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-;the- study-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 level- of -$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 academic- science; 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).medical- education-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 as- did :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.
105
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
Dollars to Thousands
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
Dollars to Thousands
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
5MICHIGAN, THE UNIVERSITY OF
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
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
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
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
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
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
51
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
54
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
OAVIS
55
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
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
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
63
OUKE UNIVERSITY
'
64
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
65
UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF
66
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MEDICAL CIR.
67
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - HUNTER COLLEGE
68
HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF
69
MANI, UNIVERSITY OF,
70
SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE
71
CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF
72
CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF
73
ALABAMA, UNIVERS/TY OF
14
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
75
NOTRE OAHE, UNIVERSITY OF
76
MASSACHUSETTS, UNIVERSITY OF
77
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
70
ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
19
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
BROOKLYN COLLEGE
80
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
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
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
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
-
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
-
-52
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
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
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
60
NIAMI, UNIVERSITYTIF
61
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. v'
62
'TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
63
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
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
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
97 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
9B
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
V.
99
EMORY UNIVERSITY
,100
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
.
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
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
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
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
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
GEORGIA, THE UNIVERSITY OF
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
HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF
IIST,
20551
71
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
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
OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF
104454
19706
71
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILL
1051/
19664
70
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY
10438
19589
79
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
10401
19557
80 FLOMOA STATE UNIVERSITY
10391
10557
01
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY
10354
18477
82
DETROIT. UNIVERSITY OF
10145
15347
83
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
100711'
18338
84
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
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
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
9041
14602
.
95
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY STATE'COLLEGE
9045
14477
96
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
8982
14455
97
FORMAN UNIVERSITY
8951
14031.
90
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
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
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
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
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
BROOKLYN COLLEGE
INSTITUTICR"
12040
. .51
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILL
In?
52
ARIZONA, THE UNIVERSITY OF
-53
OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF
7035
54
SAN FRANCISCO STATE COLLEGE
6022
55
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
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
SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE
nn
63
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
,7:
65
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
'
.64
FOROHAN UNIVERSITY
3903
,. 66
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
3729
67
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
3694
60
DREXEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
-69
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
TB
70
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
3493
.71
ALABAMA,' UNIVERSITY EIF
re t
:73
LONG BEACH STATE COLLEGE
-.
.T2
OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF
3200
74
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
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
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
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
CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF
95
NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT RALEIGH
.1g:
2065
98
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
_Igl
96
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
,
-
.
114$
97
STATE COLLEGE AT BRIOGEWATER
2002
19116
100
TULANE UNIVERSITY
1095
99
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF
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
2MICHIGAN, THE 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
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
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
PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF
30
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND NECHANICAL COLLEGE
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
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
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
18 NALAHONA, UNIVERSITY OF
19
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
40
TEM9LE UNIVERSITY
.
41
'NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH
42 NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
43
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
44
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILL
43
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY.
46
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
47
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
48
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
49
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
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
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
VIRGINIA, 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
CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
TULANE UNIVERSITY
MASSACHUSETTS, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON STAIR UNIVERSITY
ENORY UNIVERSITY
PUERTO RICO, UNIVERSITY OF
LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY oF
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
DAVIS
VIRGINIA, MEDICAL COLLEGE OF
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
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
SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE
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
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
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
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
VIROINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
FOROHAN UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY
PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
GEORGIA, THE UNIVERSITY OF
HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF
NEW MEXICO, THE UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS, UNIVERSITY OF
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
OAVIS
OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AI CHAPEL HILL
WYOMING. UNIVERSITY OF
NEWARK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF
kW HAMPSHIRE,'
OF
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
CASE INSTITUTE
TECHNOLOGY
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
ROCHESTER, UNIVERSITY OF
ADELPHI UNIVERSITY
UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF
'
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
10AHO, UNIVERSITY OF
SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE
DETROIT, UNIVERSITY OF
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 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
$96
19
041
90
56)
91
511
91
512
91
566
94
564
95
548
16
544
97
543
06
SO
99
128
100
INSTITUTION
GEORGIA, THE UNIVERSITY OF
CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
SYBACUSE UNIVERSITY
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
'
PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
ARIZONA, THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
AlASAMA, UNIVERSITY OF
YALE UNIVERSITY
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
NEWARK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF BROOKLYN
MANHATTAN COLLEGE
'
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF AT CHAPEL HILI
OHIO UNIVERSITY
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN OIEGO STATE COLLEGE
g1111114111111111" OF
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF
MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF
80STON COLLEGE
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OP NEW YORK - OWENS COLLEGE
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
DUKE UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSI1Y OF
STATE UNIVERSI1Y OF NEW YORK - BUFFALO
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OEOREEG
52/
518
51/
500
SO9
SOO
506
506
502
493
491
4110
4/9
41$
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
Top Related