difference is about right, for about 20 percentof Federal funds for academic science are for the science edu-cation component.

To put this study in proper perspective, and to provide apoint of reference, the following statistics dealing with Federalsupport are noted. In fiscal year 1963, the total Federal researchand development budget for colleges and universities properwas $850 million. In the same year, total Federal obligationsfor research and development to colleges and universities (in-cluding contract research centers) came to $1,500 million. Fed-eral obligations for total research and development totalled$12,500 million and the total Federal budget (net) $94,700 mil-lion.. In fiscal year 1963 Federal funds for academic science obli-gations amounted to about 9 percent of the total research anddevelopment budget and L2 percent of the total Federal budget.

The obligated $1.10 billion in Federal funds for academicscience went to 711 institutions out of a population of 1,063accredited, degree-granting universities and colleges in theUnited States. These 711 institutions received a total of $5.15billion (EGI + FFAS) in the same year, comprised of $4.05billion in educational and general income and $1.10 billion in

532

Federal funds for academic science. Federal funds for academicscience contributed 21-4 percent (Rfe) to the total researchand education budget of the 711 institutions in the study popu-lation r,ceiving Federal funds.

The United States Public Health Service contributed $500million or 45.4 percent of the total Federal support to academicscience in fiscal year 1963. The U.S. Public Health Serviceranked first among the Federal agencies supporting academicscience. Its support was approximately twice the size of the nexthighest contributor to academic sciencethe National ScienCeFoundation. The Foundation contributed $227 million, 20.7 per-cent of the total. The Department of Defense followed with$199 million, 18.1 percent. These three agencies contributed 84.2percent of the total$926 million; ten others contributed 15.8percent.

Federal Funds by Institution Class and ControlIn fiscal year 1963 $1.05 billion was obligated to 169 Class A

institutions (Tables 5, C-3) . These institutions received 95.1percent of the total Federal academic science funds; 46.6 percentof this came from the U.S. Public Health Service. The NationalScience Foundation and Department .of Defense followed with18.8 and 18.4 percent respectively. The three-agency total equaled83.8 percent of the $1.05 billion obligated to Class A institutions.

Class B institutions, numbering 197, received $37 million or3.4 percent of the total; 53.5 percent came from the NSF. TheUSPHS contributed 21.5 percent, the DOD 15.6 pereent. Theremaining 9.4 peicent was distributed among the other tenagencies.

Class C institutions, numbering 651, received $16 million or13 percent of the total. The NSF contributed the bulk of theFederal support to this class-70_2 percent; the USPHS contrib-uted 20.4 percent.

Private institutions, numbering 229, received $485 million inFederal funds for academic science. This group accounted for44J percent of the total. They received their principal supportfrom the USPHS, which accounted for $222 million or 45.9 per-cent of the funds obligated to this private group of institutions.The Department of Defense contributed the next largest amount,22.8 percent; it was followed by the NSF with an additional18.8 percent.

Public institutions, numbering 354, received $547 million inFFAS; they accounted for 49.8 percent of the total. They also

44

Tab

le 5

.-F

eder

al F

unds

for

Aca

dem

ic S

cien

ce b

y A

genc

y, b

y C

lass

, and

Con

trol

of I

nstit

utio

n, F

isca

l Yea

r 19

63[d

olla

m in

thou

sand

s]

BY

CL

ASS

,N

umbe

rFF

AS2

EC

12D

OD

NA

SAA

EC

USP

HS

NSF

USO

EU

SDA

Oth

erIt

h441

2

TO

TA

L1,

063

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,393

$199

,400

$42,

122

$62,

244

$499

,527

$227

,323

$19,

680

$41,

697

$7,4

880.

202

3,96

7A

vera

ge1,

034

4,08

918

840

5947

021

419

397

Perc

ent'

100.

018

,13.

85.

745

,420

.71.

83.

70.

7C

lass

A16

91,

045,

622

2,86

4,88

219

2,61

641

,542

61,2

6848

8,09

719

5,82

818

,120

40,9

017,

250

0,26

75,

063

Ave

rage

6,18

716

,952

1,14

024

636

32,

888

1,15

910

724

243

Perc

ent'

100.

018

.44.

05.

946

.618

,81,

23.

90.

7C

lass

B19

737

,369

726,

791

5,83

342

873

08,

062

19,9

821,

324

796

204

0.01

995

9A

vera

ge19

03,

684

302

441

101

74

1

Perc

ent'

100.

015

.61,

12,

021

.553

.53,

62.

10.

5C

lass

C65

116

,306

714,

038

909

152

246

3,32

511

,449

191

-34

0.02

251

5A

vera

ge25

1,09

71

--

518

-_

-Pe

rcen

t'io

rxi)

5.6

0,9

1.5

20.4

70.2

1,2

0.0

0.2

Cla

ss 1

)46

.19

441

,682

42-

-43

6445

--

0.00

5-

Ave

rage

490

61

--

11

1-

-Pe

rcen

t'10

0.0

21.7

0.0

0,0

22,1

33.0

23,2

0.0

0.0

BY

CO

NT

RO

L

Num

ber

FFA

S1E

G12

DO

DN

ASA

AE

CU

SPH

SN

SFU

SOE

USD

AO

ther

11,,4

Rid

2

Den

omin

atio

nal -

480

$67,

148

$618

,519

$9,6

36$1

,524

$1,0

68$4

1,18

0$1

2,00

9$7

78$5

30.

098

1,71

8

Ave

rage

140

1,28

920

32

8627

2-

-Pe

rcen

t'10

0,0

14.4

2.2

1,6

61.4

19.2

1.1

0.0

0.1

Priv

ate

229

484,

848

1,18

9,53

211

0,57

720

,783

29,8

3422

2,44

691

,238

6,57

496

32,

433

0.29

06,

061

Ave

rage

2,11

75,

194

483

9113

097

139

829

411

Perc

ent'

100.

022

.843

6,1

45.9

18.8

1.3

0.2

0.5

Publ

ic35

454

7,48

52,

538,

342

79,1

8719

,815

31,3

4223

5,90

112

3,17

612

,328

40,7

345,

002

0177

3,46

4A

vera

ge1,

547

7,17

022

456

8966

634

835

115

14Pe

rcen

t'10

0,0

14.5

3.6

5.7

43,1

22,5

2.2

7,5

0.9

1 Pe

rcen

t det

ail m

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

,1

FFA

S =

Fed

ertl

Fund

s fo

r A

cade

mie

Sci

ence

,3

EG

I =

Edu

catio

nal a

nd G

ener

al I

ncom

e.

4 R

, = F

eder

al f

unds

for

aca

dem

ie s

cien

ce/to

tal I

nstit

ut o

nal I

ncom

e.5

Rfa

= F

eder

al f

unds

for

aca

dem

ie s

cien

ce/s

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

logy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity.

?AT

able

6,-

Fed

eral

Sup

port

of A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

by A

geno

y, O

rder

ed b

y Le

vel o

f Fed

eral

Fun

ds fo

rA

cade

mic

Sci

ence

,F

isca

l Yea

r 19

63[d

olla

rs I

n th

ousa

nds]

Lev

el o

f Fe

dera

lFu

nds

for

Aca

-de

mic

Sci

ence

Rec

eive

d by

Inst

itutio

ns

Num

ber

of I

nstit

u-

tit

Fede

ral

Fund

s fo

rA

cade

mic

Scie

nce

Edu

catio

nal

& G

ener

alIn

com

eD

OD

NA

SAA

EG

USP

IIS

NSF

USO

EU

SDA

Oth

erR

I;R

ids

Abo

ve $

20,0

00..

,-1

814

$394

,143

$715

,955

$98.

282

$12.

824

$24,

666

$171

,119

$76,

051

$4,2

55$4

,135

$2,8

1103

557,

895

Ave

rage

28,1

5351

,140

7,02

091

61,

762

12,2

235,

432

804

295

201

Perc

ent'

... ,

100.

025

.03.

263

43.4

19.3

1,0

1,1

0.7

$10,

000-

$20,

000

1520

8,67

648

1,07

387

,056

9,92

313

,285

103,

221

37,1

862,

724

4,14

81,

133

0303

6,65

1A

vera

ge13

,912

32,0

722,

470

662

886

6,88

12,

479

182

277

76Pe

rcen

t'10

0,0

17.7

4,8

6.4

49,4

17.8

132,

003

$5,0

00-$

10,0

0031

223,

082

701,

513

25,4

937,

832

11,8

5211

8,06

040

,571

4,84

913

,682

1,24

30.

241

4,49

6A

vera

ge7,

196

22,6

2982

225

336

63,

808

1,30

915

644

140

Perc

ent'

..,

100,

011

33.

55.

053

.018

.12.

26,

10.

6$5

00-4

5,00

010

623

3,29

31,

011,

939

30,7

3811

,093

12,1

1598

,315

46,7

676,

888

19,6

772,

200

0.18

7-2,

984

Ave

rage

2,20

19,

547

347

105

114

928

441

6018

621

Perc

ent'

...,

100.

015

.74,

85.

242

.120

.02,

88,

40.

9$1

0045

00 ,

.. ,

,12

928

,881

506,

162

1,59

742

664

36,

520

18,2

761,

269

5595

0,05

41,

023

Ave

rage

224

3,92

412

35

5114

210

1Pe

rcen

t'10

0,0

531.

52.

222

.663

34.

40.

2O

J$1

-$10

041

611

,406

631,

668

234

2418

32,

292

8,47

219

50

60.

018

387

Ave

rage

271,

518

16

200

0Pe

rcen

t'...

'10

0,0

2.1

0,2

1.6

20.1

743

1.7

0N

o Fe

dera

l Fun

ds35

20

298,

083

--

--

Ave

rage

.. ,

.0

847

-Pe

rcen

t'. ,

. ,

00

00

00

00

0T

OT

AL

,1,

063

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,393

$199

,400

$42,

122

$62,

244

$499

,527

$227

,323

$19,

680

$41,

697

$7,4

880.

202

3,96

7A

vera

ge1,

034

4,08

918

840

5947

021

419

897

Prrc

entl

100.

018

.13.

85,

745

.420

,71,

83.

80.

7I

Perc

ent d

etai

lm

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

.R

te =

Fed

eral

fun

ds f

or a

cade

mic

sci

ence

/tota

l inst

itutio

nal i

ncom

e.3

ittei

= F

eder

al f

unds

for

aca

dem

icac

ienc

e/sc

ienc

e an

d te

chno

logy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity.

received their principal support from the USPHS, amountingto $236 million or 43.1 percent of the obligated FFAS. Threeagenciesthe USPHS, DOD and NSFaccounted for 80.1 per-cent of the funds obligated to public institutions. The U.S. De-partment of Agriculture contributed 98 percent of its academicscience funds to this one group.

Denominational institutions, numbering 480, received $67million in Federal funds for academic science, equivalent to 6.1percent of the total. These institutions also received their prin-cipal support (61.4 percent) from the USPHS.

Federal Funds by Level of Support

Fourteen institutions received in excess of $20 million perinstitution. These 14 received a total of $394 million or 35.8percent of the total Federal funds (Table C-5) The USPHScontributed 43.4 percent of the funds received by this group of14 (Table 6) ; the DOD, 25.0 percent; the NSF, 19.3 percent.The other ten agencies shared the remaining 12.3 percent.

An additional 15 institutions received sums ranging between$10 million and $20 million, a total of $209 million or 19.0percent of the whole.

One hundred twenty-nine institutions received between $100,-000 and $500,000 in FFAS, for a total of $28.9 million or 2.6percent of the whole. The NSF contribution amounted to 63.3percent of the total; the USPHS, 22.6 percent; and the DOD,53 percent.

Four hundred sixteen degree-accredited institutions receivedbetween $1,000 and $100,000 in Federal funds, for a total of$11.4 million. The National Science Foundation contributed74.3 percent and the US. Public Health Service 20.1 percent.

The first 29 institutions ranked by Federal funds receivedsums in excess of $10 milliona total of $603 million or 54.8percent of the total obligated.

The first 166 institutions rank-ordered by Federal funds re-ceived in excess of $500,000 per institution, a total of $1.06 bil-lion or 96.3 percent of the total funds obligated.

Five hundred forty-five institutions received a total of $40.3million in Federal funds (3.7 percent of the total obligated)ranging from $1,000 to $500,000.

Three hundred fifty-two institutions, 33.1 percent of thedegree-accredited institutions, received no Federal funds foracademic science.

0,6 ng0 0 57

Federal Funds and Multiple Supportof Academic Science

As stated in the preceding section, 352 institutions receiyed noFederal funds for academic science. An additional 332 institu-tions received support from one agency only, and 151 institu-tions received support from two only (Table 7) . The rest, num-bering 228, received support from at least three agencies. Ofthese, 113 institutions received some support from at least six,and of this last group, 31 received support from all eight (the"Other" category counts as one) . These same 113 institutions, asone might expect, are those that rank the highest by level ofFederal funds.

These results indicate that the institutions at the higher endof the academic science support spectrum have not become one-agency dependent for their Federal support- The more affluentand major producers of advanced education scientists and tech-nologists tend to be found at the upper end of the rank spec-trum; they also appear to be the major beneficiaries of pluralisticsupport_ They appear to have a wide latitude of choice respectingsource of support and to be the beneficiaries of a broadly based,multiple support system.

But multiple support per se is not of great consequence, unlessconsidered in conjunction with the size and the order of mag-nitude of the total and principal support_ For although the uni-versities and colleges receiving the major share of Federal fundsreceive this support from the largest number of Federal agencies,basically, their principal and major support for academic sci-ence comes from one Federal agency. The U.S. Public Health Serv-ice not only is the principal source of funds for Federal academicscience (45.4 percent of all FFAS) , it is also the principal Fed-eral influence in the first 150 institutions rank ordered by Fed-eral funds (Table C-6) . It is the major Federal influence in allbut ten of the first 50 insututions (rank ordered between $6.3million and $42.5 million in Federal funds) . Similarly, it is alsothe major influence in the next 50 institutions_

The National Science Foundation is an important influence fromabout the 150th institutionthose institutions whose upper limitof FFAS support is about $2.7 million_ It is the major force inthe support of academic science throughout the remainder of thestudy population_ The Foundation's influence upon the less afflu-ent universities and colleges is very great as contrasted with theinfluence of the other Federal agencies on this same segment ofhigher education. These institutions, however, lie at the lower levelof the Federal support spectrum.

58g

Table 7.Frequency With Which Academic Institutions Receive MultipleSupport From Funds for Science by Federal Agencies

SupportNumber

InstitutionsSupportBy Only

NumberInstitutions

By All 8 Agendes1 31 DOD 2By Any 7 Agendes 51 NASA 0By Any 6 Agencies 31 AEC 3By Any 5 Agendes 28 USPHS 51_

By Any 4 Agendes 28 NSF 272By Any 3 Agendes 59 USOE 4By Any 2 Agencies 151 USDA 0

OTHER 2 0NONE 352

1. OTHER. is counted as one agency, accordingly, ALL refers to eight and not thirteen-2 OTHER includes six agencies: Department of Interior, Commerce, Labor, and State, Ten-

nessee Valley Authority, and Veterans' Administration_

All agencies, with the exception of the National Science Foun-dation and the Office of Education, obligated more than 95 per-cent of their fiscal year 1963 appropriations for academic sci-ence to Class A institutions (Tabie C-3) - The Foundation obli-gated 86.1 percent of its appropriation to Class A, 8.8 percentto Class B, and 5.1 percent to Class C. The USOE obligated 92.1percent of its academic science funds to Class A and 6.7 percentto Class B, but its total obligation for academic science for .:heyear under study was only $19.7 million.

Of the 711 universities and colleges receiving Federal funds foracademic science in fiscal year 1963, the NSF supported 648 in-stitutions-91 percent of the Federally supported and 61 percentof the degree-accredited institutions (Table C-7) The US.. Pub-lic Health Service made financial support available to 398 institu-tions, to 56 percent of the support-receivino- population and 37percent of the study population. The U.S. Oefice of Education andthe Department of Defense followed with 186 and 185 institu-tions, respectively. The U.S. Department of Agriculture limitedits support to 57 institutions. The Department of Defense recordis not complete for the DOD did not report institution obliga-tion data of less than $10,000..

The National Science Foundation is the sole source of Federalsupport for the largest number of universities and colleges in.this study population of 711 institutions. It singly supports 272institutions (Table 7) other Federal agencies combined aresingle support factors in 60 other cases. In almost every casewhere total Federal support comes from a single agency, thesum is usually of a low order of magnitude and under these Cir-cumstances single agency support is about all that can reasonablybe expected. The single agency support issue, therefore, loses itssignificance.

D-B 59

The data suggest that Federal funds for academic science reacha rather wide population of universities and colleges, more than'700, although the bulk of these funds (95 percent) is obli-gated to the Class A institutions (universities) . A large numberof institutions (30 percent) , principally of the Class B and Gtypes, receive no Federal support. The data further suggest thatthe U.S. Public Health Service is the dominant force (45 per-cent) in Federal programming for academic science, at least interms of the level of Federal support. The data also suggestthat the National Science Foundation is the agency most broadlybased in its support practices, reaching 90 percent of the insti-tutions receiving Federal support.

It seems that the funding practices of the Federal agencies aresufficiently broad and pluralistic to make it possible for themajor recipients of Federal fundsthe larger and more affluentinstitutionsto have a wide latitude of choice respecting thesource of Federal support. However, although the system of Fed-eral support is essentially pluralistic, in that 13 Federal agen-cies support academic science, one agency supplies the majorfunding (45.4 percent) . It further follows that only 20 percentof the Federal support for academic science comes from thoseagencies whose principal role is strengthening academic scienceand higher education. Therefore, although institutions appear tohave a wide latitude of choice respecting sources of Federal sup-port, such sources of support to a very large degree are restrictedto agencies that support science in fulfillment of specific objec-tives, and the motivation, if not the orientation of the sciencesupported, tends to become problem-solvingin the national in-terest sensein nature.

60

VIII. THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDS ON THEACADEMIC INSTITUTION

The Academic Budget and Federal FundsThe relationship between Federal funds for academic science

and the educational and general income for Class A institutions(Figure 5) appears to be linear. The class interval mean points(Tables C-8, C-9) for all 1,063 universities and colleges, rankordered by the educational and general income, appear to fitrather nicely on the least squares regression line. The correlationcoefficient for the relationshipFFAS = 140 360 (EGI inmillions) is 0.74. Fifty-five percent of the variation in Federalfunds can be accounted for by the expression above. (A few pointsrepresentative of those institutions at the upper levels of fundingagain were excluded for reasons of convenience.)

The scatter for this projection appears no better or worse thanit is for the data plotted in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Again, thescatter seems to be greater at the upper levels of funding, andagain, this is not unexpected. In this group are some of the greatinstitutes of science and technology and a number of the greatuniversities, many of which seem to be heavily committed tomedical education, and all of which, highly dependent on Fed-eral funds. This dependence in some few cases is at a sufficientlyhigh level where the Federal funds component surpasses the in-come raised from all other sources.

At any rate, the relationship FFAS to EGI appears to be funda-mentally linear. The slope of the line seems to indicate that infiscal year 1963 the universities raised approximately $4 millionin Federal funds for academic science for every $10 million theyraised in educational and general income.

Federal Funds and Productivity in Science Education

To explore further the educational dynamics of universitiesand colleges, the methodology used in investigating the relition-ship educational budget to graduate index (Figure 4) was onceagain employed. The relationship of educational productivity in

61

741

Figure 5.The Relationship of Federal Funds for A idemic Science tothe Educational and General Income for Class A Institutions

30REGRESSION LI NE:FFAS iao + 360. (EGI IN Nut...I-IONS)

X Ca-e.ss iNtERVAL 31E.416 ROR 1063 INSTITU TIONS

10 20 30 40 50EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL INCOMEDOLLARS IN MILLIONS

60

science and technology (S&T DP) to the Federal impact index(Rfe) (Figure 6) was explored, and so was the relationshipFederal funds for academic sciencein this case used as a mea-sure of the level of scientific researchto the science educationindex (Rs) (Figure 7) These relationships, as with that ex-plored in Figure 4, also appear to be exponential. Again as withFigure 4 the projections are class interval means (Tables 4, 6,C-8, C-9) .

The projections (Figures 6 and 7) give added strength. to .thehypothesis advanced in section VI that in terms of the budget-ing-educational characteristics of institutions, they appear to fallinto at least two distinct groups. The inference was drawn thatthe group at the higher end of the budget-enrollment spectrum(Figure 4) , appeared to be heavily committed to graduate edu-

cation. The data plotted in Figures 6 and 7 allow the continuationof this hypothesis and the additional inference that these institu-tionsat the higher end of the (graduate) education-affluencescaleare those more closely identified with research and scienceeducation, especially at the graduate and professional levels. It isquite obvious that there are a large number of institutions thatfall between these two extremes. They pose the question: Arethey in a state of equilibrium= part way between undergraduateand graduate education, or are they in the process of leaving theone and moving into the other? The methodology (Figures 4, 6,7) appears to offer a mode for further exploring the phenomenaof the changing, evolving academic institution of higher educa-

62

.-

"r-

Figure 6.The Relationship of Degree Productivity in Science andTechnology in Universities and Colleges to the Federal Funds

For Academic Science Impact Index (Rfe)

400

300Ci0rea.ILlILl

L.re

O D.2000

ILl

8 0.5 1

la1000

la

ILl

ILlre

Rve FFAS

,

EG1 + FFAS

.10 -20 .30

FEDERAL FUNDS IMPACT INDEX (R).40

tion. But speculation aside, in the population of 1,063 insti-tutions studied, there appear to be at least two groups of insti-tutions readily identified by their educational-fiscal behavior. Atthe one extreme is a group associated with great affluence, andclosely identified with scientific research, science education, andgraduate and professional studies.

But the most important question still remains to be answered.Is there a relationship between Federal funds for academic sci-ence and the academic institudon's output in science education?It seems that there isat least at the advanced degree level.The relationsh:p between Federal funds and doctoral degreesawarded in science and engineerino appears to be linear (Figure8) . The correlation coefficient for Se relationshipS&E PhD's = 5-I- 7.0 (FFAS in millions) is estimated as 0.85; seventy-threepercent of the variations in doctoral degrees can be accounted

63

Figure 7.The Relationship of Federal Funds for Academic Science inUniversities and Colleges to the Science Education Index (Rs)

40

Rs S & TDPTo-r^t_ E NROLLM ENT

.05 _10 A 5

SCIENCE EDUCATION INDEX (Rs)

20

for by the equation. To make matters even more comforting, theclass interval averages (Table C-5) also fall nicely on the sameregression line.

The individual 169 Class A university- points show no morescatter than -is the case in some of the earlier scatter diagrams.Where the scatter is greatest, at the upper end of the produc-tivity spectrum, it is to be expected, for again the institutionsat the upper end of the quality-productivity dimension of scien-tific research-science education, are -.those that are the most highlyindividualistic- Considering the fact that this population -containsa mixture of the great institutes of science and technology anda number of the great -universities highly committed to medicalresearch and education, the level of compatabilitythe correla-tion coefficient, 0.85between, degrees awarded and Federal fundsis truly remarkable. It -is also quite apparent that further in-vestigation of this interesting relationship is in order.

64

Tv,r,

Figure 8.The Relationship of Science and Engineering DoctoralDegrees to Federal Funds for Academic Science for

Class A Institutions

300

100

Rmov/ESSION LINE:S&E PH.D. = s + 7.o.(FFAS IN

I

MILLI ON S)

I.

X C,ASS INTERVAL MEAN

... ... .

. .e

4

a

10 20 30 40

FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCEDOLLARS IN MILLIONS

50

From the regression line, one can estimate that each $1 mil-lion in Federal funds for academic science appears to be asso-ciated with the education -of 7 doctorates in science and tech-nology_ This inference does not imply that each $1 million inFederal funds is responsible for the training of 7 doctoral candi-dates. A sum this large, however$140,000 per doctoral awardcannot escape influencing the envir,.-)nmertz for the training ofthese scientists and engineers.

There is no correlation between thc production of medical anddental degrees and Federal funds for academic science (TableC-5) This, lack of correlation is not unexpected for it is tradi-tional for medical and dental schools to limit the number of stu-dents enrolled and graduates produced irrespective of the insti-tution's investment in education_ Approximately 150 graduatesper year appear tO be the- upper limit for most universities, andit is rare that this number is exceeded. The wide variation inmedical school funding probably reflects the level and qualityof scholarship and the quality and type of graduates rather thannumber. High-cost medical schools are apt to be distinguishablemore by their concentration on the training of medical scientists,medical specialists, and the future professors of medicine, thanon the training of general practitioners.

65

The next question also naturally ft:snows. What sort of rela-tionships obtain for Federal funds and degree productivity in sci-ence and technology at the bachelor's and master's degree levels?The class interval plots for all 1,063 universities and. colleges(Table C-5) (Figure 9) indicate that these relationships arealso essentially linear, but that the linearity is not quite as clear-cut as it is for the doctorate relationship. (A least squares re-gression analysis wasn't attempted in this case because of boththe lack of time and the suspected remoteness of the relation-ship.)

These two plots which appear, to manifest themselves asshaped curvessingle "s" for the bachelor's and multiple for themaster's degreeconfirm the earlier hypothesis that there are anumber of levels of institutional and Federal funding. In one in-stance (Figure 7) Federal funding appears to be associated withthe degree of institutional involvement in science education. How-ever, a more likely interpretation for the projections in Figure 9is that the relationships depicted are fundamentally reflections ofinstitutional productivity at the doctorate level. It can be shown

Sgure 9.The Relationship of Federal Funds for Academic Science inUniversities and Colleges to Degrees in Science and Technology

66

30

25

20

15

10

A BA

0 200 400 600 800 1000DEGREES

that high doctorate producing institutions are apt to be thosethat are the high producers of the bachelor's and master's de-grees (Table 3) . This is especially true for the Class A publicinstitutions where high doctorate productivity is associated withhigh productivity at both the bachelor's and master's degreelevels. At any rate, the relationships depicted in Figure 9 leaveroom for considerable speculation and uncertainty, thus encour-aging the further exploration of the relationships of Federalfunds to educational productivity at all levels of Science educa-tion.

The preceding evidence leads one to the following summary:Federal funds for academic science appear to be directly

proportional to:1. institutional investment in education (EGI) .

2. institutional commitment to graduate education.3. institutional educational productivity in science and

technology (S&T DP) .

4. doctoral production in science and engineering.One may also conclude that doctorate degree production and

educational productivity in science and technology are closelyallied to the quality and the level of scientific research, and thatacademic research and graduate education in science are differentfaces of the same coin. One may further conclude that graduateeducation in the sciences, especially at the doctorate level, exertsa profound effect on the academic institution's fiscal behavior.

Federal Funds and Institution Types

Class A institutions, numbering 169, received $1.05 billion-95.1 percent of all Federal funds for academic science (Tables5, 8, C-3) . The denominational component of Class A institu-tions, numbering 24, received $52 million-4.7 percent of thetotal; the private component, numbering 52, received $469 mil-lion-42.6 percent; and the public component, numbering 93, re-ceived $525 million-47_7 percent.

The public component of Class B, numbering 114 institutions,received the principal share (more than 50 percent) of the $37million obligated to Class B. It received $19 million-51.1 per-cent of the class total, and 1_7 percent of the total Federal obli-gations_

Denominational institutions of the Class C component of institu-tions, numbering 404, received the major share of the funds ob-ligated to Class C. But they received only $7.5 million to-

67,

Tab

le 8

.-F

undI

ng a

nd M

anpo

wer

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of D

egre

e-A

ccre

dite

d In

stitu

tions

by

Cla

ss a

nd C

ontr

ol

[dol

lars

in th

ousa

nds]

Inst

itutio

nsN

umbe

rIn

stitu

tions

FFA

SE

GI

Rft

i

Enr

ollm

ent

Re2

Scie

nce

and

Eng

inee

ring

R14

Tot

alG

radu

ate

S&T

Dr

BA

MA

PhD

All

Inst

itutio

ns1,

003

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,393

0.20

23,

425,

456

369,

964

0.10

827

7,14

913

2,43

626

,761

7,96

30.

081

Cla

ss A

..

169

1,04

5,02

22,

864,

882

.267

1,70

1,68

726

3,69

9.1

5520

6,53

371

,528

22,9

027,

963

.121

Den

omin

atio

nal

.24

52,2

63.

174,

768

.230

157,

928

22,0

16.1

3916

,006

5,17

51,

293

257

.101

Priv

ate

5246

8,72

786

0,52

4.3

5341

3,83

097

,627

.236

63,5

9817

,672

7,67

53,

015

.154

Publ

ic93

524,

632

1,82

9,59

0.2

231,

129,

929

144,

056

.127

126,

929

48,6

8113

,934

4,69

1.1

12C

lass

B19

737

,359

725,

791

.049

875,

843

81,3

72.0

9338

,967

29,2

593,

859

-'.0

44'D

enom

inat

iona

l.

407,

385

89,7

26.0

7611

5,01

011

,991

.104

5,81

24,

594

483

-.0

51Pr

ivat

e43

10,8

5215

3,00

2.0

6012

9,63

113

,158

.102

8,96

66,

440

999

-.0

69Pu

blic

114

19,1

2248

3,00

3.0

3803

1,20

256

,223

.089

24,1

8918

,225

2,37

7-

.038

Cla

ss C

,65

116

,306

714,

038

.022

804,

718

22,0

60.0

2731

,649

31,6

49-

-.0

39' D

enom

inat

iona

l.

404

7,47

334

7,74

2.0

2138

1,60

25,

157

.014

17,2

6617

,266

--

.045

Priv

ate

121

5,11

716

3,35

3.0

3315

6,33

13,

749

.024

7,43

17,

431

--

.048

Publ

ic12

63,

716

202,

943

.018

266,

785

13,1

54.0

496,

952

6,95

2-

.026

Cla

ss D

4619

441

,682

.005

43,2

0824

366

6-

--

--

Den

omin

atio

nal

.

1227

0,28

3.0

045,

425

48.0

09-

--

--

Priv

ate

1315

212

,593

.012

8,57

651

4.0

60-

--

--

Pub

lie21

1522

,806

.001

29,2

072,

271

.078

--

--

-

= F

PAS/

EG

IPT

AS.

=, G

radu

ate

Enr

olim

ent/T

otal

Enr

ollm

ent,

SdiT

DP

= S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y D

egre

e Pr

oduc

tivity

.4

Rs

= S

&T

DP/

Tot

al E

nrol

lmen

t.

tally, 45.8 percent of Class C and 0.7 percent of the total Fed-eral funds obligated.

Class A institutions received on the average, $6.2 million inFederal funds per institution; Class B averaged $190,000; ClassC, $25,000; and Class D, $4,000.

Class A private and public institutions, together numbering145, received the bulk of both Federal funds (90.3 percent) andthe academic budget (61.9 percent) . This group of 145 institu-tions also trained 96.8 percent of the doctorates in science andengineering, 87.1 percent of the doctors of medicine, and '77.2 per-cent of the doctors of dentistry.

Private Class A institutions are the most highly favored of theclasses studied, with respect to the receipt of Federal funds. TheRfe value for this group is 0.353, indicating that 35 percent ofthe group's total income comes from Federal funds for academicscience. This private Class A group of institutions also made thelargest contribution in terms of its total educational effort ingraduate education. Its Re (graduate education index) valueturned out to be 0.236 (Re for the study population is 0.108) -Private Class A institutions also devoted more of their educa-tional effort to science education than did any other grouptheRs (science education index) value is 0.154; Rs for the studypopulation is 0.081.

Fourteen institutions, 1-3 percent of the study population, re-ceived in excess of $20 million per institution and enrolled296,000 students of whom 65,000 were in graduate studies. Thestudent body of these 14 institutions constituted 8_6 percent ofthe total student population studied and 17.6 percent of thosegraduate-enrolled (Table C-5) These same 14 institutions re-ceived 35.8 percent of the Federal funds. They accounted for 10_5percent of the bachelors, 23.7 percent of the masters, and 36.2percent of the doctorates produced in science and engineering_They also graduated 21.3 percent of the veterinarians, 18_0 per-cent of the doctors of medicine, and 14.1 percent of the doctorsof dentistry. They accounted for -18.0 percent of the Nation'seducational effort in science and technology_

One hundred sixty-six institutions received 96.3 percent ofFederal funds; they enrolled 50.9 percent of the students in,thestudy population and 72_5 percent of the graduate students_ Theyaccounted for 75.4 percent of the Nation's educational effort inscience and technology.. They graduated 55.6 percent of all bache-lors in science and engineering, 87.7 percent of the masters, 98_9percent of the doctorates, 98.9 percent of all the veterinarians, all

69

the doctors of medicine in the study population, and 95.1 percentof the dentists.

Five hundred forty-five institutions, 51.3 percent of the degree-accredited institutions, received as little as $1,000 and not morethan $500,000 in Federal funds. This group of 545 institutionsreceived 3.7 percent of the total Federal funds obligated; theyproduced 1. percent of the doctorates in science and engineer-ing; they enrolled 38.7 percent of all the degree-listed students,and 24.4 percent of those enrolled in graduate education- Theyaccounted for 26.1 percent of the funds in the academic budget .and for 20.8 percent of the Nation's effort in science education.

Seven hundred eleven degree-accredited institutions receivedall the Federal funds for academic science obligated in fiscalyear 1963. They made up 66.9 percent of the institution popula-tion in 'the study. They produced all the doctorates and mas-ters in science and engineering; they produced all but 7.7 per-cent of the baccalaureates in science and engineering, and allthe doctors of medicine and dentistry and all the veterinarians.They accounted for 96.2 percent of the Nation's effort in scienceeducation and 93.1 percent of the academic budget-

Three hundred fifty-two institutions, 33.1 percent of the de-gree-accredited population, received no Federal funds_ They en-rolled 10.4 percent of the degree-registered students and 3.1 per-cent of those committed to graduate studies. They accounted for6-9 percent of the academic budget and 3.8 percent of the Na-tion's training activities in the sciences.

Institutions with Major Dependence onFederal Funds

Twenty-two Class A institutions received 40 percent or more oftheir total income from Federal funds for academic science (Rfevalue in excess of 0.400) (Table C-10) . These 22 institutionsrank relatively high when ordered by level of Federal funds- One,the University of California at San Diego, appears to be an artifact,for it has not fully metamorphosed from a research-graduate edu-cation institution into a university. Three institutions are basic-ally medical collegesHahnemann.. Georgia, and South CarolinaMedical College- Another three institutions have dominant med-ical schoolsYeshiva University, Baylor University, and UnionCollege and University. The only other public institution in thisgroup of 22 institutions is the University of Oklahoma, probablybecause its educational and general income is low in terms ofthat of its contemporaries-

Within this group of 22 there are 15 institutions engaged inmedical education. Six are institutions of science and technologyin the accepted sense. Eighteen are privately or denominationallycontrolled. The four publicly controlled institutions appear to bespecial casesthe University of California at San Diego becauSreit is only, now emerging as an educational institution, Georgiaand South Carolina Medical Colleges because they are essentiallymedical schools, and the University, of Oklahoma for the reasonscited earlier. In the group of 18 nonpublic institutions are anumber of the great private universities of the Nation. Amongthese are practically all the Nation's quality academic institutionsof science and technology.

These data lead to the conclusion that a not insignificant groupof American universities has become heavily dependent on a sys-tem of funding whose objective is not principally the advance-ment of higher education. Among these institutions are a num-ber of the great private universities and institutes of scienceand technology. It follows naturally to ask whether this levelof funding (Rfe) (Table C-10) is to continue and for howlong, how many other institutions will join the list of th ?. heavilydependent, and whether the Federal support practices responsiblefor this predicament are in the best interest of science and/orhigher education?

This state of affairs has been developing for about 25 years.No one could have predicted that the bold OSRD experiment ofthe early 1940's would lead to a system of academic supportthat would become the principal source of income for a num-ber of the Nation's major universities and a substantial sourceof income for its total system of higher education in the. early1960'& Although the Federal contribution to academic incomecontinues to increase, there are distinct signs of change in fund-

. - ing practices. Within the last few years the base of Federal sup-port to academic science has been broadened to include Institu-tional Base Grants, Graduate Facility, and University, Depart-mental, and College Science Development Grant& to mention buta few innovation& There has also been a quantum increase indirect support to higher education. The issues posed have broughtabout the reexamination of Federal programming policies and prac-tices. The recent establishment of a standing Committee on Aca-deinic Science and -Engineering within the Federal Council is adirect result of an increasing awareness in Government of theclose ties between strength in academic science and the Na-tion's health and security. But, as is so obvious, the level of fund-mg these new Programs is f--'from adequate to effect the exist-.

ing trend& A growing number of quality American universities

71

are becoming more and more dependent on sources of supportonly indirectly associated With the training of scientists andthe advancement of higher education.

In spite of the fact that the academic science support systemhas been both beneficial -and enlightened, it will continue to re-quire reexamination, even more intensively than is now the case.The method of Federal support to higher educationby indi-rect means and through funds obligated for problem solving inthe national interestis beino subject to continuous examina-tion at the Executive level ofGovernment. So has the questionof the growino- dependence of an increasing number of 1the Na-tion's great a:ademic institutions on academic science funds alsobeen the subject of intense study at the Executive level. It hasalso been the subject of recent hearings held before the DaddarioCommittee:There Gerard Piel testified so eloquently:

Our universities deserve public support not as instruments of nationalpurpose in the service of ends chosen by Government, but as vessels thatcherish and enlarge the liberties of self-governing citizens-

To the student of Government-university relationships the res-olution of these issues goes far beyond the question of how tofund science at ;universities and college& The question to be facedis the nature and level of Federal responsibilities to higher edu-cation. For stated in the President's words,

The strength of the research and development program of the majoragencies and hence -their ability to meet national needs, depends heavilyon the total strength of our university system_

IX. NONRECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS

A Profile

In fiscal year 1963, 352 institutions received no Federal fundsfor academic science. They enrolled 354,000 students (Tables A-2,C-11) .

All Class A institutions received some aid in the form of Fed-eral funds. All but 18 institutions in Class B, 9 percent of theClass B population, received some Federal assistance. Two him-dred ninety-six out of 651 Class C institutions, 45 percent ofClass C and 28 percent of the total study group, received noFederal funds for academic science.. Thirty-eight our of 46 ClassD institutions also were without Federal aid.

The denominational institutions not receiving Federal funds foracademic science numbered 207 or 43 percent of the denomina-tionally controlled population and about 20 percent of the totaldegree-accredited population of institutions. Private institutionswithout Federal funds for academic science totalled 49 out of 229.There were also 96 public institutions, out of a total of 354 pub-lic, that received no Federal funds.

Although these nonrecipients of Federal funds (nonparticipantsin Federal science programs) enrolled 11,600 graduate students,they awarded only 77 master's degrees in science and engineer-ing, 0.3 percent of the Nation's science and engineering master'sdegrees for the year studied_ They trained none of the doctoratesin science and engineering. They awarded 10,000 bachelor's de-grees in these same areas. The Rs value for these nonre-cipients is 0.029 (average its for the degree-accredited popula-tion of institutions is 0.081) , demonstrating a minor effort inscience education. Their contribution to advanced science educa-tion was especially low.

Public institutions, -96 of them, make up 27 percent of thenonrecipient population. They accounted for 162,000 of the 354,-000 students enrolled- by -the nonrecipients (46 percent) , and9,000 of the 12,000 students- in graduate studies (75 percent) .They accounted for 30 percent of the bachelor's degrees (2,90(')produced in science and technology by the nonparticipant& TheirRs value of 0.019 is_the lowest value -attained by the nonrecipient

13

groups and the lowest attained by any class of institution studied.Since the 96 public institutions in this group of nonrecipientscan .be assumed to be teachers colleges whose graduates arelikely to be primary and secondary school teachers (Class B andC public institutions are or were principally teachers colleges) ,the question that comes to mind is, how well prepared are thegraduates with respect to following their elected teaching ca-reers? For a complete lack of Federal funds for science can beindicative of a marginal-to-low quality reference with respect toscience scholarship and science education.

The Class C institutions (296) dominate the population class ofthe nonrecipients. They constitute about 85 percent of the non-participating population and account for about 80 percent (278,-000) of all students enrolled in this group. They also accounted.for 6,600 graduate studentsabout half the total of the graduatestudents listed by the nonrecipient institutions. They trained 9,300bachelors in science and engineeringagain about 90 percent ofthe group's production. The Rs value is 0.033.

The denominational institutions (207) dominate the popula-tion of nonrecipients with respect to institutional control. Theymake up about 60 percent of the study population, and they ac-counted for (153,000) about 43 percent of the students regis-tered in the nonparticipating institutions. They graduated 5,860individuals with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering-58 percent of the first-degree population trained by the nonrecipi-ents. The Rs value is 0.038.

Interpretation of Data

It appears that the vast number of the baccalaureates in sci-ence and engineering trained by the nonrecipient institutions,are the product of the denominational Class C institutiontheliberal arts college with close ties to religious organizations. Ithas been suspected. that the nonparticipating group of institu-tions is dominated by the denominational liberal arts colleges.The evidence supports th5s opinion. It comes rather as a -sur-prise that these same institutions are also the major nonrecipientproducers of the bachelor's degree in science and engineering.

The number of private Class C institutions (liberal arts col-leges) anfong the nonrecipient group of institutions appears rela-tively small. Since the total number of private nonrecipient in-stitutions does not exceed. 50, the number of private Class C insti-tutions must be even less. Interestingly, few if any, of the dis,tinguished liberal arts colleges are to be found among this group

74

of nonrecipients (Tables A-1, A-2) The majority of thesehighly regarded liberal arts colleges appear to more than holdtheir own, both as producers of the baccalaureate in science andengineering (their principal contribution to science education)and as recipients of Federal funds for academic science_ 'I'heystand relatively high in the receipt of Federal funds when sizeand primary educational objectives are taken into consideration_

There are 416 institutions that received between $1,000 and$100,000 in Federal fundsa sum total of $11 million and anaverage of $27,000 per institution (Table C-5) - These institu-tions awarded 27,000 bachelor's degrees in science and technol-ogy-20_3 percent of the total number awarded in the Nation inacademic year 1962-1963_ These institutions also awarded 3_6 per-cent of the master's degrees- Adding this group of 416 marginalparticipants in Federal science programs to the 352 nonpartici-pants makes for an unusually large number of the Nation's de-gree-accredited institutions, 768 in all, that are participatingmarginally or not at all in Federal science programs. Their com-bined productivity in science education amounts to 28 percent ofthe bachelor's and 4 percent of the master's degrees awarded,and constitutes a fairly significant part of the Nation's scien-tifically educated manpower exposed little, or not at all, to thebenefits available from Federal programs in support of academicscience.. Quality-competitive Federal programs in support of aca-demic science obviously are not the proper vehicles for bringingthe advantages of Federal science programs to this group of indi-viduals and institutions- If they are not, then where and what isthe suitable course of action?

It appears from the evidence submitted that the nonparticipantsin Federal programs for academic science are marginal-to-lowquality institutions of science scholarship and science education_Considering their large number and the student potential,_ theircontribution to the Nation's scientific and technological manpowerpool, at whatever the educational level, is lowat least consid-erably lower than the contributions of the recipient institutions.The forces responsible for low productivity of scientific manpowerand nonparticipaiion in Federal science r.rograms cannot be ascer-tained by statistical methods of study- Such methods, however,can. point out the soft spots in the Nation's system of higher edu-cation, and as in the case here, those of the decrree-accredited in-stitutions and those engaged in science education_ Calling atten-tion to the weaknesses in the education system is of value, if forno other reason than to provide a base for a more thorough in--vestigation_ But more than this, it allows the opportunity tosearch out the underlying cause for the failurein this case-

75

_- _-

-

-

---

-

-

-

-

-

- -

---

- -

-

- -

-

-

--

--

-

---

-- -

-

--

-

--

--

-

-

-

--

-_ - __- = _-

-

-

-- -

-

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

- --

_ z -_ =__ _ _

---_,_ -,

- -_ _-

-.- -_-- -, ;----- -

-

---

__-

-_ _ - _

_ - _ ---_ ---_ _

= __= ---:-_ --:-_-__ _1--- --_ __ _-_ __ _ __

- _.- -__ z- _ _=---- -z- ___- - ___ _ z- _ - _, _

= ,---- -_

= _-- --:- - _-_

_ _ ___ _ _ _ =--- - _'-- - _- ___, __= _-_:-- - - -_ -__ --= -_=_- - _

- -_ -- z_ _ __ _- _ _- - _ __ -_-- -_-__-- -- L= - _ _ - --_ - - _-7- ___-- -- --- - 7-_-_ _ -

_ _=--- -_ _----- _-

of the nonrecipients to participate in Federal programs. It alsomakes possible the institution of suitable corrective measures, ifrequired. It may turn out that scruples against Federal aid onthe part of faculty and board of trustees, rather than marginal-quality scholarship, or disinterest on the part of the institutionis at the core of the nonparticipation problem. Whatever thecause, the matter of nonparticipation and low productivity ofscientific manpower among these 352 institutions warrants fur-ther investigation, especially since the number of students intraining -within them constitutes a substantial element of theNation's scientific and technological manpower pool.

X. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ENROWNGNEGRO STUDENTS PREDOMINANTLY

A Profile

There were 69 degree-accredited institutions in the academicyear 1962-1963 that enrolled Negro students predominantly (Ta-ble C--12) . These 69 institutions listed 94,000 students. They ac-counted for 2.1 percent of the education budget of the studyPopulation; they received $5.3 million or 0_5 percent of the Fed-eral funds for academic science.

They awarded 2,954 bachelor's degrees in science and engineer-ing, 161 master's degrees, and 7 doctorates_ They registered only1.2 percent of the Nation's graduate population_ Their participa-tion in graduate studies (Re 0_049) was considerably belowthe study population average of 0.108. Their contribution to edu.-cation in the sciences (Rs) again was below the national average;the Rs value for the total study population is 0_081, for thepredominantly Negro-enrolled institutions it is 0.043_ Whereasthey made up 7 percent of the institution study population andenrolled 2..7 percent of all the degree-listed students, they pro-duced only 2.2 percent of the bachelors in science and engineering,0.6 percent of the masters, 0.1 percent of the doctorates, 1.1 per-cent of the veterinarians, 1.4 percent of the doctors of medicine,and 2.2 percent of the dentists. The advanced degrees in scienceand technOlogy are the contribution of one institutionHowardUniversity.

The predominantly Negro-enrolled institution budgeted $960per student-25 percent :below-;thestudy-average. For the degree-

ting edicr -^ted institution, the average is $1,270 per enrolled

student; the nonr;rticlOarit:.:54, ".c_clerar e-"n`-e Progra:m4ititutiOris, the average is ..$840 ,per_ studOt_ The .predo rm.nan_tYNegio-ehi011ed popiilation, however, contains a fairnuniber _of hioti quality institUtioni arid, a nuMber of partici-pants ,_in.,_Federal science programs; -Among these is HOward

iloward the predominantly. Negl--°-,en"leC1institution average drops to -a levelof -$840_ -13-y. excluding-theother ,participants in-,-,Federal _science programs-,_ (more tharr halfthe -Neeto-enrolled -oroup) the average budgeted, per -..studentwould fall fir, below -the $840, level and. -considerably below theaverage -budgeted by the -.352, uonparticipant- institutions. The

77

ratio of Federal funds per degree unit (Rfd) for the predominantlyNegro-enrolled institution is $1,300; for the study population, theRfd value is $4,000. The ratio of Federal funds to the totalinstitution income (Rfe) for the Negro-enrolled institution is0.055; for the study population, it is 0.202.

This evidence indicates that those institutions that enroll Ne-groes predominantly are considerably below the study averagein funding, both local and Federal, in terms of productivity ingraduate education, and productivity in education in the science&

These averages would have been considerably lower had HoW-ard University been exduded from the population of Negro-en-rolled institutions. Howard University is fundamentally a publicand a federally supported university_ Without Howard Universitythis study group of 69 institutions would have produced no doc-torates in science and engineering, and no doctors of medicine ordentistry.46

Thirty institutions enrolling predominantly Negro students re-ceived no Federal funds for academic science. They enrolled about25,000 degree-listed students and 45 graduate students. Theyturned out 591 bachelors in science and engineering. Their con-tribution to graduate education and to science education wasespecially low_ The Re value for these 30 institutions is 0_002;the R. value is 0.024. Both these values are especially low,whether compared to the total population of 1,063 degree-ac-credited institutions or to the 352 nonrecipients.

Of the Federal funds for academic science obligated to institu-tions that enroll Negroes predominantly, 58.6 percent came fromthe National Science Foundation, and 33.8 percent came from theU.S. Public Health Service_ Less than 8 percent came from theremaining 11 agencies_

Interpretation of DataAs a group, the academic institutions enrolling predominantly

Negro students appear to be a poorly financed group, both withrespect to Federal and non-Federal funding source& Their contri-bution to graduate training and to training in the sciences isfar below the national average. Both the level of Federal funds,and the ratios, indicative of level and contribution to the graduateand science manpower pool, point to the fact that on the-whole amarginal to low- state of science scholarship and/or higher edu-cation in the sciences may exiSt within these institution& Thisevidence both confirms and complements the findings of Earl J.McGrath, former Commissioner of Education. AlthoughDr_ McGrath indicates that a number of these institutions rank78

with the best with respect to quality, he nonetheless draws adepressing picture with respect to the others:

An objective review of the facts discloses, however, that a not inconsid-erable number of Negro institutions now struggle along toward the rearof the academic procession. The scope and recency of the training of theirfaculties, the character and the level of their students' preparatory educa-tion, and under present conditions the prospects of improvement in someof these institutions are not reassuring, even to the most sympatheticobserver.

These universities and colleges enrolling Negro students pre-dominantly, up until very recently, have constituted the back-bone of Negro higher education and perhaps the major sourceof Negro leadership in the South. Dr. McGrath's data indicatethat in. 1963 of the seniors in these institutions, just over 25percent named education as their career of choice-14 percentselected high school education, 12 percent, elementary. These in-stitutions constitute the major and principal source of Negrohigher education in this region. The probable lack of quality sci-ence scholarship and science education at these institutions, asdeduced from the low level of total and Federal funding and par-ticipation in advanced study and science education, may be in-dicative of the low educational and economic status of Ameri-can Negroes, especially those residing in the South. It is true thatracial constraints are rapidly disappearing from the admissionpractices Of large numbers of institutions of higher education inall regions of the United States. It is also true that large num-bers of able and qualified Negro students now have equal oppor-tunity in higher education. However, there still remains a sig-nificant number of Negro students, predominantly in. the South,who because .of being unqualified by the nature of their primaryand secondary school education and because of their low socio-economic level have but the one choicehigher education at in-stitutions enrolling Negroes predominantly. These institutionsprobably at best are minor participants in Federal science pro-grams because of ignorance of Federal programs and the mar-ginal and low scholarship of their faculty and student body inthe sciences.

Earl McGrath lays great emphasis on the need and the hastewith which the Nation must develop .programS to strengthen thecolleges and universities enrolling Negro students predominantlyOn practkal grounds, he discourages any thought of euthanasiafor the weaker institutions; his conclusions are borne out by theevidence:

the facts . _ relating to previous education and the financial abilityof Negro students indicate that at present and to a lesser degree, for someyears to come, the majority of students in the weaker colleges could notgain admission to the stronger nor afford to attend them even if admitted_Hence, the closing of the weaker institutions would deprive thousands ofNegro youth of any opportunity for higher education.

o8 79

XI. UNIVERSITIES ENGAGED IN MEDICAL EDUCATION

A Manpower Profile

There are 80 (Class A) universities engaged in medical edu-cation (MEEU) (Table C-13) . There are an additional 89Class A institutions comparable in all respects except for the factthat they do not offer medical education. These 89 institutionsare used for comparison purposesthe control group. Fivemedical colleges are not included in the population of medicaleducation-engaged institutions."

The MEEU group received 68.9 percent of the Federal fundsfor academic science and accounted for 42.7 percent of the fundsearmarked for the educational and general expenditures of thestudy group; in contradistinction, the 89 controls received 26.2percent of the Federal funds and 23.2 percent of the academicbudget (EGI) . (Class A as a group received 95.1 percent of theFederal funds and 65.9 percent of the academic budget) TheMEEU group received about three times the Federal funds re-ceived by the control group. Federal funds for academic sciencefor the MEEU group averaged $9.5 million per institution; forthe controls, it averaged $3.2 million.

The medical education-engaged universities received 29 per-cent of their total income (Rfe = 0_290) from Federal funds;the Rfe for the controls is 0.222 It is the MEEU group thatparticipates to a larger degree in graduate education and edu-cation in the sciences. The graduate education index (Re) forthe MEEU group is 0_169; for the control group, it is 0.133_The science education index (Rs) for the MEEU group is 0.129;for the control group, it is 0.110_

The MEEU group enrolled two-thirds as many more studentsper institution as did the controls-12,800 for MEEU and 7,600for the controls. It enrolled twice as many graduate students asdid the controls-2,170 vs. 1,000and, by definition, all the 'doc-tors of medicine. It contribute& twice as much to manpowertraining in the sciences as did the control group-1,660 SgcT DPunits vs. 830..- It trained two-thirds as many more doctors ofscience and engineering-4,960 vs_ 3,000, and, of course, all thedoctors of medicine and 95 percent of all the dentists.

81

Funding Characteristics

The medical education-engaged university group receiVed thebulk of its Federal support (Tables 9, C-3) from the U.S. Pub-lic Health Service-55.3 percent; 16.2 percent of its Federal sup-port came from NSF and 15.8 percent from DOD. These threeagencies accounted for 87 percent of the total Federal funds foracademic science obligated to medical education-engaged uni-versities. By contrast, the control group received 23.9 percentof its Federal science support from the US- Public Health Serv-ice, 25.4 percent from the National Science Foundation, and25-3 percent from the Department of Defense. The controlgroup received 75 percent of its Federal support frm the threeprincipal support agencies of academic science-

The U.S. Public Hlth Service committed 83.9 percent of its1963 obligations for academic science to these same 80 (MEEU)institutionsa total of $419 million, equivalent to 38 percent ofthe Federal obligations to academic science for fiscal year 1963.The next two agencies, in terms of their obligational authority,also concentrated their academic science support efforts withinthese 80 institutions, but not to the same degree_ The Depart-ment of Defense obligated 60.1 percent ($120 million) of itsacademic science funds to this group, and the National ScienceFoundation, 54.1 percent ($123 million) _

Interpretations and Implications

It is predominantly the large contributions of the U.S. PublicHealth Service to the 80 medical education-engaged institutions,both in absolute terms and in terms of the restricted nature ofUSPHS appropriations, that appear to be major factors in theconcentration of Federal funds for science in a limited numberof institutions of higher learning and in circumscribed regionsof the Nation_ These regions are apt to be those where medicaleducation is also concentrated. A further exploration of thecomponent of Federal funds for academic science obligated di-rectly to medical schools as suCia is obligatory, to further delin-eate the phenomenon of concentration of Federal funds and thesupport of health sciences by the Federal Government The sta-tistics now available, unfortunately, lack the necessary detail tomake such a study possible.

Medical education-engaged universities operated with largeraverage acadenlic budgets (EGI) , $23.2 million in the academicyear 1962-1963, than did the control group whose average aca-

82

_

_

_

__

_

_

_

___

_ _

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-, _____,-_ --________

_

_

_

__

_

_

_

__

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

__

_

_

_ _

_

_

_

_ _ _ -_ _

_ _ _

__

__

:

_

_

_

_

_ _

_

__

__

___

__

_

anpo

wer

and

Fun

ding

Cha

rede

ristic

s of

Med

ical

Edu

catio

n A

ssoc

iate

d U

nive

rsiti

esby

Con

trol

[dol

lan

in th

ousa

ndel

,

No,

FFA

S8E

MI

USP

HS4

FAS

USP

HSF

AS

FFA

S

Enr

oll D

ent

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

R11

R,'

Rhi

.

110

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Sla

Dr

BA

MA

PhD

MD

DD

S

To1

11.1

.1,

068

11,0

99,4

8114

;316

,393

)499

427

0,45

43,

425,

456

369,

964

277,

149

132,

438

26,7

617,

963

6,87

33,

181

0308

0.08

1,0.

202

8,96

7

Ave

rage

, ,,

1,03

44,

089

470

8,22

284

828

112

526

76

8

Perc

ont1

1110

011

100,

016

0,0

100,

010

01)

1001

)10

01)

1001

)10

0,0

100.

010

0,0

Cla

ss A

...

,16

911

0402

2,2

,864

,882

488,

997

0.46

71,

701,

687

263,

699

206,

533

7142

822

,902

7,96

36,

873

8,18

10.

135

0,12

101

675,

063

Ave

rage

,.6,

187

16,9

522,

888

10,0

6911

560

1,22

242

313

647

4119

Perc

ent'.

,15

.993

365

.997

149

471

,274

.554

,085

310

0,0

100,

010

0,0

Med

ical

Edu

ca.

lion

tnga

ged

H,

Uni

vers

ities

.,80

757,

930

1,85

8,02

811

0,81

80,

553

1,02

7417

178,

922

182,

486

87,7

9812

,868

4,95

96,

873

8,02

40.

169

0,12

90.

290

11,1

21

Ave

rage

9,47

428

,225

5,24

112

,814

2,17

41,

656

472

161

6286

38

Pote

nt!.

.."7,

568

.942

.781

.910

.0A

O17

.828

318

,162

310

0,0

951)

Den

omin

atio

nal

111

3947

887

,055

84,3

920,

869

66,7

778,

872

9152

72,

136

407

9388

560

30,

133

0.14

30)

1)4,

154

Ave

iage

.,1,

598

7,91

431

127

6,07

180

786

619

437

880

55

Perc

ent',

.. ,

.1,

034

21)

6,9

1,9

2,4

3,4

1,6

1J1,

212

,919

,0

Priv

ate

2685

6,22

166

4,08

919

5,70

90,

549

808,

248

74,7

6845

,359

10,9

284,

961

1,99

72,

810

888

0143

0.14

703

497,

657

Ave

rage

, , ,

,13

,701

25,5

4274

2711

,856

2,87

61,

744

420

191

7789

34

Perc

ent!

" ,

2,5

32,4

153

391

,91

)20

116

,18,

318

,625

,033

,627

,9

Pub

lie,..

,,

4386

2118

11,

106,

879

189,

217

023

652,

497

90,2

8277

,620

24,7

297,

500

2,86

98,

678

1,53

30.

138

0,11

90.

247

4,66

5

Ave

r*,

8.42

225

,741

4,40

015

,174

2,10

011

805

575

174

6786

36

Perc

ent'.

, ...

4.0

32.9

25,4

37,9

19,1

24.4

28,0

18,6

281)

363

535

481

Porm

t (14

0 m

ny n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

,

1. r

ap z

. Fed

eral

run

de f

or A

cade

mie

Bol

ence

..,

DO

I #

Edu

catio

nal a

nd G

ener

al I

ncor

o,r

r4

1111

P118

LA

B :7

; Fed

eral

tona

l for

aca

dero

lo s

ilenc

e fr

om th

e IM

PH11

.

$ ilo

DP

# &

leve

e an

d 'T

echn

olog

y D

egre

e Pr

oduc

tivity

.

Gra

duat

e E

nrol

lmen

t/VW

Enr

ollm

ent.

I A

iSA

T D

P/T

otil

Enr

ollm

ent,

I R

ieE

PAIV

EG

I +

Ph&

I R

idFF

AB

/BA

T D

P,

demic budgets were $11.3 million; they also accounted for twiceas many S&T DP units as did the control& In the- same year-medical education-engaged institutions received an average of$9.5 million in Federal . income from academicscience; theircontrols averaged $3.2 million. If these data hive validity, Le,if the two populations are comparable, one may then concludethat, on the average, a medical school_ requires an academicbudget equal in -Size to that budgeted for: the rest 'of . the parentuniversity, and that medical education-engaged universities ex-pend three _times the Federal funds for science than do thecontrols. These data also show that in fiscal year 1963 the aver-age medical school received about $6 million in Federal fundsfor academic science.

The analysis of Federal funds by class and control (Tables3 and C..$) focused attention on_ private Class A institutionsas the institutions most, fax,ored by Federal science program&The data in Table 9 indieate thaz it is the medical educationcomponent of these .tiniversities that is favored by Federal- fundsand that it is the private iector of this medical education-engaged group that is especially. favored (Tab:e C-14) . Thirty-five percent of the total income of the private (26 in: number).medicaleducation-engaged .universities came from . Federalsources (Rfe = 0.349) ; the Rfe value for the comparable, de-nominationally controlled- group Of MEEU inititutions is 0_313;for the public it is 0.247. The Rfe valne for all 1,063 institu-tions in the study is 0.202, for Class A it -is 0.267, and for themedical education component of Class A it is 0.290.

The private group of medical :education-engaged institutionscomprise about 15 percent of the Class A., one-half of the popu7ladon of private Class A institutions;- and about 2.5 percentof the degree-accredited institutions. They received 32A percentof all Federal IfundS for academic .-Sci6iet:. By cOntrast, 'the med=ical education-engaged, publ.L.j. institutions, which 'total 43 (4:0percent' of the degre-a.co.-edited institution pOpulatiOn) , re-ceived 32 9 percent: The 69_ public and Private MEEU. institu-tions," about 7 percenr of the degree-accredited institution popu:lation, received 65 percent of Federal funds for academic science..

The 'priyate group averaged $13.7 million in. Federal fundsper institution, .ichereas the . public comPonent ayeraged S8.4million.: These two groupS operated at- approximately the samelevel 'of, academie income -(F..G-I) S2.5- million= per institutionfor the .priVate group, and $25.7 million for the public. In cori7nection -With these figures it is wortkiiearing in :mind that theprivate grodp has a considerably smaller average total enroll-ment, less than threeqUarters of the public gionp:

92

Of their own funds, based on the EGI, the private medicaleducation-engaged universities budgeted $2,150 per student en-rolled; the public, $1,700 per student; and the denominational,$1,300. The corresponding figures for total research and educa-tion income (EGI -F- FFAS) were $3,300 for private, $2,250for public, and $1,900 for denominational. Does this higherbudgeting per student for the private universities engaged _inmedical education indicate that the students in residence inthese universities, as a whole, are provided with a higher qual-ity of education, where quality _is equated with affluence? Ordoes this higher budgeting simply indicate that these privateinstitutions participate to a greater degree in research, gradu-ate education, and science education, and the additional cost perstudent is merely a reflection of these phenomena?

Although the public sector of the MEEU group enrolled about40 percent more students than did the private, the reverse istrue with respect to graduate enrollment. Graduate enrollmentfor the private MEEU group averaged 2,876, and for the_ publicsector, the average figure is 2,100. The S&T DP value for thepublic sector is 1,805; for the private sector, it is 1,744. Thesevalues are not corrected for institution size. When they are,however, graduate enrollment and, S&T DP value clearly favorthe private group.

The Re and Rs value& indices of level of participation ingraduate -and science education, indicate and confirm that theprivately controlled MEEU institution concentrates more of itseducation effort in 8 _uate education and in education in thesciences than does its counterpart, the publicly or denomina-tionally controlled institution. The graduate education index(Re) for private MEEU is 0.243; for the public it is 0.138; forthe denominational, 0.133. The science education index (Rs)for the private MEEU group is 0.147; for the public group itis 0..119; for the denominational, 0.143.

Like the Re and Rs, the Rfe value also favors the privateMEEU institution. The denominational group falls somewherein between the private _and public group. Higher Rfe's for theprivate (0.349) and denominational (0.313) -groups are indic-ative of the corresponding high rate of dependency and/orparticipation in Federal science program& The Rfe indices(TaNe C-14) beyond doubt, demonstrate the depth of the de-pendence of each of the 26 private institutionsthe privatemedical education-engaged universitieson Federai- funds andespecially on U.S. Public Health Service sources of supportThree of these institutions with the high Rfe values now dependon Federal funds in the ratio of one dollar in Federal funds

for every dollar raised from other sources (Rfe value above0.50) ; 15 of them receive more than 60 percent of their Federalfunds from the U.S. Public Health Service.

Does an increasing proportion of Federal funds (in terms oftotal institutional income) create a greater and permanent de-pendence on Federal funds for these private and denomina-tional medical education-engaged universities? Does such depend-ence indicate a continuance on the -present level of Federalsupport to maintain the existing level of academic research,graduate and professional education, and education in the sci-ences programs? Does this dependency indicate an ever-expand-ing commitment of the Federal establishment? Is the dependencylevel established by -the academic science support relationships,in the best interest of science, the academic institutions, and theNation? Is it in the national interest for the health sciences todominate both the Federal academic science and the science pro-grams of the universities?

If strengthening and broadening the base of academic scienceare to continue as the foundation of the national policy forscience," then the resolution of these and related questionswill have to assume a fairly high order of priority. The- natureand the role of the medical school, the nature of the responsi-bility of the Federal Government to the health sciences and tomedical education, and the concentration of medical educationin a limited number of universities and in circumscribed regionsof the Nation must enter into any policy considerations forscience and technology.

86 ,

XII. STATISTICS AND PREDICTABILITY

The evidence indicates that there is fairly good correlationbetween the amount of Federal funds for academic science re-ceived by institutions and the various characteristics used tomeasure institutional participation or productivity in highereducation. In some instances the relationships are direct andlinear. In other situations the relationships are not quite sodirect. In some instances, the relationships are not regular. Thedata emphasize the fact that class and control of an institutionmust be considered in any comparison dealing with academicincome and manpower input-output. Class and control appearto be determinative with respect to size and income, and prob-ably with the allocation of resources to graduate and scienceeducation. State universities (public) seem to be more orientedtoward educating large numbers of all types and levels of stu-dents. Private universities appear more selectiveselective inthe sense of a greater concentration on graduate studies, profes-sional education, and education in the sciences. Denominationalinstitutions appear to concentrate jarincipally at the baccalau-reate level and are the least engaged in science education.

Do the relationships, so statistically evident, hold for theindividual university and college? The data accumulated thusEar appear to be amenable to answer such a question, howevertentatively.

Medical Education and the Level ofInstitutional Funding

The maximum rate of change in slope, the poib t at which thestudy population of academic institutions seems to be dividedinto low and high income producers, low and high producersof scientific research and of scientific and technological man-power (see Figures -1, 6, 7) , focuses attention on those institu-dons ranked some- ,...tere below the 100th, irrespective of whetherranking is based on the academk budget, Federal funds, gradu-ate enrollment, or manpower productivity in science and tech-nology. This characteristic of American universities leads to thequestion: Is there some phenomenon peculiar to advanced edu-

87

cation so demanding in cost that it requires a radical shift ininstitutional funding practices? Is there a special factor, or isthe phenomenon noted simply the response to a number ofsimultaneous changes associated with institution growth? Ifthere is a speeal factor, can it be isolated?

One answer may be found in a consideration of the medicaleducation component of higher education. A decision to engagein medical education entails an enormous long-range economiccommitment on the part of the academic institution. There arenot only the requirements for vast clinical research and train-ing facilities basic to the education of physicians, but also theneed for a host of allied health specialties ranging from phar-macy to nursing. There are the graduate medical science train-ing activities and the associated preclinical research programs,e.g., biochemistry, physiology, etc. The accomplishments in thepractice of medicine within one generation have been enor-

. mous; with these accomplishments, also have come heightenedCOSt.S.

This same argument perhaps could be made for high energyphysics or some other high cost acadeinic science activity. Butsince high energy physics facilities and staff are considerably morelimited in number and since they are funded. principally bythe Federal Government, the issue of medical education losesnone of its Significance.

The statiStics bear out this major shift in institutional financ-ing practices and point to the special burden of those activitiesassociated with medical education. -In :1962-1963 there were 87medical schools. Of these, 80 institutions associated with medi-cal education received $760 million in Federal fundsabout. 70percent of the Federal obligations for academic science. Fiftyof these were rank ordered above 70 by Federal funds and 47by the educational and general inconie. Of the first 20 institu-tions rank ordered by Federal funds (Table C-15) , all but two,the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley 'are engaged m medical' -echicatiOn; TheUniversity of California at Berkeley was, until very recently_ Ofthe first 50 inStitutions, 39 have medical iehools.

The data assethbled suo-crest that institutions -engaged in; med,ical education expend as much for: the: medical school: :complexas they expend for.-..-the remainder, of -,the-- university; These: samedata- further iitdicate -that -Medical eduCation-engaged: institu-tions 'received 'three times as much in Federal: funds asdid :theircounterpartsthose Class A 'instittitibris -without 'Medical- 'schools.

88

The 80 MEEU institutions accounted for $1.9 billion of the $4.3billion of the academic budget for the 1,063 degree-accreditedinstitutions of higher education for the academic year 19621963-44 percent of the total (Tables 9, C-13) . These same 80institutions, however, alm accounted for 47 percent of the grad-uate students enrolled, 48 percent of the total S&T DP units,and naturally all the doctors of medicine and 95 percent of thedoctors of dentistry. They produced 62 percent _of all the doc-torates in science and engineering. The graduate education in-dexRe valuefor these 80 institutions is 0A69 (average 0.108)and the science education indexthe Rs valueis 0.129 (aver-age 0.081) :

Since the upper part of the family of curves related to Figure4 refers to characteristics apt to be associated with ail-Went insti-tutionsconcentration on graduate studies, high productivity inscience and medical education, of doctorate degrees in scienceand engineering, and of scientific researchone can readily un-derstand why these curves all show the sharp and similar changein slope. Each of the criteria of affluence depictedfunds, highproductivity in research, graduate and science educationisseemingly characteristic of those, in the upper segment of uni-versifies associated with medical education.

The conclusions- are fairly- obvious: (1) a high proportion ofmedical education-engaged universities are among the most af-fluent institutions; (2) they are also highly productive in bothmanpower and research in science and technology; and (3) theyare dependent for a large share of their total income on theFederal establishment

There appears to be no way to tease out the facet of themedical school's activitiesmedical research, medical education,or araduate educationthat is specifically responsible for theshigs in the education-funding phenomenon described in Fig-ures 4, 6, 7. For the present, the most to be gained from- theexisting data is a set of facts -that establish a critical -mass effectin academic institurionaL budgeting. When a university embarkson a program of medical education there appears a manifesta-tion of a change which leads the institution into a new andhigher level -of funding. It seems quite clear the universitiesassociated with medical education fall in a special class of insti-tutions when- measured by their funding- characteristics and/or'productivity in science and technology. The evidence submitted:reinforces the strongly_ held view of administrators a -highereducation, that the medical school -can be an, enormous- drainon an educational institution's budget..

A Profile of the Individual University

Each of the two hundred institutions and their individual pro-,files were arranged (Table C-15) so that they might be inspectedand compared with respect to a number of institutional charac-teristics. The 200 academic institutions in the sample were se-lected soley on the basis of the level of Federal funds and rankordered accordingly. (See Tables B-1 through B-9 for the rankordering details.) Since the private-denominational and publicuniversities show marked differences in total enrollment andeducational and general income, these two segments of institu-tions studied were selectively compare& It is not meaningfulin this context to compare, for example, the California Insti-tute of Technology with Purdue University. Another methoclo-logical constraint is that liberal arts colleges were not used inthe comparisons about to follow, because of the limitations im-posed Ey the selection criteria, because they are neither majorproduce:s of research nor contributors to advanced degree sci-ence and technology education. The comparison in this instanceWas limited to 100 universities."

The uniformity of the data on the. whole appears self con-sistent. Those institutions rank ordered high by Federal fundsalso tend to be rank ordered high by a number of other, butnot necessarily by all, characteristics. Those rank ordered lowby Federal funds also tend to be ranked low by the other, or asignificant number of other criteria.

For the discussion that follows, rank ordering by Federal fundswill be interpreted to mean productivity in research and theS&T DP rank order will be used for productivity in scienceeducation. Quality values are not in any way implied. The termslow producers and high producers will be used without qualifi-cation, but it is assumed that the reader recognizes that theyare relative terms.

There are a number of institutions in this group whose rankorder leads one to believe that they are high producers of . re-search and low producers of scientific manpower. Johns Hop-kins, Rochester, Washington at St. Louis, Duke, the Universityof California at San Diego, Western Reserve, Yeshiva, Tulane,Oregon, Brown, Baylor, and Vanderbilt Universities seem to fallin. this group. Does this information mean that these institutionshave unused additional capability for training? There are alsoa number of institutions that appear to be low producers ofresearch and high producers of scientific manpower. Purdue,Pennsylvania State, Tennessee, Michigan State, Rutgers State,

90

..efetneraE:a,L,t'4='

Missouri, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, andKansas State Universities seem to fall within this category. Doesthis information indicate that these institutions are capable ofmore research than they undertake?

Probing a bit further, Johns Hopkins University may be cate-gorized a high producer of research and a low producer ofscientific manpower. It ranks tenth in Federal funds for aca-demic sciencea high producer of research-65th for graduateenrollment, 62nd for S&T DP, 97th for the bachelor's degree,102nd for the master's degree, and 31st for doctorate produc-tiona low producer of scientific manpower. The University ofRochester seems to follow a similar pattern. At the other extremeis Purdue University which may be said to be a low producer ofresearch and a high producer of scientific manpower. It ranked34th according to Federal funds and between 3rd and 5th forscientific manpower productivity. It ranks remarkably high inmanpower produced considering its own funding characteristics.Is the low Purdue funding characteristic (EGI) due to the lackof a medical school? Or is it because Purdue can conduct itstraining programs in a more efficient fashion? PennsylvaniaState University shows a pattern similar to Purdue Universityof low productivity with respect to research as measured byFederal funds for academic science and high productivity withrespect to degrees in science and engineering. Pennsylvania State,on the other hand., invests a larger share of its own funds ineducation. Iowa State University of Science and Technology is adramatic example of a low producer institution with respect toresearch and a high producer with respect to training in thesciences. It ranks 68th with respect to Federal funds, 18th withrespect to bachelor's degree production in science and engineer-ing, 30th with respect to master's degrees, and 13th in doctorateproductivity.

Cartter's peer-quality directed data for the academic year1963-1964, rank ordering university departments of science andengineering for "graduate program effectiveness,' adds con-siderable value to the statistical method (Table C-15) of ap-praising academic institutions even though they do not lendthemselves easily to a comparison with the data rank orderinginstitutions by statistical criteria characteristic of academic sci-ence. Canter's study -did not include large segments of medicaland dental schools and in far too many instances, the numberof departments of science and engineering specifically evaluatedwithin an institution were too few for a statistical analysis of theinstitution's standing in academic science. In spite of these cen-straints, the 18 universities adaptable for comparison from the

. 93- tr

91

Cartter studythose with 10 departments or more of scienceand engineering evaluatedshowed that 15 of these institutionsplaced within the first 17 ranked by Federal funds. This sort ofevidence, as indirect, as displaced in time, and scanty as it maybe, does demonstrate that both subjective and statistical typesof studies aimed at evaluating institutions of higher educationin terms of quality and productivity, have sufficient merit towarrant further investigation.

A Profile of the Individual Liberal Arts CollegeThe compilation . (Table C-15) may serve still another pur-

posethat of more carefully scrutinizing the system of Federalfunding as it correlates with quality science education as con-ducted by the liberal arts colleges. The discussion below willbe limited to a selected group of liberal arts colleges. The doc-torate producers among the liberal arts group will not be con-sidered.

Within the first 200 institutions rank ordered by Federal fundsthe following liberal arts colleges are to be found: they are Reed(rank ordered 164) , Wesleyan (167) , Ohio Wesleyan (170) ,

Antioch (182) , William and Mary (183) , Smith (187) , Amherst(189) , -Pomona (193) , and Earlham (199). Bearing in mindthat there are 711 institutions receiving Federal funds for aca-demic science, among which are a great number of relativelylarge and high-quality enrollers-producers of scientific man-power, these institutions rank fairly high in bachelor's degreeproduction in the sciences. For it is to be noted that liberal artscolleges rank quite low in total enrollment_ In other words,their comparative contribution to science education is relativelyhigh, considering their size and the fact that their principaleducational contribution is at the first-degree level.

It is interesting to note ,further, that these liberal arts colleges,all without doctorate programs, compete fairly well for Federalfunds. They also rank fairly, high in terms -of their own invest-ment hi 'education (EGI) , fu:zther indicating- that there is acontinued correlation between affluence and Federal funds thatholds- even for the liberal arts colleges. But these. Rnalyses aremuch too limited and the data too sparse_for a more informa-tive examination of the_ relationship of Federal funds and lib-eral arts colles. Certainly a more definitive study is in order.

Value of Academic Statistics

92

From the use of the type of data presented in Table C-15,

WAY

concerning the universe of the academic institution, one canforesee any number of interpretations. Interpretations at thisstage, however, are much too speculative, irrespective of howlighdy they are made or considered, for the data are much tooimprecise and much pertinent data are still not available. Fur-thermore, the measures used still require shaping and sharpen-ing. Therefore, any use of this type of tabulated material formaking absolute judgments at this time, respecting individualinstitutions is both premature and fraught with risk. However,it is possible that with time, refinement of data and metrics,and their judicious use in conjunction with substantive knowl-edge of science and the academic institution, that the methodol-ogy and techniques employed here might have value in makingjudgments with respect to productivity and quality of scienceeducation and scholarship for individual academic institutions.The prognosis is promising.

93

XIII. NOTES AND REFERENCES

I A. Hunter Dupree. Science in the Federal Government. Harvard University Press.Cambridge, Mass., 1957.

2 Irvin Stewart. Organfr.ing Scientific Research for WarThe Administrative Historyof the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Atlantic, Little, Brown.Boston, 1948.

3Vannevar Bush. Science, The Endless Frontier. Washington, D.C., 1945.4Federal Funds for Science I, Federal Funds for Scientific Research and Develop-

ment at Nonprofit Institutions 1950-51 and 1951-52. National Science Foun-dation.

5First Annual Report of the National Science Foundation. National ScienceFoundation, Washington, D.C., 1950-51.

Nicholas DeWitt_ Soviet Professional ManpowerIts Education, Training 'wedSupply. National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C., 1955.

3Federal Funds for Research, Development and Other Scientific Activities. VolumeVIII through Vohune XIV. National Science Foundation.

The concept of "Federal funds for research, development and other scientificactivities for colleges and universities proper,- differs feorn "academic science-as used in this study in that it includes plant and construction and excludesscience education and science information obligations.

The Administration of Grants by the National Institutes of Health. Hearingsbefore the Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations of theU.S. House of Representatives, 87th Congress, March 1962.

2 National Science Foundation Fourteenth Annual Report, 1964. NSF-65-1.

"The Federal Government and Education. Committee on Education and Labor,U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Congress, June 1963.

"Activities of the Select Committee on Government Research_ The U.S. House ofRepresentatives, 88th Congress, 1964-65.

12 National Academy of Sciences Panel on Basic Research and National Goals.Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, 89th Congress, April 1965.

"Basic Research and National Goals. A report to the Committee on Science andAstronautics of the US. House of Representatives. U.S. National Academy ofSciences, March 1965.

"Scientific-Technical Advice for Congress Needs and Sources. Staff Study for theSubcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee onScience and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Congress,October 1964.

"Government and Science. Geographical Distribution of Federal" Research andDevelopment Funds_ Report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, andDevelopment of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, 88th Congress, October 1964-

95

The National Science Foundation, Its Present and Future. Report of Subcommitteeon Science, Research. and Development of the Conunittee on Science andAstronautics, U.S. House of Representativcs, 89th Congress, December 1965.

22' Coniiicts Between the Federal Research Programs and the Nation's Goals forHigher Education. 18th Report by the Committee on Government Operationsof tbe US House of Representatives. 89th Congress, October 1965.

15Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329. 89th Congress, H.B. - 9567,8 November 1965.

2*National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, Public Law89-209,89th Congress, 29 September 1965-

'2 Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning. NationalAcademy of Sciences (Committee on Science and Public Policy), Washington,D.C., 1964.

21 The term university is used here to include every institution of higher educationassociated with graduate or professional education, induding those called insti-tutes of science and/or technology (e.g., the Massachuseus Institute ofTechnology) and independent medical colleges (e.g.. 1:1-1Ihnernann medical

College)t Education Directory, 1963-1964. Part 3, Frigher Education. The Office of Education,

Washington, D.C., OE-50000-64."Allan M. Canter, American Universities and Colleges, 9th Edition. American

Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1964.34 Survey of Earned Degrees Conferred, 1962-1963. Special tabulation prepared for

the National Science Foundation by the Office of Education.22"Medical Education in the United States, 1962-1963, Journal of the American

Medical Association,186; 649,1963.22Dental Students Register, 1963/1964, American Dental Association.

ST During the cleanse of the study a number of situations arose that causedchanges in concepts and definitions. As with most studies of this type, the timecame in the development or the data where the study was committed. Forexample, -at one point, the concept "academic science' was broadened toinclude support programs for uplifting high school science teachers and coursecontent improvement. In another case the_ Class A institution category wasbrcadened to indude the professional medical and dental degree institutions.Unfortunately, during the incorporation of medical-dental education degreesinto the study of degree productivitY. five Metrical schools: inadvertently wereleft out- These institutions Are inincipallY professional schools hence nobachelor's degree students -are enrolled. Since -by definition the, degree-accredited institution is an institution that pants at least the hachelor's.elegree,this- qualification somehow .took precedence, with tbe result that the Productionof at least:one bachelor's -degree, became 3 qualifying rule and independentmedical colleges were dropped. The five -mstitutions left out of the study -are:the California College of Medicine, Los Angeleg ChiCago- MecliCal -School,Chicago; New York Medical College, New York; Woman's Medical College ofPennsylvania. Philadelphia; and Meharry Mecrical:-College, Nashville.

Institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, even, thoughclassified as educational, are excluded, for they themselves do not: conferdegrees. Those, Mch as ,the Brookhaven- National Laboratory, are_excluded.

because they aTe,- in addition. Contract research- cente22-22W-dna= V_ Consolazio. Snstaining Academic Science, 1965-1975, TiteECEaca=

tional _Record, 216, Spring 1964.

" Grants for Scientific Research. National-Science Foundation, June 1963, NSF 63-27.

"In a few case& such as in the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCs) sup-ported by the National Science Foundation at the University of Colorado ($1.8million) , the 'contribution of NSF for academic science for that institudon is

aggerated. The BSCS program is located at Colorado primarily for conveni-ence. Fortunately, this incident is highly atypical.

31 The educational and general income (EGI) item is not a measure of an institu-don's educational-operating budget. In the first instance, the statistic refers toincome, not expenditure. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of definitionaluniformity for educational and gef.teral income. Capital expenditure=gifts and.

, appropriations for mpital expenditure'seemingly a part of the items underthis rubric, is not always included. On the other hand, "auxiliary" incomeseemingly excluded, is not in some instance& However, the EGI is the statisticmost available which relates to an institution's investment in education, and toa degree it does give a measure of institution expenditure, size, affluence, andperhaps even quality.

Federal funds for amdemic science are used as an absolute measure of theFederal impact and generally speaking as a measure of an institution's pardcipa-tion in academic science (research) The educational and general incomeexcludes an institution's grant-contrkt research funds. To derive an expressionof an insdtution's total fiscal contribution to research and education, therefore,requires the incozporation of grant-contract research fund& or some reasonablesubr.itute, into the educational and general income data. Since the statisticsavailable for total grant-contract research were much too unreliable and notalways available, Federal funds for academic science data were substituted.

The amumption that Federal funds can be used as a measure of an institu-tion's participation in academic science is permissible only if limited to thetotal spectrum of activities in science and technology. It is not intended toequate costs per unit of research or education productivity in one substantivear=.- with those in another, for it is well recognized that the physical sciencesrequire more expensive -and sophisticated facilities than do the life sciences,and that the biological sciences bear the same relationship to the social sciences.

32 Howard University and Gallaudet College in the District of Columbia both arepartially- supported by the Federal Government, and thus receive cr_rectappropriations.

22 There is a rime lag between the receipt of Federal funds for academic science(obligations) and their expeneiture b) universities and colleges for research,science ediication, etc. In most cases the lag is of the order of one-half year-Funding by the U.S. PUblie Health Service falls within types characteristic ofthis short-time lag swtem. -Biit there is the situation that is characteristic ofNational Science Foundation arid Office of Naval Research multiple year fundingpractice& wherein the average life of the grant or contract is of the order oftwo years. .Here the time lag may be as long as one and :one-half years.Fortunately, one is dealing here with a pipeline -system Of funding. At anytime "t," expenditure and obligations may be considered in relative equilibriumexcept in instances where the obligation jumps by major increment& Sincethere has been no large incremental increase in Federal funds for academicscience...within the last_ several, years, for all intents and purpose& obligationsand expenditure& accordingly, can be considered as synonomous.. (Obligations

- for total -research and development for colleges and universities proper increasedfrom $800 million_ in fiscal year 1962 -to $1,060 million -in -fiscal year 1964,7roughly 10 percent per year.)

34 There is also some doubt about the full coverage of funding by the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration. As in the case of the Department ofDefense, the discrepancy in terms of total Federal obligations for academicscience is slight, so that it will not affect the Federal influence appreciably-

35 It would have been preferable to have had manpower data over a longer timespan than the one year used. Unfortunately, fiscal year 1963 and academic year1962-1963 provided the most recent element of time where the pertinent man-power and fiscal data concerned existed in sufficient depth. Longer time-spanmanpower data would tend to iron out the peaks and troughs of the statistics;they also would give more stability to the institution classification system. Byemploying long-term statistics, marginal producers of advanced degree scientistsand engineers tend to become better recognized, thus making possible bettercomparability procedures in such studies.

A good compromise would have been a classification of institutions based ona three-year enrollment-degree spread, and productivity measurements basedon the most recent academic year.

The enrollment datatotal, graduate, undergraduatealthough readily avail-able and timely, are not as reliable as one would expect. Enrollment data donot always take into account summer and evening students, although degreedata do. Not all graduate students are formally enrolled. Frequently, as happensin the case of Class B institutions, published graduate enrollment statistics forindividual institutions do not correlate with those for graduate degrees granted.In a number of institutions graduate student enrollment data can be procuredonly by difference calculationsthe difference between total enrollment andundergraduate enrollment. Difference statistics do not always distinguishbetween advance and graduate degree statistics. However, graduate degree andtotal enrollment data, even with their limitations, do measure an institution'seducational level of attainment and the capacity for graduate education.

The validity of total enrollment data is especially critical in this study. Itaffects those indices which relate to the measurement of how an institutionallocates its resources to education in science and technology (see derivationof R.) . Although full-time enrollment data might have been more meaningful,incomplete coverage of such statistics precluded their use. The same is true forfull-time graduate degree enrollment data in the derivation of R.

Total enrollment data tend to exaggerate the size and ;the educational contri-butions of urban institutions, especially those that enroll large numbers ofpart-time and evening students. They also tend to underestimate the contribu-tions of those institutions whose graduate students are in thesis preparation butnot registered. A more precise and meaningful measure of an institution's totalcontribution to higher education is a unit measure that reduces all degreesawarded in terms of a common standard unit.

There is a problem in making comparisons between enrollment data of oneyear and degree data fOr earlier enrollment years. These are deficiencies in thestudy because they fail to account fully for the phasing of the educationalprocess. As with obligations and expenditure data, there is a time lag betweenenrollment and degreefour years for the bachelor's and three or more beyondthe baccalaureate years for the doctoraL However,. since most established insti-tutions are in a steady state of development, whatever growth there is, iscomparable, and any discrepancy between enrollment and degrees conferred isnot serious. The differences can be serious in absolute terms, but in the relativeterms -with which we are dealing, such differences are probably not of greatsignificance. Though some parts of the education system may be in a state offlux, the total system is moderately stable. Class A institutions may be said tohave leached a steady state; they seem to be changing simply by expansion.

98

1

Class B institutions are undergoing a greater change, but even they areprimarily expanding at the fringes, principally increasing their productivity ofbachelor's and master's degree students. And Class C institutions show littlechange within_ They too are changing by an increase in enrollment. A fewClass C institutions are leapfrogging into Class A. However, the number ofinstitutions croising over into other classes is small; in these few instances theinformed student of education is usually aware of the exceptions, and so canmake the necessary adjustment.

Degree data, in general, in contradistinction to enrollment data, can be con-sidered to be fairly "hard." They have ,iehind them the solidity of many yearsof use and the precision of being rr -iitored or qualified by national organiza-tions representative of the discipline Lssodated with the degree. Degree dataspecific for the various degree levels granted in science and technology also canbe considered hard- Though the quality of the degree is not always comparableinterinstitutionally, there are both minimum standards (in most cases imposedby national associations) and those traditional standards and practices thatqualify and distinguish the doctorate from the master's and the master's fromthe bachelor's degree.

Numbers of degrees and the degree level under similar circumstances havecome to have wide acceptance in making rough qualitative judgments relativeto educational institutions. From a statistical viewpoint, it is one of the verYfew qualitative devices of manpower productivity available to the student ofthe educational process. Counting the number of graduates is, of course, not acriterion of quality, but it does have value as one measure of an institution'squantitative productivityits manpower output. It is at the productivity levelthat there has existed a fusion or confusion of quality with-quantity, for degreestatistics associated with the level of study in science and technology haVe beenand continue to be used as relative measures of quality and productivity. In thisstudy the simple addition of various degrees granted has been used as a measureof productivity. But such devices are limited to institutions of a lilce nature,hence, these simple summation measures have been depended upon, only whenused in conjunction with other confirming measuring techniques_

36 Opening (Fall) Enrollment in Higher Education, 1962, Institutional Data- U.S.Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Washing-ton, D.C., OE-50003-62.

37 Enrollment for Advanced Degrees_ The U.S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 0E-54019-62.

33 It is accepted convention to rank the doctorate higher on the scale of educationthan the master's degree or the baccalaureate. Weighting degrees in terms of abase unit, the bachelor's degree, is not new. Students of educational economicsand productivity, for years have used a simple and arbitrary system of weight-ing, based on the bachelor unit weight of one, where the master's degree istwo, and the doctorate three or four_ These numerical values appear to bederived from the average number of years spent in postbaccalaureate trainingwith the baccalaureate as the base. This numerical system has served mod-erately well, but it is arbitrary and Mee most such systems its comparative andextended use is open to question_ It also became quite obvious that anyweighted base unit, if it were to have meaning, had to be tied closely to thevalue of a degree. Giving such value to a unit is especially difficult. The valuemost amenable to reason and pragmatism turned out to be the cost of edu-cating a studentthe cost of producing a bachelor, master, and doctoralgraduate, or a veterinarian, doctor of medicine, or- doctor of dentistry. Costinformation, although scarce and questionable, does exist. Both the Office of

99

Education and the Office of Economic and Manpower Studies of the National

Science Foundation's made basic education cost estimates in the year 1962.

These estimates were modified further and adapted to the present study.

In its simplest terms the system finally adopted was based on the full cost of

training (education, not subsistence) the baccalaureate in science and engineer-

ing._ The full cost estimate of $5,200 for the baccalaureate in science and

engineering accordingly was assigned a value of one.

This base unit (see derivation below) , henceforth, will be referred to as the

science and technology degree productivity unit (SrcT DP) .

Baccalaureate Degree in Science and Technology (BS)

Instruction at $1200/year x 4 $ 4,800

Research at $100/year x 4 400

$ 5,200

BS 1

Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine (DYM)Instruction and research undergraduate (2 Yrs)Instruction for DVM $2,000/yr (4 yrs)Research at $600/yr (1 yr)

DVM-11,200/5,200

Master's Degree in Science and Technology (MS)

4 2.6008,000

600

$11,200

Instruction and __-.-__arch undergraduate (4 yrs) $ 5,200

Instruction for MS $3600/Yr (2 Yrs) 7,200

Research at $600/yr (1 yr) 600

$13,000

MS-13,000/5,200 -_..-- 2.5

Doctor of Medicine and of Denistry (MD & DDS)Instruction and research undergraduate (4 yrs) $ 5,200Instruction for MD and DDS at $3600/yr (4 yrs) 14,400

Research at $1000/yr (1 Yr) 1:000

$20.600

MD or DDS-20,600/5,200 4.0

Doctorate in Science and Technology (Phd & DSc)

Inwruction and research undergraduate (4 yrs) $ 5,200

Instruction for PhD and DSc at $3600/yr (4 yrs) 14,400

Research at $1000/yr (4 yrs) 4,000

$23,600

PhD or,DSc-723.1:600/5,200

The degree costs were arrhied.at by treating each: degree .as -though it couldbe separated into two parts, instructional and researchwhere research ranged

from- a lilmary thesis, :through . special laboratory training, to experi.%cental

thesis reznarch. Accordingly,- the $6,200 assigned to -the:cost of the bachelor's

degree became $4,800 -for instruction 'and $400 for research..In esich ease the

number of Inars and the cost per- -year for the cOnduct of research are merely

a basis_ for arriving. at .211 lesriatate of the cost. The total cost-has meaning in

that it serves as a Common base for cosis ansociaied with all'. degreec. Though -

the cost estimate for the basic unit (the production of one bachelor's degree in

100

science and technology in 1962) is obviously low when considered in terms ofpresent costs, the values derived for each of the degree levels are relative andcomparable. They axe all based on a common time period and constant.

The postbaccalaureate training costs of the master's degree, the doctoraldegree, and the doctor of medicine and dentistry degrees were set at 10600 peryear, about twice the annual cost for training the doctor of veterinary medicine.It is assumed that the doctor of veterinary medicine requires less elaboratefacilities in his training than is required by the other four degree candidates.The principal differences in the five advanced degree entities lie in the increas-ing number of years and the additional cost per year assigned to the moreadvanced degree categories hire the doctorate of science and the doctor of medi-tine and dentistry. The only difference in cost between the. doctor of science andthe doctor of medicine and dentistry is one of the nuniber of years engaged inthe conduct of research.. These are admittedly assumptions which may needrefinement as actual data on degree costs are developed.

Since the metric S&T DP is to be used in characterizing an institution or aclass of institutions in terms of productivity in science education, a number ofweaknesses in application must be made manifest. There is no recognition givento who actually pays the student coststhat is, private, public, institutional andpersonal sources of income may contribute at one time or another to such costs.Who pays the bill is not at issue, for cost is merely used to establish value andnot to give credit. The S&T DP metric also makes no correction for the factthat the advanced degree type institution tends to accumulate productivitycredit for the bacplaureate contributions of a liberal arts college. It also makesno correction for the multiplier effect resulting from the inclusion of the sameperson in the unit system at various times in his career. A student at one timemay be induded in the calculation as a bachelor's degree recipient, at anotheras a master's degree and at still another time as a doctorate. These are seriousfaults if the numerical rating expressed by the S&T DP measure is used as ahard number. If, however, it is used in a fashion similar to the concept GrossNational Product, as a relative Measure of the absolute state of the economywith a number of qualifications (and only in conjunction with other comple-mentary measures) , then the issue of degree of hardness becomes moot. TheS&T DP is used in the indicator sense, and lace the GNP attempts to 'reducea number of different weighted, related items into a common unit system ofexpression.

The defeas enumerated for the S&T DP concept are not unique. Thesefaults occur equally in other measuring systems:of productivity. The multipliereffect andf or crediting graduate schools for the baccalaureate contributions ofliberal arts colleges is equally a problem of conventional systems of giving valueor worth to the degree whether the -system is one based on assigning arbitrary,values or the common usage system of giving greater value or worth to thedoctorate when compared to the master's _or bacheor's degree. The advanceddegree is usually, solely credited to the graduate (granting) institution.

89 One of the principal merits of the concept R. is that it provides a basis formeasuring, and hence ascertaining An institution's relative contriluttion tograduate level education. It is not an absolute measure of an institution's par-ticipation in graduate education. Graduate enrollment data or graduate degreesare used in this capacity.

"To construct and give meaning to the index (R.) , that relates an institution'stotal productivity in science education to total educational capability is con-siderably more difficult than the previous index R., for ideally the expressionshould compare total contribution to science education to total educational out-

101

put. The various degrees in graduate and advanced education in the sciences arenot univalent, and science and technology enrollment data would not satisfythe expression. In addition, thii type of enrollment data is not now available.Since no measure of an institution's total educational output exists, input (totalenrollment) will have to suffice.

17t,, has some of the same limitations inherent in and the additional con-straint that SP.:T DP ic a weighted -easure and not an absolute count of aninstitution's contribution to scientific and technological education. In additionthe numerator is expressed in terms of degrees and the denominator in studentsenrolled. The substitution-of enrollment data for the degree units in scienceand technology would not have satisfied the basic requirements of this indexfor the simple reason that enrollment data for science and technology fail to berepresentative of the differences and values of the various levels of educational

attainment (degrees) . B., in spite of its constraints, does satisfy the basicrequirements for a measure of an institution's relative output of scientific andtechnological manpowerthe allocation of educational resources to science and

technology.'a The academic budget, consisting of the educational and general income (EGI) ,

is a measure of an institution's affluence and to some degree it can be considereda measure of its size. Generally, affluence and size both bear a relationship to aninstitution's total contribution to education. Total enrollment is a measure ofan institution's contribution to higher education only as it relates to the totalnumber of individuals receiving educational benefits. It fails to distinguishamong undergraduate, graduate, and advanced degree education, neither does itrecognize research. The institution's budget, however, also fails to distinguishamong the manpower elements of education, but it at least is an integratedmeasure of all the elements of an institution's commitment or investment ineducation expressed in terms of dollars. The budget, then, is a better measure ofan institution's absolute contribution to higher education. When combined withenrollment data, it has complementary value and can, therefore, serve as a toolfor measuring total contribution to higher education.

'When used together these data not only 'reinforce each other, they addanother dimension to systems of measurement dealing with institutional sizeand educational contribution. Accordingly, the EGI (the academic budget) isused here as a measure of an institution's own contribution to higher education,and in part as a measure of its affluence. Combining the educational and genera/income with Federal funds for academic science (EGI -F FFAS) results 'in aterm which represents the institution's total contribution to higher education(institutional income) This.institutional income serves as one leg of the ratio.

Federal funds statistids are used here as the absolute measure of the level orsize of Federal academic science programs. (Not infrequently they are used asan absolute measure of an institution's science quality, and in lieu Of grant-contract research funds.) Federal funds data, however, do not readily serve asa measure of the impact or the influence of theFederal Government on theinstitution, unless they are used in conjunction with a noimalizer or used incomparative terms- In other words, such data must be noimalized to accountfor the institution's absolute size and affluence or to acCount for its output ortotal contribution to science education. As stated earlier, total insitutionalincome can serve in this capacity. The use of the other absolute measure of sizeor contribution to total educationtotal enrollmentis less than satisfactorybecause it is not a measure of contribution and it makes no distinction for thevarious levels of higher education or the degree to which it contributes to edu-cation quantitatively or qualitatively. In this case institutional incomeEGI -F FFASat least is a measure of an institution's own commitment or

102

Litla

r,W.F?e"

investment in higher education (inchlding research) . and, it does have areference to total productivity in science and education. Therefore, in con-structing the ratio that is to serve as an index of the Federal impact on thetotality of an institution's productivitY in higher educationresearch and edu-cationtotal institutional income is used as the denominator and Federal fundsfor academic science as the numerator-

The measure RA, has some of the same constraints inherent in R.. andFederal funds are obligations and contain all the limitations of obligations, andthe academic component of the institutional income (EGI) is not an ideal noran absolute measure of the institution's oPerating budget. The academic budget(EGI) , nevertheless, appears to be the best type of data available, and even withall its impreciseness, it does give Gine an absolute and integrated measure of aninsdtution's contribution (investment) to education. Federal funds do satisfythe required research component of total institutional income. R.5 does containcommon terms in both the numerator and denominator (dollars) , and, as anhide-, is sufficiently hard so as to Measure adequately the Federal impactphenomenon.

Rfd is a straightforward expression except for the denominator S&T DP. Here aswith R., the S&T DP value is limiting because of the constraints inherent inthe weighting system. The S&T DP unit does, however, fulfill the requirementsof comparability, for each science 2nd tedumlogy degree value has a commonderivation, the bachelor's degree, and as such lends strength to the use of Rrd asan index of impac of Federal funds_

43 Although the R is not an absolute Measure and does not distinguish betweenlarge and small institutions, the assurttption can be made with some degree ofcertainty that small institutions cannot bave high R. 'values and that large insti-tutions cannot have very small R's It apPears that an institution must reach acritical mass in total size (total enxolluseut) to sustain a graduate program ofany appreciable magnitude. There are inarty exceptions, of course, e.g., Rocke-feller University and Claremont Graduate Center and University. Institutionswith highly developed graduate progams also tend to be the larger institutions.

"The Federal funds for academic science total reported kr is higher than thefigures reported in the NSF publication Federal Funds Research, Develop-ment and Other Scientific Activities'. bY 17 percent (Table C-4) , well withinthe agreement expected. The FFA.S data cover more than just the researchcomponent of academic science. The refelence study is restricted to research;Federal funds for academic science include research, scienee education, scienceinformation, and institutional base grant funds. The data reported for bothstudies exclude plant and contract research centers. However, FFAS data doinclude plant associated with the development of specialized facilitiescomputerand nuclear research centers. FFAS data are higher in each of the agency obli-gations compared, as they should be, excePt- for the estimate of the U.S. Depart-ment of Defense and the National Aeronantics and Space Administration. Thediscrepancies (DOD and NASA) are not to be minimized, but they do notaffect the analysis dealing with Federal iMpact on academic science. They do,however, affect estimates dealing with Dab and NASA contribUtions to liberalarts colleges and the less affluent institutions.

" Gerard Piel, 'Tederal Funds and Science Education," Bulletin of Atomic Scien-.fists, p. 10, May 1966.

"Meharry College is not included in the study population of degree-accreditedinstitutions.27 Accordingly, the statewent referring to the production of gradu-ates in medicine applies specifically to the study population.

Howard University, through the iTS. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, receives a direct appropriation from the Congress-

103

"Earl J. McGrath, The Predominantly Negro Colleges and Universities in Transi-tion. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965.

" Within these first 100 institutions, there are three institutions that are nonpro-ducers of the doctoral degree in science and technologythe University ofPuerto Rico, Dartmouth College and Seton Hall College. Dartmouth recentlyinstituted a doctorate program in science, even though no degree data werereported for the year 1962-1963. The other two institutions appearing in thesample of 100, seem to be there because of their dominant medical schools.Rockefeller University is the only institution in the group without a bachelor'sor master's degree program; the University of California at San Diego is theonly institution without a baccalaureate program.

" Allan M. Cartier. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. AmericanCouncil on Education, 1966.

56 James A. Perkins. The University in Transition. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, 1966.

"Nowhere ill this paper is there a discussion of geographic and regional distribu-tion of Federal funds, although the evidence from tabulations madc, indicatesthat Fedend funds correlate Well with population, with regional and Stateappropriations for -total and higher education, with the internal revenue collec-tion, and with personal income. The discussion here has been limited to Fed=a1funds and the academic institution, for it is the academic institution (not landmass) that is determinative with respect to manpower productivity and scholar-ship (research) and that bears the burden and carries the responsibility forscience education and scientific research. In fact, it is the people within theseinstitutions, faculty and students, that are affected by and in turn affect Federalfunds, the institution acting only in the capacity of the vessel for the conductof scholarship and the storage and dissemination of knowledge.

Tab

le A

-1SELECTED FUNDING A211) RADIOMEN OHARAOTERISTICS IN SCIENCE Atm TECHNOLOGY OP

DEGREE-ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS

2zon

vu8i

nom

FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE IN FISCAL MAR 1963 AND ACADEMIC YEAR 1962-63

ARRANCED ALPHABETICALLY BY STATE AND CLASS

(Agency Obligations Are For Those Three Agencies Responsible for

Prinoipal Federal Support)

th,

Control

Enrollment

Re

EAT DP

Degrees

R -A

Dollata io Thousands

Total

Graduate

BA

MA

RD DWI

DPG ND

EOI

PEAS

DOD

UMW

NSF

Class A

Alabama, University of

Auburn

Publio

14,477

1,444

0.100

1,237

h61

71

21

50

76

0,085

114544

6,175

351

3,771

136

0.298

4,992

University

Public

8,982

804

0,090

863

508

88

649

0,096

17,489

1,106

20

417

186

0.069

1,282

Class B

Alabama College

Publio

1,302

20.002

77

47

12

0.059

1,336

112

110

0.077

1,455

Binaingham-Bouthern College

Tuskegeo last'itute

.Denoo.

1,026

10

:::::

81

78

10.079

1,003

157

157

0.135

1,938

Private

2,450

114

91

46

10

0.037

2,794

346

198

191

0.110

3,802

Olasa 0

Livingston Otate College

Public

750

70.4209

25

25

0.033

545

77

0,013

260

Talladega College

Deno].

425

026

26

--

0.661

429

16

16

0.036

615

/WM

Claso A

Alaska, University ot

Public

3,549

60

0,023

87

38

14

3-

-0.025

4,080

2,293

526

342

761

0.360

26,356

ME

MClass A

Arizona State University

Public

15,453

.3,319

0.215

668

332

.127

I.

--

0.043

11,311

1,644

209

330

813

0.127

2,461

Arizona, The University of

Public,

16,275

1,913

0.118

1,096

478

184

35

--

0.057

21,525

4,943

603

654

1,641

0.187

4,510

Olaso 8

Arisoni,gtate College

Public

3,361

201

0.661

71

58

5-

-0.022

2,898

la

..

103

0.039

1,493

LEM

Claes A

.

Arkasses, University ot

hiblio

7,899

783

0.099

1,114

390

143

13

--

77

0,141

13,472

3,736

-t,820

531

0.217

3,154

Class s

Mums State College

Tnblio

.

4,086

111

00::::

127

107

8-

-0.031

1,863

15

Arkansas elate Teaohers College

Public.

2,491

121

129

104

10

--

0.092

1,242

6

19 6

0.008

0.025

118

47

bb.o

sol

Clan C

'.

Arkansas Polyteahnio College

Public

1,60

20

73

73

0.046

1,026

27

23

40.026

370

Little Rook University

Private

1,780

43

23

0.013

695

14

-14

0.020

609

Southern State Collets

Publio

1,441

026

26

0.018

943

55

0.005

192

Mana

Glass A'

California Institute of Teohnology

Private

1,339

644

0.481

856

133

127

90

0.639

8,721

9,455

1,081

2,460

2,787

0.520

11,046

California, University of -

Publio

25,092

6,822

0.272

4,848

1,757

666

317

0.193

55,095

29,361

3,232

14,940

9,138

0.348

6,056

Serieley

California, University of - Davie

Public

4,116

716

0,174

926

270

111

62

45

0.225

18,049

8,475

149

3,673

755

0.320

9,152

California, Univer1, of -

Public

20,189

5,505

0.273

3,035

1,131

394

157

-53

0.150

45,100

19,196

2,762

11,657

2,757

0.159

6,325

DOS Angeles

California, Univereity of

Publio

2,173

352

0.162

225

146

28

2-

0.104

8,906

1,503

1526

651

0.144

6,680

Riverside

California, University ot -

sail

Diego

Publio

205

205

o43

85

.0,210

5,2110

11,0

845,

306

693

2,78

90.

679

257,

767

California, University of -

Publio

2,833

227

0.080

858

47

18

20

73 96

0.303

16,159

4,739

191

4,3::

5,523

e." A

San Preimitco Hedinal Center

Claremont graduate Oohool and

Private

922

496

0.68

784

12

12

-0.116

1,754

308

-::

:::::

3,667

...,i

,(1.,4,

University Center

Una Linda University

Denom,

1,066

90

0.084

608

353 97

0.570

3,984

1,840

57

1,730

50.316

3,026

Southern California, University of

Private

18,477

7,035

0.381

2,127

377

342

53

90 66

0.115

20,5

898,

727

1,49

311

,91,

11,

098

0.29

84,

103

Stanford University

Private

9,934

3,200

0.32

23,

145

017

599

101

40.317

43,352

28,938

9,104

0,657

7,842

0.400

9,201

Claes B

..,

California State College at

Publio

18,557

3,683

0.198

601

506

38

--

0.032

11,970

196

15

77

104

0.016

326

Los Angeles

California State Polyteohnic

Publio

9,297

149

0.016

724

709

6-

-0.078

10,867

20

20

0.002

28

College

California, University of

Mlle

4,787

191

0.040

229

189

16

-0,048

7,891

949

370

120

338

0.107

4,144

Santa Barbara

Chico State Colltge

Publio

3,910

57

0.015

171

168

4-

-0,046

4,652

57

32

25

0,012

320

Fresno State College

Public

8,663

491

0.057

328

278

ao-

--

0,03

87,227

164

14

150

0.022

500

The Holy Homes, Collge of

Denom.

1,062

19

0.018

41

33

3-

--

0.039

725

13

13

0.018

317

Humboldt State College

Public

2,782

138

0.050

113

98

6-

0.041

3,328

132

18lit

,0.

038

1,16

8

(California oontinued next page)

SAT DP

Science and Technology Degret Productivity

8. Graduate student enrollment/total enrollment

* setimated

11

. Science and technology degree productivity/total enrollment

Rfe

Federal funds tor aeademlo soleneejtotal institutional Income

Rfd

Federal funds for academic ecience/science and technology degree productivity

ROI

Educational and General Incase

FFAB

Federal Funde for Academic Science

!.

Control

0021IIL

Tab

le

h

A-1

.-C

ontln

ued

&NT DP

Diri:IVX

.111

Dal

las

to n

omad

s4-1.2

bs.

mat

s.BA

MA

DIS

ise_

mir

ltmi

VALIADSUA (Cont,d)

Immolate Heart College

.I4

Ilam

,1,460

1011

0,071

50

45

2.

..

0.004

1,089

94

61

29

00779

1,880

Fong

Bla

:$11

State College

Pobtta

12,809

1,426

0,111

371

322

22

-.

0.02

99,037

233

112

121

0.02

5618

rills C011egv

r.

Private

, 759

48

0.063

53

48

2.

0.670

1,281

3-

30.

002

57

0,410,/otol College

Private

1,530

.32

0.021

153

143

4.

0,160

2,511

55

936

0.021

359

2mal

tloUntie College_

Demo,

1,231

35

0:020

31

20

10,025

1,646

19

19

40.011

613

Paaitta'Vniversity or tbe

NE

U.

21561

276

0. p

a12

399

u..

(ohs

2,99

624

210

137

95

0.075

1,967

Oto

ria6

to S

tott,

001

22.

Public

9,251

081

0.056

228

193

14

-0.025

5,750

213

56

157

0.036

934

0,in

81,20 !gat, College -

Publio

1.4,661

1,772

0.121

569

419

60

.0.039

10,686

804

10

171

596

0,669

1,413

iA.

;Nan

Yer

nuic

loVolley Slate College

_.San'214ndistOttaie College

,,.

Publia

Publ

ic'

9,045

1,239

17,024

1,891 '

0.137

0.111

143

429

140

1-

334

38

--

- -

0,016

00025

6,356

227

105

127

11,237

hoo

13

125

206

0.0314

0.034

1,90

7

912

...

ean,fronaisacii'Universitiof

lifinoft.

4,363

117

0.027

113

105

3-

--

0426

2,493

243

177

66

0.669

2,150

per iose'State college

...

I410110

20,354

1,681

0.603

821

596

90

--

-0.0003

15,136

623

18

10

504

0.040

761

1.4,"1

Boole Olaitt, tAiiierolly- of

2940

i.3,544

1,232

0.353

152

104

19

--

-0,043

2,579

107

-107

0.040

704

Whittier Colleio '

'

cliki 0

/Tina!

11551

13

0.034

168

165

10.16e

1,795

14

311

0.1538

81

Colirotii. state Co11c0 0

Pablia

1,780

918

0.513

12

12

. 0.007

2,090

151

131

0.067

12,583

Cluilectii Collcse

,Dencs.

1,06

122

20.

205

13

13

0.012

652

17

314

0425

1,028

Clitresoctliteo collere

Privote

515

031

31

0,060

1,035

17

50.016

54ocad4+ie.0`gol1sse ,?t o.n rieful

og000.

743

30

0.040

14

14

0,01

9324

16

16

0.01+7

1,03

0.05!), Mode College

Priv

ata

257

033

33

--

0,120

859

139

139

0.139

4,212

laSierra collesx

Donor;

1,161

33

WO

39

39

-1,.

0,034

1,003

II

11

0.011

212

203r014 Vaieersity 0 Iro Moles

Donor,

1,917

164

0,086

133

133

..

0.669

2,237

16

13

30.007

120

*act St, Niry41 Col1cse

Dena,

1,344

24

0,018

32

32

0.024

906

75

49

26

0.076

2,310

.

Orono State College ''

Public

2,538

014

212

."

0.017

1,876

36

28

80.019

857

!mono Collotte

Private

1,074

oi%

156

--

0.143

2,439

323

133

192

0.117

2,083

1 0

Redlands, University of

Bt. Hary's College of California

Weatuont college

Oleos D

Peeifie Oak', College

COLORADO

Denae.

"'team.

Private

Private

Pnblio

MAIO

Publie

Dente.

Private

Publie

Publie

.Dihea.

Deno.,

Publie

Private

Maio

Private

Deno,

Private

Private

1,557

852

526 54

1.042

7,304

19,557

5,876

1,385

4,791

1,872

832..

993

13,070

8,364

4,302

1,367

828

1,477

1,146

109 3 77

672

2,030

.1,049,

29

320

48

1,69

4

2,436

716

36

103

430

116

0.070

0,004 0

0474

.0.078

0,104

0.179

0.021

0,067

0,026 o

0.130

0,291

0,166

0.026

0,124

0.291

0.101

157

43

22

203

896

1,843

308

184

166

55

13

44

1,023

1,860 49

107 33

171.

220

157

43 22

133

447

672

177

124

88 50

13

44

544

460

44

79

25

106

107

26

94

211 45

24

31 2

139

231 2 11 3 26

45

1 19

'71 4 - . .- - 29

117

58

-

81

-76

.

0,101

0.050

0.042

0030

0

0.195

0.123

0,0914

0.052

0.133

0.035

0.029.

0,016

0.044

0,07

8

0.223

0.011

0.078

0,040

0.116

0,192

2,431

989

650

86

2,405

13,889

26,131

8,215

2,418

3,798

1,500

1,347

1,035

14,552

34,378

2,880

2,272

412

2,682

6,102

69

24 17

32

254

2,9411

11,473

2,885

171

447

14

81

15

2,136

194472

51

37

52

43

487

32

56'

228

1,163

2,165 -

"-

182

1,900

17 2

10 17

981

5,044

231 12 28 34'

15

954

9,596

13 3 13

40

69 14 '

103

794

4,322

102

159

145 9 47 -

414

3,497 51

24 32

30

445

0,028

0,024

0.025

0.271

0.096

0.175

0.305

0.260

0.066

0.105

0,009

0.057

0.014

0.128

0.162

0.017

0.016

0.112

0.016

0,074

439

558

773

1,251

3,286

6,225

9,367

929

2,693

255

6,231

341

2,08

10,424

1,041

346

1,576

251

2,214

Oleos A

Colorado &heel of Nines

Colorado State University

Colorado, University of

Denver, University of

Claes B

Colorado College

Colorado Otte College

Western State College or Colorado

Oleos C

Loretto Height's College

Foes College

'

CO1011800102?

Clam, A

Connecticut, University

Or

Yale University

Oleos D

Central Conneotiout State College

Conneetieut College

Saint Joeepb College

Trinity College

Weeleyan University

(ConOtetiout continued next page)

,,...,

,,,,,,

,,,,v

mee

pvev

enve

rena

VIW

WR

7R01

71!"

-r0

,.0:-

>3.

rt!:

,:."'

"e5,

7"49

FAM

TA

rtir

r.77

-*M

OR

MM

uJos

y±,F

,Y, ,

j.f-1

Frt5

10?.

',.

Enrollment

Tab

leA

-1,-

-Con

tinue

d

Degrees

Dollars in Thouaands

A-1

.3

CONNECTICUT (Cont.d)

Control

Total

Graduate

Re

CAT DP

BA

MA

PhD DM DDS kD

Li

20/

FFAB

DOD

WPM

NSF

1.ILE

Olitee 0

Albertus Magnus College

Denom.

446

035

35

0.078

443

12

12

0,026

943

Bridgeport, University of

Private

6,300

871

0.138

131

131

0.021

3,716

164

86

78

0.042

1,252

Fairfield Univeraity

Imnom,

2,155

786

0.365

164

164

-0,076

1,430

26

125

0.018

159

Hartford, Vnivermity of

Private

7 ,103

1,259

0,177

95

95

-0.013

3,542

88

0,002

84

DELAWARE

Class A

Delaware, University of

Public

7,225

981

0.136

551

243

eh22

--

0.076

8,633

1,619

360

150

424

0.158

2,936

DIIIIMIOT OF COIUMBIA

Olitas A

The Amerioan University

Denom.

9,181

1,327

0,145

373

156

56

17

-0.041

7,917

1,016

669

90

205

0.114

2,724

The CAholio University of Amerioa

aeorgetoim University

Denom,

Dews.

5,177

6,791

2,202

1,132

0,425

0,167

6ce

1,119

140

179

I20 57

36

-

27

-72 97

0,116

0,165

5,495

18,000

2,768

3,960

752

154

1,087

3,226

486

253

0.335

0.180

4,590

3,539

George Washington University

private

14,031

2,892

0,206

1,114

266

163

17

-91

0.079

16,700

4,372

1,873

1,790

230

0,207

3,925

Howard University

Public

6,288

593

0.094

1,131

322

47

7-

70 95

0.180

11,371

1,822

103

1,412

226

04138

1,611

Claes C

Dunbarton College of Holy Cross

O allaudet College

Denom,

Private

1486

444

.0

0,070

22 16

22

16

- .

- .

o,oh5

0,036

543

1,611

4 34

4 11

0.007

0.018

162

2,125

FLORIDA

Claes A

Florida State Univer sity

Public

10,391

1,452

0.140

597

246

72

38

-0.057

12,303

4,8118

873

1,02

1,034

0,283

8,121

Florids: ft(

--Af7 of

PUblio

13,826

2,040

0.148

1,728

021

187

62

--

40

04125

40,810

8,278

902

4,491

1,452

0.169

4,791

Miami, Univereity of

Frivate

12,053

797

0.066

859

435

49

11

--

63

0.071

15,261

6,822

1,412

3,515

1,351

0,309

7,942

Clue 13

Rollins College

Private

2,013

321

0.159

71

58

5-

-0.035

2,253

49

-49

t.021

690

Stetson (John B,) University

Denom.

2,076

155

0.075

58

53

2-

-0.028

2,324

112

-82

0.046

1,931

Claes 0

Barry College

Den

om,

818

70

0.086

13

13

--

0.016

582

64

20,010

462

Florida Agrioultural and

Mechanical University

Public

3,149

246

0.078

98

ge-

-0.031

3,742

54

54

0,014

551

'6A

V

-'

Floiida gouthern College

tlemon.

2,640

873

73

0.028

1,907

25

421

0,013

342

Jacksonville University

Private

2,099

033

33

0.016

1,372

77

0.005

212

Tampa, Uhivereity of

Private

2,489

038

38

--

0.015

1,429

97

20.006

237

GEORGIA

clue A

Wry University

Doom,

4,646

557

0,120

960

227

39

14

73 70

0.207

7,334

4,984

37

4,530

270

0.405

5,192

Georgia Inetitute of Teohnology

Public

6,876

651

0.095

1,093

614

136

31

0.159

8,789

3,198

1,168

583

456

0,267

2,926

Geargia, WW1 College a

Mita

457

08

0.193

362

4-

-88

0.792

2,050

1,575

-1,575

0.434

4,351

Georgia, The University of

Puhllo

12,247

948

0.077

1,025

527

118

24

43

.044

22,020

3,332

113

648

968

0.131

3,251

Class 11

Atlanta University

Avivate

727

727

0145

-58

--

0,199

1,047

423

92

331

0.288

2,917

1004

Georgia Southern College

l'ablio

2,121

159

0475

58

50

3-

-0.027

1,402

88

0.006

138

Olaes 0

00

Agnes Boott College

Private

667

044

44

0.066

1,166

66

0.005

136

Albany State College

Publio

1,001

'

012

10

0.012

839

81

81

0.088

6,750

Georgia itste College

Phblio

3,873

157

0.041

121

121

0.031

2,652

10

.0.004

83

J.

Lagrange College

Dam.

471

015

15

-0.032

400*

33

0.007

200

Morehouse College

Private

810

097

97

-0.120

756

35

35

0.044

361

North Georgia College

Phblio

896

035

35

-0.040

703

10

-3

0.014

286

Bavannahlitate College

Public

1,160

035

35

-0.030

1,069

27

.27

0.025

771

Shorter College

1)e1100.

665

o22

22

0,033

660

19

19

0.028

864

Spelzan College

penes.

596

048

48

0.081

753

44

0.009

83

HAWAII

Claes A

Wait, University of

PUblie

11,575

761

0,066

696

333

118

15

--

0.060

15,3711

3,332

355

763

1,310

0,178

4,787

10/di0

Olaes B

Idaho State Ueivereity

Publ'o

2,644

96

0.036

62

59

1-

-0423

3,867

1311

-27

98

0.033

2,161

Idaho, UnivereitY a

Public

5,254

313

0,060

549

316

93

--

0,104

9,266

966

-4o

332

0.04

1,760

(Idaho continued next page)

$.4

Control

Enrollment

Tab

le

2.

A-1

.Con

tlnue

d

6617

DP

DIC

I)vm

Dollars io Thomas

A-1.4

papa

Ittl.

Graduate

BA

HA

1:03

1000

117

28DOD

WPM

41087

IDAHO (00A410)

Claes C

Idaho, The College of

Deno'.

955

42

0.044

44

,44

..

0.046

972

li

U.

0.011

250

Northvist Nazarene College

Donna.

793

.-

o13

13

--

0.06

580

10

10

0.017

769

WNW.

Class A

Chicogo, The University of

Private

8,233

2,853

0.347

1,977

289

267

169

-65

0.240

22,375

24,668

4,677

11,270

5,111

0.524

12,477

Illinois Institute of Teohnolou

Private

7,109

1,318

0.185

915

480

100

41

0.129

5,985

0,368

038

370

739

0,0133

2,588

Illinois, University of

Public

33,956

1,325

0,157

6,10

1,611

774

318

31

77 188

0.180

10,666

28,788

8,414

8,448

5,961

0.211

4,715

Loyola University

.2ena.

10;354

1,198

0,116

1,023

249

28

8-

94 73

0.099

8,742

1,297

28

1,154

20

0.129

1,268

k,.

..

Northwestern University

Private

16,636

1,551

0.09

2,301

528

195

107

-68 193

0.138

24,175

11,179

3,208

5,316

1,739

0.916

4,858

64

Bouthern Illinois University

Public

16,843

1,301

0.07

715

468

88

6.

0.042

21,915

772

40.

320

346

0034

1,080

SP'

Class B

Bradley University

Private

4,705

316

0.067

276

201

30

0.059

3,862

115

.115

0.029

417

Chicago butlr, College South

public

5,727

675

0.118

60

25

14

0.010

2,03

22

0.001

33

Iv.

De Paul University

Deuce,

9,147

1,224

0.134

20

104

42

0.223

4,484

140

96

26

0.030

670

Illinois State University at

Mlle

6,571

995

0.060

154

104

20

0.023

7,544

27

70.00

175

Normal

Mao linty College

Door.

971

70.007

49

39

40.050

1,400

11

-11

0,008

224

Northern Illinois University

Pu'Oio

9,863

1,790

0.181

285

192

37

0.029

9,887

240

67

196

0024

842

Roosevelt University

Private

5,909

628

0.106

249

214

14

0.042

3,522

75

19

56

0.021

301

Western Illinois University

Public

4,146

115

0.028

117

99

T0.028

5,092

29

23

0.005

197

Oldie C.

Eastern Illinois University

Public

3,664

%160

0.044

92

92

0.025

4,426

84

84

0.019

913

Illinois Wesleyan lk Lversity

Donna.

1,181

61

0.052

39

39

0.039

1,582

107

92

75

0.063

2,744

Knox College

Privat

1,140

0122

122

0.107

2,010

131

2129

0.061

1,074

Lake fonst University

Denon.

1,224

Io

84

84

00:69

1,837

42

42

0.022

500

Nillikin University

Dame.

1,750

53

0.030

43

43

-0025

1,60

26

8A

0.016

60

Mundlein College

Dina.

1,226

0103

103

-0.024

1.441

11

11

chock

107

vr.m

...,

,m,r

erte

r'r.r

r3

North Central College

0111

011.

931

o65

65

0.070

1,297

16

-16

0.012

246

Olivet Nazarene College

Deno.,

1,197

0VI

Ve

-.

0.028

800

5-

50.006

147

Principta College

Private

551

054

54

--

0.098

1,048

22

0.002

37

Hartford College

?Ante

1,074

25

0.023

3232

--

0.030

11084

77

0.006

219

Ro 1 ay College

Dena,

1,107

044

44

-.

0.040

1,477

55

0.003

114

8t. Procopius College

0#11

00.

656

047

47

--

0.072

426

98

.2

17

0.187

2,665

gt, Xavier donee"

Deno.

1,199

21

0418

24

24

--

0.020

800*

123

121

20.133

5,125

Wheaton College

PrOatt

1,913

82

0.043

143

143

0.075

2,645

66

0.002

ha

Class B

&oral Willime College

lNDIAXA

.

Private

416

82

0.197

0.000

636

7.

0.011

Claes A

Indiana University

Publio

31,581

3,694

0,117

2,226

462

152

103

77 153

0.070

39,176

9,880

824

6,327

1,18

0.201

4,438

Notre Dime, Onivoisitry of

', Doom.

6,717

791

0.118

1,239

614

176

41

0.184

14,125

2,529

574

427

1,107

0.152

2041

Purim University .

alai. A

..

Ball iltiad..7eschett College

Botlof UniVersity

idelio

.

Ptrblio

Private

22,316

8,526

4,201

3,099

1,289

1,063

0.139

0.151

0,253

4,479

163

63

1,555

100

53

671

25 I.

255

44

0.201

0.019

0.015

39,7416

7,939

2,323

9,265

179

28

1,865

2,004 7 .

2,996

89

28

0.189

0.022

0,012

2,069

1,096

Oh

oepoui Uoloorolty

Wrote

2,331

:it

0,020

254

234

80.109

3,324

103

-77

0.030

406

indium 8tate Colleg,

Publio

5,941.

-

692

0.116

197

107

36

-0.033

5,638

77

0.001

36

Rose Polytechnio Institute

Private

526

60,

011

87

77

4.

0.165

995

13

13

0.013

149

Olosi 0

Barlhem College '

ballerina College

Bence.

Private

1,061

3,213

11

0.010 0

103 79

103 79

0.09

7

0.025

1,830

2,028

299 30

25

299 5

0.140

0.015

2,903

380

Goshen Co/lege

Dense.

1,125

074

74

-o.o66

1,067

15

15

0.014

203

Hanover College

Deno..

827

062

62

-0.079

1,014

55

0.00

581

Indisoa Central College

Deno..

1,827

026

26

0.014

912

77

0.066

269

Indiana Institute of Technoloci

Private

1,314

0262

262

0.199

1,0013

12

12

0.012

146

(Indiana ocatinued next pep)

0.1

0.1

,,,Py

r,O

ltrif

crir

MrP

!5n1

_

Tab

le A

-1.7

Con

tinue

d

INDIANA (Cont,d)

Control

Enrollment

Re

SST DP

Degreee

Ei

Dollars

lo Thousands

A-1.5

Total

Graduate

BA

110BD

DVN

DDS -R5

POI

---

1708

----

DOD

...

USPHO

NEW

Manohester College

Denom.

1,217

o76

76

0.062

1,189

26

26

0.021

342

Harlan College

0e005.

787

06

60.008

335

33

0.009

500

St. Mary'e College

Denom.

1,192

18

0,015

43

43

0.036

1,506

44

0.003

93

Taylor Univeraity

Private

831

043

43

0.052

785

70.009

163

Valyareiao University

Denom.

3,233

0200

200

0.062

3,580

111

14

97

0.030

555

fl'I '

Wabash College

1211.6

Private

802

o85

85

0.106

1,479

124

31

79

0.077

1,459

Class A

Pal

Iowa State University of Science

end Teohnology

Public

10,887

1,660

0.152

2,173

862

210

166

57

0.200

20,631

4,583

276

1,092

931

0.182

2,109

Iowa, University of

public

12,114

2458

0.211.

2,081

548

188

85

53 117

0.172

32,765

7,294

609

5,053

972

0.182

3,505

.,SJI+...

Mass D

Drake University,

Private

7,180

409

0.057

199

154

10

--

0.028

3,977

185

-185

0.044

930

State Colitge of Iowa

Publio

5,075

226

0.045

213

123

36

--

00542

4,805

407

-374

0.078

1,911

Olass C

Central College

Denom.

616

o43

43

0.070

724

31

31

-0.041

721

Coe College

Private

1,113

o57

57

1,375

33

33

0.023

579

Cornell College

Private

790

o57

57

0.072

1,416

23

10

13

0.016

4014

Dubuque, University of

Denom.

865

o37

37

.

-0.043

1,101

44

0.004

108

Grinnell College

Private

1,186

o128

128

0.108

2,639

148

39

109

0.053

1,156

Lorne College

Denom.

1,386

o91

91

0.056

1,100°

99

0.008

99

Luther College

Denom.

1,324

o54

54

0.041

14558

16

.0,010

296

Mnryorest College

Denom.

923

o14

14

0.015

532

47

40.007

206

Morningside College

Dlnom,

1,519

o46

46

0.030

1,353

99

0,007

196

Persona College

Denom.

2,226

o106

106

0.048

2,756

54

.145

90.019

509

Simpson College

Denom,

742

042

42

0.057

968

21

21

0.021

500

1171

4.11

SWO

1

KANSAS

Claes A

Kansas Btate University

Public

8,909

959

0408

1,351

509

234

27

62

0,152

16,305

2,718

253

356

522

0.143

2,012

Kansas, University of

PUblic

11,434

1,878

0.164

1,567

458

178

63

-95

0.137

18,363

6,149

402

3,644

1,368

0.251

3,924

Class B

Fort Hays Kansas State Colley!:

Public

3,469

270

0.078

167

107

24

0.048

2,857

72

72

0.025

431

Kansas State College of Pittsburg

Public

3,651

324

0,00

201

118

33

0.055

3,729

208

208

0.053

1,035

Ramie State Teaohere College of

Emporia

Public

5,112

732

0.143

289

114

70

0,057

4,088

564

18

546

0.121

1,952

Wichita State Univereity

Public

6,033

715

0.119

293

173

48

0.049

4,002

162

73

28

22

0.039

553

Olass 0

-

Bethel College

Denom,

483

022

22

0.046

461

33

0.006

136

Kansas Wesleyan University

Denom.

500

019

19

0.033

548

55

0.009

263

Mount St. Scholastic& College

Denom,

419

022

22

0.053

477

22

0.004

91

"St. Benedlot's College

Decor.

730

-0

63

63

0.086

694

44

0.006

63

Washburn University of Topeka

Public

3,525

68

0.019

70

70

0.020

1,725

99

25

965

0.054

1,414

45, ,

.

KENTUCKY

Class A

Kentucky, University of

Public

11,242

1,035

0.092

747

423

97

18

-.-

-0.066

26,828

6,312

224

1,899

485

0.190

8,450

.i.'

louleville, University of

Public

6,652

629

0.095

931

222

44

13

-47 88

0.140

8,761

2,825

152

2,294

269

0.244

3,0314

Olass C

Asbury College

,.

Private

925

052

52

0.056

1,5000

28

28

0.018

538

Bellarilfte College

..

Denom,

1,441

o33

33

0.023

863

11

47

0.013

333

Berea C011ege

Private

1,337

o75

75

0.056

2,010

18

15

30.009

240

Brescia College

Demo.

900

o9

90.010

291

44

0,014

444

Centre College of Kentucky .

Private

541

o \e

25

25

0,046

816

25

,18

0.030

1,030

Eastern Kentucky State College

PUblic

4,155

373

0.090

81

81

.0.019

3,800*

46

46

0.012

568

Kentucky State College

Public

868

o41

41

.0.047

1,083

16

16

0.015

390

Morehead State College

Public

2,974

116

0,039

6o

60

.0,020

2,612

60.002

100

BUrrey State College

tPublic

3,609

198

0.055

116

116

-0,032

3,354

99

594

0,029

853

Nazareth College of Kentucky

Dews,

409

05

50,012

632

33

33

0.050

6,602

1--1

Villa Worm& College

Denom.

1,387

o38

38

.,

0,027

543

19

19

0.034

500

C.71

Western Kentucky State College

PUbli0

5,305

358

0.067

141

1141

0.027

3,338

117

117

0.034

830

CS

(it' 1..4

03

LOUIS/AA

Control

Enrollment

0.109

0.043

0,154

0.052

0.044

0.054

0,014

0.057

0.020 0 0 0 0

0466 0

0.039

0.026

0,012 0 0 0

Tab

le A

-1.-

Con

tinee

il

8.1T DP

?j,

0.105

0.092

0.141

0.089

0.022

0.036

0.022

0.027

0.047

0.015

0.053

00.0::

0.017

0.029

0.,29

0.074

0.211

0.134

0,089

0.038

Dollars to Thousands

A-1.6

0.168

0,215

0.321

0.026

0.005

0.020

0.019

0.039

0.057

0.013

0.052

0.03

2

0.011

0.020

0.011

0.011

0.110

0.013

C00:.:;r3

hi 2,681

1,000

6,276

293

152

480

621

1,223

1,054

560

1,191

3.03

11

3)0

639

583

435

1,956

167

11:51371

Mil

18,338

2,718

7,107

3,916

3,031

3,468

3,005

5,703

5,569

1,664

682

3,049

:::::

418

800

6,746

817

894

1,256

477

Graduate

BA 599 38

245

240

63

90

61

145

249

25

47

29

26

56

12

23

402

117

120

112

18

MA 11%116 D/6

HD

204

83

- 112

53

-

58

30

- 119

43 1

14

-

2.

4-

-

12

--

38

1

22

vat

27,525

913

17,503

3,881

2,073

2,900

2,160

4,271

4,820

1,034

1,022

2,66::

2,336

620

860

8,098

2,779

1,479

2,497

542

/TM

me

usro

s

5,564

526

2,647

250

154

8,286

231

7,023

102 10

60

44

41

29

174

-17

294

-14

14

56

88 8

17 -

47

-

7.

10

1,002

20

114

212

20

10 .

56

.

20

-

El

1,192

96

574

102 10

16

12

148

260

11

39 77

8

47 7

10

237 20

2:96

Public

Dena.

Private

Public

Publio

Public

Public

Publio

Public

Dena.

Private

Public

D'hbnaalit;

Dena,

Dena,

Public

Private

Private

Private

Private

21002

118

1,095

202

132

189

41

327

121

219

31

177 10

--

1,931

250

1,01

348

66

125 66

155

279

25

47

29

26

56

12

23

502

172

120

112

18

Olass I.

UJUISIGAIl State ttnivereity and

Agricultural& Mechanical College

loyoll University

lulus University

Olass B

louisiana Polytechnic Institute

Meese State College

Northwestern State College of

lonislina

Southeastern Louisigna College

Southern University nnd

Agricultural h Nachantcal College

Bouthvestern louisiant, Ille

University ot

class 0

Centenary College of louisiana

Dillard University

Granbling Collegv

Louisiana College

Northeast Louisiana State College

It, Mary's Dminican College

Xavier University of LOUISillAtt

WE

Clasi A

Maine, Univeraity of

Class B

BoVdoin Colleg

Class 0

Bates College

Colby College

Nielson College

*I%

KARIM __

nog

,

Clau A

Johns Bo01kin. Univereity

Private

8,240

1,565

0.190

1,181

354

79

75

73

0.143

14,243

22,632

3,434

14,601

2,997

0.614

19,163

Marylend, Vniveruity of

hblio

25,361

14,55S

0.18e

2,099

658

137

85

-94

85

0.083

32,656

12,849

2,144

5,385

1,219

0.282

6,:,21

01.11 e

Columbia Union Collg

DIMON,

893

o19

19

0.021

776

110

110

0.124

5,789

(louder College

Private

853

o53

53

0.062

1,328

180

34

146

0.119

3,396

good Coll ege

Private

670

.o

3o

30

-0.045

856

55

0.006

167

Loyola College

Dena,

1,973

208

0.105

81

81

.0.041

1,093

30

12

513

0.027

370

Marylyn! State College

Publio

(Pri nce's Ann)

519

,-

o21

21

0.040

896

99

0.010

429

Morgan Rate College

Publio

2,699

a140

140

0.052

21589

148

113

0.054

1,057

Notre Dame of Maryland, College of WM

1,027

0119

49

0.048

533

88

0.015

163

Bt. Joatph College

Deno.

579

o20

20

0,035

549

41

30

11

0.069

2,050

0 1....

.A,t:'",:

Waahington College

Private

Western Maryland College

Public.

486

983

364

o

0,370

50

90

50

90

0,103

0.092

677

851

11

45

11

45

0.016

0.050

220

500

Itik

rM

OM

Claes A

Boston Univereity

Private

19,589

1,551

04079

1,212

479

124

29

.-

73

0.062

18,436

5,433

94

4,792

351

0.228

4,483

Brandeis Univeruity

Private

1,751

359

0.205

343

179

28

21

-0,156

5,911

3,690

290

1,475

1,452

0.384

10,758

Clark University

Private

2,039

222

0.109

248

120

31

11

-0,122

2,256

985

-744

138

0.304

3,972

Bayard Universlty

Private

13,646

3,618

0.265

31119

770

273

244

11 131

04229

54,824

31,251

3,264

20,326

6,308

0.363

10,020

Lovell Teohnologleal Institute

Public

1,451

65

0.045

204

134

26

10.141

2,000

856

848

80,3co

4,196

Masesohuletts Institute of

Private

6,695

2,637

0.394

3,503

739

616

272

0.523

19,332

42,361 23,935

7,618

5,567

0.687

12,093

Teohnolort

Masuaohuettte, Univereity of

Public

7,223

967

0.134

976

566

117

26

0.135

13,971

1,925

266

723

327

0.121

1,972

Tufts University

Private

4,586

520

0,113

1,246

380

10

10

89 110

0.272

7,208

4,063

406

2,906

433

0.362

3,277

Woruester Polyteohnio Institute

Private

1,358

165

0,121

361

212

56

20.264

2,470

278

-10

183

0.101

770

(Kasaaohueetta contin0e/1 ..at page)

Foi

`71r

17,1

."47

,V,T

P'n4

,47r

*NT

,,A7,

,,,,,,

,,,rr

efT

S

Tab

le A

-1.C

ontin

ued

MASSACHUSETTS (Coat,d)

Claem B

Control

Enrollment

Re

SAT DP

Degrees

Lta


A-1.7

R atFta

Total

Graduate

BA

EA

PhD

11714 pm ND

Ku

601-

7-1-

8211

1T-T

aT

Bomton College

Denom.

8,902

1,358

....153

569

401.

67

0.264

8,759

1,955

794

471

520

0,182

3,436

Holy Crone, College of the

Denom.

1,827

11

0.006

211

183

11

0.115

2,212

191

191

0.079

905

gaunt Holyoke College

Private

1,644

41

0.025

179

161

7.

-0.109

3,224

109

70

39

0.033

60

Northeaetern Unlversity

Private

19,644

2,253

0.115

1,012

517

198

--

0.051

9,841

1,717

1,212

41

357

o.149

1,697

Simmons College

Private

1,591

86

0.054

84

81

1-

0.053

2,424

295

224

71

0.108

3,512

Sndth College

Private

2,375

146

0.261

156

141

6-

0.066

5,633

354

258

96

0.059

2,269

Wellesley College

Private

1,741

10

0.006

170

155

6-

0.098

6,331

129

58

71

0.020

759

Williams College

Private

1,228

64

0.052

184

129

22

-0,150

3,291

109

16

72

0.032

592

Claes C

Amherst College

Private

1,047

0.002

114

114

0,109

4,213

346

154

169

0.076

3,035

Anna Kari

College for Women

Denom,

484

o19

19

.0.09

486

22

0.034

105

Assumption College

Denom.

614

106

0.173

12

1.2

-0.020

782

18

18

0.023

1,500

Atlantic, Union CollegI

Denom.

554

018

10

0.032

469

88

0.017

444

Eastern Nazarene College

Denom.

793

o30

30

0.038

620

46

21

25

0.269

1,533

Emmanuel College

Denom.

1,147

0101

101

0.088

849

238

238

0.219

2,356

Gordon College and Gordon

Divinity dohool

Private

594

017

17

0.029

551

22

0.004

11.8

Merrimack College

Deno..

2:297

382

82

0,036

1,141

19

19

0.016

232

Regis College

0e0001,

709

0104

104

0.147

645

206

192

45

0.242

1,981

Springfield Cc.lege

Private

1,701

272

0.160

57

57

0.034

2,142

45

45

0.021

709

State College at Bridgewater

Public

2,775

1,143

0.412

17

17

0,006

1,080

37

37

0.033

2,176

Stonehill College

001071.

034

052

52

0,056

821

44

44

0.051

046

Wheaton College

Private

848

o66

66

0.078

1,604

33

34

26

0.020

530

Cless D

State College at Salem

Publio

2,582

524

0.203

0.000

1,162

15

15

13.013

N.,'

VN

M3

ij.4

41.7

1k

MICHIGAN

Class A

Detroit, Univereity of

Imnt.m.

10,345

1,280

0.124

907

410

90

68

-0.(188

6,540

414

11

156

247

0.060

456

Michigan State University

Public

28,826

3,983

0.138

2,658

1,030

385

123

50

0.092

41,247

6,184

369

1,448

2,047

0,130

2,327

Michigan, The Univeraity of

Public

30,152

7,401

0,245

5,396

1,436

759

237

80,169

0.179

58,630

36,796

11,626

13,428

5,016

0.3136

6,819

gane State Univeraity

Public

20,836

4,209

0.202

1,599

543

17e

38

- 110

0.0t7

27,309

5,570

253

3,853

1,000

0.169

3,483

Clean B

Albion College

Denom.

1,408

0130

127

10.692

1,870

42

735

0,022

323

Anemia University

Denom.

1,425

122

0.086

36

31

20.025

2,068

Go

145

0.028

1,667

Eastern Michion University

Public

7,817

2,366

0.303

202

164

15

-0.026

5,016

137

1106

0.027

678

Michigan Techno)ogicel University

info

3,693

57

0.815

516

446

28

--

0.140

4,207

215

43

145

0.049

417

Northern Michigan University

Public

3,358

145

0.043

96

86

4-

-0.029

3,197

157

-11

146

0.047

1,635

Siena Heights College

Denom.

643

61

0.695

35

30

2-

-0.054

474

13

.13

0,027

371

Western Michigan University

Public

12,597

1,295

0,103

373

265

43

-.

0,030

8,929

303

52

238

0.033

812

Class C

Alma College

benom.

907

043

43

0.047

1,208

52

-5

47

0.041

1,209

Calvin collece

Benno.

2,537

o144

144

0.057

1,950

33

10

23

0.017

229

t.,Central Michigan Univereity

Public

7,704

469

0.061

267

267

0.035

5,497

250

21

163

0.044

936

Mope College

Denon.

1,561

o'131

131

0.084

1,472

14

14

0.009

107

Kalamazoo College

Denom,

839

10,001

105

105

-0.125

1,007

66

0.606

57

Harygrove College

Denom.

1,108

o84

84

-0.076

1,065

55

0.005

60

Mercy College of Detroit

Denom.

859

024

24

0,028

732

36

33

30.047

1,500

Olivet College

Private

609

o1j5

45

0.074

573

11

0.002

22

MINNIZOTA

Class A

Minnesota, University of

Publio

45,849

6,010

0.131

4,162

1,470

335

203

46

86 124

0.091

69,781

23,966

2,376

14,215

3,252

0.256

5,758

Olass B

Bemidji State College

Public

2,221

103

0.646

60

50

70.031

1,552

37

37

0.023

544

Mankato State College

Public

6,959

494

0.071

248

195

21

0.036

4,541

20

.20

0.004

81

St. Cloud State College

Public

4,015

309

0.064

107

102

20.022

3,077

88

88

0.028

822

(Minnesota contInued next page)

8T

able

A-1

,.-C

onfin

ued

A-L

eInrollsent

Degrees

Dollars in ?novellas

29.41q4

an

,rftOrl

BAT DP

IX-

NA reD DVB DOS ED

li

101

2741

1TOD

USPBS

ii/ENESOTA (Cont'd)

..11.

XV

1.11,

IttA

%none elate College

Milo

2,094

171

0483

50

3?

5-

-0.024

1,308

51

51

0.038

1,020

Class C

Augsburg College

Demo.

1,334

059

39

0.044

1,203

13

Carleton College

Concordia College

Private

1,317

0133

133

0.101

2,605

235

19

2::

:::::

1,27::

Deno'.

1,714

0109

109

0.063

1,746

48

.24.

0.027

,,-

440

Oustavus Adolphue College

Den

ra.

1,26

4o

56

56

0.04

1,642

12

12

0407

214

Malin, University

Dunes,

932

074

74

0.09

1,354

30

19

11

0:22

McAlester College

Private

1,695

12

0.007

98

98

-.

.0458

2,263

133

9124

1,3::

St. Catherine, The College of

Dena.

1,437

057

57

..

-0,040

1,575

42

42

0,026

737

St. John's University

Denon.

1,247

o10

10

--

-0.083

1,050

25

25

0.023

240

4

1\4.

1

St. Bary's Coned*

Denon,

1,130

62

0,055

39

39

-.

0,035

968

80

80

0,076

2,051

111.

0102

6114

PMom,

1,993

0131

131

-.

0.066

2,519

95

689

St. Scholastics, College of

Dena.

447

05

5-

-o.on

579

26

26

::043

5,200

Bt. ?urea, College of

Dem.

919

o35

35

-.

0.038

1,102

29

St, Mona', College ct

Dents.

1,945

100

0.051

95

95

--

00049

1,964

81

7::

0.02,0

853

EIR

OB

BI

Claes A

Xissiseipp4

State Vnivereity

Public

5,735

389

0.068

692

419

100

5-

0.121

12,719

1,792

335

73

250

0.123

2,590

Mieeissippi, University of

Public

5,874

429

0.073

711

221

87

13

-64

0.124

6,790

3,137

105

2,427

456

0.316

4,291

Southern kieeiselppi, Mivreity of Public

5,676

380

0.067

257

197

22

1.

0,05

3,283

117

15

84

0.0311

455

Claes B

kiesiesippi College

ohs, 0

Dem.

1,748

188

0,108

10

82

10

..

.0,061

1,145

16

-16

(Lon

150

Jackson State College

Public

1,222

30.002

25

25

0.020

1,376

66

66

0.06

2.660

Milling.. College

Df1

100,

916

o52

52

0.057

901

20

20

0.022

3135

Xissiesippi State C.Ilege for

?Olio

2,060

o40

4o

Voila

0.4219

1,460

99

0.026

225

Tougaloo Southern Christian

Dena.

1480

.0

College

55

55

0.115

5.6

19

19

o.6,

345

$188=1.

Claim A

M1116uri,, Univeruity of

Public

23,204

2,890

0.125

3,174

1,301

357

51

25

109

65

0,137

41,837

5,502

249

2,C60

1,467

0,116

1,733

Sant Louie University

Dencm.

9,045

1,812

0.200

1,244

331

115

26

-29

98

0,138

13,265'

2,904

481

1,974

278

0.180

2,334

Washington University

Pridate

14,602

2,081

0.143

1,372

342

120

51

-49

76

0.094

17,213

12,299

581

9,324

1,592

0.417

8,964

Clan B

Central Illeeeuri State College

Public:

5,689

382

0.067

167

134

13

0.029

3,145

119

119

0.036

713

Northeast Missouri State Teachers

Public

3,541

$ 67

0.104

129

104

10

0,036

2,355

93

93

0.038

721

College

Oleos 0

,

Central Methodist College

Denom.

815

040

40

.0.049

834

10

10

0,032

250

Lincoln University

Public

1,483

30

0.020

38

38

-0.026

1,410

20

20

0.014

526

Notre Dame College

000011

375

031

31

0.083

300'

10

10

0.032

323

R0emuult College

Denom.

2,115

046

46

0,022

1,068

11

11

0.010

239

Southeast Missouri State College

Public

3,742

076

76

0.020

2,486

65

65

0,025

855

Southwest Missouri State College

Public

3,584

0114

114

0.032

2,664

26

26

0.010

228

TarkimCollege

Danes,

556

027

27

0449

559

5.

50409

185

Webster College

2C1042,

778

023

23

0.260

582

208

.208

0.262

9,043

William Jewell College

Deuce.

969

073

73

0.075

902

3-

30.003

41

MST%

Class A

Monism. State College

Public

4,635

268

0,058

513

303

68

9.

.0.111

6,068

1,504

81

490

257

0.199

2,932

Montana, University of

Public

4,380

220

0.050

301

189

39

3-

-0.069

4,659

530

205

259

0.102

1,761

Clan B

Montane School of Mine§

Public

412

13

0.032

IQ

30

4-

0.097

637

68

-68

0.096

1,700

Olass 0

Cerroll College

Denom.

853

032

32

0.038

743

58

58

-0.072

1,813

Eastern Mantua College cif

Public

1,814

33

0.018

16

16

--

-0.009

1,481

55

0,003

313

Education

1

trimA8KA

Control

Enrollment

Be

Tab

le A

-1.C

ontln

ued

S&T DP

Degrees

!A

Dollars lo Thousands

A-1.9

li

n

Total

Graduate

BA

MA

110

0201

_Ns

MD

DOI

PTAS _

DOD

081,88

NSF

Close A

Creighton Universlty

Denom.

3,313

219

0.066

560

80

11

.-

41

72

0.169

3,945

615

-572

27

0.135

1,098

Nebraska, University of

Public

10,401

1,454

0.140

1,522

502

144

47

-30

82

0.146

22,370

3,874

12

2,185

695

0.148

2,545

Class B

, Omaha, Municipal Dolverslty of

Public

8,044

315

0.039

100

80

8-

-0.012

3,650

101

-101

0.027

1,010

Wayne (Rate College

Public

1,536

80

0.052

48

38

4-

-0,031

1,314

66

0.005

125

Class 0

Chadron State College

Public

1,106

042

12

0.038

988

99

0.009

214

Hastings College

Denom.

810

040

40

0.049

805

55

0,006

125

Nebraska Wesleyan University

Denom.

1,168

043

43

0.037

1,010

88

286

0,080

2,047

Union College

Denon.

903

011

il

0,012

786

52

42

10

0.062

11,727

PaNEVADA

Um,

Class 13

Nevada, Dniverslty of

Public

4,761

200

0.042

246

161

34

-0.052

6,941

824

82

263

0.106

3,350

NEW MONA=

Olese A

a. N,

New Hampshire, University of

Class B

Public

3,890

333

0.086

608

293

102

13

--

0.156

8,027

1,418

324

229

423

0.150

2,332

.Dartmouth College

Private

3,404

58

0.017

468

405

25

--

0,137

11,780

3,046

438

1,599

829

0.205

6,509

Class C

Rivier College

Denom.

583

45

0.077

13

13

--

-0.022

523

33

0.006

231

dt. Anselm's College

Denom.

1,339

060

60

--

-0.045

1,454

57

57

0.038

950

NEW J0118131

Class A

Pairleigh Diekinson Univeraity

Private

15,901

878

0.055

722

541

15

-36

0.045

9,304

165

Bo

52

0.017

229

Princeton University

Private

4,196

958

0.228

1,264

352

140

125

-0.301

43,021

10,382

2,726

828

3,297

0,194

8,214

Autgers--The 8tate University

Public

25,340

4,073

0.161

1,868

924

220

83

-0,074

28,314

6,045

470

2,500

2,144

0.176

3,236

Beton Nall University

Denom,

9,087

1,750

0.193

601

179

12

.30

68

0.066

5,231

2,875

52

2,585

191

0.355

4,784

Stevens Institute of Technology

Private

2,222

961

0.432

772

I80

206

16

-0.347

2,966

2,134

993

55

488

0.423

2,764

4

Claes B

Montclair State College

Public

3,929

413

0.105

147

102

18

0.037

2,917

91

91,

0,030

619

Newark College of Engineering

Public

4,095

738

0.180

710

447

105

0.173

3,827

173

7124

0.043

244

Ttenton State College

Public

5,582

271

0.049

56

33

90.010

3,650

11

11

0.003

196

Claes C

Drew University

Denom.

Georgian Court College

Deno,

te

1,071

473

110

0.103 0

80 13

80 13

0.075

0.027

1,798

314

64 6

10

54 6

0.034

0,019

Boo

462

Glaseboro State College

Public

3,802

152

0.040

18

18

.0,005

1,838

26

26

0.014

1,444

Jersey City State College

Public

2,770

141

0.051

70

70

-0.025

1,881

66

0.003

es

Rider College

Private

4,259

34

0.000

88

-0.002

2,703

17

17

0.006

2,125

St. glicabeth, College of

Denom,

914

o38

38

0,042

722

99

0.012

237

St. Peter's College

Denom.

2,216

0164

164

0.074

1,672

55

55

0.032

335

Upeala College

Denom.

1,924

o118

118

0.061

1,649

17

11

60.010

144

NEN MMICO

Claes A

Hew Mexico Institute of Mining

Public

and Technology

338

40

0.118

47

27

61

0.139

1,362

565

487

78

0.293

12,021

New Mexico State University

Public

4,930

580

0.118

540

285

02

11

0.110

7,589

1,297

442

37

353

0.146

2,402

Hew Mexico, The University of

Public

8,642

1,400

0.162

612

240

118

17

0.071

6,775

1,602

529

181

678

0.191

2,618

Claes B

Eastern New Mexico University

Public

3,227

101

0.062

611

51

5-

.0.020

20560

84

-84

0.032

1,13

New Mexico Highlands University

Public

1,176

179

0.152

72

32

16

--

0.061

1,393

796

242

533

0.3614

11,056

Class C

Western Now Mexico University

Public

989

48

0.o49

88

--

0,008

1,175

99

0.008

1,125

NEW YORK

Olame A

Adelphi University

Private

6,808

1,234

0.181

535

269

99

4-

0.079

5,792

738

15

404

110

0.113

1,379

Alfred University

Private

1,499

209

0.139

157

121

55

-0.105

2,397

167

18

10

107

0.065

1,064

Columbia University

Private

24,000

8,503

0.354

3,650

698

569

202

-33,122

0.152

45,563

42,530

15,518

15,872

5,622

0.483

11,652

Sornell University

Private

12,687

2,645

0.208

2,789

942

277

155

54

-82

0.220

70,761

20,440

5,133

8,606

4,045

0.224

7,329

(New York contlnued next page)

MEW YORK (Cont,d)

Eordham University

New School for Sooial Research

New York University

Polytechnic Inetitute of Brooklyn

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Rochester, University of

Rockefeller Inetitute

St. Bonaventure University

St. John's University

State University of Mew York -

Buffalo

State University of New York .

Dovnetat, Medical Center

State University of Hew York -

Upettte Medical Center

Syracuse University

Union College and University

Yeshiva University

Class B

Canigius College

The City University of New York -

Brook1p College

The City University of Hew york -

The City College

.

The City University of N ew York -

Hunter College

The City University of New York -

queens College

Clarkson College of Technology

Colgate University

Hofstra University

L0ng Island University

Kanhittan College

Control

Enrollment

Tab

le

Rg

0.183

0627

0.362

0,494

0,315

0.192 0

0.117

0.171

0.131

0.08

0.095

0.138

0.113

0.213

0.193

0.097

0.10

0.110

0.076

0.035

0.020

0.230

0.063

0.030

A-1

.-C

ontin

ued

887 DP

Degyees

!A

0.087

0,177

0.134

0.221

0.299

0.148

0,809

0.039

0.038

0.074

0.807

0.744

0.060

0.204

0.175

0.073

0.054

0.063

0.042

0.032

0.170

0.143

0.033

0.033

0.122

Dollars in Thoulands

B-7----irnalPIE7-1U

8,430

938

-77

334

344

1,476

109

.38

9

57,257

19,857

4,396

12,002

1,457

5,171

4,238

2,453

332

762

7,177

3,643

690

231

806

25,513

13,092

773

5,678

5,004

7,129

3,293

-2,934

337

1,648

22

--

12

10,904

416

316

100

11,432

4,022

191

3,034

673

5,548

1,634

10

1,544

12

5,206

798

23

745

15

20,571

7,073

3,417

931

1,932

2,573

1,904

71

1,592

219

7,035

9,714

468

8,157

991

1,957

50

50

13,317

420

172

226

17,357

576

11

69

365

15,599

357

229

91

7,763

312

107

183

2,280

423

25

76

254

2,741

169

-4

165

7,768

36

-13

23

9,673

31

25

6

3,424

414

164

250

A-1.10

!It

ha

0.100

1,195

0.069

438

0.258

4,462

0.450

3,520

0.337

2,687

0.339

12,421

0.316

45,736

0.013

265

0.037

948

0.260

3,461

0.228

3,060

0.133

2,433

0.256

5,914

.0.425

3,27i

0.580

16,953

0.025

,0 251

0.031

385

0.032

300

0.022

412

0.039

711

0.156

1,522

0.058

782

0.005

116

0.003

89

0.108

943

Total

8,951

1,403

33,232

5,449

4,532

7,126

89

2,105

11,594

15,714

662

441

19,878

2,846

3,275

2,730

20,314

30,307

20,531

13,642

1,639

1,507

9,351

10,438

3,595

Graduate

BA

292

18

628

421

564

294 -

59

224

376 -

509

199

119

111

995

1,416

777

394

185

181

235

246

421

MA M trik DIG MD

128

38

-4

65

15

722

145

164 127

221

51

241

42

100

59

.-

61

16

-

81

66

11

.

76

23

-59 64

4- 129

13

..

78

192

46

--

50

460

31

885

35

38

201

36 18

37

-

14

.

28

41 7

Demo.

Private

Private

Private

Private

Private

Private

Denom,

Denoo,

Public

Public

Pu blic

Private

Private

Denom.

Denom,

Public

Public

Public

Public

Private

Private

Private

Private

Denom.

1,639

740

12,040

2,690

1,426

1,369

89

24 7

1,984

2,065

32

42

2,741

322

699

528

1,976

3,493

2,255

1,042

58

30

2,154

866

109

783

249

4,450

1,204

1,356

1,054

72

63

439

1,162

594

328

1,196

582

573

199

1090

1,919

867

439

278

216

305

349

439

Niagara University

Deno's.

1,85

0155

0,084

71

61

4.

0.038

1,764

51

36

15

0.028

716

Pratt Institute

Private

3,550

162

0.045

123

95

11

-0.034

4,700

4o

40

0.008

325

Bt. Rose, College of

Delon.

1,379

240

0.174

57

52

2-

0.041

1,122

55

0.004

88

State University College - Buffalo

Public

4,491

660

0.147

95

45

20

-0.021

4,269

51

25

0.012

537

State University of New York at

Publio

3,791

396

0.104

275

125

60

-.

0,073

4,126

456

172

104

182

0.100

1,665

Albany

Wismar College

Private

1,542

12

0.008

118

113

2-

-0.077

3,521

191

38

51

0.051

1,619

Wegner College

Dena,

2,146

211

0.096

63

68

60.039

2,142

47

44

30.021

566

Webb Institute of Naval

Private

77

12

0.156

25

15

40.325

331

50

44

60.131

2,000

Architeoture

Class 0

.

The Cooper Union

Private

1,26

40

102

102

0,081

2,188

80.004

78

Dlouville College

Dem

o.840

o20

29

0.035

818

49

49

0.057

1,690

Elmira College

Private

1,654

220

0.135

6666

0.040

1,426

30

30

0.021

455

Ocod Counsel College

%nom.

491

o16

16

0.033

451

11

0.002

63

Hartvidk College

Noon,

1,015

o58

58

0.057

1,107

15

15

0.013

259

Hobart end William /kith Colleges

Private

1,370

20.001

128

128

-0.093

1,817

94

50.005

70

Iona College

Denom,

2,38

!0

106

106

-0.044

1,917

13

13

0.007

123

Xeuks College

NB

C*.

543

o19

19

--

0.035

699

99

0.013

474

Ie Moyne College

Denom.

1,358

0112

112

.-

0.082

1,369

14

14

0.010

125

Mount St, Vincent, College of

Denoo.

867

059

59

-0.066

968

33

0.003

51

Nev Rochelle, College of

WO

OL

903

.o

71

71

--

0.079

1,042

33

0.003

42

Notre Deme'College of

Denim,

375

o42

42

-.

..

.0,112

483

55

0.010

119

Staten Island

Pace College

Private

5,09

7127

0.025

44

0.001

3,106

14

59

0.034

31500

Rochester Institute of Technology

Private

7,178

17

0.002

121

121

-0.017

4,585

12

0.003

99

Rosary Rill College

Dena.

864

o50

50 '

0.058

850

99

0.010

180

Rouen Bags College

Private

3,257

47

0.014

4846

0.015

1,88

537

32

50.019

771

(New York continued next page)

Tab

le A

-1 :C

ontin

ued

Enrollment

Degree,

Dollare la Thousands

A-1.11

Control

Total

Graduate

aEAT DP

BA

NA

PhD

D-W-1517715S

--- --- --- --

R _A

ROI

YEAS

DOD

022103

NSF

NEN YOBA (Cont'd)

St. Francis College

Donna.

10261

o54

54

0029

1,701

66

0.0014

III

St. John Fisher College

Denom.

634

o40

ho

0.063

879

2-

0.002

50

St. Joseph's College for Women

Dem.

683

o31

31

0,045

349

77

0.020

226

St. Lawrence University

Private

1,590

113

0.071

205

205

-0.129

2,802

99

0.603

44

Skidmore College

Private

1,278

o71

71

-0.056

2,023

40

40

-0.019

563

State University of New York -

Stony Brook

Fnblic

782

29

0.037

73

73

-0.093

4,090

335

19

306

0.076

4,589

Bells College

Private

358

10.003

49

49

0.137

1,087

23

73

0.021

469

Class D

Bank Street College of Education

Private

482

15

0.031

0.000

1480

63

10

15

0.116

Sarah Lawrence College

Private

583

15

0,026

0.000

1,351

43

14

29

0.031

808111 CAROLINA

Class A

Duke University

Private

6,345

1,003

0.158

1,225

378

76

74

-81

0.193

16,586

11,737

1,977

7,215

1,579

0.414

9,581

North Carolina State of the Univ.

of North Carolina at Raleigh

Fnblic

12,529

1,169

0.093

1,539

858

175

54

0.123

25,584

2,905

447

726

1,104

0.102

1,888

North Carolina, University of at

Chapel Nill

Public

10,517

1,914

0.182

1,407

421

105

66

45

59

0.134

23,383

10,498

481

6,695

1,206

0.310

7,461

Nike Forget College

Decoy.

2,915

66

0.023

335

119

-54

0,115

54503

1,971

..

1,840

78

0.2614

5,884

Class B

Appalachian State Teachers College

Public

3,447

315

0.091

87

62

10

04025

2,416

88

88

0,035

1,011

Emit Carolina College

Public

7,075

369

0.052

166

101

26

0.023

4,182

51

51

0.012

307

North Carolina College at Durham

Mlle

2,483

301

0.121

'146

118

11

04059

24044

87

10

77

0.041

596

Class 0

The Agricultural and Technical

College of North Carolina

Public

2,940

309

0.105

88

88

-0.030

2,417

359

13

130

0.129

4,080

Bennett College

Denom.

578

o32

32

--

0.055

734

25

25

04033

781

Catawba College

DenOm

926

o33

33

--

0.036

804

77

0.009

212

Davidson College

Denom.

1,009

o138

138

-0'137

1,581

25

25

04016

181

Elizabeth City State College

Albite

804

o19

19

-0.0214

691

66

0.009

316

Pfeiffer College

Denom.

873

035

35

0.040

808

11

11

0.013

3111

Queens College

Denom.

845

o40

40

0.047

914

88

0.009

200

St. Augustine's College

Denom.

732

o14

14

0.019

581

60

60

0.094

4,206

Weetern Carolina College

Public

2,479

296

0.119

38

38

0.015

1 430

44

0.002

105

NORTH DAKOTA

Class A

Korth Dakota State University of

Publio

3,610

270

0.071

675

323

57

2-

-0.125

7,080

1,047

-86

324

0.129

2,204

Agrlculture and Applied Science

Korth Dakota, University of

Public

5,477

444

2081

350

175

68

1.

-0.064

6,900

1,027

10

359

54"

0.130

2,934

Claes 0

Minot State College

Public

2,026

o29

29

--

0.014

938

66

0.0c6

207

OHIO

Claes A

Akron, The University of

Public

7,075

695

00598

227

123

31

l0.032

4,593

136

32

14

90

0.029

599

Case Institute of Technology

Private

2,482

883

0.356

698

247

101

44

0.281

5,530

3,914

552

255

1,436

0.414

5,607

Cincinnati, University of

Public

20,261

1,187

0.059

1,246

5L8

105

34

-78

0.061

14,972

4,713

1,116

3,084

284

0.239

3,783

The Ohio State University

Public

30,500

41316

0.142

4,055

1,032

350

200

69

140 134

0.113

49,060

13,883

4,364

4,580

2,659

0.221

3,424

Ohio University

Public

13,422

583

0.043

548

420

49

1-

0.041

10,407

344

76

19

198

0.032

628

Western Reserve University

Private

8,056

2,606

0.323

1,041

191

60

35

54

80

0.129

13,046

9,980

5,0

7,958

675

0.433

9,587

Class B

Bowling Green State University

Public

8,401

455

0.054

365

212

61

-0.043

7,942

396

396

0.C47

1,085

Dayton, University of

Denom.

7,343

164

0,022

318

313

2-

0.043

4,359

2,304

2,253

51

0.346

7,245

John Carroll University

Denom.

3,933

615

0.156

t23

163

24

0.057

2,841

11

11

0.0011

149

Kent State University

Public

14,455

1,007

0.070

355

205

6o

0.0e5

11,208

298

21

68

183

0.026

839

Miami University

li

Pubc

11,f00

890

0.076

472

329

57

0.040

7,865

267

27

34

185

0.033

566

Oterlln College

Private

2,430

79

0.033

193

183

40.079

6,065

222

32

190

0.035

1,150

Toledo, The Univer sity of

Public

7,384

791

0.107

268

180

35

0.036

5,682

201

28

12

109

0.034

750

Xavier University

Denom.

4,161

1,408

0.338

165

135

12

0.040

2,32E

37

928

0.0.6

224

Class C

Antioch College

Private

1,597

o100

100

0.063

2,798

366

195

16

153

0.116

3,660

Ashland College

Venom,

1,261

o311

314

--

0.027

11019

7-

-7

0.007

2C6

(Ohio continued next page)

Tab

le A

-1 .C

ontln

ued

OHIO (Cont'd)

Baldwin-Wallace College

Capital University

Central elate College

Denison Univeroity

Fenn College

Findlay College

Heidelberg College

Hiram College

Kenyon College

Marietta College

Haunt Bt, Jomeph An the Ohio,

College of

Mount Union College

Humkingum College

Notre Dent College

Ohio Northern University

Ohio Wesleyan Universit4

Our Lady of Cincinnati College

St. Mary ot the Npringe,

College of

Steubenville, The College of

Wilitington Colitgo

Wittenberg Univerelty

Wooster, Toe College ot

The Toungitovn Univerolty

Class D

ilt.

4 College of Cleveland

Control

Enrollment

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.055 0 o o

881 DP

Degrees

-S----ttA

A -A

0.028

0.053

0.027

0.105

0.027

0.016

0,065

0,084

0.141

0.060

0.020

0.070

0.093

00062

0.048

(1,109

0.019

0.066

0.010

0.048

0.026

0.081

0.026

0.000


A-1.12

a

0.022

0.025

0.009

0.049

0.010

0.003

0,007

0,020

0.029

0.02

0.016

0.017

0.002

0.010

0.013

0.126

0,010

0.013

0.005

0.006

0.064

0.026

0.003

0.014

ElEd

814

558

375

799

157

125

123

386

1112

109

800

319

204

86

225

1,795

474

125

250

132

165

574

56

Total

2,501

1,443

2,105

1,607

5,868

980

997

835

601

1,670

982

1,028

1,362

562

2,332

2,187

1,022

483

808

786

3,006

1,415

8,398

1,115

Graduate

PhD DWI DOS ND

70

77

56

169

159

16

65

70

85

101

20

72

113

35

111

239

-

19

-

32

-

8-

38

79

115

215

DOI

2,543

1,691

2,366

2,622

0130

734

1,217

1,328

1,183

1,428

955

1,318

1,000s

283

1,932

2,970

885

297

599

843

3,123

2,438

3,522

975

IFFA

B

57

43

21

135

25 2 8

27

35

11

16

23

23 3

25

429 9 4 2 5

13

66

12

t

DOD

CUTS

48

13 h 16 9 -

98 2 2 7 14

NO 57

43

21

87

25 g '

14

31

11

14

23 3

25

331 9 4 5 11

59 12

Denom,

Denom.

Publio

Private

Private

Denali,

Denom.

Private

Private

Private

Denom.

Denom.

Denom.

Denom,

Venom.

Denom.

Venom.

Denom.

Venom.

Dem.

Venom,

Venom.

Private

Venom.

165

70

77

56

169

159

16

65

70

85

101

20

72

113

35

111

239

19

32 8

38

79

115

215

6'3

WOUWONA

Class A

Oklahcaa State University of

Agriculture end Applied Science

Public

12,179

1,376

0.113

1,851

813

284

53

41

-0.152

19,769

3,377

563

701

964

0.146

1,624

Oklahoma, University of

Public

13,928

1,902

0.137

1,591

491

2c6

50

-90

0.114

9,744

6,681

796

3,787

1,646

0,407

1.4199

01441 1

Southwestern State College

Public

2,990

190

0.064

83

63

80.026

1,249

126

-126

0.092

1,518

Tutu, The Unhersity of

Private

4,982

593

0.119

246

161

34

0.049

2,901

14

.IA

0.005

57

Ohm' 0

Northwestern State College

Publio

1,312

90

0.069

38

38

--

0.029

760

59

59

0.072

1,553

Oklahmma Baptist University

Demo.

1,437

033

33

-.

0.023

1,072

52

52

0.046

1,376

Ok1sh3ma City University

Denom.

2,331

079

79

0.034

1,753

315

119

55

0.152

3,987

Southeastern State College

Public

1,989

328

0,165

50

50

0.025

1,091

120

120

0.099

2,400

2NR221

Close A

Oregon State University

Public

10,026

1,260

0.126

1,359

618

192

58

0.136

19,468

5,481

713

1,418

1,933

0.220

4,013

Oregon, University of

Public

10,609

1,436

0,135

1,276

331

111

30

-65

68

0.120

12,627

7,722

215

5,974

1,041

0,379

6,052

Portland, Univeruity.of

Denom.

1,756

249

0.142

133

82

60

0.076

1,391

49

38

11

0.034

368

Oleos 11

Linfield College

Dem*.

1,013

21

0.021

43

38

20.042

995

15

13

0.018

419

Pacific Univereity

Private

964

20

0.021

58

53

20.050

Or

0,003

52

Southern Oregon College

Public,

1,843

52

0.028

32

22

40.817

1,750

10

0.036

313

Olass 0

Kmrylhurat College

Venom,

6C6

o18

80.030

340

.3,0

.10

0.029

506

Fbrtlemd State College

Public

5,787

22

0.004

1%

196

0,034

3,645

135

46

87

0.036

669

Reed College

Private

884

43

0.049

82

82

0.093

1,758

540

999

432

0.235

6,09

41'.

Willamette University

Dencm,

1,318

14

0.011

98

98

0.074

1,428

43

-43

0.029

439

3133831VANTA

Claim A

Bryn *yr College

Private

1,032

279

0.270

146

73

13

9-

--

0,141

2,762

692

33

330

329

0.200

4,740

Carnegie Institute of Technology

Private

4,984

884

0.177

1,005

341

138

71

--

.0.202

7,381

4,933

1,773

375

787

0.401

4,508

(Pannoylvanis continued next page)

.o;p2

Tab

le A

-1.C

ontIn

ued

PENNSYLVANIA (Cont'd)

Control

Enrollment

R.

SR DP

I .1

Dollars in Thousands

A-1.13

Itts

&i

hid

Graduate

BA

Tees

NA

DM NO RD

1f1AS

DOD

USP1Trrin3

DuGueine University

Dena'.

6,265

930

0.148

170

139

71

0.027

3,790

287

165

105

0.070

1,608

Hahnemann Madical College

Private

477

86

0.180

373

82

-86

0.782

1,962

2,008

1,967

41

0.506

5,383

Jefferson Medical College

Private

791

148

0.187

641

58

- 148

0.810

3,5011

2,243

2,243

-0.390

3,499

Lehigh Univerlity

Prlvate

3,80

01,11,8

0.302

723

364

102

23

0.190

6,551

1,268

211

33

753

0.162

1,754

The Pennsylvania State University

Public

19,766

2,301

0.117

2,758

1,441

289

132

0.140

44,701

7,260

1,165

961

2,753

0.140

2,632

Pennlylvania, University cf

Nivel..

18,347

5,448

0497

2,711

508

294

95

44

166 130

0.148

65,361

20,709

4,527

11,718

3,429

0.241

7,639

Philadelphia College of Pharmacy

and Science

Private

648

32

0449

192

163

82

0.296

786

63

24

59

0.674

328

Pittsburgh, University of

Private

13,938

3,729

0.268

1,942

583

227

75

90 86

0.139

26,092

13,825

1,235

9,361

1,551.

0.346

7,11i

Temple University

Private

20,698

5,669

0.245

1,556

259

90

16

126 124

0.075

18,112

3,389

171

2,629

390

0.158

2,178

Close B

Allegheny College

Privat

1,370

aOm

137

10,102

1,736

34

34

0.019

243

Bucknell University

Private

2,671

179

0,1167

153

263

48

-0.143

3,654

228

48

35

145

0.059

595

Drexel Institute of Technolou

Private

8,069

1,494

0.185

1,046

583

185

-0.130

7,308

540

35

309

121

0.669

516

Edinboro Boole College

Public

2,231

74

0.033

71

63

3-

0.032

2,054

28

28

0.013

394

Pre04110 and 11a7sha11 College

Private

1,912

69

0.036

174

171

1.

0.091

2,521

294

33

261

0.166

1,690

Indiana State Colleg

Public

4,613

518

0.112

199

161

15

.0.043

3,112

78

78

0,024

392

/armed College

Dena,

1,438

79

0.055

27

24

1.

0.019

1,221

99

0.001

333

2t. Joseph's College

Denom.

4,678

185

0.00

179

159

8-

0.038

2,810

10

10

0.034

56

Villsnova University

Denom,

7,089

933

0.132

566

298

83

-0.071

5,768

222

91

131

0.037

439

Meat Chester State College

Public.

3,641

279

0.077

66

48

70,018

2,683

15

15

0.006

227

0104s 0

Albright College

Denom,

1,154

079

79

0.068

1,329

13

13

0.412

165

Beaver College

DOI1011,

707

o33

33

0.047

947

30

228

0.031

909

California State Collegi

Ptiello

3,165

o144

144

0.045

2,749

14

th

0.605

97

Chatham College

Private

557

o42

42

0.075

1,206

12

48

0.012

266

*.N.rgMrMrril

Diekinson College

Private

1,217

0155

155

-0.127

1,808

11

65

0.006

71

Eastern Baptist College

Denom,

410

co

26

26

-0063

448

33

0.007

115

Geneva College

Denom.

1,707

068

68

--

0.040

1,244

99

0.007

132

Gettysburg College

Denom.

1,852

0211

211

0.114

2,383

24

618

0.010

114

Daverford College

Private

463

056

56

0,121

1,720

196

99

59

0,102

3,500

Aniata College

Denom,

816

o74

74

0.091

997

134

37

86

0.118

1,811

Tingle College

pence.

1,184

0103

103

-0,087

1,151

16

610

0.014

155

Lafayette College

Denom.

1,859

o305

305

-0.164

3,212

120

17

130

0.036

393

La Belle College

Benne.

5,080

28

0.006

182

182

0.036

3,417

18

18

0.005

99

Lebanon Valley College

Deno%

1,254

o55

55

.0.044

5,093

ill

14

0.013

255

Lincoln University

Private

434

045

45

-0.104

806

66

13.007

133

Lock Raven State College

Public

1,371

046

46

--

-0034

1,487

08

0.005

174

Keroyhuret College

Denote,

530

015

15

-0.028

368

12

-12

0.032

800

Millersville State College

Public

2,239

183

0.052

66

66

-.

0.029

2,481

46

-46

0.018

697

M000t Her07 College

4, Denom,

1,462

o54

54

-.

0.037

1,084

40

25

15

0.036

741

Muhlenberg College

Denom,

1,618

0158

158

-0.098

1,824

22

22

0.012

139

Philadelphia College of

Private

711

021

21

-0.030

851

10

10

-0,012

476

Testiles and Rolence

Ot. Vincent College

Denom.

934

o76

76

.0.081

751

44

0.005

53

Boranton, University of

Denom.

2,531

379

0.150

108

108

-0.043

1,812

63

459

0.034

583

Beton tall College

Deno's,

889

o34

34

0.038

876

51

645

0.055

1,500

Smarthmore College

Private

977

20,002

121

121

0.124

2,795

166

19

147

0.056

1,372

Thiel College

Denom,

987

086

86

0.087

1,264

22

0.002

23

Westadneter College

Denom,

1,491

349

0.234

61

61

0.041

1,373

33

00.047

49

Wilkes College

Private

1,693

22

0.013

67

67

0.04

01,385

69

37

32

1,030

Wilson College

Private

568

o46

46

0.081

1,017

10

10

0.010

217

1

Tab

le A

A.C

ontln

ued

Enrollment

Degree.

Dollars la Thomas

Control

Total Oradate

0,

OW

DP

BA

KA

PhD

DDS RD

11 -A

EC/

MS

DOD

WPM

NSF

!ED

2ta

A-I.14

MODS IB1ARD

Clue A

Prim University

Private

4,281

788

0.184

707

328

58

52

.-

0,165

11,948

6,851

1,951

1,558

1,572

0.39

i9,690

Rhode Island, University

0fPublio

7,378

613

0.083

436

279 43.

11

--

00059

8,407

1,809

786

287

218

0.177

4,149

Class 11

.

Rhode Island College

Publio

2,993

348

0.116

3222

4-

0.011

2,284

42

420.

018

1,31

3

Cla

es 0

Prov

iden

ce C

olle

geD

enot

e,2,

743

120,

004

219

219,

0.08

02,

253

264

1124

94

0.10

51,

205

Hal

ve R

egin

a' C

olle

ge ,

Den

im,

642

023

23

.-

0.036

484

13

-13

0.00

6.565

BO

MA

CA

RO

LIH

A .,

.

Ola

seA'''

The Citation AgrioaturaiCollege

.

Palle

4,252

181

0.043

428

.315

56

6-

.0,101

.5,2

261,355

60

172

77

0.206

3,16

6

00O

ihCtrOlint, Nedieal College of

Public

377

70

0.18

6.29

21

2-

-70

0.775

1,477

1,053

985

680.

416

3,62

6

South darolint, (lniversity of

Palle

8,399

388

0,04

6348

211

53

10.041

6,800

626

6143

00.

264

1,79

9

... o

kii 0

Charleston, College of

Priyate

454 -.

21

21

0446

488

8.

80.

016

381

.01eflin College

Dena.

474

023

23

-0.

849

231

67

-48

0.225

2,913

Coltabia College

Denom.

849

016

16-

0.019

702

6*

64

0.034

4,00

0

Braking College

Delrel,

719

031

31

0.04

3691

55

0.00

716

1

. reran University

ream.

1,491

77

0.052

103_

103

0.069

1,845

57

-57

0,030

553

BoUth Carolina State College

Palie

2,519

1,017

0.404

61

81

15.024

2,335

110

-110

0.045

1,803

801)rn

DA

KO

TA

;

Class

A,

,:.

South Dakota State College of

AgrioUlturt,and *chafe Arti

Publ

io3,455

217

0.063

.. 453

327

36

8.

0.13).

7,494

740

-111

127

0,090

1,634

Class 11 ..

.

8oUth Dakota Oollool Of }Until

Public

1,088

38

0.035

188

135

21

0.173

1,229

30

14

16

0.0e4

160

'ao

dPeofindlogy

: SoUth Dakota, University of

Public

2,888

231

0.080

336

156

72

0.116

3,20

51,109

11

405

657

0.257

3,301

Class.11-

'Aug

usta

n&College

Dena,

1,659

084

84

.-

0.051

1,320

56

56

0.041

667

iso

.L10

Timm

SUS, A

'

Norge Peabody College for

Teschsrs

,

Private

1,857

577

0.311

250

119

66

8-

0.135

2,516

841

597

222

0.251

3,364

Tehniseee, University of

Publio

17,394,

1,52

50.099

2,529

617 210

54

-118 168

0.145

30,872

6,258

365

3,627

619

0.169

2,474

Veigerbilt Unliereity

: Private

1420

260

60,144

803

300 73

33

--

43

0.191

11,5

026,345

426

4,731

560

0.356

7,902

East Tennessee State College

Publio

5,489

235

0.043

173

128

18

.00

323,128

46

343

0.014

266

Jisk llniiirsity

',

.

Private

955

50

0.052

100

82

7.

0,105

1,155

267

52

19980

2,:::

iksphle

1444

Uhi

yere

ltyM

lle7,

806

552

0.071

01

141

16

-0.1;03

3037

90

-::0182:

Kldgle.Tenneeeee, State College

Publio

3,847

228

0.059

153

103

20-

-0.040

2,253

108

108

0.046

706

T1164!88f0 AgriutatUeel po

industrial State Univereiti

Public

4,200

153

6.636

164

149

60,039

3,377

82

82

0.024

500

Tentissseq Polytechnio Institute

..

Eu6lie

3,394

50

0,015

176

161

60,

052

2,22

47

70.

003

40

Clue C.

Austin Pesti Staie College

Publio

2,118

60

0.028

61

61

0.029

1,227

16

16

0.013

262

Wel

iont

Col

lege

Den

oss,

'60

93

55

0.00

5457

3-

30,007

600

Caiion-ge.Visen COliege

"

Dloore,

1,337

-0

83

83

0.062

1,098

29

-29

0,026

345

Chattanooga, Univerilty of

Prirate

'

2,465

176

0,071

92

92

0.037

1,686

143

.37

106

0.078

1,554

Dhelatle.n Brothers Coliege

DenOm,

773

-o

86

86

0.111

565

43

.31

0.071

500

Diyid

Lip

scom

bCollege

'

iSng College

..

Deem,

Cenral,

1,472

2814

,

0 0

39

35

39

35

0,026

0.123

1,073

379

19

27

9 -

10

27

0.017

0.067

487

771

Knosrille College

Denim.

747

013

13

0.017

698

20

-20

0.02

81,538

;f;

Le'

Hor

niCollege

.

89,4hekn..)deelonery.001.1ege

Neon,

Denom,.

575

760

' -'

0 o

21

14

21

14

-

- -

0.037

0.018

398

614

19

45

8

19

37

0.046

0.068

905

3,214

Soutil, 27ie

Uni

vers

ity e

fthe

Venom.

704

077

77

-6.109

1,945

126

126

0,061

1,636

Southwestern

at W

esep

hie

isen

Ora

.89

80

6868

0.077

1,434

61

27

340.041

897

'Ten

ness

ee W

esle

yan

Col

lege

NIK

O.

767

-0

12

12

0.016

61,

17

17

0.02

71,417

*96.

4

TE

iAs

Clue A

Baylor University

...

Roueton, University. of

Rice (William Marsh) Univeraity

Southern NOthodisAUniversity.

Texas Agricultural and 'Mechanical

University:

Texan Technological College

Texas, University of

Claes D

Abilene Christian College

.East Taxes State College-

..NOrth-Texao State University

'-c

Prairie View Agricultural end

.

-

.

RechanicalUollege

q. -

.

Bt. Nary's University of Ban

.',-,) 7.

--

'

-Antonio

,

Sim Roueton State Teachers

College

-

.. Souts

xS

Cole

hwet Te's.

tate

lge

......

..

.

.,

.

.,Stetien.P,. Auetibitete College

Bulitose !tate College

Tees/ Cbristieb university

Texas College of Arta and

.Industries

Pegae 'Southern University

TeXas Woman'aUhivereity

:

Trinity. University

_NestTexas State University ..

-.Close 0

'Austin Coilege .

.

Howinl!are College

Met

-.A

trr:

IM.1

P44

Tm

r0rA

r317

:vre

.m7f

.f$:

N.,m

..

Control

Enrollment

IOTWV-717(2121g

Re

Tab

le A

-1.-

Con

tinue

d

PAT DP

Digees

A -A

Dollars in. Thousands

A-1.15

!le

!ta

BA

MA

AA

AMD

801

___

Yng

____

DOD

Um

its1037

.

Denote.

6,207

537

0.087

1,088

189

47

10

104

80

0.175

4433

66,

755

209

6,20

7248

0.609

6,209

Public

13,665

1,239

'0.091

519

311

67

90,038

8,119

842

38

172

283

0,094

1,622

Private

2,122

429

. 0.2

0249

223

654

27

0,232

4,810

2,500

261

431

615

0.342

5,081

Nom,

7,114

803

0.113

568

215

139

10.080

6,530

529

236

93

184

0,075

931

PUblic

17,216

967

0.056

1,400

661

170

45

51

0.081

8,476

4,721

940

372

1,039

0.358

3,372

Public

11,181

554

0.050

772

582

69

40,069

7,531

307

3312

50.

039

398

Public

23,747

2,735

0.115

3,419

1,078

216

137

81

215

0.144

55,268

17,850

4,040

9,847

2,315

0.244

5,221

Private

2,778

124

0.045

9688

3-

-0.035

1,950

28

820

0,014

292

Public

3,849

494

0.128

215

110

42

--

0.056

2,660

3232

0,012

149

'Public

10,657

1,316

0,123

305

225

32

--

0.029

6,139

242

73

169

0.038

793

Public

3,418

152

0.4:44

95

75

8-

0.028

2,555

114

15

990,043

1,200

/Wiwi.

2,440

230

0,094

178

135

17

0.073

1,761

12

12

0007

67

'Public -

5,396

300

0.0,6

226

206

8.

0.042

3,162

13

13

0.004

58

EUblic

3,467

153

0.044

131

86

18

--

0.038

2,254

39

39

0,017

298

public

2,740

175

0.064

152

9423

--

0455

1,864

47

47

0.025

309

Public

1,199

73

0.061

71

63

3-

-0,059

1,042

32

428

0.030

451

.benclo.

6,631

612

0.092

273

150

33

0.041

4,694

378

61

115

155

0.075

1,385

PUblfc .

3,517

297

0084

227

194

13

0.065

2,350

41

41

0,017

181

Public

1,846

295

0477

65

50

6-

-0.017

2,363

142

142

0.057

2,185

.Public

2,979

305

; '294

0.102

77

67

4-

-0.026

2,409

428

106

199

0,151

5,558

Denem.

1,757

0.167

140

70

28

--

0408

01,954

42

42

0.021

300

.

Publie

3,778

554

0.147

139

101

15

- .

.0.037

2,019

10

10

0.005

72

DV1015,

964

13

0,013

54

54

--

0.056

1,353

44

-0.

003

71,

Dente.

1,100

70

0,064

24

214

.0.022

1,017

58

-50

0.054

2,417

107,

7414

!.M

.

Huston-Tillotion College

Private

575

o39

39

0.068

467

52

52

0.100

1,331

Inoa

rnat

o W

ord

Col

lege

Denom.

1,063

65

0.061

18

18

0.017

666

50

50

0.070

2,778

Lam

arState

Col

lege

of Teohnology

Public

5,967

138

0023

279

279

2.247

3,32

68

.8

0,00

229

'

Hau

rry

Col

lege

Dencs.

1,704

29

0.017

23

23

--

-0.013

854

15

63

0.017

652

kide

eite

rnUniversity

'

Public

2,35

684

0.036

51

51

--

-0.

022

1,88

7eo

.20

0.010

392

Our lady of the

Lak

e C

olle

geDeoidji

954

193

0,202

19

19

--

-0.

020

608

77

74

30.112

4,053

' PanAmerican 0.11ege

Public

2,105

.

o18

18

--

0.009

1,231

311

.34

0.027

1,889

Bored Hiert Dominican College

Denom.

493

24

4-

2.228

297

22

0.00

7500

BL &tiara,. Univereiti

Denaa.

573

o21

21

0.037

565

44

0.00

7190

Bb..Thcmas.,,Univerelty of

Dena%

631

032

32

0.051

707

55

0.00

715

6

..

- .

Bou

thre

ater

nlMixerpity

Dunom.

7ce

o35

35

0.050

853

77

2.228

200

Tex

aeImtheran College

Denali.

642

218

18

0.o28

679

40

21

19

0.056

2,222

Texas Western' College

Public

5,449

269

0.049

186

186

0.03

42,730

360

128

232

0.117

1,935

Wayland Bnietist College

.Denom.

597

o13

13

-0.022

634

22

0.003

154

WileY College

Denom.

526

0U.

11

-mei.

441

77

0.016

636

UTAH

Class A

..

.

Brighim Young University

Denom,

13,352

525

2.039

624

493

45

42.247

11,815

584

26

144

261

2.247

936

Utah Otste.Univereity

polio

7,819

482

2.261

744

394

9724

0.09

510,649

2,820

1,37

740

238

00.

209

3,790

Uy.h,ilIver8ity. or

rublio

13,4

482,156

0,160

1,332

595

9967

-. 47

0.09

916,256

8,29

71,

606

4,52

31,125

0.330

6,229

MONT

Public

4,076

224

0.055

563

274

32

2-

-50

0.138

6,715

3,395

I30

2,391

407

0.336

6,030

'ferment, Univereity of

Olass C

Bennington College

Private

388

o3

3-

2.228

114

6124

2.123

38,220

. Goddard dollege

Private

221

o1

1-

0.00

55993

48

48

0.08

648,000

.14idd1eburi College'

Private

1,319

50.004

147

147

0.111

2,270

55

0.002

34

YArl."A

- 01410.A

,

2912181

Enrollment

Re

Tab

le

gur DP

A-1

,Con

Hnu

ed

Degree'

R

Dollars in Thoueands

A-I.16

tat

!TA

Total

Oraduate

BA

MA

PhD

DYM DD8

MD

FL

1118

DOD

UMW

88P

Virginia0Bdical College of

Publio

1,109

81

0.073

921

303

96

-75

67

0.830

5,607

3,098

3,033

18

0.356

3,364

Yirginiaiblyteohnie Institute

Public.

7,739

616

0.080

1,180

741

136

22

0.152

16,778

2,17)

100

407

284

0.115

1,840

,

Pirginie, University of

iublie

I2,899

1,110

0.086

1,091

4o4

98

44

61

0.085

22,426

5,249

918

2,1.27

1,333

0.190

4,811

Close 11

Hami)ton Inetdtute

EAvate

1,656

74

0,045

70

67

10.042

2,381

73

73

0.030

1,043

::Hoilins College

Private

715

11

0.015

45

37

3-

0,863

1,527

91

19

48

0.056

2,022

Madidon College

Pnblin

1,712

80

0.047

34

29

2-

0.020

1,711

10

10

0.d06

294

BlobmondiAblieersity.of

&Tom.

3,555

226

0,064

187

169

7-

0.053

2,518

12

12

0.005

64

Virginia State College .

'

..

,..Pettrehurg

--

,

Public!

3,8814

119

0,031

100

92

30.026

2,998

330

6230

0.099

3,380

William and Mary in Yirg1nia,

.,,-"- Tbe College of

Public

5,889

269

0,046

283

225

23

0.048

3,368

361

98

238

0.097

1,276

Claw 0

.

Bridgwater College

DO40111.

660

o46

46

0,070

669

18

13

50.026

391

Eastern Mennonite College

Dinom.

511

022

22

0,040

478

15

69

0.030

682

EmOiyArei Henr110011!4110

14=08or1.6Pe4 College'

Down, m

Deno,

785

504

0 0

47

41

47

41

o.060

0,081

892

746

23

49

29

23

20

0.025

0.062

489

1,195

Ennew Cod dellege

PubliO

1,160

19

0.016

25

25

^0.022

1,164

18

90.015

720

LYnehburg Celiege:

Dents,

924

074

74

0.080

919

26

26

0.028

351

Old twelnibli College

Publio

4,942

064

64

0.013

2,362

53

10

3ho

0.022

828

Eandoiyh-Naton Woman'e College

Dente,

732

050

50

0.868

1,422

62

62

0.042

1,240

Bdeet'Edier College

Private

644

042

42

0,065

1,435

22

0.001

48

VirginiMUnion'Uniiersity

.

Penal.

'

1,218

060

60

0,049

809

13

13

0.016

217

Vishiniten and ieri University

Private

1,231

077

77

0.063

1,957

60

60

0.030

779

VM111140209

Olin A

liasbington Rate Univerpity

Patio

81310

744

0,090

966

476

95

31,

45

.-

0.116

21,599

2,977

158

1,050

620

0.121

3,082

Viehington, University of

Public

23,9C6

3,409

0.143

2,909

1,852

313

116

-57

81

0,122

38,111

21,363

1,773

10,913

6,735

0.359

7,344

4,

Claim B

--

aitern Washington State College

Public

OonSega Univereity

Bence,

.

Puget:Poona, University.of

Denom,

.'- Beattle University

Denom.

'. 1411a Willa College

Denom.

Class 0 -

.

.

ittoitio LuthSrein University

Deno.,

,

Bt.'. kartin's College

Demme,

Seattle Paoffie College

Deno.,

...

..

.

_

Western Washington tante ColleAe

Pullio

Whiisieut College

Private

'

10.itwortb.Oollent

Private

.Clasi.D.

.

. Porth Wright College'Of The

Deno's.

:liolifiases

..

'.

'

,.

..

..

L

naT

vnt

ainv

t.:.

.,,.

Clo

ts A

Wes

t Virg

inia

Wni

vert

ity'

Public

Olaes'8

-''

- $arshall Unfrereity

. Public

......

.-

..

.

','

Olas, Ci

;

Bethany 0011e0, ',

'.8r1Vate

Yairmont. State College

'

Mils)

Morrie Harvey College

'

Iritete

Vest VirgininInStitute of

'Wig

-:.14ohnology

'

Weft Virginia Venom College

Demos.

Wheeling 0ollege

Denca,

cy2

,

3,122

2,245

.

2,950

3,817

.1,424

1,812

454

1,567

4,197

088

1,624-

448

9,565

.4,790

797

1,467

2,3T:

1,058..

1,32.3

619

63

86

51

218

26

52 - 18

29 .-

52

-

-

834

564

0.020

0.038

0.017

0.057

0.018

0.029 0

0.011

0.007 0

0,02

o

0,087

0.118 0 0 0 0 0 o

PA.T

Ir,.N

w=

11.

77

62

95

85

88

83

210

177

54

49

66

66

16

16

48

48

142

142

84

84

51

51

1,038

432

198

120

56

56

36

36

67

67

12

72

82

82

50

5d

.7-

6 4 2

13 2 - - -

119 31 - -

- - - . . 8 - - - -

- . - -25

43

0.025

0.01

12

0.030

0.065

0.038

0.036

0.035

0.031

0.034

0.095

0.031

0.00

3

0.109

0.041

0,070

0,025

0.028

0 068

0.062

0.09

5

2,796

1,81

5

1,941

2,017

1,282

1,575

250*

1,216

3,500*

1,257

1,039

500*

17,978

3,014

1,017

921

1,117

923

1,231

622

9 9

34

223

30

21

15

18

139

37

18 13

3,165

114

58

11 4 8

94

20

50

46

18

72

20 19

1,440 - - . 4 6

9

'

9 34

101 10

21

15 18

133 18 16 13

562 96

58

11 8 94

14

0.003

0.005

0.017

0.100

0.023

0.013

0.057

0.015

0.038

0.029

0.015

0.02

5

0.150

0.036

0.054

0.012

0.00

4

0.009

0.071

0.051

117

95

386

1,062

556

318

938

375

979

440

314

3,049

576

1,036

366 60 111

1,146

400

tto 00

1.-!

.tit&

ICA

NISOONSIN

Contvol

Enrolbsent

Tab

le

Re

0,052

0.081

0.166 o

0,001

0.311 0 0 o o 0 o o o o

0443 0

0.0e6

0,026 0 0

A-1

.Con

tinue

d

S&T DP

DeRreem

R I0,151

0,141

0.126

0.014

0,104

0.018

0,003

0.107

0.079

0.033

0.036

0.034

0.023

0.09

0.032

0,032

0.000

0.104

0.045

0,014

0,014

Dollar. in Thousand.

A-1.1T

!la

0.020

0.216

0.286

0.011

0.047

0.004

0.006

0.016

0.072

:::::

0.001

0. 002

0.024

0.012

0.004

0.006

0.093

0.135

0.073

0.024

!TA

273

1,881

4,595

7c6

789

250

1,000

111

1,550 80

19

25

49

519

242

90

1,610

4,153

2,049

1,034

0/ase A

Lawrence University

Marquette University

Wieconsin, University of

Olus 0

Alverno College

Beloit College

Cardinal Stritoh College

Edgmalod College of The Sacred

Neat

Northland College

Ripon College

Wisconsin State College and

Institute of Technology

Wisconsin State College -

Rau Olaire

Wieeonsin State College -

La Oroese

Wisconsin State College - Oshkoeh

Wisconsin State College -

Riveritalle

Wisconsin State College .

Stevens Point

Wieconsin State College - Superior

Claes D

Carthage College

WY01010

lidda

1,381

10,078

35,251

1,179

1,101

441

580

420

764

2,625

2,852

2,337

4,385

2,066

2,938

1,610

974

5,571

21,454

2,974

4,275

Graduate

BA

MA PO INN

,...

...

105

18

13

.

464

64

-

1,459 530

302

17

114 8 2

45

bo

87

103 79

102 81

95

51

280 IC6

8-

633

20

..

41

--

58

000 ND

... --

-.

107

91

-71 . .

22 47

ROI

..

2,778

9,680

50,861

1,033

1,844

476

300

314

1,202

2,264

2,240

1 ,814

2 ,255

1,739

1,022

1,326

1,226

9,116

25,507

1,070

2,430

11AS

DOD

57

...,

2,663

20,340

1,269

12 90 2 2 5

93 7 2 2 5

42

23 5 7

937

3,989

402

84

60

WPM 11

2,417

10,427 12 . - 2 58

1,891 35 -

BSI 46

193

5,028

90 2 I' 5

93 : - 5 42

23 b 7

32i

712 49

60

Private

Denom,

Mao

Denom .

Private

Dem,

Denom,

Private

Private

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Irivate

Public

Public

Denom.

Lanai.

72

812

5,855 1

137

69

480

564

209

1,416

4,427

17

114 8 2

45

60

87

103

79

102

81

95

51

582

959

41

58

Olean A

Wyoming, University of

WERro RICO

Class A

Puerto Rico, University of

Olass 0

Catholic University of Puerto Rico

Inter American Univereity Of

Puerto Rico

Tab

le A

-2

SELECTED FUNDING AND MANPOWER CHARACTERISTICS IN SCIENCE AND TECHROLOOY OF

DEOREE.ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS

NOT RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE IN FISCAL YEAR 1963 AND ACADEMIC YEAR 1962.63

ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY BY STATE AND CLASS

(Educational and Oeneral Incomw in Thousands of Dollars)

Enrollment

ALABAMA

Control

Total

Oreduate

Re

SST DP

BA

MA

Rs

EOI

0.11111 B

Jacksonville State College

Maio

2,430

35

0.014

80

75

20.033

2,000

Clesv 0

Athens College

Denom.

626

o22

22

0.035

311

Florence State College

Public

1,893

19

0.010

75

75

0.040

1,241

Howard College

Denom.

2,173

-o

38

38

0.017

1,720

Huntington College

Iwnom.

036

o42

42

0.050

794

Judeon College

Dec001,

287

.0

88

0.028

256

Oakwood College

Denom.

346

o4

40.012

350

St. Bernard College

Denom.

449

017

17

0,038

396

Spring Hill College

Dewitt,

1,451

il

0.008

63

63

0.043

593

Stillman College

Denom.

529

011

11

0.021

419

Troy State College

Public

2,267

60.003

69

69

0.030

1,417

ARKANSAS,

Claes B

Hendereon State Teachers College

Public

1,873

47

0.023

87

77

40.046

1,047

Class 0

Agricultural, Mechanical, and

Normal College

Public

2,242

C74

74

0.033

1,247

Arkaness Agricultural and

Mechanical college

Ibblio

1,109

o45

45

0.041

912

Arkansas College

Denom.

278

o9

P0.032

322

Herding College

Denom,

1,359

138

0.102

ho

40

0.029

1,380

'

_

Hendrix College

Deno,

605

033

33

0.055

735

John Brown Univereity

Private

364

418

18

-0.049

538

Ouachita Baptist College

Dance,

1,440

18

0.013

54

54

-0.036

978

Philander Bmith College

pellom.

619

014

14

0.023

464

CALIPORNIA

Olass H

Pepperdine College

Private

1,264

119

0,094

85

30

22

0.067

1,472

Oleos 0

Celifornia Baptist College

Dena.

432

o17

17

0.039

415

California Western University

Denca,

2,676

149

0.672

29

29

0.014

1,143

Lk Verne College

Denom.

Los Angeles College of Optometry

Private

589

020

20

117

03

3

0.034

6o2

0.026

107

Log Angeles Penifio College

Venom.

242

o1

10.004

353

Blrymount C011ege

Dena,

253

02

20.008

391

AMatra Dens, College of

NA..

416

05

50,012

262

Pasadena C011ege

Denom.

tolp

141

0.124

42

42

0,037

977

Bt. Joseph College of Orange

Daft,

2.:y

01

10.004

250 I

Ban

Dife4f:Itil:7(1,1ege

for Hen,

Doom.

324

06

60.019

389

Ban Diego College for Women

Denim,

701

28

0.040

37

37

0.053

36e

Ban ersnoisco College for Women

Dam.

537

14

0.026

26

26

0.046

996

boripps College

Private

318

011

11

0.035

784

Otanislaus Rate Collcge

Public

774

06

60.008

763

'roam college

Denom.

119

07

70.059

250

Claes D

Ben Lute Hey College

Denom,

76

00

56

Boom Btate College

Public

1,027

00

829

Istimated

BAT DP

Boience and Technology Degree Productivity

ft_

Oraduate student enrollment/total nrollment

Science and technology degree productivity/total enrollment

.-.,.

.mrt

Arl

WA

IRE

EV

ER

IUPE

EE

RIM

EtR

YW

EIM

EM

IPP.

,.11

Tab

le A

-2.C

ontle

ved

COLORADO.

Control

brollment

roUrdierrfa

he

MT DP

BA

MA

R I

A-2.2

ROI

Clasp 0

Ademe State College ot Colorado

Publie

1,664

185

0.111

73

73

o.o44

1,501

Class D

Colorado Woman's College

Defoe.

7113

00

1,019

CONNECTICUT

Close a

Annburat College

Denom.

244

06

6-

0.025

250

Danbury State College

tUblio

1,535

225

0.147

13

13

-0.008

777

Southern Conneotiout State College

MSc

11,232

902

0.213

15

15

-0.004

2,481

01460 D

Opinniyiec College

Private

1,5113

00

777

Willimantic State College

Public

930

318

0.342

0794

ALAWARE

Class 0

Delaware State College

lublic

563

026

ac

0.0116

930

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clime 0

District of Columbia Teachera

Public

1,1159

08

8-

0.005

1,580

College

Trinity College

Denca.

886

0104

104

-0.117

977

FLORIDA

Cies. C

Bethune -Cookmao College

Private

720

019

19

0.026

504

Clegg D

Molds ROoriel College

Private

341

00

177

OSORDIA

01.11 11

The Woman's Collage of Georgia

Public

920

49

0.053

04

21

10.026

1,179

Close 0

Berry College

Private

756

024

224

0.032

1,299

le

Brenta College

Private

511

03

3..

0.006

406

Olork College

Denon.

770

015

i)

-0.019

700*

The Port Valley State College

Public

1,034

45

0.044

17

17

0.016

1,179

Mercer Vnivereity

Deuce,

1,458

218

0.150

64

64

0.044

1,747

Morrie Drown College

Deno..

921

051

51

0.055

643

Oglethorpe Vnlyereity

Private

477

015

15

0.031

223

Paine College

Deuce.

430

014

14

0.033

394

Tift College

Dena,

556

013

13

-0.023

310

Valdosta Stet. College

Public

1,013

036

36

-0.036

594

Wiley/in College

Denon.

571

011

11

0.019

657

2.4.1I

Claes 0

Cbutinade College of Honolulu

Dens.

352

02

20.006

292

ihe Church College of Hawaii

Deno..

891

03

30.003

779

ILLIROI8

Clews 0

Auguatana College

Denote.

1,430

062

62

-0.043

1,4112

Aurora College

Denom.

1,125

018

18

-0.016

596

Beret College of the Sacred Heart

Denon,

415

025

25

0.060

436

Blackburn Vniversity

Private

397

048

48

0.121

481

Ilmhurat College

Dena,

1,693

056

56

0.033

1,052

Eureka College

DOWM.

307

011

11

0.036

457

Oreenvillt College

Moon,

718

050

50

0.070

563

Illinois College

Private

526

054

54

0.103

493

lende College

Denom.

659

026

26

0.039

423

Monmouth College

gminey College

Deno.,

Deno.,

891

1,027

0 0

57

14

57

14

0.064

0.014

1,179

1,102

Ht, Franele, College of

Deno..

599

039

39

0.064

245

ninon (COnild)

Claes C

Opimer.C011ege

.

Clans D

:

Concordia iSachers College

Denom.

1,154

'21

0.018

,

National COliege of Education

Private

794

303

0.38E

-INDIANA.

- Saint Francis College

-

Cless C

'

Concordia Benior College

.4taa1.ip'0011egi, of Indiana

.

Dlinkirigton College

'

Said. doSeph's College

DOnom.

,

Den=

659

Dentm.

433

Donom.

2,066

,GaiWliary-.of.tlic-Woode Coliege

DOnOm.

657

'

'IONA

,..

.

Oleos 0

,

o64

64

0.151

508

49

49

0.07

480

14

o10

10

0.023

450

O63

63

0.030

1,480

32

32

-0.049

457

'

prier.01iff college

penoili.

625

itiene.yiste College

'Denomi'

.874

Clarke College

draceldniCollege

Icwa Wesleyan College

Frod,nt kOrcy.College

pi. Ambrose College .:

uppe

rIuya University

iiirtburit College

Wectma'r College

iWilliam Fend.C011age

.. '

DenOm.

932

,

. Dorm.

821

penorp4,

852

Per

i0.1

0.390

DOOM.

1,44

4

:Private

1,100

-Den0m.

1,12

6

Desem.

738

Denom.

642

88

-

O16

16

.0

54

54

O5

, 5

O29 -

29

-

03

3

072

.72

O26

26

31

31

O30

30

27

27

0.013

443

9,01

874

6

o.o5

8852

0.006

821

0.03

4.

892:

129

1,150'

531

757

655

536

0..008

0.050

0,023

0.028

0,041

0.042

KANSAS

'Skase 0

. ;.

,,-Denom.

694

36

36

.0.052

'690

Betha)*0011i2O

Deno*.

2,068

.0

24

24

'

.0.022

560

Emporii, Collage Or

.Denom.

618

o21

21

0.034

644

/tirlende 0nivereity,

Whom.

'628

015

25

0.024

510

/iir3le04ht ooilege

Dendm.

531

o..13

13

0.024

.

665

$92kersoli ooiliie

Venom,

602

025

25

0,042.

408

Denom,

027

27

0.041

'

822

061*E Oiry 0011eie

'

Venom.

610

08

80.013

250.*

Aiaint Marie the plains College

Venom,

507

06

60.012

293

-'Sootneeltern College

'

Deno*,

696

0.25

25

0.036

644

,24er1ing Celiege

_.

icinnOoki

Deno's.

526

023

23

0.044

446

Ois,et

. Cathetine Spalding College

Venom.

1,385

76

0,055

25

20

0.014

498

aeorgiiO6 0011e2e

Denom.

1,186

60

0.051

59

59

0.050

979

Kestue4 Weeleyao College .

Denom.

675

023

23

0.034

623

Deno*,

766

024

24

0.031

425

Transylvnni*"..2011ege

Private

624

031

31

0.050

731

,

Up100'001.14o,..,

Dena,

768

17

0.022

22

22

0.029

682

Ursulip00011egO

Denom,

529

016

16

0.030

559

MA

INS

-..,01a10 0:

..

.Saint Joseih'e College

Denom.

246

22

0.00

3

,:AlleeteD

liarMington State Teachers College-

Public

534

790

%dorhem State Teachers C011ege

793

553

Tab

leA

-2.C

onfln

ued

Enrollment

A-2.14

Control

Total

Graduate

Be

SNP DP

BA

MA

Rs

SQl

MARTIAND,

Claes 0

Frostburg State Colleie

P4blic

1,546

o30

32

0.021

1,059

/bunt Saint Agnes College

Denom.

422

o7

70.017

250*

Mount Saint Wery's College

Denom..,

791

o50

50

0.065

795.

8elieburY State College

.Public

552

01

10.002

577

Claes D.

Bowie State College

PUbiic

365

0o

644

..

.

Goppin State College

Pui,lic

371

0o

510

811. John's College

Private

313

-0

o797

'IbWaon State College.

Palic

2,018

37

0.016

01,717

..

...

nniainlis

Clese.0'

American InterUetional College

Private

2,880

213

0.074

59

59

0.020

1,496

Bradford 'Burfie College of

Publie

-o

53

53

0.086

604

TechnOlogy: ..,-

.616

Emersion College

.

Private

726

33

0.045

22

0.003

761

NeW Bedford Institute of

FUbliC

625

o27

27

0.043

650

Technology ..

Newton College of the Sacred Heart

Denote.

665

060

60

0.090

1,524

'Our Lady ofElmivOollege of

DenCea.

840

037

37

0.044

679

. State College at BOaton

Public

3,105

57

0.018

33

33

0.011

1,429

State College dt North Adams

Public

1,049

380

0.362

12-

12

0.011

107

,State C011ege it Worcester

Public

1,6149

601

0.364

47

47

(1.029

677

Claes D

,Lesley College. ;

Private

546

72

0.132

519

State College.et Fitchburg'

Public

1,381

225

0.163

1,056

State College at Framingham

Public

1,360

o647

State College at Lowell

Public

625

01476

State College at Westfield

Wheelock College

MICHIGAN

Clams 0

Adrian College

Aquinas C011ege

ibe Detroit Institute of Technology

., _

.

Hillsdale College

Madonna College

Naiareth College

Class D.

.

Terris State College

MINNIE:CO

Olesa H

Moorhead State College

Oleo's c

Saint.Benediet, College of

MISSISSIPPI

,Olean 0

Alcorn'Agricultural end

Mechanical College

Belhaven College

Blue Mountain College

Delta Invite College

William Carey College

DIBBCURI

Class 0

.

Avila College

Culver -Stockton College

Drury College

Fontbonne College

"

Fbblio

1,187

298

0.251

'0

1,000 *

Private

505

27

0.053

..0(0

5461

Dencm,

1,049

026

26

-0.025

976

Denom.

1,163

22

0.019

82

82

.0.071

604

Private

2,330

078

78

0.033

1,143

Private

829

050

50

0.060

1,032

Denom.

391

017

17

0.043

730

Denom.

355

.0

12

12

0.031.

478

Public

3,517

3,200

Publio

2,464

120.

0.049

85

57

3-0.026

1,698

Denom.

447

015

15

0.034

446

Public

1,423

030

30

0.021

1,132

Deno.,

355

05

5.

0.014

276

Demo.

270

03

3-

0.011

292

Public

1,318

038

38

.0.029

976

Denom.

593

07

70.012

434

Denom.

487

09

90.018

427

Donors.

677

-0

le

le

0.027

687

penom.

1,143

64

0.056

55

55

0.048

992

Den010,

890

029

29

0.033

664

mea

lsrs

um ._

,=id

emok

ci",

<4,

MISSOURI.(Coat,d)

"

Lindenwood College

MarilleoCollege

Maryville Collage Of the

Owned Heart

,

Miseouri.Vallei College

HorthVeet,Ndepoorlltate College

Park College"'

'

"i.oteetmitieter-.Coilega

Claes D

Cardinal Clennon College

Harris peachere College :

r.

.gtephene College

,

ith*

Great. palls, College:of

0,01

'..Northern:MOntena Coliege

..

-..,,yeeby,POOotain College

.

7-.1batern.liontane College of

.2'. -laudation'

kggpAsiA

Chile

.i;,copiorclAa 7eaehers College

/ani College

Duaheen'e Collega'of the

gibred Heart

Kearney Gtete College

Midland Lutheran Collage

Peru gtate College

Tab

le A

-2.C

ontln

ued

'Enrollnent

Control

Tbtal

Graduate

Doom.

626

Denom,

325

0

_Denom.

278

Denom.

552

0

Publio

2,654

0

Denom.

500

0

Danom,

626

A-2

.5

88T DP

' BA

HA

ge

NCI

15

15

0.024

(951

15

15

0.046

300*

14

14

0.090

375

44

44

0.080

627

49

49

0.018

1,825

20

20

0.040

974

.03

83

0.133

891

'Wpm. -

237

o100 -

f2ublio

.

i,Bll

--

0-

.:

0.

:369

.'..

Private

1,780

oo

4,421

Denom.

911

017

17

0.019

441

Public

790

o7

70.009

750

genom,

.407

015

15

0.037

1128

1:ttblio

616

26

0.042

.. 13

13

6,021

452

genom.

-

937

o24

24

0.026.

1,000

- Dinom.

647

.o

446

46

0.871

. 615

Denom.

'

350

. 0

12

12

0.036

394 .

PUblic

'

2,655

82

0.031

61

61

0.023

1,747

genera.

.

859

035

35

0.041

633

PUblin

.850

026

26

0.01

848

.*

paint Hery, College of

Denom.

571

02

20.004

458

NE

V M

ices

taR

E

Cla

esB

Plymoath Btate College

Petlie

995

64

0.064

18

13

20.018

661

Class

c,..

...

keens pate College

Public

1,320

314

0.238

21

21

0.016

785

..:-OdOt:,.6i4et ),Ifi,, Cellege

penom.

283

o11

11

0.039

293

HEW JERRY

Clais C

:

Bloomfield College

,Benom.

903.

015

15

0,017

720

CeldMell college' for Women

2Onmohth coilege

Demom,

Private

892

1,319

1

0 o

15

72

15

72

0.017

0.022

521

2,511

.Neearb. !nate College...

Public

3,799

672

9.177

28

28

0.007

1,797

Claes D! ..

._

:Paterson Mtete College,,

joir

iiite

tiv.

Pablio

3,548

428

6.121

02,284

61ies 0:

7

,gt. joseph on the 210 Orande,

Denom.

472

010

10

0.021

441

College of

:103U

Yak

:

deni 11.

-,-

,Ot....' Bernardino:of mione College

Denom.

2,019

169

0.04

171

168

10.085

1,507

Agebellniver44Y College - COrtladd

Public

3,562

344

0.057

51

48

10.014

2,713

!hate 20iveitity College . Oeneseo

Publio

2,259

267

0.118

31

0,001

2,971

;Otmte liniversityCollege =

Public

3,453

330

0.096

18

15

10.005

3,273

Anal° University College - Oneonta

Public

2,679

166

0.062

51

31

80.019

2,673

Aitate':Uni'veretY.College .

Public

2,539

67

0.026

47

32

60.019

2,432

Plattsburgh'

:,

Bard College

Privaie

423

o25,

25

0.059

786

Pinch. College

Private

300

07

70.023

645

DEW YORK (Cont'd)

.,

Hsrpur College, State University

of Her York

Houghton College

'Ithaca College

Legyollffe College

Sacred Heart

Henhabtanyille College of the

Herymount College

Herymount Manhattan College

Nnunt 84; Joseph Teachers College

Nazareth College of Rochester

Roberts Wesleyan College

Bt'ate UniVergity College -

-

Fredonia

giate Unbers14y College - Osvego

State

Uni

vers

ityCollege -

Potsdam

Class D

Mar

yRogers College

Mills College of' Education

2Aate'University College -

Brockport

NORTH CAROLINk

Oleos 0

-

Atlantio Christian College

Belmont Abbey College

Ilan College

Oreeneboro College

Guilford College

Tab

leA

-2.C

ontin

ued

Enrollsmnt

A-2.6

Control

Vaal.

Oraduate

Re

BAT DP

BA

MA

Rs

HOY

Public

2,012

46

0.023

117

117

0.058

2,414

Denom.

957

058

58

0.061

849

Private

2,002

46

0.023

U.

U.

0.005

2,218

Denom.

461

012

12

0.026

269

Denom.

814

10

0.012

52

52

0.064

1,670

tmnom.

775

.0

69

69

-0.089

1,075

Denom,

550

o54

54

-0.098

505

Denom.

475

98

0.206

22

0.004

too it

Denom.

1,017

o43

43

0.042

1,000*

Denom

513

012

12

0.023

417

Public

1,785

179

0.100

33

0.002

2,181

Public

3,562

408

0.115

5656

0.016

3,114

Public

2,109

148

0.070

21

21

0.010

,3,107

Denom.

185

00

233

Private

270

oo

523

Public

2,459

443,

0.179

02,773

Denom.

1,297

o50

50

0.039

771

Denom.

813

o14

14

-0.023

449

Private

1,187

o30

30

-0.025

901

Dence.

598

017

17

-0.028

657

Denom.

1,481

50.003

53

53

0.036

1,020

High Point College

Deiom.

1,311

35

35

0.027

957

Johneon O. Smith University

Dennis.

1,027

59

59

0.057

560

Lenoir Rhyne College

Denom.

1,021

41

41

0.040

838

Livingstone College

Denom.

692

25

25

0.036

624

Meredith College

Denom.

824

31

31

00238

767

Pembroke State College

IUblic

760

20

20

0.026

455

St, Andrews Preabyterien College

Denote.

941

12

12

0.013

1,009

Salem College

Demo.

488

19

19

00239

633

Shaw.University

Denom.

635

15

15

0.024

452

Olses D

Berber-Scotie College

Denom.

311

0o

265

Fayetteville State College

IUblic

985

0o

644

Winston-Salem State College

IUblic

1,212

00

981

NORTH DAKOTA

Oleos 0

Dickinson Stete College

IUblio

OTT

023

23

-0.026

510

Jamestown College

Denom.

417

036

36

-0.086

458

luyyille State College

Public

693

026

26

O.o38

480

Valley City State College

IUblic

913

035

35

00238

762

OHIO

Class 0

Bluffton College

Lynam.

522

019

19

00236

518

ThwDefience,College

Private

835

o22

22

0.026

866

Lekelirie College

Private

869

027

27

0.031

983

Mary Manse College

Denow.

1,312

09

90.007

1,000

Otterbein College

hence.

1,328

050

50

0.038

1,120

Ursuline College for Women

Denom.

319

023

23

0.072

191

Western College for Women

Private

4146

025

25

0.056

590

41-

ciao (Contsd)'

Wlibirforce tzniversit9

Olage D

The Athenaeum of Ohio

OXLARONA

. (nose D

Central State College

..

01asa 0

Dethen9 Nazarene Collage

-Emit Central. State College

LangOtOn UniVeraity

.Northeastern state College

Oklahoma College tor Women

Panhandle Agricultural and

Mechanical coiiege

Phillips University

OREGON

Olaab D

.

Eastern Oregon College

Oregon College of Educetion

Cleas C.

Cascada College

George Pox College

Levis end (nark College

iit. Angel coitege

Claes D

Rorthviet Christian College

warner Pacific College

Tab

leA

-2.C

ontIn

ued

Enrollment

A-2.7

Control

Total

Graduate

Pe

MT DP

BA

MA

R4

EGI

-.-

Denom.

373

016

1600

)43

400

Denom.

530

270.

051

o59

1

Public

5,146

477

0.093

105

100

20,026

1,972

rmnom.

1,092

034

34

0,031

690

Publio

2,036

129

0.063

47

47

0.023

1,047

Pdblic

721

039

39

0.054

706

Public.,

3,047

186

0.061

107

107

0.035

1,381

Public

640

011

11

0.017

648

Public

1,086

035

35

0.032

737

Denom,

1,208

26

0.022

39

39

0.032

1,034

Public

1,161

10

0.009

22

76

0.019

1,084

Ptblic

1,405

39

0.028

27

19

30.019

1,525

Private

298

08

80.027

253

Denom,

228

09

90.039

218

Denom,

1,174

70.006

77

77

0,066

1,316

Denom.

309

02

20.006

178

Denom.

350

00

229

Denom.

232

00

230

PENNSYLVANIA

Claim C

AllianCe College

Private

267

015

15

0.056

494

Bloomsburg Stato.CollcSe

1Ublic

2,040

49

0.024

86

86

0.042

1,708

cedar Crest College

Denom,

487

018

1.8

0.037

636

Chestnut Hill College

tenom.

1,017

072

72

0,071

966

Chs'oey State College

Public

922

09

90.010

899

Ole.rion State College

Pliblic

2,238

081

81

0.036

1,527

Delaweie Valley College of

Private

470

0'

78

78

0.166

677

Science and Ageieultnre

gent Stroudsburg State College

Public

11757

055

55

0.031

1,569

Elizabethtown College

aDenote.

1,357

040

40

0.029

1,042

Cannon College

Denom.

1,979

0105

105

0.053

1,166

Drove City 0011ege

Private

1,789

0127

127

0.071

1,235

No1Y Yemity College

Deno's,

421

026

26

0.062

396

Ismaculata College

Denom.

.926

049

49.

0.053

1,020

KutstWn Stete'College

Public

2,061

64

0.031

54

54

0.026

1,941

hycoming College

Denom.

1,316

0106

106

0.081

1,389

Mansfield ()tate College

Public

1,231

047

47

0.038

1,609

Meesieh College

Denali,.

232

07

70.030

258

Milericordie, College

Delon,

1,246

029

29

0.023

784

'

ihe Penti'mylvania State College

of Optometry

liosenont College

Private

Denom,

132

598

0 0

21 38

21 38

0.159

0.064

247

549

St, Francis College

Denom.

1,250

051

51

0.041

1,082

Ohippeneburg StatdrCollege

Public

1,763

112

0.0614

67

67

0.038

1,354

Slippery Rock State College

lublic

1,790

038

38

0.021

1,422

Susquehanna University

Dence,

939

060

60

0.004

1,229

Urainus College

Denom.

1,446

0137

137

0.095

1,105

Ville Hari& College

De1

1011

1,736

09

90.012

514

Tab

le A

-2,C

ontln

ued

Enrollment

Control

Total

Graduate

Re

SAT DP

BA

NA

As

COI

PENNSYLVANIA (Cont.d)

Washington and Jefferson College

Private

805

0130

I30

o.161

1,212

Waynesburg College

clue. D

,

Academy of the New Church, College

Denom.

Denom,

1,039

69

0 0

68

68

0.065 0

911

532

RHODE ISLAND

Class 0

Barrington College

Private

435

012

12

0.028

550

Barrii CAROLINA

Oless 0

Benedict College

Denom.

975

o48

48

o,o49

631

Coker College tor Women

Private

367

04

4.

0.011

334

Converge College

Private

'

618

41

0.066

38

38

.0.061

600

landere.College

Private

442

o15

15

.0.034

429

Limeatone College

Private

485

0II

11

0,023

335

Newberry College

Danom.

685

024

24

0.035

666

Presbyterian College

Danom.

511

033

33

0.065

566

WiRth'roil 6011ege

Public

2.233

13

0.006

46

46

0.021

1,954

Woffo'rd College

Denom.

833

077

77

0.092

783

COM bAXOTA

Class 0

Slack Hills Teachers College

Mlle

1,288

020

im

0.016

752

Dakota Wesleyan University

Deno..

614

o16

16

0.026

464

General Doodle State Teachers

college

fUblio

571

011

11

0.019

450

Huron Collqs0

Denote,

6' ,

012

12

0.019

401

WOunt Marty College

Denote,

3 3

o2

20.006

295

Northern Btate College

Public

1,868

1*7

0.025

64

64

0,034

1,302

Sioux fall College

Canon,

693

020

20

0.029

527

Southern nate Teachers College

FOR,'

661

011

11

0.017

733

Yankton College

Private

350

015

15

0.043

436

- UNNEBSIS

'''

Class 0

Bethel College

Defoe,

928

011

11

0.021

305

Lamboth College

Denom.

652

027

27

0.041

474

Lane College.

Denom.

537

028

28

0.052

40

Lincoln Memorial University

Private

510

028

28

.0.055

391

Maryville Oollege

Denom.

728

o27

27

-0.037

685

Milligan College

Private

594

010

10

0.017

470

Siena College

tumulus; College

Denom,

Private

324

499

0 o

10

18

10

18

0.031

0.096

165'

380

UniOn University

Denom.

776

027

27

0.035

497

M,

Claes B

HardinSimmon0 University

Defoe.

1,731

62

0.036

57

54

10.033

1,454

Olass 0

Bishop College

Donee.

938

09

90.010

7..1

Beet Texan Baptist College

Demo.

569

09

90.016

453

Mary Hardin-Baylor College

Denom.

977

o14

14

0.014

612

Texas Wesleyan College

Denom.

1,457

121

0.083

23

23

0.01A

890

DI

Oleos 0

Westminster College

Benoit.

431

016

16

0.037

487

VIR1132N

Olase 0

Norvioh Univereity

Private

1,150

0109

109

0.095

1,428

Bt. Michsel,11 College

Defoe,

1,108

23

0.021

68

68

-0.061

1,24

Trinity College

Dena.

.

427

0:

19

19

.0,0101

18a

01'

;

VE601fl (Cont'd)

!

Clans D

Cae4loton 84840 C011ege

V4/11c

570

Johnoon 04nteCollege

PUblic

260

YIR41NLA

Chao 0

Mary Baldwin.C011ege

Rinidolph-Racen College .

Tab

le A

-2,C

ontin

tml

Enrollment

'Control

Total

Graduate-

Venom.

Denims,

Richmond Profeesional institute ,

Bublic

11,761

1111

0.024

72

72

0.015

2,303

,.

Ronnoke College

.Denom.

911

o39

39

0.043

.867'

Seini.Thul's C011ene

Dom.

406

77

0.017 ..

461

%inkier

Class D

Central Washington Mete College

,Pahlie

,2,923

79

.0,027

:98

78

80,034

2,904

WEBB VIDOINIA'

Clean C

,

Alderoon-Dronddun lollege, ,

Bluefield State College

A-2.9

13&

T D

PBA

HA

R

451

259

516

30

0,058

935

667

44

44

13.066

712

Demme.:

.530

18

18

9..033

.442

Thj

blto

009

0,7

70:811

".646

Concoid College

,,

...Dahlia

1,602

050

50

0.031

1,161

Davis and Elklnn College

Denom..

999

032

32

0.053

752.

Glenville Atoka Gellege

Bablie

957

o.

23

23

.0.024

668

Salem College

Deem.

..768,.,

014

.14

0.018

\\

.677

Shepherd College

,PhbliO:

966

046

46

6418

634

'Wont Liberty State College

Phblie

1,696

019

19

0.011.

801

West: Virginia State College

PhBlic

2,502

46

46

..

0.018

1,371

WISCONSIN

Claes 0

Carroll College

Denom.

951

75

75

-0.081

1,184

Dominican College

Denom. .

480

04

-0.008

244

-

Holy Family College

Denom.

418

05

5-

0.012

118

lakeland College

Donna.

446

022

22

0.049

489

Marian College of Fond Du Lao

Denom.

410

11

0.002

11.6

Mount bMry College

'

Deno.

'

1,156

30

30

0.026

617

-St, Norbert College

Denom,

'.

1,188

72

72

0.061

831

.

Viterbo ColleFe

Denom.

-

416

,12

12

0.029

201

Nieconein State College -

Fublic

3,625

4,2

42

0.012

2,676

Whitewater

. .01mae,D .

.

Stout State College

Fublic

1,672

1,667

ADIRIO RICO

234

70.030

142

00

.wrIrMVPITSV,Vitm-pw.....,

TABLE 84

ACCREDITED DEGREE GRANTING EDUCATIONAli INSTITUTIONS BARK ORDERED BY

LEVEL OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE

FISCAL YEAR 1913

RANK

.INSTITUTION

DOLLARS

(tho

usan

ds)

RANK

INSTITUTION

OOLLARS

Dho

uson

ds)

1,COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

42530

51- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

61i4

2MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

42361

52

ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF

6175

1MICHIGAN, THE UNIVERSITY OF

'

36796

53

KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF

6149

4HARVARD UNIVERSITY

31251

54

RUTGERS -- THE STATE UNIVERSITY

6045

5CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ..8ERKELEY

29361

55

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

5570

6STANFORO UNIVERSITY

28930

56

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL ANO PECHANICAL COLLEGE

5564

ILLINOIS; UNIVERSITY OF

28788

57

MISSOURI, UNIVERSITY OF

5502

8CHICAGO, THE UNIVERSITY 'OF

24668

58

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

5481

9 .MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF'

23966

59

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

5433

10

JOHNS HOPKINS. UNIVERSITY

22632

60

VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF

5249

II

WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF

21363

61

EMORY UNIVERSITY

4904

12 ,PENNSVINANIA, UNIVERSITY-OF

20709

62

ARIZONA, THE UNIVERSITY OF

4943

13

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

2044D

63

CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

4933

14

WISCONSIN; UNIVERSITY OF

20340

64

FLORIOA STATE UNIVERSITY

4848

15

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

19857

65

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF.- SAN FRANCISCO MEOICAL CTR.

4739

16. VALE UNIVERSITY

19472

66

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL ANO MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY

4721

IT

CALIFORNIA; UNIVERSITY OF - LOS' ANGELES

19196

67

CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF

4713

18 'TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF

17050

68

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

4583

19

THE OHIO'STATE UNIVERSITY

13883

69

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

4372

20 ,PITTSBURG111 UNIVERSITY OF

13825

70

POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF BROOKLYN

4238

21

ROCHESTER; UNIVERSITY OF

13092

71

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

4083

22 RAMAN; UNIVERSITY OF

12849

.72

STATE.UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

RIUFFALO

4022

23 'WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

24

OUKE UNIVERSITY

12299

11737

73

PUERTO RICO; UNIVERSITY OF

14

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

3983

3960

25

COLORA00, UNIVERSITY OF

26 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

'

11473

11179

75 ,CASE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

76

NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF

)914

3874

27 'CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

SAN OIEGO

11084

77

ARKANSAS; UNIVERSITY OF

3736

,28 .NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY'OF AT.CHAPEL HILL

10498

78

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

3690

29

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

10382

79

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

3643

.30

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

9980

80

VERMONT, UNIVERSITY OF

3395

AI

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

9080

81

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

3389

:32

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY

9714

82

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AHD APPLIEO SCIENCE

3377

13

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

9455

83

GEORGIA, THE UNIVERSITY OF

3332

34

PUROUE UNIVERSITY

9265

84

HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF

3332

35

SOUTHERN.CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

8727

85

ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE

3293

'

36

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF - OAVIS

.8475

86

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

3198

37

UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF

8297

87.

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY....

3165

311

TULANE UNIVERSITY. -

8286

88

MISSISSIPPI, UNIVERSITY OF

3137

39

FLORICIA, UNIVERSITY OF

0278

89

VIRGINIA, MEOICAL COLLEGE OF

3098

40 'OREGON, UNIVERSITY'OF

7722

90

OARTHOUTH COLLEGE

3046

id

IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF

7294

91

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

2977

42

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

7260

92

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

2944

43

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

7013

93

NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHCAROLINA AT RALEIGH

2906

44

BROWN UNIVERSITY

6851

94

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

2904

45 MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF

6822

95

DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF

2885

46. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

6755

96

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

2075

47 'OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF

6681

97

LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF

2025

48 'VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

6345

98

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

2820

49

KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF

6312

99

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

2760.

50. TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF

6258

100

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

2718

TABLE 1.2

ACCREDITiO DEGREE GRANTING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RANK ORDERED BY

EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL INCOME

-

ACADEMIC YEAR 1962.1963

RANK

INSTITUTION

..

.

1ILLINOISI UNIVERSITY OF

'

.2

CORNELL.UNIVERSITY

MINNESOTAF.UNIVERSITY OF

4PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITYOF


6NEW YORKUNIVERSITY

.

'

7TEXAWUNIVERSITY OF

-

8CALIFORNIA', UNIVERSITY1OF BERKELEY

9NARVARO UNIVERSITY...-.

'"

10

WISCONSIN, UNlyEROTy OF

11

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

12' COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'.

13

CALIFORNIAVUNIVERSITY OF

LOS ANGELES

.14

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE 'UNIVERSITY

IS

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

'

-16

PRINCOTONANIVERSITY'.

.

MISSOURI. .:11yERSITY:OR

-

18

HICHIG2S y, s-,UNIvERSITY

IN

FLORIDA,'-UNioAsITY OF

WuRoUE uNIVERI1TY

21

INDIANA UNIVERSITY::''

22

WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF

23' YAlE UNIVERSITY'

24

IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF

-

25' MARYLAND,'UNIVERSITY OF

26

TENNESSEE,'UNIVERSITY. OF

27: RUTGERS

THE STATE UNIVERSITY,

28 LOUISIANA 'STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

29


KENTUCKYZANIVERSITY OF.

31

COLORADN.UNIVERSITY.OF'

32 - PITTSBURGH, -UNIVERSITY OF -

31 :NORTH'CAROLINA'STATE OR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

04'.PUERTO'RIC0,-1INIVERSITY.OF

35

ROCHESTERs'UNIVERSITY OF'

36

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY..

37

NORTH'CAROLINAiUNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILL

38

V1RGINIA,,UNIVERSITYOF

'

.

39

CRICAGO-IRE UNIVERSITY uw.

40

NEORASKWUNIVERSITY OF

.AI

GEORGIWTHE UNIVERSITY OF

42

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

43

WASHINGTON .STATE UNIVERSITY

44

ARIZONA, THE'UNIVERSITY

45

10WA.STATE,UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

46

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSTI/ OF

47

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'

"'.

.

48

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE ANO APPLIED SCIENCE

49


50

MASSACHUSEETS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

COLLARS

061,ftd4

107666

70761

69781

65361

58630

5725/

5526B

55095

54824

50861

49060

45563

45100

44701

41352

43021

41837

41247

40810

39706

39176

38111

34370

32765

32656

30872

28314

27525

27309

26828

26131

26092

25584

2556/

25513

24175

23383

22426

22375

223/0

22020

21916

21599

21525

20631

20589

20571

19769

19460

19332

RANK

INSTITUTION

II

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

52


51

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

54

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

OAVIS

55


56

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

57

TULANE UNIVERSITY

,

58

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

59

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

THE CITY COLLEGE

60

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

61

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

62


63

OUKE UNIVERSITY

'

64


65

UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF

66

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MEDICAL CIR.

67

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - HUNTER COLLEGE

68


69

MANI, UNIVERSITY OF,

70

SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE

71


72

CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF

73

ALABAMA, UNIVERS/TY OF

14

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

75

NOTRE OAHE, UNIVERSITY OF

76

MASSACHUSETTS, UNIVERSITY OF

77


70

ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF

19


BROOKLYN COLLEGE

80


81

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

82

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

83

OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF

(1

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

85

CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES

86

BROWN UNIVERSITY

87

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

80

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE

89

VANOERBILT UNIVERSITY

90

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW 'YORK -

91

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

92

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

93

SAN FRANCISCO STATE COLLEGE

94

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

95

ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY

96

SAN DIEGO STATE COLLEGE

97

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE

98


99

OHIO UNIVERSITY

100

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

BUFFALO.

VR

AM

PRol

rozp

vwv,

,,,

DOLLARS

(thousands)

18436

18363

1811Ii

1804T

HOOD

17978

17185

17489

17357

17210

16711

16700

16586

16305

16256

16159

15599

15374

15261

15156

14972

14552

14544

14241

14125

13971

13889

13472

13317

13265

13046

12719

12627

12303

11970

11948

11815

11780

11502

11432

11371

11311

11237

11200

10904

10806

10867

10649

10407

9887

- iNsTiTuTtots

1 : ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF

..

..

.

v

2 '100104/1,--TNE-uNIVERSIWOF

(10119RESOTAI.UNIVERSITy Of

v.

'4

CORNESL UNIVERSITY

.

casumoIRuNIVERSTTY

EIIRNIW UNIVERSITY OF

'

-6

HINSYLVARD'UNIVERSITY

:F

-

.1:1L\CA IFORNTAtONIVERSITY.0DERKELEY

.

-'91;NEM,YORKTNIVERSII7'''

-

.:19.14EKAS,"WilyeRsme OF

, 11_, STANFORO'uNIVERSity-

12

WISCONSIN, uNIYERSITY OF ..

18-18LIFININIAiTUNIVERsITy.OF

LOS.6051ES

-

14 AHCONIO.STRIg'UNIVERSITY

-

'1$ 'MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

16

MASNINGTOW UNIORSITY 00

'

- 17 ,VACEVOVERstre

';PRINSETON'UNIVER8i8v!-;

V

19 %THE. PENNSYLVRNIA'STAT(UNIVERSITY

.

20

FLOR1044"UNIVERSIO. OF-

21 "luotANA-UNIVEAsiTy

22 : OuROUE,U611yERSITY

23 '$1010411 STATE uNsvERSiTy

-

84

- NISSOURI4'TINIVERSIll'Of'

Iv21,:CHICAGOOWUNIVERSITY OF

v26'::MARYLARDn',UNIVERSITY OF

.27 ! 1064.UNIVERSITY OF:

.-

28 4PITTSOURGNIUNIVERSITV;00

29 AlotHESTEROJNivERSITY OF

v.

'iTo-toloRmOi.uNiVERSITY oF

31 -..TENNEISEEiJINIVERsITY.OF

32 '.'JOHNO1OPKINS UNIVERSITY

.'

33 :TNORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY'

.vv.".

-

34

RUTGERS "..THE STATE UNIVERSITY

.

.18

tioRTH-CRITOL NREANIVERsiTy.OF AT CHAPEL HILL

TAIILE 64.

ACCREUITED DESIRE GRANTING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RANK ORDERED 611

RESEARCH MO EDUCATIONAL DIME

,ACADEWC YEAR IthCLHNT

DClCARS

RANK

(tholoonds)

INSTITUTION -

116454

.11

-


-

-52


53 ,WASHINGION STATE UNIVERSITY

UTAH

UNIVERSITY OF

55

KANSAS.LUNIVERSITY OF

56

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

'

57

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY 00 AGRICULTURE AND APPLIE0 SCIENCE

58

WESTERN RESERVE-UNIVERSITY

59


60

NIAMI, UNIVERSITYTIF

61

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. v'

62

'TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

63


64 V GEOROE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

v 65

CALIPORNIAI-UNIVERSITY OF- SAN FRANCISCO NEDICAL.CTR.

66

ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF

67 "'OREGON, UNIVERSITY 00

v 68 'CINCINNATI., UNIVERSITY OF

69

KANSAS STATE-UNIVERSITY

v TO' VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

71 ' BROWN UNIVERSITY

'

72

HAWAII, UNIVERSITy OF

'73

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

74

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE 06 TECHNOLOGY

75 V THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

THE CITY COLLEGE

VANDERBILT'UNIVERSITY

v TT' ARKANSAS, UNIVEREITY OF

78

FLORIOA STATE UNIVERSITY

-

79

COLORA00 STATE UNIVERSITY

v

To

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY

.

81

CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OP

.,

.82

NOTRE OAHE, UNIVERSITY. OF

63 "OKLAHONWUNIVERSIITIOP

84 -CALIFORNIWUNIVERSITY OF - SAN DIEGO

85. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

V

-

86 THE CITY UNIVERSITY OP NEW YORK

HUNTER COLLEGE

87 'MASSACHUSETTS,' UNIVERSITY OF

-BB .' SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE

:.

89

STATE UNIVERSITY-OF NEW YORK - BUFFALO .

90.- OARTHOUTH. COLLEGE

'

91- MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

,92, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

93

- UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

" 94

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL ANO MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY

95

HOWARO UNIVERSITY

96


97 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

9B

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

V.

99

EMORY UNIVERSITY

,100


.

95426

15747

,91201

.' 88093

8607 5

86070

84456

77114

73118

72290

71201

64296

62943

61693

. 59474

53850

53403

51961

49008

.49056

48971

47431

4/339

47043

45505

40059

39917

38605

37tO4

31,30

36875

35354

34359

33881

,36

KENTUCKY,,U IVERSITY OP

.-33140

37 AOUISIANA'STATE UNIVERSITY AND

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

33009

38 --WAYNE STATE'UNIVERS1TY'

''

32019

39 'MATO RICO, UNIVERSITY 00

''

29550

40 'WASHINGTOW.UNIOKSIIY

-29512

41

somERN CRLIFORNIActINNERsiTy OF

29316

42 AIORTH CAROLIMkSTATE'OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

28490

43' OUKE UNIVERSITY

'

28323

'

44 'VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF

27675

45 =SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY v..'

V

27644

CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY Of - OAVIS

V

26522

47

ARIZONA, THE UNIVERSITY 00

26468

40


V

V

V

26244

40

TULANE UNIVERSITY

V

21789

50

GEORGIA. THE UNIVERSITY OP

25352

DOCLARS

(thousands)

25214

24949

24176

24553

24512

23869

23146

23026

22688

22083

21960

21501

21143

21072

20896

20719

20349

19685

,

19023

18949

18799

18706

18595

18176

17933

1780

17208

17151

16833

16749

16608

16654

16425

: 16324

16169

15956

15916

11761

15454

14026

14511

13737

13469

13197

13193

12955

12199

12343

12318

12314

-

5AN4

,lisTITuTion

AINNESOTF

UNIVERSITY Of.

2 MOWN. UNIVERSITY OF'.

3.::ILLIN018.,UNIVE8SITY OF

.4 ^ NEM YORK UNIVERSITY

5INOIANANNIVERSITY -,

6r,THE,0HI0 STATE UNIVERSITY -.

.

7 ',THErCTIV UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

THE EITYCOLLEGE

,,NIENIVAIWYNE-uNIVERSily.op

9 , MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY r

-

10, MARY1A400:11NIVERSITY OF.

11 .RUIGERS4,TNELSTATE UNIVERSITY

12 ;L.CALIFORNIA4UNIVERSITY OF BEAKELEY

o0I,uM414 UNIVERSITY

-

14

WASHINGTON.' UNIVERSITY'OF

1$ jERAS.' UNIVERSITY. Of

-

16'..11ISSOURIIANIVERSITT OF

Irr PURDUE UNIVERSITY:

:

10,. PUERTO.RICO, UNIVERSITY OF

19' WAYNE'STATE UNIVERSITY: r

20' TEMPLE LINIVERSITY

21'1THE CITY. UNIVERSITV.OF NEWYORK - HUNTER COLLEGE

22. SAN 49SE STATE COLLEGE

.

23:THE CIITTINIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - BROOKLYN COLLEGE

24

CINGINNATI4 UNIVERSITY OF

23' CALIFORNIAYANIVERSITY OF7 LOS:ANGELES

SYRACUSE'UNIVERSITIY

21-:THE FENNSYLVANIA.STATE uNIVERsiTy

20: NORTHEASTERN INTIVERSITY-.

29, BOSTON UNIVERSITY,-

.30;COLORA00.3INIVERSITY'OF;

CALIFORWIA.STATE:,yoLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES

.32 ! SOUTHERN c4LIFORNIAi UNIVERSITY OF

33 %PENNSYLVANIA-, UNIVERSITY OF

34! LOUISIANKSTATE'UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL ANO NECHBNic4L

35t TENNESSEGANIVERSITY OF, .

36

TEXAs:BGAICULTuRALLAND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY

37: SAN FRANCISCO,STATE COLLEGE

'

38' SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY .

' 39

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

-

40

ARIZONA.INE UNIVERSITY.Of

41 ,FAIRLETWOILKINsON UNIVERSITY

.

42 -STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - BUFFALO

43, ARIZONA:STATE UNIVERSITY' r.

44

SAN DIEGO STATE'COLLEOE

:

45

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.

'

:46' RIARAMACUNIVERSITY OF

47

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

-

44 .000000 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

49

PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF

,SO

OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF

TABLE 04

ACCREDITEODEGREIGRAMTINGEDUCATIONALINITITUTIONIRANKORDEREDRY

TOTAL IOUTOLIMENT

ACADLIRC YEAR 1982.1%)

47):

:

COLLEGE

ENROLLMENT

45049,-

35291

33956

93232

.

31501

RANK

INSTITUTION

' 131113LIAIE4T

.

51

FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF

11826

52

HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF

11665

$3

HARVARO UNIVERSITY ..

13646

54

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - QUEENS COLLEGE

01642

55

UTAH. UNIVERSITY OF

11440

30500L.

56. OHIO UNIVERSITY

13422

10307..

57


13352

10152

56 4044NECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF

130/0

10026

59

VIROINIA. UNEVRRITY

OF

12891

25361

60

LONO BEACH STATE COLLEGE

12145

11149'.

61

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

12681

'

29092

62

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

12591'

14000

63

NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

12529

23906

64


12247

23747

65

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE ANO APPLIED SCIENCE

12109

23204

66

IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF

12114

22316

67

MUNI, UNIVERSITY OF

12053

21454

68

51614I UNIVERSITY

11000

20036

69

ST. JOHN'S-UNIVERSITY

11194

20690

TO


IIST,

20551

71


11414

20354

72

KENTUCKY; UNIVERSITY OF

11242

20314

73

TEKAS'TECHNOLOOICAL COLLEGE

11181

20261

74,

IOWA STATE'UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE ANO TECHNOLOGY

10881'

20109

15

NORTH.TEXASSTATE UNIVERSITY

10651.

19078

76


104454

19706

71

NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILL

1051/

19664

70

LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY

10438

19589

79


10401

19557

80 FLOMOA STATE UNIVERSITY

10391

10557

01

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY

10354

18477

82

DETROIT. UNIVERSITY OF

10145

15347

83


100711'

18338

84


10026

17394

05

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

9934-

17216

06

NQRTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

9163

17014

87 -WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

9365

,1EA4s

88

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

'

9351

16636

:89

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE

9297

16275

'

O .SACRAMENTO STATE-COLLEGE

9211

10101

THE ANERICAN UNIVERSITY

9181

15714

92

OE PAUL UNIVERSITY

9147.

1545s.

93

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

9087

14661

94


9041

14602

.

95

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY STATE'COLLEGE

9045

14477

96

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

8982

14455

97

FORMAN UNIVERSITY

8951

14031.

90


909

13930

'

99

BOSTON COLLEGE

8902

13920

,I00

FRESNO STATE COLLEGE

8663

11K

OS1

0611

1.11

1.11

141.

91.1

.011

.

TABLE 11.3

ACCREDITED DEGREE OR.UITING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RANK ORDERED BY

ENROLLMENT FOR GRADUATEsu

ms;

ACADEMIC YEAR 1962.1163

.

ENROLLMENT

RANK

RANK

.

',INSTITUTION

..

.

E. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,

2 .,COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

3 JIICHIGAN, THE UNIVERSITY OF

.

4.'5011111ERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

_S., CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY, OF -.BERKELEY

6.. MINNESOTA,. UNIVERSITY_OF

-2

7.

WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF

8... CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

LOS ANGELES

.9

PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF

10 ,,ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF

it .TERPLE UNIVERSITY._

.

12' MARYLANDIANIVERSITT,OF

12 -THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

' 14, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

'.

15.

RUTGERS ,-..THE'STATE UNIVERSITY

16

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

17

PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY.OF

.18

ITIOIANA UNIVERSITY

.

19. tALIFORNIA STATE'COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES

,20 HAIWARD UNIVERSITY. ,

:

21, .THE.C1TY UNIVERSITY OFNEW YORK.7 THE CITY COLLEGE

22

. WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF

23, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

24 ATANFORD UNIVERSITY

.25.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY-

26


27 -MISSOURI,- UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO,..THE UNIVERSITY OF

29 . SYRACUSEVIIVERSITY

... 30.

TERASI.UNIVERSITY .OF

..11.:,POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF BROOKLYN

. 32. CORNELL'UNIVERSM.

33'. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

34. ,:liESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

%.35.

IOWAiUNIVERSITY OF

36 'YALE'UNIVERSITY

,

37...EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

.38 THE:PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY

,39

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

,40.,.THE,CITY..UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - HUNTER COLLEGE

'41-..THE,CATHEILIC.UNIVERSITY. OF AMERICA

42 'UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF'

.

- 41 , HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY -

44 ,JIASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

45 !STATEANIVERSITY.OF NEW YORK

BUFFALO

,46 'FLORIOA UNIVERSITY OF

41 . COLORA00, UNIVERSITY OF

.48' LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

49

sr.JOHN'S UNIVERSITY

:50


BROOKLYN COLLEGE

INSTITUTICR"

12040

. .51


In?

52


-53


7035

54

SAN FRANCISCO STATE COLLEGE

6022

55


6010

56

SAINULOUIS UNIVERSITY

9055

57

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

58 .SAN OIEGO STATE COLLEGE

5505

5449

59 -SEION HALL UNIVERSITY

5325

60

TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF

5069

-

61

CONNECTICUT,INIVERSITY OF

62


nn

63


,7:

65


'

.64

FOROHAN UNIVERSITY

3903

,. 66


3729

67

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

3694

60

DREXEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

-69


TB

70

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

3493

.71

ALABAMA,' UNIVERSITY EIF

re t

:73

LONG BEACH STATE COLLEGE

-.

.T2


3200

74


3099

75

XAVIER UNIVERSITY

2892

-

76

NEW MEXICO, THE UNIVERSITY OF

2890

.77

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE

22141

ROCHESTER, UNIVERSITY OF

79

BOSTON COLLEGE

2735

80

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

2690

01

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

264$

82

NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY

2637

83


2606

_84

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

2558

85

BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

g86

DETROIT, UNIVERSITY OF

n2301

88

SANTA CLARA, UNIVERSITY OF

87

HARTFORO, UNIVERSITY OF

2263

89

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY STATE COLLEGE

2255

90

HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF

2202

91

ADELPHI UNIVERSITY

- 92

0E-PAUL UNIVERSITY

2214:

. 93

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY

-

2001

94


95

NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

AT RALEIGH

.1g:

2065

98


_Igl

96

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

,

-

.

114$

97

STATE COLLEGE AT BRIOGEWATER

2002

19116

100

TULANE UNIVERSITY

1095

99


1110

ENROLLMENT

1914

1913

1902

1891

1878

1812

1290

1772

1127

1694

16811

1660

1639

1565

t551

1551

1494

1454

1452

1444

1436

1426

1426

1408

1400

1376

1369

1150

5327

1318

1310

1301

1295

1280

12E0

1259

1252

1239

1239

1234

1224

1198

1187

RANK.

moutoaeosutoRstaRANTINoialioRytoNALmiTinroo;PRANE ORDERED AY

GOTAUTIIIIIIIRLIDLOATIARINf(HUGHEMAIWTOTT

ALOAD88AVEARM$53

INSTITUTION

1810FUNITS

1ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF


3CALIFORNIA, UNITASITY OF -BERKELEY

4PURDUE UNIVERSITY

MEW YORK UNIVERSITY

ANISONSIN, UNIVERSITY GE

IMINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF

8THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

9COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

10

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

11

MAI, UNIVERSITY OP

12

MISSOURI, UNIVERSITY OF

13

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

14

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

IS

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF . LOS ANEElfl

14

NASHIN000N. UNIVERSITY OF

I/

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

-

IS

IRE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

19

PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF:

20

NICHIGAN STATUUNIVERSITY

21

TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF

2A


23

INOIANA UNIVERSITY

1A

IONA STATI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND IONNOLOGY

. 25

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF'

'

26

MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF

IT

IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF

21

CHICAGO, THE UNIVERSITY OF

21


30

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND NECHANICAL COLLEGE


IHE MY COLLEGE

RUTGERS-.. THE STATE UNIVERSITY

53

YALE UNIVERSITY

3k

OKLAHONA STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE

93

COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF

.

I6

FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF

31


18 NALAHONA, UNIVERSITY OF

19


40

TEM9LE UNIVERSITY

.

41

'NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

42 NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF

43


44


43

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY.

46


47


48


49


50

UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF

RA

NK

'

;INSTITUTION

IOREGOWAINIVEASITTICIF

LARINCETON'ONIVERAITY

TUFTS UNV40410

SONCINHATI4 UNIVERAITIOF

'PUNT louIS,ONIMMINY

*DIRE -DANE, 014fRAITY,M

ALABAMAJ AMMVERSITY !OF

PU

KEJONIV$8110

POSTON WRINERSJYY

POLYTECHNIC ONSTINUTEDDF SIROOMLIN

MOUSE THIIIIRSTIN

JOHNS HOPAINS VNIVERSJTV

VIRGINIA PALVIECHNIC TOWNIE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF HEW YOU

BUFFALO

HOWARD UNIVERSIEY

GEORDEIONN UNITE/110

GEORGE MAIHINGION 110110610

ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY Of

ARIZONA, IHE UNIVERSITY Of



INE CITY uNITERTITY PE NEW YORK

RBOONLVII COLLEGE

TAYLOR UNIVERSITY

AMNESIC*, UNIVERSITY OF

NEBEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY'

WEST,VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

GEORGIA, THE-UNIVERSITY OF

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY




TULANE UNIVERSITY


WASHINGTON STAIR UNIVERSITY

ENORY UNIVERSITY

PUERTO RICO, UNIVERSITY OF

LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY oF


DAVIS

VIRGINIA, MEDICAL COLLEGE OF


OETROIT, UNIVERSITY OF

COLORADO STAIE UNIVERSITY

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK . HUNKER COLLEGE

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

MANI, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF- SAN FRANCISCO MEDICAL CIR.

CALIFORNIA IHITIIUTE OF TECHNOLOGY


VANBERBILT UNIVERSITY

6S1903

Alt

11

4848

44

1:

114

4;

9442/

$6

MI

0 41

360

00

59

019

AD

61

310

VA

AS

62

$4

12!

111;

66

6$66

61

69

2529

/1110

2658

2301

12

2226

1

2127

62113

0LT

//

/6

iiii190 80

1:6;

81et

1868

01851

011::

85

86

1599

87

1591

OE

146

89

AO

1539

91

1522

91

1416

93

1407

94

11:12)

960

1359

97

1356

98

TOD90

11:1

A T DP UNITS

1216

1264

1246

1246

1244

1239

1237

1221

1212

1204

1196

1101

1180

1162

1131

1119

1114

1114

1096

1093

1091

1090

1054

1046

1041

1038

1021

1023

102)

1012

1005

1001

916

966

960

919

931

926

921

911

90/

896

$61

AO

859

058

856

021

BO)

TU11,1) -

41011/1/11144110.0110

1900

4110

00*unman

1111

0101

114

4000

0441

.010

1111

0103

1001

/114

1011

4110

444

MO

W 0

104

1111

1111

.;110.4

,11111101104

I11118011. 001 $$$$$ OF

/ C11114440, uNlvg41111

Of.11141611

:.:atirovAixrittlii:114.,,,,,..,.,

ly1001

11141111

,

111001. HI 1111E111/F

01414414016

14011110

OF

00118016

IA14600

It

11141111 ?41;1111104"11"

12

H1CA

1IN

y4.1111111 OF

11

Ovi 4 ATI 0014010

011411401 240 1104401040

14

401041111 . V411111110 of - 401 444111$

II

00141114

10111111111

14 MI. (161 041114 III

11

1112$1 4.4141411 V Of

410 81440411414 VA11 01110111

.

0/ 0041101 D44141117

0111011614 11111 011141111

,tt

A

MIL1141101. UMtV161114 Of

.',

11 4001011144 4N1v104111

'

140110 014111110

,-

4111, 4411410111! oF

14

i011000111 141111111 Of 11040400.4

'

II

iitttlAtrIZI1111r0 OF

I: 100 1ANA It

14101410v AN0 A410%1040 uto 1.1011.101 0011161

It4t11:0;;114141:1141.11""1"

11

4111 100. 00111 11111 Of

;1

Or 0 1"111

gtAlttOtt,Itt111:11141100104001

UTAH. U411141 10

1

11,

18

3.1100101i1. OM y11111T

OF

4 0

1111

px,,,

,,,,,,

,,,ti:

:/11,

,g, t

tttt O

F II

011

101$

HIL

L

:iItt

1111

1141

Z14

1111

tiOf

11

4411 4

1411

10114 Iitry

.

404

401

1101

18k

1I

IP imi 041414111, Of 4040i 0A101140 41 11111184

44

114411:111

V41041111 OF

'

44

4m/0 44

1111001A. 1.001140111 Of

44

041/

11A

1111 01,14$111 oF A44104101 00 A111110 01140

41

1014

4.4100118

41

NA 11411011 0111111110,

41

50

til11,104.11t41:4;11111 OF 110041.14

Pi

021

0144 01114 t 1 Of

10 0

4440

1,1000 Ify OF

IS 401001 18.14144101

!!t[tAl

1111111.10.41

IND 1.1018104 V40111111

1111 IN 11011

Of1E0004041

4110141 o 1/411111111 Of

,II

Ill NO 1 14111901 Of 1100.0400

St

A191111114

1.04011[1.110

1410

1101

0

$1

801 t

km, U41110111 OF

40

0101

1104

1/101 0410111111

it 4101

S1411

IA

41

4010

140

14 1111111

6$

toll 01101 C 400111011 uf 2414121

-

44

4141114 A1 1411.041011100

.64

011114.4

181 m0111111

0164

4111

414411. 441011111v OF

40 1011 141011 Stoat 041101111!

41 1401114121 041

10

104111 11401.0 IV

48 410161A

11110111

OF 1100.1.400

11

0114041 041114 111 of

1/ 00441111011 04 ttttt 111 Of

11

111104 001111111

14 41044110N 0411141111

ti ItilAtNtItlINUPItt:111:10011111

14

NA

404.41111. 10100111 OF

14

IAINt 40u1s 11410044111

/I

110.1011. tot 0410144110

Of

10 .0

1111

11111 0111114110

010111

4144

1411

1111

110N

41

$1111 01111110OfIII 4044

SufFlio

II

1.14101 011111111

61 010101, 0410E14111 OF

11

01141112 10,1110004 111111101

if

4040111 ..41

4£411044, 041411111! OF

14A1180016 01,114114 07- 14,1 14041100 4101011 " 11 ,

41

0010

440

11411 v411141110 '

41

K4800411, U411111110 OP

00

410141

1141

0111

4101

1

u%10111010

11

101 44111

10 0

0101

1111

111

1101

1101 . 101

0110111110

Of

471110144

4s1 1011 of rep...0104V

14

114111011 II

41111011

11

118111

0y1111111

06

44441 . m41(141111 OF

ft

Nto 1 014.

404

SOCIAL 011111100

fa

01011 4010110111

11

100110041. 041114101 Of

100

.141. 40004104. 44100410 07

101

1111

044

U111111111

III

117

/02

211

111

211

111

100

10/

200

111

141

144

111

111

141

117

312 Ill 121

111

1.11

100

III

1441A111,

ullitt

ir

0110

)11

.411

1110

01 II

I41

1 14

1720

1. 0

00 0

111,

ttttt

t 111

114

II

111

1101

44,41011 If

104 AIM:,

1,411141

07 OP

:1

166

1011

411100 11 It 01011110,

14

41

1:11

NOICItit404.141411114Of

101

1011

Ifil V

1471

1II/

110

101104

11011101

11

III

1401144

1111 0011141

11

11/

1004 014

C141161

14

111

404.410. 0410141114 OF

It/I

114

100(04

4.010$10

III

1111111111 . u411(01111 Of

71

114

11SH114,

1/0

0111111

66

III10

1111

1142

, 401

/111

1111

0/

4/I 1

tttttt

1011

1101014 0011161

41

111

10114 041011 41111 COL(141

Of£1610ottuat 40 01004810 $411

62

1 0

114141 81111001 001i461

F04

11400141

41

16

III

tt0;11X1:*"1: t"11111"

14 $4

111

801440 01111411

116

1010

0144

111

1 017111117

II

121 0408. 11.1 y411111111 OP

11

114 10

0111

100

1141

0040

1041

40044461

St

112

11161416 01061 0012161

0/It

111

411414 1114141110

II

114

1141401414 ; 9411111111 Of

111

0114

0S

I1 0

4114111100 IthIl U414111110

00

41

111

08411 U411111111

46 41

1 1

0101

1111

,14

U11011101 OF

III

00110

011141114

116

14101 allot 440 01411111T

11

III

11011 0110111rOf410

YO

U 4

OM

100104 0111111,

44

41

116

1101 110804011011 0141044

41

01

0414

040

IMO

ON

1411

111,

41

10

2111046 81111 94 0114 :,

114 0010A, 00111 II 0

11

140 41111 0411111111 OF 411

1044

4 0ttttt t N401004 014111

11

11

141

0001141

IA10111111

16

IS

14

211141. V4111ttt

tt O

F1

041.

1110

1111

, 1/1

1111

1111

Of

1111

111D

140

1104111111 101,1111441C 1011101

44

144

4011H 00014 11211 441011100

Of

1641

1141

01 0

.1 A

7711

1014

1111

1114

14

11

141

L141:11,11411igt11114/1;1040111 00 1011411

41

slyfx 1A1.04144.

4101

111

001.

1141

OF

ll

141

0144041, 11100111111, 10

10

110

0010

4100

IOW

IF 808E1

1020

20

2/

III

01141. UN

tttttttt

Of

11 tbitt

111M

011

1044 141111111

11

10314111 40111 100. 4 41011011 Of

14

811 114100 14111101 Of

1114

11400 11000104v

It

111 Miiirillt014" "1" tt to

111

OH

IO u

m:7

7115

ov

1:1

tri1:1104141gilriii41:11111:1

It 14 14

Kum SS II

'TABLE

_ _

ACCREDIT ED DEGREE ORANTING EDUCATIONAL

114I

TIT

UT

iON

S 1

5.11

K O

RD

ER

ED

IlY

NAST ER'S DEGREES IN SCIENCE

MID

EN GIHIERING

READENIC.YEAR

191

1191

3

RANK

INSTITUTION

1ILLINOiSi UNIVERSITY OF

2MICHIONI.THE UNIVERSIrt OF

1NEW VORK UNIVERSITY

1

4PURDUE UNIVERSITY

S' CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF -BERKELEY

6MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Of TECHNOLOGY

T.

STANFORO:UNIVER1ITY

'

COLUMBIA UNITS ITY: '

9wITEOWS/Wi.UNIV ASITY-OF

10

CALIFORNIAi UNIVERSITY Ot . LOS ANGELES

11

MICHIGAN. STATE

UkIVERSilIV

11

NISSOURIv

WONIVERSIO

10

THE 0111011ATE UNIVERS TY

:

14: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAicUNIVERSITY OF

15' NINNEBOTAi.UNIVERSITY'OB

16. wAsNINGTON, UE1E114111,40

IT

PENNSYLVANIAl'UNIVERSITY OF

16

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

19 'OKLAHOMA STATE uNmftsip op AGRICULTURE AND APPLIEO SCIENCE

PO

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

21

HARVARD TINIVER511y

22

CHICAGO, THE'UNIVERSITY OF

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC:INSTITUTE

24

gillms sTAfelowoRAITy

45

YAL6 UNIVERSITY:

24

RUTGERS --'.TNE sTATB UNIVERSITY

27

POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF BADORLYN

26'

TERAWUNIYEREITY1F

29

coLoRADO, uNiveRsi Y OF'

'

30; IOWA STATE UNIYEAS TY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLO6Y

31' miNts$66.'uNlyEREITy OF

'

STEVOS'INSTITUTE OF Tgomm0009

3j, OKLAHOPIWUNIVERSIIT'OF

54;, LopimmA sporuNIVERSITY ANO AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

TS. THUM U9flTOC110.0T New opt - THE CITY COLLEGE

36f1 NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

37) NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

35

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

OREGON.ITATE UNIVERSITY 2

:

40, 10MR, UNIVERSITY:OF,

41 \.FLORIOA1 UNIVERSITY OF

'

42 IIREKEL:INSTITUTE:OF TECHNOLOGY

931911ONAt. THE UNIVEASIty op

44

AN As, umiyedirif OP

49. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

46 NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF

47 -NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

48

IENAS AGRICULTURAL ANO NECHANICAL UNIVERSITY

49


50

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

DEOREES

RANK

77i

SI

759

52

722

$3

671

54

666

55

614

56

591

57

569

58

530

59

394

60

36$

61

35T

62

360

63

342

64

331

65

311

66

294

67

266

68

244

69 '

27/

TO

271

71

26/

72

241

73

224

14

231

75

22$

76

221

77

216

TB

211

79

210

80

210

81

2418

02

206.

83

204

84

201,

85

194

06

19$

d7

192

88

I92

69

118

96

187

91

161

92

164

93

171

94

178

95

176

96

175

97

170

98

143

99

152

100

' INSTITUTION





SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY


MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF


VIROINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

FOROHAN UNIVERSITY

CALIFORNIA INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY



BOSTON UNIVERSITY

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA





NEW MEXICO, THE UNIVERSITY OF




OAVIS


NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AI CHAPEL HILL

WYOMING. UNIVERSITY OF

NEWARK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING


kW HAMPSHIRE,'

OF

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

CASE INSTITUTE

TECHNOLOGY



ROCHESTER, UNIVERSITY OF

ADELPHI UNIVERSITY

UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF

'






10AHO, UNIVERSITY OF


DETROIT, UNIVERSITY OF

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY


AUBURN UNIVERSITY

'

MISSISSIPPI, UNIVERSITY OF

DELAWARE, UNIVERSITY OF

VILLANOVA UNIYERSITY

,,,00

1000

DEGREES

144

143

140

119

139

138

137

136

136

128

127

12/

127

124

120

120

1%9

11$

118

118

115

111

111

109

104

105

105

102

102

101

100

100

1009191

9$

97 NI

95

949590

90

9088

06

8164II

RA

NK

INS

TIT

UT

ION

ICALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF -BERKELEY'

2ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF

1 .PURDOE UNIVERSITY

4MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF

.$

WISCONSIN; UNIVERSITY OF

6THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

7MICHIGANi THE UNIVEASITY OF

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEN YORK

THE CITY COLLEGE

-9 ASSOWUNIVERSITY OF

I MA ,UNIVERSITY'OF-

'

0

CALIIORNIAi.UNIVERSITY

OF - LOS ANGELES

2MASH NOTONVUNIVERSITY OF

3 IHE'0100 SI410 UNIVERSITY

4H1OHIOAN sloe UNIVERSITY

YERSITY.OF NEW YORK - BROOKLYN COLLEGE

6 '.

ORNELL UNI

'

/ lUTOIR '-t' HE STATE UNIVERSITY

IOWA I

'Te urOvERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

9 440110

ROLINA STATE OP THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

0NEW YORK UNlyERSITY

If

STANFORD UN VEASITy

It 'FLORIDW

UNIvERssTy

OF

I) 'ONLAHONAll TR uNIVERsiTy of AGRICULTURE AND AFKIE0 SCIENCE

24 INE'CITY IINIVERSITY00 NEN YoRR - HUNTER COLLEGE

Is .HARVARD uNtvERSITY

26 -VIRGINIA OLVTECNNIC INSTITUTE

IT ,WSACHUsETTS INSTITUTE Or TECHNOLOGY

101

cALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE

COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF'

9 MONA IIIIIVERSITy

,

13'-:::::::::CcuiLluu4R1::::::HAN;cAL

uNlyERsITY

1 2 -MARy4ANOi

UNI1SITY

oF

'

4 -PS600411411 UN VERSITY

TS ,TENNESsEE, uptivERSIly qF

36 'OEORDIAANSTITUTVOF TECHNOLOOY

ST

NOTRE_OAKE, uNIVERsITY'op

I _LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AN0 AGRICuLTuRAL ANO MECHANICAL COLLEGE

$9

SAN-JOSE STATE COLLEOE

.

40 UTAIWUNIVERsITY OF

41 'FITTSOUROH, UNIvERsITY bF

-

42 'OREMEL'INSTITuTE OF TECHNOLOGY

43 'TEM TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE

44 'MASSACHUSETTS, uNtvERSITY oF

45

RENsTEAAER.11(011cHNIC INSTITUTE

,46

IOWA, UNIvERSITy OF

47

CONNECTICUT, UNITERstly OF'

48

WAyNE STATE UNIVERSITY

49

FAIRLEIGH OICKINSON UNIVERSITY

SO

NORTHWESTERN UNIHRSIty

AIL1

ACCREDIT ID 010111 OR ANTIMO EDUCATIONAL IINTITUTIOITS RAM 01DIRED SY

SADIELOR'S DEGRIEs IN MIMI AND

IHO

IHIIB

IHO

ACADEMIE YEAR ITIMINT

0100113

RANK

1111

St51

SI

1110

54 SS

1114ii

16

$7

1416

SI

1301

19

160

1.11

6162

tOre

IN1

AS

Iiii64

65

66

920

67

162

66

0$6

09

826

70

421

71

117

72

01)

7)

711

/4

770

75

141

76

739

//

.109

71

616

19

6/2

80

661

et

651

1/

631

13

618

84

AUT

ES

614

16

1/94

1/11

$96

19

041

90

56)

91

511

91

512

91

566

94

564

95

548

16

544

97

543

06

SO

99

128

100

INSTITUTION




SYBACUSE UNIVERSITY


'

PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES





BOSTON UNIVERSITY





INDIANA UNIVERSITY

AlASAMA, UNIVERSITY OF

YALE UNIVERSITY


NEWARK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING


MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF



POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF BROOKLYN

MANHATTAN COLLEGE

'

NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILI

OHIO UNIVERSITY


SAN OIEGO STATE COLLEGE

g1111114111111111" OF


MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF

80STON COLLEGE

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OP NEW YORK - OWENS COLLEGE



TUFTS UNIVERSITY

DUKE UNIVERSITY

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSI1Y OF

STATE UNIVERSI1Y OF NEW YORK - BUFFALO

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY





OEOREEG

52/

518

51/

500

SO9

SOO

506

506

502

493

491

4110

4/9

41$

4/6

468

464

462

461

460

451

447

447

446

4411

411

421

421

421

420

419

419

410

405

404

402

401

394

394

390

380

376

37,

3/6

364

354

351

342

341

=

=

= .

=

=

=

tabl

e 0-

1,-M

anpo

*r D

ynam

ics

of D

egre

e.G

rant

ing

Acc

redi

ted

Uni

vers

ities

and

Col

lege

s by

Inst

itutio

n C

lass

in A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

62-1

963

Enr

ollm

ent

R,1

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Tot

al-,

Gra

duat

eSS

eT D

PB

AM

APh

DD

VM

MD

DD

S

Gra

ndTend

..

.1,063

8,425,456

869,964

0.108

277,149

182,436

26,761

7,963

823

6,873

8,181

0.081

.169

Class A Total

,

1,701,687

263,699

..155

206,533

71,528

22,902

7,963

814

6,873

3,181

d21

Den

omin

atio

nal

,,

24

157,928

.22,016

.139

16,006

5,175

1,293

257

885

724

.101

Private

,, .

,,

52

413,830

97,627

236

63,598

17,672

.7,675

3,015

98

2,310

924

.154

Public

'.

93

1,129,929

144,056

.127

126,929

48,681

13,934

4,691

716

3,678

1,533

.112

Class B

Tot

al19

7875,843

.81,372

,093

38,967

29,259

3,859

09

00

.014

Den

omin

atio

nal

40115,010

11,991

.104

5,812

4,594

483

00

00

051

Priv

aie

4312

9,63

1.1

3,15

8.1

028,

966

6,44

099

90

90

0.0

69Pu

blic

,,

,,

114

631,202

156,223

.089

24,189

18,225

2,377

00

00

.038

Cla

ss C

Tot

al;

651

804,718

22,060

41

.027

31,649

31,649

00

0.039

Den

omin

atio

nal

4404

881,602

571'i

.014

17,266

17,266

00

00

0.045

Private

0121

156,331

3,749

.024

7,431

7,431

00

00

0.048

Publk

126

266,785

13,154

.049

6,952

6,952

00

00

0.026

Class

p T

otal

4643

,208

2,83

3,066

00

00

00

00

Den

omin

atio

nal

125,425.-

48

.009

00

00

00

00

:Private

IS

8,570.

514

.060

00

00

00

00

Public

2129,207

2,271

.078

00

00

00

00

B, =

Gra

duat

e st

uden

t enr

ollm

ent/t

otal

enr

ollm

ent.

Rs

= S

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

logy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity/to

tal e

nrol

lmen

t.

I

f

1

(

I

!

I

HI,

I

I

I

'Tab

le C

-2.-

Man

pow

er D

ynam

ics

of D

egre

e-G

rant

ing

Acc

redi

ted

Uni

vers

ities

and

Cob

/eve

s by

Inst

itutio

n C

lass

in A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

62-1

963

[Per

cent

]l

Enr

ollm

eni

Tot

alG

radu

ate

S&

TD

P1

Gra

nd T

otal

Cla

ss A

Tot

al..

...

......

....

Den

omin

atio

nal

Priv

ate

Pub

lic-,

......

. ..

;.1

,10

I'4

Cla

ss A

Tot

al,.;

..

....

penO

min

atio

nal

Priy

aie

6..

.

Futli

èda

is c

Tot

al: .

.. ; .

.. ..

......

..

;.

Pen

omin

atio

nal

Priy

a1e.

polW

.....

.....

.

Cla

ss D

Tot

al...

.. ...

....

Den

6Min

atiO

nal

..

PriV

ate

.pub

lie"

,.

,1)'

100.

010

0,0

100,

0

Sci

ence

and

Tet

hnol

ogy

MA

PhD

DV

MM

D'

DD

S"

100.

0'10

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

0

49.7

71.3

74,5

54,0

85.6

100.

098

.910

0.0

100,

0

12,1

'

33.0

25,6

6.0

26.4

88.9

22.0

3.6

22.9

45,8

14,1

3.8

18.4

.23.

5

3.2

3.6

15.2

6,0

2.1

3.2

8.7

11,4

'

3.9

4.8

3.2

18.3

23.7

.37

.936

.852

,1.

58,9

22.1

7--7

4747

. o.5

1.8

4.9

3.7

13.8

8.9

0

23.i1

11.9

87.0

ig.9

33.9

53.5 o

22.8

29.0

48.2

00

I Per

cent

det

ail m

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of r

ound

ing,

SW

DP

= S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

Y D

egre

e P

rodu

ctiv

ity.

Tab

le C

-3.-

Fed

eral

Age

ncy

Obl

igat

ions

for

Aca

dem

ic S

cien

ce b

y C

lass

and

Con

trol

of A

cade

mic

inst

itutio

ns

Pam

in th

ousa

nds]

CL

ASS

PEA

SD

OD

NA

SAA

EC

USP

HS

NS

FU

SOE

USD

AO

ther

Tot

al;1

,099

,481

$199

,400

:42,

122

;62,

244

;499

,527

$227

,328

;19,

680

$41,

697

$744

88Pe

rcen

t'10

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100,

010

0,0

100,

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

Cla

ss A

1,04

5,62

219

2,61

641

,542

61,2

6848

8,09

719

5,82

818

,120

40,9

017,

250

Perc

ent'

95.1

96.6

98.6

98.4

97.7

86.1

92.1

98.1

96.8

Cla

ss B

37,8

595,

833

428

730

8,06

219

,982

1,32

479

620

4Pe

rcen

t"3

.42.

91.

01.

21.

68,

86.

71.

92.

7C

lasS

C16

,306

909

152

246

3,32

511

,449

191

34Pe

rcen

t'13

030,

10.

40.

75.

11

.00

6:5

Cla

ss D

194

4243

6445

Perc

ent'

00

0.2

0

r3 C73

CO

NT

RO

L

Den

omin

atio

nal

67,1

409,

636

1,52

41,

068

41,1

8012

,909

778

53Pe

rcen

t'61

4 .8

3.6

1.7

8.3

5.7

4,0

00.

7Pr

ivat

e48

4,84

811

0,57

720

,783

29,8

3422

2,44

691

,238

6,57

496

32,

433

Per

cent

'44

.155

549

347

.944

.540

133

.423

32.5

Publ

ic54

7,48

579

,187

19,8

1581

,342

235,

901

123,

176

12,3

2840

,784

5,00

2Pe

rcen

t'49

,839

.747

.150

.447

.254

.262

,697

.766

.8

Perc

ent d

etai

l may

not

add

to 1

00 b

emus

e of

rou

ndin

g.

Table CCComparison of Federal Funds for Academic Science Datato Data Reported in Federal Funds for Research, Development

and Other Scientific Activities for Fiscal Year 1963[Dollar, in thousands]

Fedeml Agencies

Federal Fundsfor

Academic Science

Federal Funds forResearch and Development

at EducationalInstitutions Proper

S1,099,481 $851,094

Department of Defense 199,400 210,203National Aeronautics and Space

Administration 42,122 78,178Atomic Energy Commission 62,244 57,724U.S. Public Health Service 499,527 350555National Science Foundation 227,323 107,509U.S. Office of Education 19,680U.S. Department of Agriculture 41,697 40,586U.S. Department of Interior 3,767U.S. Department of Commerce . - Z780Other 7,4881

l Department of Interior aad Commerce funds are included in this value for "Other."

170

Tab

le C

-3.-

Man

pow

er R

esou

rces

of U

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

olle

ges

Ord

ered

by

Leve

l of F

eder

al F

unds

for

Aca

dem

ic S

cien

ce,

Fis

cal Y

ear

1963

[Dol

lars

in th

ousa

nds]

Lev

el o

f Fe

dera

l Fun

defo

r A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

Rec

eive

d by

Ins

titut

ions

Num

ber

ofIn

stitu

tions

Fede

ral

Fund

sfo

rA

cade

mic

Scie

nce

Edu

catio

nal

8c G

ener

alIn

com

e

Enr

ollm

ent

Rel

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hno

ogy

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Stud

ent

Deg

ree

Prod

uctio

n"B

AM

APh

DD

VM

MD

DD

SR

14

Abo

ve $

20,0

0014

$ . 3

94,1

43$

715,

955

296,

988

- 65

,291

0.22

149

,992

13,9

026,

361

2,88

617

61,

240

460

0.16

9A

vera

ge28

,153

51,1

4021

,142

4,66

43,

566

993

454

206

1389

82Pe

rcen

t"13

35.8

16.5

8.6

17,6

18.0

10.5

23,7

362

213

18.0

14,1

$10,

000-

$20,

000

15 ,

208,

676

481,

073

234,

616

46,4

270.

198

31,3

778,

767

3,13

61,

474

691,

267

731

0.13

4A

vera

gePe

rcen

t'1.

4 ,

13,9

1219

.082

,072

11.0

15,6

34 6.9

8,09

512

420

92, 11

.358

46.

620

911

.798

18.6

58.

385

18.5

4923

.0$5

,000

-$10

,000

31,

223,

082

701,

513

440,

124

64,4

120.

146

49,6

2017

,203

5,37

31,

879

164

1,81

172

80.

113

Ave

rage

7,19

622

,629

14,1

982,

078

1,60

155

517

361

558

23Pe

rcen

t'2.

920

.316

a12

.917

.417

.913

.020

,123

.520

.026

322

.9$5

00-$

5,00

010

6.

233,

293

1,01

1,93

977

2,52

592

,052

0.11

978

,111

633

,799

8,61

81,

639

406

2,55

51,

115

0.10

2A

vera

ge2,

201

9,54

77,

288

868

738

319

8115

424

11Pe

rcen

t'10

.0'

21,2

23.3

22.6

24.9

28.2

25.5

32,2

20.6

49.3

37.2

35.1

$100

1500

129

'28

,881

506,

162

689,

829

64,4

260.

092

28,2

8921

,672

2,25

061

90

167

0.04

8A

vera

ge+

224

3,92

44,

672

422

219

168

17-

-0

1.Pe

rcen

t'12

.1\

2.6

11.6

17.2

14.7

10.2

16.4

8.4

0,8

1.1

04.

9$1

-$10

041

611

,406

631,

668

788,

401

85,8

010,

048

29,4

8426

,969

956

240

00

0.04

0-A

vera

ge27

1151

81,

775

8671

652

-0

00

Perc

ent'

39.2

1.1

14.5

21.5

50..7

104

20.3

3,6

0.3

00

0N

o Fe

dera

l Fun

ds85

20

298,

083

354,

074

11,6

560.

033

10,3

3110

,134

770

00

00.

029

Ave

rage

084

71,

006

3329

29-

00

00

Perc

ent'

33.1

06.

910

.43,

13.

87.

70.

30

00

0

Tot

al1,

063

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,846

,893

3,42

5,45

686

9,96

40.

108

277,

149

132,

436

26,7

617,

963

823

6,87

83,

181

0.08

1A

vera

ge1,

034

4,08

93,

222

348

261

125

257

16

3Pe

rcen

t'10

0.0

!00.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100,

010

0.0

100.

0

o..4

Pent

ent d

etai

l :A

my

not a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

..4

Re

- G

ridu

ate

stud

ent e

nrol

lmen

t/tot

aen

rollm

ent.

on+

a D

egre

e Pr

odu;

in B

M D

P un

ite4

Rs

= S

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

logy

deg

ree

prod

uctiv

ity/to

tal e

nrol

lmen

t.

1-, 1 to

Tob

le.C

-4.l*

Ince

of F

eder

al F

unds

on

Aca

dern

ic S

cien

ce b

y A

genc

y

Inst

itutio

ns '

Ran

k-

Ord

ered

bV F

FAS

,

1 I

,FF

AS

.(d

olla

rs in

''Ith

ousa

nds)

,

Num

ber

of I

nstit

utio

ns R

ecei

ving

Pri

ncip

al S

uppo

rt F

rom

:

DO

DN

ASA

AE

CU

SPH

SN

SFU

SOE

USD

A

Firs

t 60

Seco

nd 6

0T

hird

'60

`,

,

, 0,2

58-$

42,5

302,

718-

6,18

4

798-

2,6

69

5 6 9

1

1

40 31 18

4 8 15

1 4 8

,T

atal

; Fir

st 1

5079

8- 4

2,53

020

11

8927

13

Four

th 5

0}M

k 50

SiN

th 5

0ac

vend

i ,50

,

Eig

hth

50N

inth

: 50

,T

enth

:,50

,

.

'

,

, ,

298-

796

151-

295

95-

148

58-

94

42-

57

\:,' 2

7-42

18-

27

3 3 1 1 1 1

11 1 1 1

7;.

9;I

4,

5':

11i

20 3;

36 37 44 43 36 27 46

1 1 1 1 1 1

1

y T

otal

: '. 1

50-5

00 .

'18-

796

101

4.

59,

269

61

.)Es11",1121°M.V.Z. ^

Table C-7.Profile of Degree-Accredited Institutions Receiving FederalSupport for Academic Science by Agency

Institutions SuppOrted

Number

Percent of

StudyPopulation

ThoseSupported

Total 711 67.0DOD 185 17.4 26.0NASA 121 11.4 17-0AEC 168 15.8 23.6USPHS 39e 37.4 56.0NSF 648 60.9 91.1USOE 186 17.5 26.2USDA 57 5.4 8.0Other 91 8.6 12.8

173

ervm

smT

gsve

l

Tab

le C

AL-

Rel

atio

nshi

p B

etw

een

the

Aca

dem

icB

udge

t of U

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

olle

ges

and

Fed

eral

Fun

ds fo

rA

cade

mic

Sci

ence

[Dol

lars

in ih

ousa

nds]

Num

ber

Inst

itutio

ns

Tot

al

Rie

s

Ave

age

EG

I 1F

FA

S 1

EG

IF

FA

S

Tot

al1,

063

$4,3

46,3

93$1

,099

,481

0.20

2$

4,08

9$

1,03

4B

y Le

vel o

f Edu

catio

nal a

nd G

ener

al In

com

e (E

GI)

:A

bove

$40

Mfil

ion

191,

040,

195

391,

511

0.27

354

,747

20,6

06$2

0 M

illio

n-$4

0 M

illio

n28

750,

107

243,

026

0.24

526

,790

8,68

0$1

0 M

illio

n420

Mill

ion

5276

2,91

425

3,29

50.

249

14,6

714,

871

$ 5

Mill

ion-

$10

Mill

ion

8057

6,75

414

4,89

90.

201

7,20

91,

811

$ 1

Mill

ion-

$ 5

Mill

ion

469

969,

998

62,2

210.

060

2,06

813

3U

nder

SI M

illio

n.

415

246,

425

4,52

90.

018

594

11B

y Le

vel o

f Fed

eral

Fun

ds fo

r A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

(F

FA

S):

Abo

ve 1

20 M

illio

n14

715,

955

394,

143

0.35

551

,140

28,1

53$1

0 M

illio

n-42

0 M

illio

n15

481,

073

208,

676

0.30

332

,070

13,9

12$

5 M

illio

n-$1

0 M

illio

n31

701,

503

223,

082

0.24

122

,629

7,19

6$0

.5 M

illio

n-$

5 M

illio

n10

61,

011,

939

233,

293

0.18

79,

547

2,20

1$1

00,0

00-$

500,

000

129

506,

162

28,8

810.

054

3,92

422

4$1

,000

4100

,000

416

631,

668

11,4

060.

018

.1,5

1827

No

FF

AS

352

298,

083

00

847

0

1 E

GI

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome.

2P

FA

S =

Fede

ral F

unds

for

Aca

dem

ic S

cien

ce.

FFA

S3

RI°

-FF

AS

XA

.

00 'NA

Tab

le C

-9.-

-Man

pow

er D

ynam

ics

in H

ighe

r E

duca

tion

and

the

Tot

al R

esea

rch

and

Edu

catio

n B

udge

ts o

fU

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

olle

ges

[Dol

lars

in th

ousa

nds]

Num

ber

Inst

itutio

ns

Inst

itutio

nal I

ncom

e;

:1,,s

AV

ER

AG

E/I

NST

ITU

TIO

N

R,4

Enr

ollm

ent'

S&T

DPs

Tot

alA

vera

geT

otal

Gra

duat

e

Tot

al1,

063

55,4

45,8

74$

5,12

30.

10B

3,22

234

826

10.

081

By

Lev

el o

f E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

(EG

I) :

Abo

ve $

40 M

illio

n19

1,43

1,70

675

,353

0.20

523

,492

4,82

13,

521

0.15

C

$20

Mill

ion-

$40

Mill

ion

2899

3,13

335

,469

0.14

816

,179

2,38

91,

760

0.10

g

$10

Mill

ion-

$20

Mill

ion

521,

016,

209

19,5

420.

126

11,5

151,

447

1,04

60.

091

$ 5

Mil

lion-

$10

Mill

ion

8072

1,65

39,

021

0.12

16,

814

827

555

0.08

1

$ 1

Mil

Bon

i 5 M

illio

n46

91,

032,

219

2,20

10.

059

2,32

813

8no

0.04

'1

Und

er $

1 M

illio

n41

525

0,95

460

50.

018

700

1226

0.03

7

By

Lev

el o

f Fe

dera

l Fun

ds f

or A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

(FF

AS)

;A

bove

$20

Mill

ion

141,

110,

098

79,2

930.

221

21,1

424,

664

3,56

60.

16E

$10

Mill

ion-

$20

Mill

ion

1568

9,74

945

,983

0.19

815

,634

3,09

52,

092

0.13

9

$ 5

Mill

ion-

$10

Mill

ion

3192

4,58

529

,825

0.14

614

,198

2,07

81,

601

0.11

!

$0.5

Mill

ion-

$ 5

Mill

ion

106

1,24

5,23

211

,747

0.11

97,

288

868

738

0.10

1

$100

,000

-$50

0,00

012

953

5,04

34,

148

0.09

24,

572

422

219

0.04

t

$1,0

00-$

100,

000

416

643,

074

1,54

60.

048

1,77

586

710.

04(

No

FFA

S35

229

8,08

384

70.

033

1,00

633

290.

02i

1 In

stitu

tiona

l Inc

ome

= E

duca

tiona

l and

gen

eral

inco

me

+ F

eder

al f

unds

for

mod

em c

sc

ence

.R

e =

Gra

duat

e en

rollm

ent/t

otal

enr

ollm

ent.

1-8

HT

DP

= S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y D

egre

e Pr

oduc

tivity

uni

ts.

4 It

, = s

eer

DP/

tota

l enr

ollm

ent.

t81

v1-4

....,

;''"

.

Table C-10.-Academic Institutions Receiving in Excess of Forty Percentof Total Income From Federal Funds for Academk Science

FFASRankOrder Control Class Rh? Re3 R.,4

Columbia University 1 Private A-M I 0.483 0254 0.152Massachufttts Institute of

Technology 2 Private A- .687 .394 .523Stanford University 6 Private A-M .400 322 .317University of Chicago 8 Private A-M .524 .347 240Johns Hopkins University 10 Private A-M .614 .190 .143Washington University 23 Private A-M .417 .143 .094Duke University 24 Private A-M .414 .158 .193University of California at

San Diego 27 Public A .629 1.000 210Western Reserve University 30 Private A-M -433 .323 .129Yeshiva University 32 Denom. A-M .580 213 .175California Institute of .Technology 33 Private A .520 .481 .639Baylor University 46 Denom. A-M .609 .087 .175University of Oklahoma 47 Public A-M .407 .137 .114Emory University 61 Denom. A-M .405 .120 .207Carnegie Institute of Technology 63 Private A .401 .177 .202 .Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn 70 Private A -450 . .494 .221Case Institute of Technology 75 Private A .414 .356 .281Stevens Institute of Technology 109 Private A .423 .432 .347Hahnemann Medical College 111 Private A-M .506 .180 .782Union College and University 115 Private A-M .425 .113 .204-Georgia Medical College 125 Public A-M .434 .193 .792South Carolina Medical College -.. - . 135 Public A-M .416 .186 .775

1M Medical Education Associate&2 Rfe = Federal funds impact index.3 R. = Graduate education index.4 E = Science education index.

176

1013

.W.1

91.1

14,A

mer

rsow

snm

usar

wro

mm

arnr

imw

oor.

.....-

Tab

le C

-11.

-Com

parls

on o

f Rec

ipie

nt in

ititu

tions

to N

onre

cipi

ents

of

Fed

eral

Fun

ds fo

r A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

[Dol

lars

in th

ousa

nds]

BY

CL

ASS

Cou

ntE

GI1

FFA

SIR

ha

Enr

ollm

ent

Gra

duat

e'R

,4

Scle

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

11,5

Tot

alS&

T D

PB

AM

APh

DD

VM

MD

DD

S

All

Inst

itutio

ns1,

063

;4,3

46,3

93;1

,099

,481

0.20

23,

425,

456

869,

964

0.10

827

7,14

913

2,43

626

,761

7,06

382

36,

873

3,18

10.

081

Rec

ipie

nts

711

4,04

8,81

01,

099,

481

.214

8,07

1,38

235

8,40

8.1

1720

6,81

812

2,30

226

,684

7,96

382

36,

873

3,18

1.0

87

Non

redp

ient

s35

229

8,08

30

.000

354,

0/4

11,5

56.0

3310

,331

10,1

3477

00

00

.029

Cla

ss A

169

2,86

4,88

21,

045,

622

.267

1,70

1,68

726

3,69

9.1

5520

6,53

371

,528

22,9

027,

963

814

6,87

33,

181

.121

Rec

ipie

nts

169

2,86

4,88

21,

045,

622

.267

1,70

1,68

726

3,69

9.1

5520

6,53

371

,528

22,9

027,

903

814

6,87

33,

181

.121

Non

recl

pien

tsC

lass

B19

772

5,79

137

,359

.049

875,

843

81,8

72.0

9380

.967

29,2

593,

859

9.0

44

Rec

ipie

nts

179

692,

856

37,3

59.0

51,

836,

165

78,6

01.0

9437

;937

28,4

263,

782

9.0

45

Non

reci

pien

ts18

32,9

350

.000

'89

,678

2,77

1.0

701,

030

833

770

.026

Cla

ss C

651

714,

038

16,8

06.0

2280

4,71

822

,060

.027

31,5

4931

,649

00

.039

Rec

ipie

nts

355

484,

156

16,3

06.0

3352

6,8/

615

,472

.029

22,3

4822

,348

00

.042

Non

reci

pien

ts29

622

9,88

20

.000

277,

842

6,58

8.0

249,

301

9,30

10

0.0

33

ChM

D46

41,6

8219

4.0

0543

,208

2,83

3.0

660

00

0.0

00

Rec

ipie

nts

86,

416

194

.029

6,65

463

6.0

960

00

0.0

00

Non

reci

pien

ts38

35,2

66.0

0036

,554

2,19

7.0

600

00

0.0

00

BY

CO

NT

RO

L

Den

omin

atio

nal

..48

061

8,51

967

,148

0,09

865

9,96

539

,212

0.05

939

,084

27,0

351,

776

257

088

572

40.

059

Rec

ipie

nts

273

485,

515

67,1

48.1

2150

6,94

237

,360

.074

33,2

0621

,176

1,76

925

70

885

724

.066

Non

reci

plen

ts20

713

3,00

40

.000

153,

023

1,85

2.0

125,

878

5,85

97

00

0. 0

.038

Priv

ate

229

1,18

9,53

248

4,84

8.2

9070

8,86

811

5,04

8.1

6279

,995

31,5

438,

674

3,01

510

72,

310

924

.113

Red

pien

ts18

01,

149,

278

484,

848

.297

669,

482

114,

194

.171

78,6

0730

,210

8,65

23,

015

107

2,31

092

4.1

17

Non

reel

pien

ts49

40,2

540

.000

.38

,886

854

.022

1,33

322

00

00

.036

Publ

ic35

42,

538,

342

547,

485

.177

2,05

7,12

321

5,70

4.1

0515

8,07

073

,858

16,3

114,

691

716

3,67

81,

633

.077

Rec

ipie

nts

258

2,41

3,51

754

7,48

5.1

851,

894,

968

206,

854

.109

155,

005

70,9

1616

,263

4,69

171

63,

678

1,53

3.0

82

Non

reci

pien

ts96

124,

825

0.0

0016

2,16

58,

850

.055

3,06

52,

942

480

00

0.0

19

1E01

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome.

I FF

AS

= F

eder

al F

unds

for

Aad

èniic

Sci

ence

.

011.

1119

8 R

t. =

FFA

S/E

GI

FFA

ii.4

R. =

Gra

duat

e en

rollm

ent/t

otal

enr

ollm

ent.

5=

Sdi

T G

P/to

ta1

enro

llmen

t.

°PrI

r.rv

Iliw

at,',

$91m

r*,4

,7#4

l4,

Tab

le C

-12.

-Man

pow

er a

nd F

undi

ng C

hara

cter

istic

s of

Uni

vers

ities

and

Col

lege

s E

nrol

ling

Pre

dom

inan

tlyN

egro

Stu

dent

s[D

olla

rs in

thou

sand

s]

Fund

ing

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Num

ber

Inst

itutio

nsFF

AS1

EG

IID

OD

NA

SAA

EC

USP

HS

NSF

USO

EU

SDA

Oth

erR

h'

Tot

al I

nstit

utio

nsA

vera

gePe

rcen

t"Pr

edom

inan

tly N

egro

Inst

itutio

nsA

vera

gePe

rcen

t"

1,06

3

100.

0 69 6,5

$1,0

99,4

811,

034

100.

0

5,27

476

100.

0

$4,3

46,3

934,

089

-90

,351

1,30

9 -

$199

,400 18

818

.1

103 1

2.0

$42,

122 40 3.8 0 o 0

$62,

244 59 5.7 59 1

1.1

$499

,527 47

045

.4

1,78

5 2633

.8

$227

,323 21

420

.7

3,08

7 45 584

$19,

680 19 1.8

187 3

3.5

$41,

697 39 3.8 0 o 0

$7,4

88 "0.

7 53I

1.0

0.20

2

0.05

5

Man

pow

er D

ynam

ics

Enr

ollm

ent

R4

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

R,7

Tot

al-,

Gra

duat

eS&

T D

rB

AM

APh

DD

VM

MD

"D

DS

Tot

al I

nstit

utio

ns1,

063

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,893

3,42

5,45

636

9,96

40.

108

277,

149

132,

436

26,7

617,

963

828

6,87

33,

181

0,08

1A

vera

ge1,

034

4,08

93,

222

348

261

125

257

16

3Pe

rcen

t'10

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

10.0

100.

010

0.0

104

10.0

100.

010

,0Pr

edom

inan

dy N

egro

Inst

itutio

ns69

5,27

490

,351

93,9

584,

586

0.04

94,

070

2,95

416

17

995

700,

043

Ave

rage

761,

309

1,86

266

5943

2-

-1

1Pe

rcen

t'6.

50.

52.

12.

71.

21,

52.

20.

60.

11.

11.

42.

2R

ecip

ient

s of

FFA

S39

5,27

469

,332

68,9

804,

541

0,06

63,

479

2,36

316

17

995

700.

050

Non

reci

pien

ts o

f FF

AS

. .. ,

..30

021

,019

24,9

7845

0.00

259

159

10

00

00

0.02

4

FFA

S =

Fed

eral

Rin

ds f

or A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

.E

GI

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome.

$ Sr

i = F

FAB

/EG

IFF

AS

4 11

1 =

Gra

duat

e en

rollm

ent/t

otal

enr

ollm

ent.

5 SI

M D

P =

SSi

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Deg

ree

Prod

uctiv

ityM

ehar

ry M

edic

al C

olle

ge n

ot in

stu

dy p

opul

atio

n,=

$&

T D

P/to

tal e

nrol

lmen

t.Pe

rcen

t det

ail m

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

.

Tab

le C

-13.

-Com

paris

on o

f Man

pow

er a

nd F

undi

ng C

hara

cter

istic

s of

Med

ical

Edu

catio

nan

d N

onm

edic

al E

duca

tion

Eng

aged

Uni

vers

ities

(Wm

In

thou

sand

s]

Fund

ing

Cha

ract

eris

t cs

No,

FFA

SIE

GP

DO

DN

ASA

AE

CU

SPH

SN

SFU

SOE

USD

A.0

ther

Rk4

Rfa

l

Tot

al I

nstit

utio

ns1,

963

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,393

;199

,400

$42,

122

$62,

244

$499

,527

$227

,323

$19,

660

$41,

697

$7,4

880.

202

3,96

7

Ave

rage

. . .

.... .

.. -

1,03

44,

089

188

4059

470

214

1939

7

Perc

ent'

1003

18,1

3351

454

201

1.8

3.8

01

Cla

a'A

169

1,04

5,62

22,

864,

882

192,

616

41,5

4261

,268

488,

097

195,

828

18,1

2040

,901

7,25

00.

267

5,06

3

Ave

rage

6,18

716

,952

1,14

024

636

32,

888

1,15

910

724

243

Perc

ent!

15.9

100,

018

.14.

05.

816

,718

.71.

83.

90,

7

Med

ical

Edu

catio

nA

ssoc

iate

d80

757,

980

1,85

8,02

311

9,80

224

,031

37,7

6941

9,31

812

2,92

410

,619

19,6

633,

804

0.29

05,

721

Ave

rage

9,47

423

,225

1,49

830

047

25,

241

1,53

713

324

648

Perc

ent'

.. i .

. . ..

7,5

100,

015

.83,

25.

055

,316

11,

42.

60.

5

Non

med

ical

Edu

catio

nA

ssoc

iate

d89

287,

692

1,00

6,85

972

,814

,17

,511

23,4

9968

,779

72,9

047,

501

21,2

383,

446

0,22

23,

885

3,28

211

,313

818

197

264

773

819

8423

939

Perc

ent'

8,4

100.

0-

253

618,

123

,925

.42,

673

1.2

/

/,

f/

/

,r

I,

'I/

1

1,

I,

"1 /

II,1

1

,

I/1'

11,

;It

,41:

',

1/1;

1'

Ii;1

,11;

/(1:

11;1

:',/

I1

, 'pi

,

14

7,77

1r7,

Ar

7,

/1,

,//

'111

,1,

7f1,

0,

it,r

/,,;

,,,,

4171

/1'

7'li

r'

rr11

7

7/;'l

r',17

7'11

711

1,

;1,

117,

1

if,

'74'

77,/'

4'1

1

7/1

/"1

1

'1

'11'

111'

"711

71'

/14'

1,11

11;

'1

1.1

11/1

//4,

11

'1"

Ili

,

,

7,

1I,

,1

prr

'17

.'

r

7,Pr

,,71,

11,

'01

t ft",

%/'

,1

71"'

17.

P17

,

,/,/,1

`,/

,

71,1

,77,

/,

/;

/,

7/

/7

,//r /

/

1.)

i;'7

'7

,70

ri,"

"7

/r7/

lilt

411"

7///

I/I

,/

I

1'1

I

if

r

/

Tab

le C

-1 3

.-C

ontin

ued

Man

pow

er D

ynam

ics

No.

FF

AS

IE

GP

Enr

ollm

ent

R8

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

1117

Tot

alG

radu

ate

S&T

DP

BA

MA

PhD

DV

MM

DD

DS

Tot

al I

nstit

utio

ns1,

063

$1,0

99,4

81$4

,346

,393

3,42

5,45

036

9,06

40.

108

277,

149

132,

436

26,7

617,

963

823

0,87

33,

181

0.08

1A

vera

ge1,

034

4,08

93,

222

348

261

125

257

16

3Pe

rcen

t'10

0.0

100.

910

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

,10

0.0

lop

100.

0C

lass

A ..

.... .

......

..16

91,

045,

622

2,86

4,88

21,

701,

687

263,

699

0.15

520

6,53

371

,528

22,9

027,

963

814

6,87

33,

181

.121

Ave

rage

6,18

716

,952

10,0

691,

560

1,22

242

313

647

541

19Pe

rcen

t'15

.995

.165

.949

.671

.274

.554

.085

.510

0.0

98.9

100.

010

0.0

Med

ical

Edu

catio

nA

ssoc

iate

d80

757,

930

1,85

8,02

31,

027,

517'

178,

922

0,16

913

2,48

687

,793

12,8

684,

959

269

6,87

33,

024

.129

Ave

rage

9,47

423

,225

12,8

442,

174

1,65

647

216

162

386

38Pe

rcen

t'7.

568

.942

.730

.047

.047

.828

.548

.162

332

.710

0.0

95.1

Non

med

ical

Edu

catio

nA

ssoc

iate

d89

287,

692

1,00

6,85

967

4,17

089

,777

0.13

374

,047

33,7

3510

,034

3,00

454

50

157

.110

Ave

r*3,

232

11,3

137,

575

1,00

988

237

911

334

60

2Pe

rcen

t'8.

126

,223

.219

.724

324

,723

J37

.537

.766

.20

4.9

I Pe

rcen

t det

ail m

ay n

ot a

dd to

100

bec

ause

of

roun

ding

.FF

AS

= F

eder

al F

unds

for

Aca

dem

ic S

cien

ce,

3 E

GI

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome.

'4

It =

Fed

eral

fun

ds f

or a

cade

mic

sci

ence

/tota

l ins

titut

iona

l inc

ome.

'

5 R

fd =

Fed

eral

fun

ds f

or a

cade

mic

sci

ence

/sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy d

egre

e pr

oduc

tivity

.6

Re

= G

radu

ate

stud

ent e

nrol

lmen

t/tot

al e

nrol

lmen

t.R

s =

Sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy d

egre

e pr

oduc

tivity

/tota

l enr

ollm

ent.

..enw

es-4

44,0

44,4

4kik

eWal

lgak

iiti"3

4430

,5*3

4316

4606

155"

''

00

Tab

le C

-14.

-Fun

ding

and

Man

pow

er C

hara

cter

istic

s of

dus

t A P

rivat

e C

ontr

ol M

edic

al E

duta

Hon

Ass

ocia

ted

Uni

vers

ities

Ran

k O

rder

ed b

y F

eder

al F

unds

.

Inst

itutio

nR

ank

Ord

er

Enr

ollm

ent

Re'

Sci

ence

and

Eng

inee

ring

(dol

lars

inth

ousa

nds)

Rfe

"

US

PH

S.

FA

S'

MT

DO

D.

FA

S"

TM

NS

F-

FA

S"

-7-8

RN

"T

otal

Gra

d.na

teS

&T

DP

'B

AP

hDR

"E

GI4

FF

AS

"

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

124

,000

8,50

30.

354

3,65

069

820

20.

152

$45,

563

$42,

530

0.48

30.

373

0.86

50.

132

$11,

652

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ity4

13,6

463,

618

0.26

53,

119

770

244

0.22

954

,824

31,2

510.

363

0.65

00.

104

0.20

210

,02C

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

69,

934

3,20

00.

322

3,14

581

718

10.

317

43,3

5228

,938

0.40

00.

299

0.31

50.

271

9,20

1

Chi

cago

,U

nive

rsity

of

88,

233

2,85

30,

347

1,97

728

916

90,

240

22,3

7524

,668

0.52

40.

457

0.19

00,

207

12,4

77

John

s H

opki

nsU

nive

rsity

108,

240

1,56

50.

190

1,18

135

475

0.14

314

,243

22,6

320.

614

0.64

90.

152

0.13

219

,162

Pen

nsyl

vani

a, U

nive

rsity

of

1218

,347

5,44

80,

297

2,71

150

895

0.14

865

,361

20,7

090.

241

0.56

60.

219

0.16

67,

639

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity13

12,6

872,

645

0.20

82,

789

942

155

0.22

070

,761

20,4

400.

224

0.42

10.

251

0.19

87,

829

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

1583

,232

12,0

40c.

362

4,45

082

814

50.

134

57,2

5719

,857

0.25

80.

604

0.22

10.

073

4,46

1

Yal

e U

nive

rsity

168,

364

2,43

60,

291

1,86

846

011

70.

223

34,3

7819

,472

0.36

20.

493

0.09

80.

180

10,4

2,1

Pitts

burg

h, U

nive

rsity

of

2013

,938

3,72

90.

268

1,94

258

375

0.13

926

,092

13,8

250.

346

0.67

70.

089

0.11

27,

119

Roc

hest

er, U

nive

rsity

of

217,

126

1,36

90.

192

1,05

429

459

0.14

825

,513

13,0

920.

339

0.43

40.

059

0.38

212

,421

Was

hing

ton

Uni

vers

ity23

14,6

022,

081

0.14

31,

372

342

510.

094

17,2

1312

,229

0.41

70.

762

0.04

80.

130

8,91

1

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

246,

345

'1,0

030.

158

1,22

537

874

0,19

316

,589

11,7

370.

414

0.61

50.

168

0.13

59,

581

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

... ,

, :26

16,6

361,

551

0.09

32,

301

528

107

0.13

824

,175

11,1

790,

316

0,47

60.

287

0.15

64,

851

Wes

tern

Res

erve

Uni

vers

ity30

8,05

62,

606

0.32

31,

041

197

350.

129

13,0

469,

980

0433

0.79

70.

054

0.06

89,

587

Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

, Uni

vers

ity o

f .35

18,4

477,

035

0,38

12,

127

377

530.

115

20,5

898,

727

0.29

80,

566

0.17

10.

126

4,10

1

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity38

7,10

71,

095

0.15

41,

001

245

300.

141

17,5

038,

286

0.32

10.

848

0.02

80.

069

8,27

1

Mia

mi,

Uni

vers

ity o

f45

12,0

5379

70.

066

859

435

110.

071

15,2

616,

822

0.30

90.

515

0.20

70.

198

7,94

1

Van

derb

ilt U

nive

rsity

484,

202

606

0.14

480

330

033

0.19

111

,502

6,34

50.

356

0.74

60.

067

0.08

87,

901

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity59

19,5

891,

551

0.07

91,

212

479

290.

062

18,4

365,

433

0.22

80.

882

0.01

70.

065

4,48

1

Geo

rge

Was

hing

ton

Uni

vers

ity69

14,0

312,

892

0,20

61,

114

266

170.

079

16,7

004,

372

0.20

70.

409

0,42

80.

053

3,92

!T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity71

4,58

652

00.

113

1,24

638

010

0,27

27,

208

4,08

30.

362

0.71

20.

099

0,10

63,

27

rvuT

u!or

.r.r

luN

-rw

.".

.

ritr

,7;

.

,;(ra

trer

'rrrA

r..e

muy

,,,-"

,,,,v

tuy$

unvl

oms,

xwW

.147

1.77

,77V

7Mr

Tab

le C

-14.

Fun

clin

g an

d M

anpo

wer

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofC

lass

A P

rivat

e C

ontr

ol M

edic

al E

duca

tion

Ass

ocia

ted

Uni

vers

ities

Con

tinue

d

Ran

k O

rder

ed b

y Fe

dera

l Fun

ds

Inst

itutio

nR

ank

Ord

er

Enr

ollm

ent

Re7

Scie

nce

and

Eng

h ee

ring

(dol

lars

inth

ousa

nds)

Rie

°

USP

HS-

FAS7

DO

D-

FASe

NSF

-FA

S7

Rm

l°T

otal

Gra

d-ua

te31

4TD

P51

BA

PhD

R.'

EG

I4FF

AS5

FFA

SFF

AS

FFA

S

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity81

20,6

985,

069

0.24

51,

556

259

160.

0M18

,112

3,38

90.

158

0.77

60.

050

0.11

52,

175

Jeff

erso

n M

edic

al C

olle

ge10

779

114

80.

187

641

08

0.81

03,

504

2,24

30.

590

1.00

00

03,

499

Hah

nem

ann

Med

ical

Col

lege

111

477

860.

180

373

02

0.78

21,

062

2,00

80.

506

0.98

00

0.02

05,

383

Uni

on C

olle

ge11

52,

846

322

0.11

358

219

94

0,20

42,

573

1,90

40.

425

0,83

60.

037

0.11

53,

271

I no

= G

radu

ate

stud

ent e

nrol

lmen

t/tot

al e

nrol

lmen

t.:-

I S&

T D

P =

Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Deg

ree

Prod

uctiv

ity.

srz

Sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy d

egre

e pr

oduc

tivity

/tota

l enr

ollm

ent.

4 E

CM

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome.

FFA

S =

Fed

eral

Fun

ds f

or A

cade

lnir

sci

ence

,=

Fed

eral

fun

diff

or a

cade

mic

soi

ence

/tota

l ins

titut

iona

l inco

me.

USP

HS

FAS

= F

unds

for

aca

dem

ic s

cien

cefr

omth

e W

OE

S.'D

OD

FA

S =

Fun

ds f

or a

cade

mic

soi

ence

from

the

DO

D.

rim

FA

Slo

nm=

Nde

rat f

unds

for

acad

emic

sci

ence

/sci

ence

and

tich

nolo

gyde

gree

pro

duct

ivity

.

411:

9414

1i2i

1Milf

erso

litill

i,P.O

.kie

.6,0

*-4-

61.

?a4t

044'

.246

-4'

"<kr

iiht;

:,.Y

4si

re.

gcN

IVO

.R.

t..

Tab

le C

-15.

Ran

k O

rder

of 2

00 A

cade

mic

Inst

itutio

ns b

y F

undi

ng a

nd b

y P

rodu

ctiv

ity in

Sci

ence

Edu

catio

n,A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

62-1

963

(Fis

cal Y

ear

1963

)

Inst

itutio

nsT

FAS2

EG

I2FF

AS

+ E

GI

Enr

ollm

ent

S&T

DP3

BA

MA

PhD

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

112

513

29

298

9M

assa

chus

etts

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

250

1514

133

1027

64

Mic

higa

n, U

nive

rsity

of

35

28

32

72

7H

arvv

rd U

nive

rsity

49

653

2014

2521

6C

alif

orni

a, U

nive

rsity

of

(Ber

kele

y)5

88

125

3I

52

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity6

15'1

185

2413

227

11

Illin

ois,

Uni

vers

ity o

f7

11

310

12

11

Chi

cago

, Uni

vers

ity o

fB

3925

109

2828

124

2212

Min

neso

ta, U

nive

rsity

of

_9

33

16

74

158

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

1075

3210

865

6297

102

31

Was

hing

ton,

Uni

vers

ity o

f11

2216

1422

1612

1632

Penn

sylv

ania

, Uni

vers

ity o

f12

47

33 .

919

5617

25

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity13

24

6132

1716

2015

Wis

cons

in, U

nive

rsity

of

1410

122

76

59

3

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

156

94

15

203

16

Yal

e U

nive

rsity

1623

1710

636

U70

2521

Cal

ifor

nia,

Uni

vers

ity o

f (L

os A

ngel

es)

1713

1325

815

1010

14

Tex

as, U

nive

rsity

of

187

1015

3011

1128

17

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity19

1114

613

813

1310

Pitts

burg

h, U

nive

rsity

of

2032

2849

1729

4162

32R

oche

ster

, Uni

vers

ity o

f21

3529

127

7874

121

8341

FPA

S =

Ped

efal

Pnn

ds f

or A

cade

mic

Sci

ence

.2

OI

= E

duca

tiona

l and

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

OC

3 S&

T D

P =

Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Deg

ree

Prod

uctiv

ity.

t>o

ISM

AY

elki

lea0

diri

l

qtr.

Tab

le C

-15,

Con

flnue

d

,

Inst

itutio

nsFF

AS

IE

GI*

FFA

S+

EG

I

Enr

ollm

ent

S8eT

DP*

BA

MA

PhD

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Mar

ylan

d, U

niV

ersi

ty o

f22

2526

1012

2632

5728

Was

hing

ton

Uni

vers

ity23

6140

4544

4699

6548

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

2464

43'1

4510

858

9310

333

Col

orad

o, U

nive

rsity

of

2531

3030

4735

3029

35N

orth

wes

tern

Uni

vers

ity26

5633

3966

2250

3723

Cal

ifor

nia,

Uni

vers

ity o

f (S

an D

iego

)27

173

8510

5428

062

425

413

0N

orth

Car

olin

a, U

nive

rsity

of

at C

hape

l Hill

2837

3577

5144

7975

37Pr

ince

ton

Uni

vers

ity.

2916

1821

111

452

9853

19W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

3081

581

1134

7617

212

064

Indi

ana

Uni

vers

ity31

2121

518

2368

5024

Yes

hiva

Uni

vers

ity32

143

8127

014

612

827

417

412

1C

alif

orni

a In

stitu

te o

f T

echn

olog

y33

115

7551

715

398

248

6126

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

3420

2217

254

34

5So

uthe

rn' C

alif

orni

a; U

niV

ersi

ty o

f'

3546

4132

425

9414

45C

alif

orni

a, U

nive

rsity

of

(Dav

is)

3655

4621

514

389

131

7339

Uta

h, U

nive

rsity

of

.37

6654

5542

5040

8636

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity38

5849

130

100

8314

412

470

Flor

ida,

Uni

vers

ity o

f39

1920

5146

3621

4140

Ore

gon,

Uni

vers

ity o

f40

8368

7672

5110

474

71Io

wa,

Uni

vers

ity o

f41

2427

6635

2746

4027

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

4214

1927

3818

618

18Sy

racu

se U

nive

rsity

4347

4526

2961

5438

53B

row

n U

nive

rsity

4486

7220

213

411

210

712

547

Mia

mi,

Uni

vers

ity o

f45

7060

6713

196

7513

610

4B

aylo

r U

nive

rsity

4619

411

114

917

473

181

141

110

Okl

ahom

a, U

nive

rsity

of

4710

284

5053

3861

3`.1

51V

ande

rbilt

Uni

vers

ity48

89'n

207

160'

100

119

105

68K

entu

cky,

Uni

vers

ity o

f49

30S6

105

104

8889

Ten

ness

ee, .

13ni

vers

ity o

f50

' .26

M,1

2 SS

6021

3531

44M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

5118

239

1620

1411

20A

laba

ma,

Uni

vers

ity o

f52

7467

4671

5769

108

86K

ansa

s, U

nive

rsity

of

5553

5571

5539

7141

58R

utge

rs, T

he S

tate

Uni

vers

ityS4

24

1115

WS

Vi

26SO

May

ne S

tate

Unl

vers

ity55

2938

1914

3'1

4%46

61L

ott l

idan

a St

ate

13nl

veri

ty56

2831

M48

30Si

tM

29M

isso

uri,

Uni

vers

itr.o

f57

1724

1027

129

1250

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

5849

5284

102

4734

3942

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity59

5256

2967

5963

6472

Nitt

nia,

Unl

venk

ty o

tla

mty

1.1

o1N

te:ta

1k1

60 615%

,1%

6

44 9'0

M WI,

99 V%

'11 2%

26 VA

WI

56

Ari

zona

, Uni

vert

ity o

f6g

4447

4052

6964

4363

Car

negi

e In

stitu

te-O

f T

echn

olog

y65

155

100

180

122

8210

056

54N

od&

&W

e W

m/th

ye?

Al

79N

O70

JO./4

$la

s00

Cal

ifor

nia,

Uni

vers

ity o

f (S

an P

rand

sco)

656'

166

2.9%

2,61

9156

9W

A61

Tem

ikgr

icat

urta

an0

ttiv

aker

6%11

194

%11

146

%V

4%54

C,ln

citm

at.1

, Uni

vera

y of

6112

,69

ezk

M52

'11

66Io

wa

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

of

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

6845

5174

6324

1830

13G

eorg

e W

athi

ngto

n U

nive

rsity

6963

6548

2667

131

4990

Poly

iech

ide

liktli

tite

of Z

ookl

yn70

177

11/

16g

6678

Z7

Tuf

ts U

nive

tsity

7113

910

919

511

85%

9224

410

9St

ate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

orkB

uffa

lo'1

290

8942

45M

9910

482

.Pu

erto

Ric

o, U

nive

rsity

of

1BM

918

168

8'7

3320

2G

eorg

etow

n U

nlve

rslty

1456

611M

9866

192

WA

16C

ase

Inst

itute

of

Tec

hnol

ogy

7516

913

032

712

311

314

181

55N

ebra

ska,

Uni

vers

ity o

f,

7640

4879

6942

5951

52A

rkan

sas,

Uni

vers

ity o

f77

7878

113

LW

6891

5216

0

;'

!tts

751M

,7,

,

Tab

le C

-13.

Con

tinue

d

Inst

itutio

nsPP

M'.

KG

I2

Enr

ollm

ent

AFA

S I

1S$T

DP

MA

PhD

MI

Tot

al I

cTad

uate

%an

klet

s U

niye

rslty

1816

012

742

221

016

919

111

88

5R

enss

elae

r 'P

olyt

echn

ic I

nstit

ute

79H

O11

319

673

4845

2357

Ver

mon

t, U

nive

rsity

of

8014

912

221

826

613

213

017

014

9T

empl

e U

nive

rsity

8154

6220

1140

138

9395

Okl

ahom

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

gric

ultu

re &

App

lied

Scie

nce

8298

oa

7731

2310

96G

eorg

ia, U

nive

rsity

of

8341

5064

115

1851

68'1

9Il

avia

tt, U

nkve

rslty

of

8469

1510

151

114

102

6997

Roc

kefe

ller

Inst

itute

8514

111

610

5936

444

894

Geo

rgia

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

8611

110

213

615

270

3658

69W

est V

irgi

nia'

, Uni

vers

ity87

5764

871

127

7776

6711

8M

issi

ssip

pi,

Uni

verl

ity o

f88

147

126

167

193

106

157

9811

6V

irgi

nia

Med

kal C

olle

ge13

91,

714

059

557

390

118

250

128

Dar

tmou

th C

olle

ge90

BB

9026

540

914

88

511

313

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

9143

5310

713

885

6590

67C

olor

ado

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

9277

BO

122

167

9372

9188

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e at

Ral

eigh

9333

4263

9541

1047

43St

, Lou

is U

nive

rsity

9480

8694

5665

105

7278

Den

ver,

Uni

vers

ity o

f95

120

110

156

103

175

194

142

137

Seto

n H

all C

olle

ge96

174

149

9359

123

193

234

Lou

isvi

lle, U

nive

rsity

of

9711

210

514

215

488

156

145

101

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity98

9893

114

184

105

8989

80C

atho

lic U

nive

rsity

9917

214

417

441

122

236

6663

Kan

sas

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

100

6570

9811

349

6524

75M

arqu

ette

Uni

vers

itys

101

103

9883

128

4367

118

Not

re D

ame,

Uni

vers

ity o

fi

.102

7683

140

132

5637

4659

Ct.)

Ric

e U

nive

rsity

/10

318

116

236

319

214

514

913

374

Illin

ois

Inst

itute

of

Tec

hnol

ogy

104

159

142

129

8191

6282

58D

ayto

n, U

nive

rsity

of

105

193

166

121

307

174

114

339

Ala

.-, U

nive

rsity

of

106

203

173

249

374

384

637

223

139

Jeff

erso

n M

edic

al C

olle

ge10

722

818

175

632

111

728

711

4

Vir

gini

a Po

lyte

chni

c In

stitu

te10

862

7111

715

6.6

326

5984

Con

nect

icut

, Uni

vers

ity o

f10

973

8258

6179

4754

73St

even

s hi

stitt

ne o

f T

echn

olog

y11

026

219

035

511

210

218

932

93H

ahne

man

n M

edic

al C

olle

ge11

138

421

894

736

615

825

214

4

Wak

e Fo

rest

Col

lege

112

170

159

293

395

171

275

liost

onC

olle

ge11

311

311

599

7913

088

114

Mas

sach

uset

ts, U

nive

rsity

of

114

7687

124

110

8444

7177

Uni

on C

olle

ge11

530

120

229

722

212

617

113

513

3

Lom

a L

inda

Uni

vers

ity11

620

518

061

236

212

131

1

How

ard

Uni

vers

ity11

791

9514

716

265

110

140

123

Rho

de I

slan

d, U

nive

rsity

of

118

119

120

120

158

153

127

146

107

Mis

siss

ippi

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

119

i291

160

200

115

8284

131

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

120

101

106

2839

8153

36

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

121

9296

4323

116

103

6313

4

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

of

New

Yor

kDow

nsta

te M

edic

al C

ente

r ...

..12

216

816

381

945

313

913

5

Del

awar

e, U

nive

rsity

of

123

116

118

123

109

134

145

9983

New

Mex

ico,

Uni

vers

ity o

f12

414

814

110

176

119

146

7091

Geo

rgia

Med

ical

Col

lege

125

372

233

957

365

162

293

Mon

tana

Sta

te C

olle

ge12

615

715

719

325

114

211

7II

I11

2

Cal

ifor

nia,

Uni

vers

ity o

f (R

iver

side

)12

711

011

735

921

221

022

617

914

6

New

Ham

pshi

re, U

nive

rsity

of

128

123

129

223

216

120

122

8010

2

Cle

mso

n A

gric

ultu

ral C

olle

ge12

917

516

920

529

515

511

313

112

7

New

Mex

ico

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

180

131

138

183

165

137

125

101

106

Loy

ola

Uni

vers

ity(I

llino

is)

131

114

124

8193

8013

918

012

0

Leh

igh

Uni

vers

ity).

413

215

015

423

296

108

9679

81

00So

uth

Dak

ota,

Uni

vers

ity o

f...

413

324

420

829

425

817

021

910

7

14 00 00T

able

C-1

5.C

ontin

ued

Inst

itutio

nsF

FA

S t

EG

I5F

FA

S+

EG

I

Enr

ollm

ent

S&

TD

P3

BA

MA

PhD

Tot

alG

radu

ate

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ityS

outh

Car

olin

a13

4.

5974

'96

129

9557

9612

4M

edic

al C

olle

geN

orth

135

176

325

1002

388

181

344

148

Dak

ota

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Nor

th13

614

214

723

024

714

610

912

714

7D

akot

a, U

nive

rsity

of

.

Am

eric

an13

714

515

116

818

916

519

611

215

5U

nive

rsity

,13

812

613

791

8015

921

813

292

Mai

ne, U

nive

rsity

of

139

122

135

139

299

144

8715

415

1C

lark

Uni

vers

ity14

035

125

538

026

720

0-2

7117

210

5Id

aho,

Uni

vers

ity o

f14

110

611

917

323

013

511

292

Cal

iforn

ia, U

nive

rsity

of (

San

ta B

arba

ra)

142

127

139

187

287

205

182

216

Wyo

min

g, U

nive

rsity

of

143

107

123

166

185

127

126

7611

9F

ordh

am U

nive

rsity

144

118

132

9764

101

123

6062

Low

ell T

echn

olog

ical

Inst

itute

145

380

281

480

396

224

246

185

152

Hou

ston

, Uni

vers

ity o

f14

612

113

652

8914

011

511

311

3G

eorg

e P

eabo

dy C

olle

ge fo

r T

each

ers

147

308

247

403

166

196

554

115

115

Nev

ada,

Uni

vers

ity o

f14

814

415

618

828

420

321

116

7S

an D

iego

Sta

te C

olle

ge14

096

103

4458

129

8312

1S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

fN

ewY

orkU

psta

te M

edic

al C

ente

r15

017

617

596

943

617

234

314

1N

ew M

exic

o H

ighl

ands

Un

vers

ity15

150

237

157

229

744

969

021

7S

outh

ern

Illin

ois

Uni

vers

ity.

152

4259

3883

110

6697

125

Sou

th D

akot

a S

tate

Col

lege

153

134

145

259

275

149

108

160

117

Ade

lphi

Uni

vers

ity15

416

117

013

791

138

132

8513

2B

ryn

Maw

r C

olle

ge-

155

279

240

624

242'

282

417

229

IIIS

outh

Car

olin

a, U

nive

rsity

of

156

146

160

104

201

167

164

134

157

San

Jos

e S

tate

Col

lege

157

7188

2262

9939

95C

reig

hton

Uni

vers

ity,

158

207

199

268

271

133

384

238

+.~

smaw

It4ta

iMum

mis

tioik

Bri

gham

You

ng U

nive

rsity

City

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

orkT

he C

ity C

olle

geN

ew M

exic

o In

stitu

te o

f M

inin

g an

d T

echn

olog

yK

ansa

s St

ate

Tea

cher

s C

olle

geD

rexe

l Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

Ree

d C

olle

geM

onta

na, U

nive

rsity

of

Sout

hern

Met

hodi

st U

nive

rsity

Wes

leya

n U

nive

rsity

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

of

New

Yor

kAlb

any

Col

orad

o St

ate

Col

lege

Ohi

o W

esle

yan

Uni

vers

ityT

exas

Wom

an's

Uni

vers

ityA

tlant

a U

nive

rsity

Cla

rkso

n C

olle

ge, o

f T

echn

olog

yB

rook

lyn

Col

lege

St, J

ohns

Uni

vers

ityD

etro

it, U

nive

rsity

of

Man

hatta

n C

olle

geIo

wa,

Sta

te C

olle

ge o

fSa

n Fr

anci

sco

Stat

e C

olle

geB

owlin

g G

reen

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Tex

as C

hris

tian

Uni

vers

ityA

ntio

t Col

lege

Will

iam

and

Mar

y C

olle

geT

exas

Wes

tern

Col

lege

Nor

th C

arol

ina,

Agr

icul

tura

l and

Tec

hnic

alC

olle

ge o

fH

unte

r C

olle

geSm

ith C

olle

geT

uske

gee

Inst

Rut

eA

mhe

rst C

olle

ge

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

8797

5717

011

860

143

188

6076

721

318

3551

440

410

1844

159

673

227

315

420

219

417

614

118

228

310

913

715

211

068

7542

4242

385

770

348

540

687

518

518

519

926

917

918

0.15

214

015

216

412

813

013

115

955

159

156

167

584

344

212

297

144

200

197

234

198

189

262

122

213

209

185

224

260

354

175

260

246

358

204

148

828

284

286

233

425

445

307

618

488

789

142

284

126

846

305

445

410

187

184

158

7902

2350

7215

157

9510

869

4915

015

511

610

815

116

582

8692

8494

230

223

243

353

152

8027

118

218

417

926

221

726

516

293

104

3754

154

101

156

124

143

103

188

161

163

119

184

188

143

159

190

179

169

272

262

452

363

334

233

227

155

249

184

154

194

283

269

170

250

239

183

325

293

290

232

383

355

6887

2140

9424

163

166

177

338

323

271

233

275

275

263

332

347

379

577

245

197

200

619

519

826

284

111,

Elf

,

Tab

le C

-15.

Con

tinue

d

Inst

itutio

nsFF

AS

sE

GI

sI

FAS

+ E

GI

Enr

ollm

ent

MT

DP

sB

AM

APh

DT

otal

Gra

duat

e

Ohi

o U

nive

rsity

19P

9911

456

164

136

8113

715

6St

ate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

orkS

tony

Bro

ok19

120

120

476

346

144

542

0V

irgi

nia

Stat

e C

olle

gePe

ters

bUrg

192

257

252

224

MI

362

347

319

Pom

ona

Ctil

lege

193

317

292

608

272

220

Okl

ahom

a C

ity U

nive

rsity

194

425

383

343

420

391

City

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

o, q

ueen

s C

olle

ge19

513

015

054

104

151

9021

2C

lare

mon

t Gra

duat

e Sc

hool

and

Uni

vers

ity C

ente

r,

196

424

385

791

180

395

233

103

Tex

as T

echn

olog

ical

Col

lege

-197

133

153

7317

110

343

110

136

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

198

109

134

6284

160

135

148

Ear

lham

Col

lege

199

408

377

615

503

353

321

Ken

t Sta

te U

nive

rsity

200

9410

747

107

164

167

123

U.S

. Gov

ernm

ent P

rintin

g O

ffice

s 19

67-0

262

-282