A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The

A Study of HigherEducation InstructionalExpenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity

U.S. Department of EducationInstitute of Education SciencesNCES 2003-161

Research and Development Report

A Study of HigherEducation InstructionalExpenditures:The Delaware Studyof Instructional Costsand Productivity

U.S. Department of EducationInstitute of Education SciencesNCES 2003-161

Research and DevelopmentReport

Michael F. MiddaughAssistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Planning

University of Delaware

Rosalinda GrahamProject Manager

Office of Institutional Research and Planning


Abdus ShahidPostdoctoral Research AssociateOffice of Institutional Research and Planning


U.S. Department of EducationRod PaigeSecretary

Institute of Education SciencesGrover J. WhitehurstDirector

National Center for Education StatisticsVal PliskoAssociate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressionalmandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education inthe United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significanceof such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; andreview and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and highquality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to avariety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicatinginformation effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES productor report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education StatisticsInstitute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of Education1990 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006

June 2003

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.govThe NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested CitationU.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. A Study of Higher EducationInstructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. NCES 2003-161,by Michael F. Middaugh, Rosalinda Graham, and Abdus Shahid. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll.Washington, DC: 2003.

Contact:Aurora D�Amico(202) 502-7334Aurora.D�[email protected]

iii

Foreword

The Research and Development (R&D) series of reports at NCES has been initiated:

1. To share studies and research that are developmental in nature. The results of such studies may berevised as the work continues and additional data become available.

2. To share the results of studies that are, to some extent, on the �cutting edge� of methodologicaldevelopments. Emerging analytical approaches and new computer software development oftenpermit new and sometimes controversial analyses to be done. By participating in �frontier research,�we hope to contribute to the resolution of issues and improved analysis.

3. To participate in discussions of emerging issues of interest to educational researchers, statisticians,and the federal statistical community in general. Such reports may document workshops andsymposia sponsored by NCES that address methodological and analytical issues or may share anddiscuss issues regarding NCES practices, procedures, and standards.

The common theme in all three goals is that these reports present results or discussions that do not reachdefinitive conclusions at this point in time, either because the data are tentative, the methodology is newand developing, or the topic is one on which there are divergent views. Therefore, the techniques andinferences made from the data are tentative and subject to revision. To facilitate the process of closure onthe issues, we invite comment, criticism, and alternatives to what we have done. Such responses shouldbe directed to:

Marilyn SeastromChief StatisticianStatistical Standards ProgramNational Center for Education Statistics1990 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006�5654

iv

v

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed in important ways to development of this report. The Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity is the data source for the analyses that comprise this study of highereducation instructional expenditures. The Delaware Study would not exist were it not for the stronginstitutional commitment and support received from University of Delaware President David Roselle,Provost Daniel Rich, and most especially Executive Vice President David Hollowell. Larry Hotchkiss andDavid Kaplan, from the University of Delaware, provided critical advice and support with respect to theselection and use of statistical tests used in the analyses in this report.

Early drafts of the report benefited from extensive review and suggestions from Dennis Carroll, AssociateCommissioner for Postsecondary Education, and Paula Knepper, both at the National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES), and from Michael Lance, consultant with NCES. Several other individualsin Washington provided valuable feedback. They include Marilyn McMillen Seastrom, Chief Statisticianfor NCES; Grover J. Whitehurst, Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department ofEducation; Bernie Greene, Early Childhood, International and Crosscutting Studies Division, NCES;Ilona Berkovits, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Longitudinal Studies, NCES; David Bergeron,Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education; Dan Goldenberg, Office of the UnderSecretary, U.S. Department of Education; and Carol Fuller, National Association of Independent Collegesand Universities.

Finally, special thanks to the staff in the Office of Institutional Research and Planning at the University ofDelaware, whose conscientious work on university institutional research projects allowed us time topursue this project. Those individuals include Dale Trusheim, Associate Director; Karen Bauer, AssistantDirector; Heather Isaacs, Institutional Research Analyst; Karen DeMonte, Institutional Research Analyst;and Maggie Brumit, Records Analyst/Coordinator.

vi

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Study of Higher Education InstructionalExpenditures is an examination of highereducation costs undertaken by the National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES). This study ofhigher education costs was mandated by Congressin the 1998 Higher Education Act. The NCESresponse to the congressional mandateencompassed three reports: the first, Study ofCollege Costs and Prices, 1988�89 to 1997�98;followed by What Students Pay for College:Changes in Net Price of College AttendanceBetween 1992�93 and 1999�2000; andculminating in this third and final report.

The first report in the congressionally mandatedstudy drew the distinction between sticker price,i.e., the tuition that an institution charges for acollege education, and cos t , i.e., the fiscalresources expended by the institution to providethat education. Additionally, researchers for thefirst part of the study found that certain factors areassociated with tuition rates. Most notable atstate-supported institutions is importance ofannual budget appropriations. At private not-for-profit institutions, internal budget constraints, sizeof endowments, and external market competitionwere among factors associated with sticker price.There was little evidence indicating thatexpenditures for instruction were a major factor indetermining tuition rates.

This report focuses solely on the issue of directinstructional expenditures, and the factorsassociated with the comparative magnitude ofthose expenditures at 4-year colleges anduniversities in the United States. As evident in thefindings and conclusions, the factors associatedwith instructional expenditures are different fromthose associated with sticker price, as identified inthe first part of the congressionally mandatedstudy. Cost and price are not interchangeableconstructs, and a strong statistical relationshipbetween them has not been found.

The data source for this analysis is multiple cyclesof the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs andProductivity, henceforth called the DelawareStudy. Begun in 1992 by the Office ofInstitutional Research and Planning at theUniversity of Delaware, the study has grown into anational data-sharing consortium embracing over300 4-year colleges and universities across theUnited States. The foci of data-sharing activitiesare detailed analyses of teaching loads by facultycategory, instructional costs, and externally fundedscholarly activity, all at the level of the academicdiscipline.

Goals and Limitations of ThisStudy

The primary objective of this analysis ofinstructional expenditures is the identification ofthose factors that contribute to describing directinstructional costs in the colleges and universitiesthat participate in the Delaware Study.

The study is characterized by the followingfactors:

• Participation in the Delaware Study isvoluntary, and is restricted to 4-year Title IV-eligible institutions only. The fact that thedata population used in this study is self-selected raises the issue of nonresponse bias.For example, institutions that participate in theDelaware Study typically have enrollments ofat least 5,000 students and are organizationallycomplex, with discrete academic departmentsor programs that correspond with the four-digit codes assigned to disciplines within theNCES Classification of InstructionalPrograms (CIP) taxonomy. In contrast, singlepurpose institutions with smaller enrollmentsfrequently have multiple disciplines groupedwithin a given organizational structure, e.g.,

viii

Division of Social Sciences, or Department ofEducation, etc., and participate in muchsmaller numbers than their larger, morecomplex counterparts. In addition, becauseparticipation is restricted to 4-year institutions,findings cannot be extended to the 2-yearcollege sector.

• Because the population for this study is self-selected, it is, by definition, not a randomsample. Descriptive statistics are applied todata from responding institutions to describeinstructional expenditures for thoseinstitutions, but the findings cannot beinferentially generalized to the largerpopulation of all Title IV-eligible 4-yearcolleges and universities in the United States.However, this study�s findings nonethelessyield valuable descriptive information aboutexpenditures in those institutions thatparticipate in the Delaware data-sharingprocess.

• The Delaware Study expenditure data reflectdirect instructional expense, and thereforecannot be used for a full cost model. Thereare methodological pitfalls and inconsistenciesin full cost modeling in higher education,especially with respect to allocating indirectcosts (as described in the full report).

Within the context of these characteristics, thisstudy yields information about factors thatcontribute to direct instructional costs at aninstitution, and these expenditures generallycompose the largest portion of the operatingbudget at most colleges and universities.

Study Design and Methodology

This study utilized data from multiple datacollection cycles of the Delaware Study, focusingprimarily on data collected during 1998, 2000, and2001. Data were collected using an establishedsurvey instrument that requests detailedinformation on fall semester teaching loads byfaculty category, and academic and fiscal year

student credit hour production and direct expensesfor instruction, research, and service activity.

Direct instructional cost per student credit hourtaught is the focal dependent variable examined inthis study. Patterns of dispersion and difference incost across disciplines are examined through aseries of analytical lenses that are typicallyassumed to be major cost factors in the literature.These include institutional mission ascharacterized by the Carnegie institutionalclassification. The Delaware Study employs the1995 Carnegie taxonomy1�research, doctoral,comprehensive, and baccalaureate institutions.The study also examines the impact of othervariables such as highest degree offered within adiscipline, and the relative emphasis onundergraduate versus graduate instruction within adiscipline.

Using appropriate statistical tools, the relationshipof cost to variables such as department size(measured in terms of number of faculty),proportion of faculty who are tenured, volume ofstudent credit hours taught, and personnel expenseas a percentage of total instructional costs isexamined and measured. Effects of highest degreeoffered in the discipline, as well as Carnegieinstitutional classification, are also examined.Cost factors are determined by disciplines, orwhere more appropriate, groups of disciplines.

Findings

The key finding from analysis of multiple years ofDelaware Study data is that most of the variance ininstructional cost across institutions, as measuredby direct expense per student credit hour taught, isassociated with the disciplinary mix within aninstitution.

A secondary factor affecting cost is institutionalmission, as related to Carnegie institutionalclassification. This result may be associated withdifferent faculty responsibilities at institutionswith different Carnegie classifications. Forexample, faculty at research universities,

1 The 1995 Carnegie Taxonomy is fully described in appendix C.

ix

extensively engaged in research activity, might beexpected to teach fewer student credit hours athigher costs than faculty at comprehensiveinstitutions. However, Carnegie classificationaccounts for less of the cost differential betweeninstitutions than the disciplinary mix factor.

Figure A reflects actual academic year 2001Delaware Study benchmarks2 for 5 of the 24disciplines analyzed in this study. Thebenchmarks are mean values for direct expenseper student credit hour taught, as reported byparticipating institutions. They have been refinedto correct for outliers and influential cases, and assuch, are fair reflections of the average cost ofinstruction in those disciplines.

2 The complete set of Delaware Study benchmarks for all of the

disciplines analyzed in this study is found in appendix tables D-1through D-10.

In chemistry, average direct expense per studentcredit hour taught ranged from $181 atcomprehensive institutions to $264 at researchuniversities, an $83 spread. The range in Englishis $28, from a low of $112 at comprehensiveinstitutions to a high of $140 at researchuniversities. Foreign languages range from $131at doctoral universities to $202 at baccalaureatecolleges, a $71 spread, while mechanicalengineering ranges from $316 at doctoraluniversities to $379 at research universities, adifference of $63. And sociology ranges from$100 at comprehensive institutions to $138 atbaccalaureate colleges, a spread of $38. Theseexamples in figure A are typical of the ranges inany given Delaware Study data collection cycle.

Figure A. Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Institution type within discipline, 2001

264

140

171

379

124

233

116131

316

106

181

112

147

342

100

242

132

202

138

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Chemistry English Foreign Languages MechanicalEngineering

Sociology

Dol

lars

ResearchDoctoral

Comprehensive

Baccalaureate

NOTE: Data for mechanical engineering at baccalaureate institutions are not applicable.SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

x

While the foregoing discussion demonstrates thatthere is variation within a discipline acrossinstitution types, figure B clearly illustrates there isalso considerable variation across the disciplineswithin an institution. Using the same disciplinaryexamples, at a research university, the differencein direct expense per student credit hour taughtbetween English and mechanical engineering is$239; the difference between sociology andchemistry is $140. Comparable patterns areapparent within the other Carnegie categories aswell.

These cost differentials within disciplines acrossinstitutional types and between disciplines withinthose types lead to an overarching question. Indescribing the cost of instruction at highereducation institutions, which is the more importantfactor�the designation of the institution asresearch, doctoral, comprehensive, orbaccalaureate, or the configuration of disciplinesthat compose the institution?

Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)3 is astatistical tool that provides the capability todisaggregate total variance in cost by institution,and by discipline within the institution. HLMhelps to explore and describe the dispersion ofinstructional costs across institutions, and toidentify those factors that are associated with thedispersion. The hierarchical linear modelconstructed in this study demonstrates that most ofthe variance in cost is at the discipline level withinan institution, ranging from 76.0 percent in the1998 data collection cycle to 82.6 percent in the2000 cycle.

It can be asserted that Carnegie institutionalclassification, as a proxy for institutional mission,is tied to at least some of the dispersion of costs atthe aggregate institutional level. When Carnegieclassification is taken into account in thehierarchical linear model, the dispersion in costacross institutions decreases, and the relative

3 A complete brief discussion of the statistical techniques used in

analyzing cost variance is found in the Technical Notes (appendixE).

Figure B. Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Discipline within institution type, 2001

264

233

181

242

140 140

112132

171

131147

202

379

316

342

138124

106 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Research Doctoral Comprehensive Baccalaureate

Dol

lars

ChemistryEnglishForeign LanguagesMechanical EngineeringSociology

NOTE: Data for mechanical engineering at baccalaureate institutions are not applicable.

SOURCE: University of Delaware. The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

xi

variance due to disciplines within an institutionranges from 81.0 to 88.0 percent.

This important finding underscores that thedisciplines that compose a college or university�scurriculum, not its Carnegie designation, areassociated with most of the dispersion of costsamong institutions. This further highlights thedistinction between costs, i.e., instructionalexpenditures, and price, i.e., tuition. Stated plainly,price is a constant for all undergraduates at aninstitution; chemistry and engineering majors paythe same tuition rate as English and sociologymajors. However, the cost of deliveringinstruction in those disciplines varies widely.

Finding that most of the variation in instructionalexpenditures is associated with the mix ofdisciplines within an institution is also importantin light of the issues raised in the first part of thecongressionally mandated study. Researchersfound no apparent relationship between the levelof instructional expenditures at an institution andthe tuition rate charged by that institution. Resultsof this analysis of direct instructional expenseunderscore the difficulty in relating price to cost atthe level of the academic discipline. While directinstructional expense per student credit hourtaught in civil engineering is three times higherthan that for sociology, it is not practical for aninstitution to charge engineering majors a tuitionrate three times that charged to sociology majors.

Indeed, the first report in the cost study found thatinstitutional tuition rates at public institutions aredetermined largely by state appropriation levels,while competitive market forces shape tuition atprivate institutions. Neither of these externalfactors has anything to do with what it costs todeliver instruction in a discipline. Price (i.e.,tuition) and cost (i.e., institution expenditures) arenot interchangeable constructs.

While the foregoing discussion described theforces that are associated with instructional costwithin an institution, the study also focused onthose factors that impact expenditures within adiscipline. In The Economics of American

Universities,4 Paul Brinkman postulated that thebehavior of marginal and average costs can beassociated with four dimensions: size (i.e.,quantity of activity or output), scope of servicesoffered, level of instruction (for instructionalcosts), and discipline (for instructional costs).

The analyses in this study determined that 60 to 75percent of the variation in cost within a disciplineor groups of disciplines is associated with specificcost factors consistent with those identified byBrinkman. While the association of a givenvariable with cost, as measured by direct expenseper student credit hour taught, may vary fromdiscipline to discipline, the following generalpatterns are consistently observed:

• The volume of teaching activity, as measuredby total student credit hours taught, is a majorcost factor. Cost decreases as volumeincreases.

• Department size, as measured in terms of totalnumber of faculty, is a consistent costindicator. The larger the department, thehigher the cost.

• The proportion of faculty holding tenure is acost factor. The higher the proportion oftenured faculty, the higher the cost.

• The presence of graduate instruction in adiscipline increases costs, although themeasured effect of this variable on directexpense in this study is smaller than teachingvolume, department size, and faculty tenurerate.

• Similarly, the extent to which expense isassociated with personnel costs, as opposed toequipment costs, has less impact on totaldirect instructional expenditures within adiscipline than do teaching volume,department size, and tenure rate.

4 P.T. Brinkman, Higher Education Cost Functions, in S.A Hoenack

and E.L. Collins, Eds., The Economics of American Universities:Management, Operations and Fiscal Environment. (Albany, NY:State University of New York Press, 1990).

xii

Conclusions

While the first report in the congressionallymandated study of expenditures in highereducation provided evidence that the price thatstudents pay for an education is largely associatedwith factors external to the institution, the analysesin this report suggest that the direct cost ofproviding that education is more closely associatedwith internal institutional decisions and priorities.

The mix of disciplines that compose aninstitution�s overall curriculum is associated withdirect instructional expense at that institution and,to a smaller extent, its designation as a research,doctoral, comprehensive, or baccalaureateinstitution. Costs vary more substantially acrossdisciplines within a given institution than they doacross institutions within a given discipline.

Within the individual disciplines at an institution,economies of scale have the greatest impact oninstructional costs. When given a faculty of fixedsize, the more student credit hours taught, thelower the unit cost. Increasing the size of thatfaculty without a concomitant increase in studentcredit hour production raises instructional expense.Increasing the proportion of tenured faculty�thatcadre of faculty that is better compensated and areessentially a �fixed cost��will increaseinstructional expense. And to a lesser extent,introducing or increasing the level of graduateinstruction raises instructional costs.

While the data analyzed in this study reflect costpatterns for those 4-year colleges and universitiesparticipating in the Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity only, theynonetheless provide a clear and measurableunderstanding of cost behaviors within thoseinstitutions. These are fresh data, collected at theacademic discipline level of analysis, and lendthemselves to descriptive statistics that illuminateand clarify cost patterns within those institutionsthat elect to belong to this data-sharingconsortium.

A college or university�s tuition rate is tied to whatcompeting institutions charge, i.e., marketplaceconditions, and what state legislatures provide asan operating subsidy. Instructional expendituresare tied to more fixed-cost factors, i.e., the mix ofdisciplines in place at the institution, and withinthose disciplines, student credit hour production,department size, and tenure rate. This studysuggests that depending upon their magnitude,these variables constitute a baseline level forinstructional costs within a discipline, and thesecosts vary less by discipline across institutionsthan they do among disciplines within aninstitution.

Most higher education institutions have multiplerevenue streams, tuition being but one, to coverinstructional costs. It is evident from this studythat the factors that are associated withinstructional costs are very different from thefactors that are associated with tuition prices.

xiii

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Foreword ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... vii

List of Text Tables ..................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Appendix Tables ............................................................................................................. xiv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xvi

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

NCES Response to the Congressional Mandate................................................................ 1The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity .......................................... 4

Analytical Framework ................................................................................................................ 9

Data Source: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity..................... 9Bias Issues in the Data........................................................................................................ 10Analysis of Nonresponse Bias............................................................................................ 11Statistical Tools................................................................................................................... 13

Findings....................................................................................................................................... 17

Variation in Cost Across and Within Institutions ............................................................. 17Differences in Costs Between and Across Disciplines .................................................... 19Cost Factors ....................................................................................................................... 22Summary ............................................................................................................................ 24

Conclusions and Discussion ...................................................................................................... 25

Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 25Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 26

References .................................................................................................................................. 29

xiv

Table of Contents�Continued

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A Delaware Study Institutional Participant List ................................................................... A-1B Data Collection Form ........................................................................................................ B-1C Glossary ............................................................................................................................. C-1D Appendix Tables ................................................................................................................ D-1E Technical Notes ................................................................................................................. E-1

List of Text Tables

Text Table

1 Average faculty salary in selected disciplines, by rank..................................................... 6

2 Number of institutions participating in the Delaware Study, by Carnegieinstitutional classification, by year: 1997�2001 ............................................................... 11

3 Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academicdisciplines, by Carnegie institution type: 1998, 2000, and 2001 ..................................... 14

4 Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academicdisciplines, by Carnegie institution type, by quartile: 2001............................................. 15

5 Study of variance components of cost per student credit hour based on hierarchicallinear modeling: 1998, 2000, and 2001 ............................................................................ 18

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Table

D-1 Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institution�s Carnegieclassification.................................................................................................................... D-5



xv


List of Appendix Tables�Continued

Appendix Table Page



D-6 Summary of ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction,by discipline and Carnegie classification, by highest degree offered, andundergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 2001, 2000, and 1998Delaware Study ............................................................................................................... D-14

D-7 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-15



D-10 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highestdegree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-21



D-13 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline withinundergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the5 percent level of significance: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................. D-27

xvi


List of Appendix Tables�Continued

Appendix Table Page



D-16 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hourtaught, by discipline: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-30



List of Figures

Figure

A Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Institution type within discipline,2001 ................................................................................................................................. ix

B Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Discipline within institution type,2001 ................................................................................................................................. x

1 Winston full cost model: Annotated formula for cost per student ............................... 3

1

INTRODUCTION

As a part of the Higher Education Amendments of1998, Congress required that the National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES) conduct a study ofexpenditures in higher education. This legislationspecifically required that the study includeinformation concerning:

• The change in tuition and fees compared withthe Consumer Price Index and otherappropriate measures of inflation;

• Faculty salaries and benefits;

• Administrative salaries, benefits, andexpenses;

• Academic support services;

• Research;

• Operations and maintenance; and

• Institutional expenditures for construction andtechnology, and the potential cost of replacinginstructional buildings and equipment.

The study was also to include an evaluation ofexpenditure patterns over time, an evaluation ofthe relationship of expenditures to the pricecharged for a college education, and the impact oftuition discounting and federal financial aid ontuition-setting policy.

NCES Response to theCongressional Mandate

NCES elected to respond to the congressionalmandate for a study of higher education coststhrough a statistical analysis of factors that drivetuition at higher education institutions,supplemented by a series of commissioned expertpapers. Both the analysis and the papers definedthe conceptual framework for cost analysis, and

responded to several of the key congressionalconcerns with respect to the relationship betweenthe price charged to students for a collegeeducation and the cost of that education.

The commissioned papers included the following:

• Cost Analysis and the Formulation of PublicPolicy, Dennis P. Jones, National Center forHigher Education Management Systems

• Institutional Financial Health: TuitionDiscounting and Enrollment Management,Lucie Lapovsky, Mercy College (New York)

• Higher Education�s Costs, Prices, andSubsidies: Some Economic Facts andFundamentals, Gordon C. Winston, WilliamsCollege (Massachusetts)

• Issues of Cost and Price in Higher Education:Observations on Needed Data and Research,Michael McPherson, Macalester College(Minnesota), and Morton Owen Schapiro,Williams College

• Higher Education and Those �Out of ControlCosts,� D. Bruce Johnstone, University ofBuffalo (New York)

• An Essay on College Costs, David W.Breneman, University of Virginia

• Measuring Higher Education Costs:Considerations and Cautions, Michael F.Middaugh, University of Delaware

Despite the disparate backgrounds and institutionsof the authors, certain consistent themes runthrough the expert papers that speak specifically toquestions raised by Congress with respect to therelationship between the cost and price of acollege education.

2

1 . There is not a pure cause-and-effectrelationship between price and cost. Whiletuition revenues are associated withexpenditure patterns at an institution, they arealso associated with revenue streams availableto that institution. Tuition rates at publicinstitutions are clearly associated with thelevel of state appropriations. On the otherhand, tuition rates at private institutions areassociated with competitive market place asmuch as with expenditures.

2 . While tuition discounting is an issue atcolleges and universities, especially privateinstitutions, tuition rates are to a greater extenttied to what neighboring institutions,particularly public institutions, are charging.

3 . Expenditure/cost patterns representinstitutional choices, values, and priorities.They reflect choices made within theconstraints of available resources, i.e., revenuestreams.

While Congress may have been looking for asimple relationship between the price of a highereducation and the cost of delivering that education,these papers deliver compelling arguments forenvironmental factors that have little to do withexpenditure rates as the major determinants oftuition levels. The study specifically citesdeclining state appropriations as the major factorassociated with rising tuition rates at publicinstitutions, while competitive market pressuresand the availability of nontuition revenue streamsare tied to tuition increases at private, not-for-profit institutions. That said, the issue raised byCongress as to how college and universities spendmoney, i.e., for what purpose and with whatresults, is deserving of a clear and credibleresponse.

In attempting to formulate a response over theyears, colleges and universities have developedfull cost models that look at total expenditures atgroups of institutions without regard to differencesbetween and among those institutions with respectto mission and disciplinary mix�both of whichhave profound impacts on expenditure patterns.The dialogue is further confounded when, inattempting to distinguish between direct and

indirect costs in higher education, the full costmodel at one institution may use one battery ofindirect cost formulas while the model at anotheruses an entirely different set of formulas. In eachcase, the formulas are dependent upon fundingsource and purpose of expenditure.

Full cost models of higher education expendituresa t t e m p t t o d e s c r i b e d i r e c texpenditures�particularly those for instructionand student services�plus what are commonlyreferred to as indirect costs, i.e., expendituresassociated with research and public service,overhead associated with administrative costs, andcosts associated with the operation andmaintenance of the physical plant. One of theoldest and most standard of full cost formulas wasdeveloped by Kent Halstead of ResearchAssociates of Washington, and was used for yearsin their publication Higher Education Revenuesand Expenditures. This annual volume computes,for each institution in the country, a �FullInstructional Cost per Full Time EquivalentStudent,� using data entirely derived from theIntegrated Postsecondary Educational Data System(IPEDS) database. The formula for fullinstructional cost is as follows:

Full Instructional Cost equals the sum of directcosts for instruction and student services plusindirect costs equal to total institutional andacademic support and institutional supportexpenditures and plant expenditures lessoverhead for funded research and publicservice estimated at 33.3 percent of theexpenditures for these two activities.

The National Commission on the Cost of HigherEducation (1998), charged with responsibility fordetermining the relationship between highereducation expenditures and tuition or �stickerprice,� relied heavily on the work of GordonWinston of Williams College and the WilliamsProject on the Economics of Higher Education.The Winston model is predicated on theassumption that some expenditures are clearlyrelated to instruction, while some are only partiallyrelated, and to both of these must be added aproportion of capital costs (figure 1).

3

++

Figure 1. Winston full cost model: Annotated formula for cost per studentCost =

Clearlyinstruction

Proportionpartially

instruction

Proportioncapitalcosts

Current expenditures on:Academic supportInstitutional supportOperation of physical plan

Depreciation (2.5%):Replacement value of buildingsReplacement value of equipment

plus

Opportunity cost (9.12%):Replacement value of buildingsReplacement value of equipmentReplacement value of land

Where proportion equals

Current expenditures on:InstructionStudent services

Current expenditures on instruction and student servicesdivided by

Total current fund expenditures less: current expenditures on academic support,institutional support, operation of physical plan, scholarships and fellowships,mandatory and non-mandatory transfers

Cost per student =Cost divided by full-time-equivalent enrollment

SOURCE: National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Straight Talk College Costs and Prices. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1988.

The Halstead and Winston models illustrate thedifficulty in developing full cost models for highereducation. The allocation of indirect costs oradministrative overhead to the instructionalfunction is an issue of judgment. Why doesHalstead assume that the cost of overhead forresearch and service activity is 33 percent? Whynot 25 percent or 40 percent? Halstead uses totalexpenditures for academic and institutionalsupport plus operation and maintenance ofphysical plant; Winston has developed aproportional allocation for these costs. TheHalstead model excludes capital costs; Winstonincludes them. Is one model superior to the other?Brinkman (2000, pp. 11-12) put it best:

A problem in determining full costsis that the schemes used to allocateindirect costs are, if not arbitrary, atleast imprecise. This remainsstubbornly true even though theproblem has been worked on forsome time, including a nationaleffort in the 1970�s and early 1980�sto develop appropriate procedures

for full costing. Despite such efforts,making mistakes in allocatingindirect costs is still easy. Forexample, it is a heroic assumptionthat library usage correlates wellwith student credit hour across alldisciplines or that one square foot ofspace is necessarily worth as muchas another. The analyst who doesnot accept these simplifyingassumptions is left with having toactually measure the impact of aparticular organization or activity onvarious support systems, a dauntingand expensive task that might atsome point still depend on arbitraryvaluation of some facet of theproduction process.

The difficulty in accurately and systematicallyallocating indirect costs across disciplines andinstitution types is not a recent roadblock indeveloping full cost models. Jones (2000) pointedout that full cost analyses start with accountingdata and rely on adjustments to, and allocations of

4

these financial data to arrive at answers, makingthe analyses captives of the purposes, conventionsand limitations of such data. Hoenack (1990)particularly focused on the need to developreliable means for accurately tracking overheadassociated with research and service activity aswell as instruction.

The foregoing complexities in describing andallocating indirect costs have been furtherexacerbated by a schism within the accountingcommunity between institutions governed by theFinancial Accounting Standards Board (FASB),generally independent or privately charteredcolleges and universities, and those governed bythe Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB), generally public, state-assistedinstitutions. The differences in accountingstandards between the two groups are sosignificant that IPEDS has been forced to developseparate Finance surveys for FASB and GASBinstitutions, and comparability of data is an issue.

In initially responding to Congress and othersseeking an assessment of major cost factors inhigher education, analytical vehicles should not beencumbered with descriptors that are arbitrary orimprecise. In developing the Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity, the datasource used in this study, Middaugh (2001,pp. 73�74) stated:

It is important to underscore that foreach of the expenditure categories[instruction, research, and service] onlydirect costs are measured. In creating aframework for productivity analysis, itis important that the data be credible andverifiable. The standard definitions areclear and precise for identifying directexpense by institutional functionalcategory. Measuring indirect costs, thatis, administrative costs, utilities costs,capital costs, and so on, is less uniformand precise. Indeed, on any givencampus there are multiple calculationsfor indirect costs based upon theacademic disciplines for which costs arebeing recovered. For the sake of clarity,simplicity, and credibility, thediscussion of costs [in this analysis] will

in no way attempt to measure full costs,only direct expenses.

Brinkman (2000) emphasizes that, �The costaccounting data developed for the Delaware Studyof Instructional Costs and Productivity is a goodexample of data suitable for subsequent statistical,econometric type analyses.�

The Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs andProductivity

The evolution of the Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity4 is thoroughlydetailed in the book, Understanding FacultyProductivity: Standards and Benchmarks forColleges and Universities (Middaugh, 2001), andin articles in Planning for Higher Education, theofficial journal of the Society for College andUniversity Planning (Middaugh 1996, 1999). Thefollowing is a capsulization of the rationale thatunderpins the conceptual framework for the study,as well as a brief discussion of the methodology.

The Delaware Study is predicated on the operatingprinciple that any meaningful analysis of costs andproductivity in institutions of higher educationmust take place at the academic discipline level ofanalysis. Institutional aggregate data, while usefulin making broad, general statements about highereducation costs, may actually mask factorsassociated with expenditures and lead to erroneousconclusions when making policy related toinstructional costs and productivity. For example,a commonly used measure of instructional costs isone derived by taking total direct expenditures forinstruction, as reported on the IPEDS Financesurvey, and dividing that total by the number offull-time-equivalent ( F T E ) students at theinstitution. FTE students is a headcount measurederived by taking the part-time headcount

4 The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity is a

data-sharing consortium of colleges and universities throughout theUnited States. Access to Delaware Study data is restricted toparticipating institutions. Questions concerning data access shouldbe directed to the Office of Institutional Research and Planning atthe University of Delaware, 325 Hullihen Hall, Newark DE 19716.

5

enrollment at a college or university, dividing it bythree, and adding the quotient to the full-timeheadcount enrollment (Taylor and Massy 1996.)While this measure of �Direct InstructionalExpense per FTE Student� might quiteappropriately be used to compare averageinstructional cost between and among researchuniversities as a group, doctoral universities as agroup, or comprehensive or baccalaureateinstitutions as a group, it should be used tocompare individual institutions with caution andwhen much is known about the curricularofferings at the institutions being compared.

Specifically, only institutions with similarcurricular mixes should be compared usinginstitution-wide metrics such as DirectInstructional Expense per FTE Student. Onemight wish to compare two research/doctoralintensive universities, as defined under the 2000Carnegie Institutional Classification convention.Suppose one of the institutions is heavily orientedtoward the natural and physical sciences, withsignificant emphasis on graduate education; theother is steeped in the social sciences andhumanities with lesser emphasis on graduateeducation. The former institution is weighted withdisciplines that are typically characterized bysmall class instruction in equipment-intensivelaboratories, while the latter more typically useslarge classroom, lecture-based pedagogy in manyof its classes. Any institution-wide comparison ofcosts without consideration of disciplines betweenthese universities will be totally misleading.

To appreciate the impact of academic discipline oninstructional cost, one need only consider facultysalaries. Table 1 contains the average facultysalary, by rank, for 24 disciplines typically foundat most 4-year institutions in the United States.The data are taken from the annual survey offaculty salaries by discipline conducted byOklahoma State University. While the data reflectaverage salaries for flagship university membersof the National Association of State Universitiesand Land Grant Colleges, this resource is afrequently used benchmark for identifyingmarketplace salaries for hiring purposes.

While it is obvious that there is disparity betweenand across academic disciplines, even at the fullprofessor rank, the important information in table1 is at the assistant professor and new assistantprofessor rank. There are clear marketplacedifferentials between entry-level salaries for newfaculty in quantitative disciplines such asmathematics, engineering, computer science,economics, and business, when compared witharts, humanities, and social sciences. Theoperating assumption in the Delaware Study is thatinstructional expenditures are largely associatedwith personnel costs, and that faculty salarydifferentials will constitute a significant cost factoracross academic disciplines. This is consistentwith the finding from the first part of thecongressionally mandated study that instructionalexpenditures reflect institutional choices andpriorities. Recruiting and retaining high-qualityfaculty in a very competitive marketplace requirescompetitive compensation, but the level ofcompetition and compensation clearly varies fromdiscipline to discipline. The differences among thedisciplines is further exacerbated by the fact thatprograms in the sciences and engineering are moreequipment-intensive than other disciplines,underscoring the need to examine instructionalexpenditures at an institution as a function ofprogrammatic mix.

In order to better understand factors associatedwith instructional expenditures in highereducation, the Office of Institutional Research andPlanning at the University of Delaware was askedto analyze multiple data collection cycles from theDelaware Study. The Delaware Study is a data-sharing consortium embracing 4-year colleges anduniversities running the full spectrum of the 1995Carnegie Institutional Taxonomy, i.e., research,doctoral, comprehensive, and baccalaureate.5 Theconsortium shares detailed information on facultyteaching loads by instructor classification anddirect expenditures for instruction, research, andpublic service activity. Data are collected andanalyzed by academic discipline.

5 The 1995 Carnegie Taxonomy is used throughout this report, as it is

analytically more meaningful for this analysis than the currentCarnegie taxonomy.

6

Table 1. Average faculty salary in selected disciplines,1 by rank

Discipline Full

professor

Associate

professor

Assistant

professor

New assistant

professor

Communications............................................................................ $73,406 $54,126 $44,785 $43,458

Computer and information sciences............................................. 100,780 75,123 67,929 66,698

Education....................................................................................... 75,564 55,669 45,420 45,614

Engineering.................................................................................... 103,828 70,207 56,940 57,410

Foreign languages and literature .................................................. 67,335 50,005 41,240 40,763

English language and literature .................................................... 73,273 52,026 42,292 41,314

Biological sciences........................................................................ 78,506 56,951 47,279 47,900

Mathematics .................................................................................. 80,990 57,421 47,959 45,101

Philosophy ..................................................................................... 76,890 52,734 41,812 40,369

Chemistry....................................................................................... 89,245 58,527 49,292 46,726

Geology ......................................................................................... 77,266 56,946 48,552 47,026

Physics ........................................................................................... 85,998 60,365 53,123 50,953

Psychology .................................................................................... 83,382 74,606 55,953 46,263

Anthropology................................................................................. 74,751 53,745 44,668 43,371

Economics ..................................................................................... 99,447 67,945 60,565 62,635

Geography ..................................................................................... 75,415 56,597 45,306 43,527

History ........................................................................................... 77,849 53,859 42,800 41,491

Political science............................................................................. 82,480 56,306 45,960 45,025

Sociology....................................................................................... 78,900 54,793 45,753 45,294

Visual and performing arts ........................................................... 65,645 50,349 39,979 37,530

Nursing .......................................................................................... 77,652 60,109 48,521 49,158

Business administration ................................................................ 110,753 83,558 81,615 83,835

Accounting .................................................................................... 110,424 87,610 83,553 88,854

Financial management .................................................................. 115,314 91,568 88,948 86,5151Disciplines reflect those organizational structures at land grant universities for which faculty salary data are collected by Oklahoma StateUniversity.

SOURCE: 2000�2001 Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline, Office of Planning, Budget, and Institutional Research, Oklahoma State University.

Since its inception in 1992, nearly 350 collegesand universities have participated in the DelawareStudy (see appendix A for the list of participants).A substantial portion of the participant poolsubmits data on an annual basis; other institutionselect to participate on an alternate-year or lessregular interval cycle. It should be noted that thisis a voluntary data-sharing consortium.Institutions elect to participate during any givendata cycle, and the data sample for that cycle istherefore not random. The issue of a nonrandomsample and potential nonresponse bias will beaddressed throughout this report.

The Delaware Study collects teaching load andfinancial data at the academic discipline level ofanalysis. The underlying assumption in this datacollection strategy is that there are very realdifferences between and across disciplines withrespect to magnitude of teaching loads and cost.

To ensure comparability of data, disciplines aredefined using the NCES Classification ofInstructional Programs (CIP) taxonomy. Data aretypically collected at the four-digit CIP level,although a number of participating institutionsrequest benchmarking at the six-digit CIP level,and where sufficient cases exist (i.e., N equal to orgreater than 5), accommodation is made.

The Delaware Study Data Collection Formcomprises two parts (see appendix B). Part A is adetailed collection of information on facultyteaching loads during the fall term of the academicyear under analysis. Information is collected onstudent credit hours and organized class sectionstaught by each of four discrete categories offaculty. The faculty categories includetenured/tenure eligible; faculty on recurringcontracts at the institution but who are in non-tenurable lines; supplemental and adjunct faculty;

7

and graduate teaching assistants. While studentcredit hour generation is a fairly obvious measureof teaching productivity, data on the number ofclass sections taught is also collected, as not allinstructional activity is credit-bearing. It is notuncommon to find associated with the credit-bearing lecture portion of a course, organized classsections (e.g., recitation and discussion sections,laboratory sections, etc.), which themselves arezero-credit, but which are required components ofthe overall course of instruction. A completepicture of total faculty teaching activity�credithours and course sections�is essential to anydiscussion of a possible relationship betweenteaching productivity and cost.

Cost data collected in Part B reflect direc texpenditures for instruction and separatelybudgeted research and public service. Thedecision to focus on direct costs is related to theconsistency in definitions as to what constitutesinstruction, research, and service expenditures.

Long-standing definitions and calculationconventions for direct expenditures, as establishedby the National Association of College andUniversity Business Officers (NACUBO) are usedto develop information on instructional costs.These definitions are equally appropriate for, andapplicable to a complex research university or asmall baccalaureate liberal arts college.

The present study examines three cycles ofDelaware Study data (i.e., 1998, 2000, and 2001)to identify those factors that are associated withthe variation in direct instructional costs betweenand across academic disciplines, and to identifythose cost factors that are tied to the magnitude ofinstructional expenditures in a given discipline.This examination takes place within the context ofintervening variables such as Carnegieclassification (a proxy for mission), highest degreeoffered in a discipline, and the relative emphasison undergraduate versus graduate instruction inthe discipline.

8

9

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Data Source: The DelawareStudy of Instructional Costsand Productivity

The data analyzed in this study were collectedfrom multiple cycles of the Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity, and reflectinformation for the years 1997�98, 1999�2000,and 2000�2001. Data are collected annually usingthe template found in appendix B. The completeset of data definitions associated with eachelement in the template is found in the glossary(appendix C).

The purpose of this study is to examine whetherinstructional costs vary across disciplines withinan institution, and across disciplines wheninstitutions are arrayed by Carnegie classification.The Delaware Study utilizes the 1995 Carnegietaxonomy, which aggregates 4-year institutionsinto research universities, doctoral universities,comprehensive colleges and universities, andbaccalaureate colleges (see appendix C forcomplete definitions). An institution�sclassification is based upon the volume and type ofdegrees granted, and the volume of externallyfunded research activity measured in terms offederal research and development expenditures.

The study further assesses the extent to whichhighest degree offered within a discipline(bachelor�s, master�s, or doctorate) and the relativeemphasis on undergraduate versus graduateinstruction in a discipline impacts cost patterns.

The model developed to analyze costs in this studyfocuses on direct expenditures for instruction. Theinstructional function is fully described anddefined in the glossary to this report, as are thosecost components that constitute directexpenditures. Instructional expenditures includesalaries and wages, benefits, equipment, and othersupport costs that are dedicated to the instructionalfunction, which embraces teaching, departmentally

supported research, and other support activitydesigned to enhance the teaching process. Unitcost for purposes of this study is measured interms of direct instructional expenditures perstudent credit hour taught within each of thedisciplines under analysis.

A number of variables are considered in this studyas potential factors associated with instructionalcosts. Faculty are classified into four facultycategories�tenured and tenure-track faculty, otherregular faculty, supplemental or adjunct faculty,and graduate teaching assistants (see the glossary).Faculty type may be a cost factor if tenured andtenure-track faculty are more expensive than non-tenurable full-time faculty and part-time adjunctsor teaching assistants. The size of an academicdepartment or program faculty is measured bytotal full-time equivalency for each of the fourfaculty categories. The metric for calculating full-time equivalency is described in the glossary.

Teaching activity is measured by student credithours taught�in total, and within each facultycategory. Student credit hour generation ismeasured at the lower division and upper divisionlevels within undergraduate instruction, and intotal at the graduate level. Within each discipline,instructional activity is also characterized by thehighest degree awarded. Student credit hours andother characteristics of faculty teaching load aredescribed in the glossary.

The cost model developed for this study examinesthe relationship of individual variables, andcombinations of variables, with directexpenditures for instruction. The techniques fortransforming collected data elements into specificdata variables are fully described in the Findingssection of this report. Specifically, the modelemploys appropriate statistical tools to test thefollowing:

• The extent to which variation in instructionalcosts is associated with discipline and with

10

institutional mission, as expressed by Carnegieclassification.

• The extent to which specific variables areassociated with direct instructional expense.The rationale for including these variables isdescribed in the Technical Notes (appendix E).These variables are as follows:

1. Economies of scales as measured by thevolume of student credit hours taught by afaculty of fixed size.

2. Variation in the total size of a faculty.

3. The proportion of total faculty who holdtenure. Tenured faculty tend to be bettercompensated, and are essentially �fixedcosts� until retirement.

4 . The proportion of total instructionalexpense that is accounted for by personnelexpenditures.

5 . The relative emphasis on undergraduateversus graduate instruction within adepartment�s student credit hourproduction.

The apparent relationships between and acrossthese variables are fully described in the Findingssection of this report.

Bias Issues in the Data

Since its inception, participation in the DelawareStudy has been restricted exclusively to 4-yearcolleges and universities. Although participatinginstitutions self-select and the participant pool isnot random, a general invitation to submit data issent annually to presidents, chief academicofficers, and institutional researchers throughprofessional organizations such as the NationalAssociation of State Universities and Land GrantColleges (NASULGC), the American Associationof State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), theAssociation for Institutional Research (AIR), andthe Society for College and University Planning

(SCUP). Working relationships have also beenestablished with the Association of AmericanUniversities Data Exchange (AAUDE), theSouthern Universities Group (SUG), the Big 12Universities, and the Higher Education DataSharing Consortium (HEDS), the latter embracing125 private colleges and universities across theUnited States. The Delaware Study is also theofficial data collection vehicle for several stateentities, including the University of NorthCarolina System, the Tennessee Board of Regents,the Louisiana Board of Regents, the MississippiBoard of Regents, and the South Dakota Board ofRegents, among others. Table 2 displaysinstitutional participation for the five most recentdata collection cycles.

One of the assumptions examined in this study isthat expenditure patterns and faculty workloadsare, at least in part, tied to the institution�smission, i.e., the range of program offerings, theextent of commitment to graduate education, andthe priority given to research and public service.The 1995 Carnegie classification category thatgroups institutions according to these institutionalcharacteristics became the subpopulation that theparticipating institutions were to represent.

Table 2 shows a steady annual participation in theDelaware Study of roughly 150 institutions peryear, except in 1999 when participation wasrestricted to research and doctoral universitieswhile a secure web site was tested for use foronline collection of data and dissemination ofbenchmarks. This relatively stable participationrate persists even though invitations to submit datawere sent in summer 2001 to all Title IV-eligible4-year institutions in the United States.

This consistent group of roughly 150 institutionsover the years comprises about 4 in 10 researchuniversities and 1 in 4 doctoral universities. Theproportion of comprehensive and baccalaureateinstitutions is lower, because the base number ofthose institutions in the United States is muchlarger than that for research and doctoraluniversities. The 2000 data collection cycle, forexample, embraced 152 institutions and 5,140secondary analysis units, i.e., all disciplines at the

11

Table 2. Number of institutions participating in the Delaware Study, by Carnegie institutionalclassification, by year: 1997�2001

Data collection cycleCarnegie classification

1997 1998 19991 2000 2001

Total .................................................................................... 150 150 97 152 175

Research .................................................................................. 48 48 53 48 46

Doctoral................................................................................... 36 27 25 27 34

Comprehensive ....................................................................... 53 61 12 64 72

Baccalaureate .......................................................................... 13 14 7 13 231In 1999, participation was restricted to research and doctoral institutions, except in cases where entire state higher education systems utilize theDelaware Study.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

4-digit CIP level. With the exception of a fewinstitutions every year, there is completeenumeration of the discipline data by institution.The primary and secondary analytical units aregenerally similar for all data collection cycles.

Analysis of Nonresponse Bias

While numbers within the 1995 Carnegiecategories vary slightly from year to year,institutional counts from the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)indicate that the following numbers reflect thetotal approximate size of each Carnegie grouping:125 research universities, 110 doctoraluniversities, 525 comprehensive institutions, and630 baccalaureate colleges. The counts do notinclude specialized 4-year institutions. The rate ofparticipation over the years in the Delaware Studyhas been highest among research universities, withroughly 4 in 10 participating nationally.Approximately 1 in 4 doctoral universitiesparticipate, and 10 to 13 percent of comprehensiveinstitutions submit data in any given year. Thelowest participation rate is among baccalaureateinstitutions, with 2 percent participating prior tothe 2000 data collection, and just over 3 percentsubmitting data in the most recent data collectioncycle. It should be noted that data are collected atthe academic discipline level of analysis, withfour-digit CIP codes being the identifying marker.As a result, it is apparent that larger, morecomplex institutions, with discrete departmentsand disciplines, are more likely to participate thansmaller institutions that typically have multiple-discipline organizational structures.

In any survey data collection, the risk exists thatestimates derived from participating institutionsmay differ from those that might have beenderived from nonparticipants. In suchcircumstances, data derived from the studyparticipants alone could potentially be biasedestimates of the overall population of institutions.This is a particular concern in instances whereparticipation rates are low, as in the case ofcomprehensive and baccalaureate institutions.Moreover, as noted, participants are self-selected,and the pool of institutions is not random.

To examine how different or similar theparticipant pools are when compared withnonparticipating institutions, selected institutionalcharacteristics were obtained from the IPEDSdatabase. Institutional characteristics pertaining tofaculty size, enrollment levels, degrees conferred,and expenditures information are summarized inappendix tables D-1 through D-5 for each datacollection cycle, 1997 through 2001 (althoughsome institutions had incomplete IPEDSinformation, particularly in the area of institutionalfinances). The difference between the average forthe selected variables for participants andnonparticipants is displayed, along with anestimate of the magnitude of bias. The differenceis also presented in terms of percent, with theparticipant average as the base. The findings areas follows:

• Among the research universities, institutionsparticipating in the Delaware Study are 9 to13 percent larger than nonparticipants in termsof the number of faculty that are tenured, andare 6 to 11 percent larger in terms of total full-

12

time faculty. Full-time-equivalent (FTE)enrollment at participating institutions ishigher by 16 to 22 percent. Participants alsotend to have a larger undergraduate enrollmentthan nonparticipants and a correspondinglylarger number of baccalaureate degreesawarded. Student/faculty ratio, measured interms of FTE enrollment per full-time faculty,is slightly higher at participating institutions.Research expenditures per FTE faculty arelower by one-third at participating institutions,but public service expenditures per FTEfaculty are higher. The average scholarshipand library expenditures per FTE enrollmentare approximately 20 percent higher amongparticipating institutions when averaged overthe years.

• Among doctoral universities, institutionsparticipating in the Delaware Study are larger,both in terms of the number of tenure-trackand total faculty, and in terms of FTEenrollment. The student/faculty ratio, asmeasured in terms of FTE enrollment per full-time faculty, is similar for participatinginstitutions and nonparticipants. Under-graduate enrollment as a percentage of totalenrollment is higher among participatinginstitutions by 12 to 16 percent. Averageinstructional expenditures per FTE student arehigher among nonparticipants, while averagescholarship expenditures per FTE enrollmentare higher among participating institutions.

• Among comprehensive institutions, those thatparticipate in the Delaware Study have aboutone-third more tenure-track and total full-timefaculty than nonparticipants. FTE enrollmentamong participating institutions is larger thanamong nonparticipants by 25 to 34 percent,although undergraduate enrollment as aproportion of the total is higher amongparticipating institutions by only 2 to 4percentage points. The student/faculty ratio,as measured in terms of FTE enrollment perfull-time faculty, is consistently smaller forparticipating institutions by two to fourstudents per faculty. Participating institutionsvary by year in terms of instructional andacademic support expenditures per FTEenrollment. In 1997, participants spent 8

percent less on instruction and 13 percent lesson academic support than did nonparticipants,where in subsequent years they spent more.

• Among baccalaureate institutions, those thatparticipate in the Delaware Study are largerthan nonparticipants both in terms of tenure-track faculty (17 to 53 percent) and total full-time faculty (23 to 42 percent). FTEenrollment at participating institutions ishigher than at nonparticipating institutions by23 to 33 percent, although the averagestudent/faculty ratio, as measured by FTEenrollment per full-time faculty, is similar forboth groups. The composition of theparticipant pool varies from year to year interms of instructional expenditures per FTEstudents, with spending higher than that ofnonparticipants in two of the years examined,and less in two other years. Averagescholarship expenditures per FTE student atparticipating institutions are substantially lessthan at nonparticipating institutions in theearlier data collection cycles.

The findings are consistent with the generalobservation over the years that participants in theDelaware Study are more likely to be larger, moreorganizationally complex institutions that lendthemselves to a structure that largely embracesdiscrete single CIP code academic department orprogram structures. Smaller institutions, withorganization structures that involve high levels ofinterdisciplinary instruction and multiple CIPcodes within a department or program (e.g.,humanities department, social sciencesdepartment, etc.) find it more difficult todisaggregate teaching loads and expenditureinformation into recommended reporting formatsand are less likely to participate. Consequently,data analyses in this study cannot be used toestimate cost patterns at the national level.However, statistics can be applied to theparticipant pool to describe cost patterns acrossdisciplines, and across institutions, and to describethe association of those variables with directinstructional expenditures. These findings, whilenot generalizable to the larger universe of highereducation institutions, do provide a thoroughdescription of cost behaviors, by discipline, at

13

institutions participating in the Delaware Studyand yield a framework for discussion of strategicapproaches to cost analysis at other institutions.

It must be underscored that comparable cost andteaching productivity data currently do not existfor 2-year colleges, proprietary schools, and thevast majority of small, interdisciplinary-orientedliberal arts colleges. Consequently, the findingsfrom this study cannot be extended to thoseinstitutions. However, by analyzing the dataavailable from the Delaware Study, we can drawcertain conclusions about differences that exist incost patterns at larger, complex, mostly public4-year institutions. While the Delaware Studyparticipant pool represents a small proportion ofthe universe of higher education institutions, italso represents a substantial proportion of totalhigher education enrollment.

Statistical Tools

This study of higher education instructionalexpenditures is a descriptive analysis. Because thepopulation for the study is self-selected, anygeneralization to the larger universe of 4-yearhigher education institutions is not possible.However, application of appropriate statisticaltools to the data from institutions that elect toparticipate in the Delaware Study can yield richdescriptive information about expenditure patternsand cost factors for those institutions.

As noted earlier, the focal variable for this study isunit cost, by academic discipline, as measured bydirect instructional expense per student credit hourtaught. Direct instructional expense per studentcredit hour taught is one of the nationalbenchmarks produced annually. It is a calculatedmean value for the data submitted by participantsfor two variables: total direct instructionalexpenditures divided by total student credit hourstaught. However, as a national benchmark, thismean statistic is �refined� to correct foridiosyncratic values that may be submitted by anygiven institution. In analyzing the data within eachdata set, national benchmarks are computedthrough Windsorization. The initial step in thecomputation is the inclusion of all institutional

responses with each Carnegie class for a givenvariable. From those total responses, an initialmean value is calculated. The responses are thenfurther analyzed to identify those cases that arebeyond two standard deviations above or belowthe initial mean. These cases are then defined asoutliers and are excluded from the subsequentcalculation of the refined mean. This conservativeapproach to benchmark construction was taken toensure that no single or set of idiosyncraticresponses exert undue influence on the calculationof a mean value or benchmark. TheWindsorization process trims the tails of thedistribution by specified percentiles. For example,in a normal distribution, a 5 percent trimmed meanexcludes the smallest 5 percent and the largest 5percent observations. Benchmarks are calculatedonly for those disciplines wherein a minimum offive institutional responses were submitted.

Table 3 displays the refined means for directinstructional expense per student credit hourtaught for each of the academic disciplinesexamined in this study. The data are arrayed byCarnegie institution type for the years 1998, 2000,and 2001. The data demonstrate general stabilityover time within each Carnegie class in eachdiscipline. It is evident that direct instructionalexpense varies across Carnegie class within eachdiscipline, with research universities generallycosting more than doctoral universities, which, inturn, are more expensive than comprehensiveinstitutions. Baccalaureate institutions that elect toparticipate tend to be selective institutions thatoffer small classes, and this is reflected in theirexpense per credit hour data.

To further illuminate the dispersion of directexpenditures per student credit hour taught amongparticipating institutions, benchmarks areproduced annually that display the refined means,arrayed by quartile as well as Carnegie institutiontype. Table 4 illustrates the dispersion of thoserefined means for 2001 for the same academicdisciplines as in table 3. Comparable patterns inall data collection cycles have been evident. Thevalues displayed for the quartiles represent thepoint at which one-fourth, one-half, and three-

14

Table 3. Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academicdisciplines, by Carnegie institution type: 1998, 2000, and 2001

Discipline and institution type 1998 2000 2001 Discipline and institution type 1998 2000 2001

Communication GeologyResearch............................................ $157 $164 $164 Research .......................................... $208 $223 $211Doctoral ............................................ 132 143 130 Doctoral ........................................... 159 201 197Comprehensive................................. 125 134 138 Comprehensive................................ 143 160 144Baccalaureate.................................... 118 126 151 Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Computer science PhysicsResearch............................................ 170 203 204 Research .......................................... 249 284 263Doctoral ............................................ 141 165 142 Doctoral ........................................... 178 191 203Comprehensive................................. 119 135 155 Comprehensive................................ 159 165 167Baccalaureate.................................... 203 160 135 Baccalaureate .................................. 235 --- 254

Education PsychologyResearch............................................ 235 269 260 Research .......................................... 131 150 150Doctoral ............................................ 167 184 198 Doctoral ........................................... 124 135 131Comprehensive................................. 143 185 180 Comprehensive................................ 101 113 115Baccalaureate.................................... 156 161 175 Baccalaureate .................................. 126 113 131

Civil engineering AnthropologyResearch............................................ 369 401 411 Research .......................................... 139 148 157Doctoral ............................................ 328 367 379 Doctoral ........................................... 118 127 126Comprehensive................................. 262 362 339 Comprehensive................................ 106 106 132Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Electrical engineering EconomicsResearch............................................ 360 358 358 Research .......................................... 134 145 154Doctoral ............................................ 273 318 276 Doctoral ........................................... 142 139 144Comprehensive................................. 255 278 301 Comprehensive................................ 102 112 126Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. 162 --- 194

Mechanical engineering GeographyResearch............................................ 415 400 379 Research .......................................... 140 155 164Doctoral ............................................ 321 353 316 Doctoral ........................................... 119 137 125Comprehensive................................. 264 333 342 Comprehensive................................ 95 121 103Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Foreign languages HistoryResearch............................................ 165 169 171 Research .......................................... 129 142 149Doctoral ............................................ 124 127 131 Doctoral ........................................... 139 125 124Comprehensive................................. 134 139 147 Comprehensive................................ 105 99 103Baccalaureate.................................... 186 128 202 Baccalaureate .................................. 108 107 151

English Political scienceResearch............................................ 122 138 140 Research .......................................... 160 168 164Doctoral ............................................ 111 118 116 Doctoral ........................................... 172 151 152Comprehensive................................. 101 109 112 Comprehensive................................ 120 129 131Baccalaureate.................................... 135 120 132 Baccalaureate .................................. 160 --- 165

Biological sciences SociologyResearch............................................ 261 286 276 Research .......................................... 108 130 124Doctoral ............................................ 167 201 191 Doctoral ........................................... 122 105 106Comprehensive................................. 120 135 149 Comprehensive................................ 96 99 100Baccalaureate.................................... 151 173 186 Baccalaureate .................................. 130 110 138

Mathematics Visual and performing artsResearch............................................ 144 147 160 Research .......................................... 205 214 228Doctoral ............................................ 113 122 116 Doctoral ........................................... 193 200 199Comprehensive................................. 104 105 106 Comprehensive................................ 175 174 180Baccalaureate.................................... 97 111 112 Baccalaureate .................................. 207 174 226

Philosophy NursingResearch............................................ 124 134 137 Research .......................................... 300 368 388Doctoral ............................................ 138 130 125 Doctoral ........................................... 270 354 332Comprehensive................................. 108 112 119 Comprehensive................................ 247 316 318Baccalaureate.................................... 124 105 146 Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Chemistry BusinessResearch............................................ 205 255 264 Research .......................................... 161 167 170Doctoral ............................................ 197 229 233 Doctoral ........................................... 149 164 157Comprehensive................................. 157 168 181 Comprehensive................................ 150 151 156Baccalaureate.................................... 189 190 242 Baccalaureate .................................. 138 118 119


15

Table 4. Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academicdisciplines, by Carnegie institution type, by quartile: 2001

Discipline and institution type 25percent

50percent

75percent Discipline and institution type 25

percent50

percent75

percent

Communication GeologyResearch............................................ $107 $159 $214 Research........................................ $159 $209 $278Doctoral ............................................ 96 118 161 Doctoral......................................... 113 176 254Comprehensive................................. 97 137 169 Comprehensive ............................. 112 138 175Baccalaureate.................................... 115 146 203 Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Computer Science PhysicsResearch............................................ 158 181 256 Research........................................ 189 254 340Doctoral ............................................ 95 140 182 Doctoral......................................... 131 199 256Comprehensive................................. 112 137 190 Comprehensive ............................. 115 163 208Baccalaureate.................................... 103 120 176 Baccalaureate................................ 127 163 436

Education PsychologyResearch............................................ 181 243 322 Research........................................ 106 150 185Doctoral ............................................ 129 194 246 Doctoral......................................... 92 136 158Comprehensive................................. 119 161 223 Comprehensive ............................. 88 112 131Baccalaureate.................................... 125 161 322 Baccalaureate................................ 90 121 150

Civil engineering AnthropologyResearch............................................ 273 403 485 Research........................................ 117 159 191Doctoral ............................................ 316 394 468 Doctoral......................................... 72 122 154Comprehensive................................. 281 336 412 Comprehensive ............................. 106 127 165Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ 105 136 260

Electrical engineering EconomicsResearch............................................ 307 338 437 Research........................................ 112 144 192Doctoral ............................................ 204 252 334 Doctoral......................................... 112 150 170Comprehensive................................. 230 292 391 Comprehensive ............................. 101 127 146Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ 134 199 232

Mechanical engineering GeographyResearch............................................ 302 382 455 Research........................................ 122 140 229Doctoral ............................................ 224 286 405 Doctoral......................................... 97 127 148Comprehensive................................. 264 347 414 Comprehensive ............................. 75 110 133Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Foreign languages HistoryResearch............................................ 115 146 207 Research........................................ 113 150 188Doctoral ............................................ 97 124 149 Doctoral......................................... 81 125 163Comprehensive................................. 118 146 172 Comprehensive ............................. 77 101 126Baccalaureate.................................... 124 160 256 Baccalaureate................................ 93 114 243

English Political scienceResearch............................................ 109 131 169 Research........................................ 127 159 198Doctoral ............................................ 86 115 144 Doctoral......................................... 97 152 209Comprehensive................................. 88 105 128 Comprehensive ............................. 107 124 149Baccalaureate.................................... 105 120 149 Baccalaureate................................ 103 186 211

Biological Sciences SociologyResearch............................................ 194 236 333 Research........................................ 105 119 153Doctoral ............................................ 125 175 233 Doctoral......................................... 76 104 131Comprehensive................................. 113 148 182 Comprehensive ............................. 74 95 125Baccalaureate.................................... 150 165 205 Baccalaureate................................ 92 135 192

Mathematics Visual and performing artsResearch............................................ 103 137 195 Research........................................ 160 217 280Doctoral ............................................ 83 120 136 Doctoral......................................... 141 189 253Comprehensive................................. 83 113 128 Comprehensive ............................. 129 166 221Baccalaureate.................................... 80 111 140 Baccalaureate................................ 176 201 283

Philosophy NursingResearch............................................ 93 138 180 Research........................................ 309 403 468Doctoral ............................................ 96 123 145 Doctoral......................................... 240 341 403Comprehensive................................. 92 122 140 Comprehensive ............................. 242 291 373Baccalaureate.................................... 78 140 203 Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Chemistry BusinessResearch............................................ 208 244 324 Research........................................ 125 166 207Doctoral ............................................ 164 241 266 Doctoral......................................... 122 154 185Comprehensive................................. 128 171 221 Comprehensive ............................. 124 149 188Baccalaureate.................................... 160 223 302 Baccalaureate................................ 95 110 146


16

quarters of participating institutions, respectively,reported costs equal to or below those values.

The data in displayed table 3 indicate modestvariation across Carnegie institutional categorieswithin a discipline, but also indicate that largerand more substantial differences exist between andacross the disciplines within institution types.These patterns are consistent in examining thedispersion of data points in table 4, thereby raisingone of the focal questions for this study: Which ismore central to understanding the variation ofi n s t r u c t i o n a l c o s t s i n h i g h e reducation�differences within disciplinesexamined across institutions, or differencesbetween disciplines within institutions?

As important as describing the factors that areassociated with the dispersion of instructionalcosts within and across institutions is anunderstanding of those factors that are tied toexpenditures within academic disciplines. Multipleregression techniques were applied to a full rangeof variables that potentially are associated with themagnitude of direct instructional expenditures.Using direct expense per student credit hour taughtas the dependent variable, potential cost factors,including but not limited to the following, wereexamined:

• Volume of teaching load as measured in termsof student credit hours taught;

• Size of instructional faculty, measured interms of full-time equivalency;

• The proportion of total FTE faculty that aretenured or tenure track (predicated on theassumption that tenured and tenure-trackfaculty are better compensated than otherfaculty);

• The relative emphasis of departmentalteaching on undergraduate versus graduateinstruction; and

• The extent to which an academic discipline ispersonnel-intensive as compared toequipment-intensive.

The application of multiple regression techniquesto the variables in this study is described inappendix E. The Findings section of this studydescribes the results of the application of bothHLM and multiple regression statistics to the data,and clearly identifies those factors that areassociated with the dispersion of instructionalexpenditures within and across institutions, andthose factors that are associated with themagnitude of direct instructional expense inacademic disciplines.

17

FINDINGS

Two major issues are addressed in this Study ofHigher Education Instructional Expenditures. Thefirst is whether important differences in directinstructional costs are evident between and acrossthe disciplines within an institution and acrossinstitutions within Carnegie category. The secondissue is the identification of important cost factorswithin the disciplines under analysis. This sectionof the report details findings growing out ofanalyses of three Delaware Study data collectioncycles that speak to those issues.

Variation in Cost Across andWithin Institutions

To establish the variance components of costthrough hierarchical linear modeling (HLM),disciplines are considered the level 1 units andinstitutions the level 2 units. Without taking intoaccount any institutional or discipline-relatedvariables, the hierarchical linear model isequivalent to one-way ANOVA with randomeffects. This approach provides information onhow much of the variation in cost lies across orwithin institutions, a test of whether theinstitutional average costs are the same, and ameasure of each institution�s calculated averagecost.

Results from the model are presented in table 5 forthree data collection cycles. The data indicate thatmost of the variation occurs at the discipline level.In the 1998 data collection cycle, disciplineswithin institutions were tied to 76 percent of thetotal variance. In 2000, disciplines wereassociated with 82.6 percent of the variance. In2001, disciplines within institutions were tied to81.3 percent of the total variance, whileinstitutions were linked to 18.7 percent. Theresults also show that there are mean differences incost by institution in all three data sets.

The last column in the table refers to reliability ofaverage cost by institution. If the data set used inthis study were a random sample, these numberswould indicate whether or not the average cost foreach institution is reliable estimates of trueaverage cost. Since the data are not random, allthat can be said about these reliability estimates isthat the average cost of instruction estimated bythe hierarchical linear model for the three datacycles can be deemed reliable for the participatinginstitutions. Within that context, the reliabilityestimates are high, ranging from 86.3 percent inthe 1998 data set to 80.7 percent in 2000, and 81.3percent in the 2001 data set.

The second panel in table 5 presents DelawareStudy results from the hierarchical linear modelafter accounting for the Carnegie classification ofthe institution (level 2). If it is assumed thatCarnegie classification is tied to some of thevariations in cost at the institutional level, thenincorporating it at level 2 of the model will reducethe variance in cost due to institutions. As thetable indicates, Carnegie classification is tied tosome of the variation in cost at the institutionallevel. While the one-way ANOVA model withrandom effect indicated that in the 2001 datacollection cycle, institutions were tied to 18.7percent of the variance, this second model reducesthis to 14.2 percent, meaning that the variance incost among schools within the same Carnegieclassification is 14.2 percent. This is equivalent toa 28 percent reduction in the variance amonginstitutions after accounting for the Carnegiegroupings of those institutions. There is a 35.2percent and 25.5 percent variance reduction in the2000 and 1998 data collection cycles, respectively.As the result of the variance reduction acrossinstitutions, the variance within institutions inrelative terms increased from 81.0 percent in 1998to 88.0 percent in 2000, and 85.8 percent in 2001.

18

Table 5. Study of variance components of cost per student credit hour based on hierarchicallinear modeling: 1998, 2000, and 2001

Data collection model Random effect

Variance

component df Chi-square P value

Variance

component

(percent)

Reliability

of

institution

average

cost

(percent)

I. One-way ANOVA model

1998 Institution.................................................... 2,144 126 1,031 * 24.0 86.3

Discipline within institution ...................... 6,807 76.0

2000 Institution.................................................... 1,787 133 779 * 17.4 80.7


2001 Institution.................................................... 1,737 157 969 * 18.7 81.3


II. With fixed effect of Carnegie classification of institution

1998 Institution.................................................... 1,597 123 783 * 19.0 82.6


2000 Institution.................................................... 1,158 130 560 * 12.0 73.5


2001 Institution.................................................... 1,251 154 748 * 14.2 76.1


III. With fixed effect of Carnegie class of institution and fixed effect of

the discipline groupings

1998 Institution.................................................... 1,788 123 1,484 * 32.8 90.6


2000 Institution.................................................... 1,352 130 1,094 * 23.7 85.7


2001 Institution.................................................... 1,569 154 1,478 * 28.5 87.9


* p < 0.05.

NOTE: Degrees of freedom for the variance component of discipline within institution are not generated from output for hierarchical linearmodeling. Similarly, since discipline within institution variance is the error term, there should be no entries in the Chi-square and p valuecolumns.


Examining cost by discipline over the three datacollection cycles consistently showed that there isa general and reasonable grouping of disciplinesaccording to cost levels. Service departments suchas English and mathematics are among those withthe lowest instructional costs, and their costs arecomparable with those on the social sciences.Instructional costs in the physical sciences are inthe next highest level and are comparable to thosein education, business, and art. Costs are highestin engineering and nursing. These three groupingswere used as indicator variables for disciplines

(level 1) in the hierarchical linear model tounderstand how much reduction in the varianceacross disciplines is evident. In this model, thefixed effect of Carnegie classification is retained.The results are summarized in the bottom panel oftable 5.

Inclusion of the discipline grouping reduced thevariance among disciplines by 48 percent in the2001 and 2000 data cycles, and by 46 percent inthe 1998 data set. In spite of the reduction,however, the resulting variance among disciplines

19

in relative terms remained at high levels of over 70percent in the 2001 and 2000 data cycles, and 67percent in the 1998 data set.

While there are numerous variables that can beconsidered in the model to reduce the varianceamong disciplines (level 1), analysis was restrictedto the aforementioned discipline groupings.Relationships between cost and other variablesthat may be tied to expenditures are discussed in asubsequent section of these Findings.

Differences in Costs Betweenand Across Disciplines

Preliminary examination of the data suggested thenecessity of combining the data fromcomprehensive and baccalaureate institutions,owing to very small participation rates forbaccalaureate colleges within the disciplines andto eliminate the possibility of having unbalancedfactors. While differences in average cost betweencomprehensive and baccalaureate institutions mayexist for some disciplines, it can be argued from apurely practical approach, this combination ofinstitutions is consistent with real-world practice atcolleges and universities. While some level ofgraduate instruction is present in a few selecteddisciplines at comprehensive institutions, the vastmajority of teaching activity and student credithour generation occurs at the undergraduate level.It is, therefore, reasonable to group comprehensiveand baccalaureate institutions, given their commonprimary undergraduate teaching mission.

Because of the nature of the data, there is largevariation in the number of cases in each of thecells (i.e., combination of discipline and Carnegieclassification). Costs for some of the disciplinesare estimated from fewer than 10 courses, whichcan result in failure to find differences in meanswhen differences, in fact, exist. In addition, theLevene test, which is the standard test ofhomogeneity of variance, indicated that thevariances among the cells are not equal. Aftercareful examination of the variances, the cost datawere transformed to logarithm for the ANOVA.Although the variances remained unequal evenafter the transformation, the Levene test indicated

that the inequality of the variances wassubstantially reduced. Therefore, ANOVA wasused on the logarithm of cost.

The ANOVA showed that there are differences incosts among the 25 disciplines under examination,and among the now-three institutionalgroupings�research universities, doctoraluniversities, and comprehensive/baccalaureateinstitutions. Because there is strong interactionbetween discipline and Carnegie classification, thedifferences in cost across the disciplines areexamined separately by Carnegie classification,and vice versa.

It should be noted that before ANOVA wasapplied to the data, outliers were identified in eachof the cells, e.g., discipline by Carnegieclassification. Outliers were defined as data pointsthat lie beyond two standard deviations from themean for the cell, and were subsequently omitted.The summary of the ANOVA to test fordifferences in average cost of instruction bydiscipline, and by Carnegie classification, byhighest degree offered, and by undergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline for the 2001,2000, and 1998 data collection cycles is found inappendix table D-6.

The results of the ANOVA by discipline andCarnegie classification are presented in appendixtable D-7 for the 2001 data collection cycle,appendix table D-8 for the 2000 data collectioncycle, and appendix table D-9 for the 1998 datacollection cycle. The results of the pair-wisemultiple comparisons are based on the Bonferroniprocedure at the 5 percent level of significance. Inthe tables, the disciplines are sorted in ascendingorder of cost within each Carnegie classification.Then, groupings of disciplines are presentedaccording to similarity in cost based on resultsfrom the pair-wise multiple comparisons.Disciplines that are defined as belonging to agroup are assigned similar letters. For example,for research institutions in appendix table D-7,sociology through business are members of the �a�group. As such, there are no two disciplines inthis group, regarding average cost of instruction,where differences were detected through ANOVA,even though the absolute values of those averagecosts range from $124 to $177. Business belongs

20

to the �b� group as well, meaning that with respectto the cost of instruction, differences were notfound between business and the other disciplinesin group �b.� Business, as a member of group �c,�also shows no differences between its cost and theother disciplines in �c� group. Since businessdoes not belong to the �d� group, cost in businessis lower than that in education and the remainingdisciplines listed below education.

The strong interaction between discipline andCarnegie groups, as expected, produced somewhatdifferent discipline groupings for each category.The general findings are as follows:

• Among research institutions, differences werenot detected between and among �service�departments such as English and mathematics,as well as disciplines in the social sciences,with respect to direct instructional expense perstudent credit hour taught. It costs as much toteach art (with small studio courses andindividualized instruction) as it does to teacheducation (with a clinical teacher educationcomponent) and disciplines in the physicalsciences (with emphasis on equipmentintensive laboratory instruction). The highcost of teaching nursing puts it at the samelevels as the engineering disciplines that havethe highest unit costs. In the two more recentdata sets, biology and physics have costscomparable to nursing and the engineeringdisciplines, with the exception of chemicalengineering. It should be noted that costs inthe engineering disciplines have the highestvariability among reporting institutions.

• Cost of instruction in service departments andin the social sciences at doctoral universitiestends to be at the same levels. Differenceswere not detected in the cost of instruction inthe physical sciences compared with several ofthe social science disciplines. As at researchuniversities, art groups with the physicalsciences in cost, while nursing groups withengineering. This is likely associated withmore expensive pedagogical delivery systemsin art and nursing.

• Instructional costs at comprehensive/baccalaureate institutions generally follow the

patterns seen in the research and doctoraluniversities. Nursing groups with engineeringwith respect to instructional cost; education,art, and foreign languages group with thephysical sciences. Again, this is likely tied tomore costly pedagogical delivery systems inart, education, and nursing. English andmathematics, the two large service disciplines,group with the social sciences as the leastexpensive disciplines from an instructionalcost perspective.

• Using the results from the same ANOVA,differences in costs were not detected amongCarnegie groups for many disciplines. Thereare, however, a few disciplines, notablybiology and education, wherein cost inresearch universities is higher than in doctoraland comprehensive institutions for all threedata sets, and in mathematics and physics forthe two more recent data sets. Costs inresearch universities are also found to behigher in the most recent data set in art,chemistry, computer science, and geography.

The analysis was extended to summarize variationin costs among the disciplines by highest degreeoffered within the discipline. As was the case withthe preceding discipline analysis by Carnegieinstitution type, ANOVA was used on thelogarithm of cost per student credit hour taught inorder to reduce inequality of variance among thecells.

The results of the pair-wise multiple comparisonof average instructional cost by discipline, withineach highest degree offered category, aredisplayed in appendix tables D-10 to D-12 for thethree data sets. Since the interaction betweendiscipline and degree level is substantial,discipline groupings according to cost level areshown independently by highest degree offered.The results are as follows:

• Regardless of the highest degree offered, costsof instruction are lowest among servicedepartments such as mathematics and Englishand all disciplines in the social sciences.Costs in art and education tend to be at similarlevels as those in the physical sciences.

21

• In general, physical science disciplines havehigher instructional costs than the socialsciences in those instances where the Ph.D. isthe highest degree offered. Where themaster�s or bachelor�s is the highest degreeoffered, no differences in instructional costswere detected between the physical sciencesand social sciences disciplines.

• Differences were not found between the costof instruction in business and the socialsciences for programs where the Ph.D. is thehighest degree offered, whereas instructionalcosts in business are more comparable to costsin the physical sciences at the master�s andbachelor�s programs.

• Generally, all disciplines in engineering andnursing have higher costs than all otherdisciplines for all three degree-granting levels.

• In biology, cost of instruction is different ateach of the three degree-granting levels, andthe pattern remains consistent in each of thethree data sets examined. Differences in cost,by degree level, are also found in all three datasets in education, art, and geology, and in twodata sets in mathematics and psychology.

The relative undergraduate/graduate program mixis measured by the number of bachelor�s degreesawarded in a discipline as a proportion of totaldegrees awarded. The Delaware Study nationalbenchmarks are reported by 25-percentile rangesfor undergraduate/graduate program mix, asdefined. In the 2001 data collection cycle, thoseinstitutions where the proportion of undergraduatedegrees is 75 percent or more of total degreesawarded account for 60 percent of the sample.With another 19 percent of the sample comprisedof institutions granting 50 to 75 percent of alldegrees at the undergraduate level, the samplesizes for institutions granting fewer than 50percent of total degrees at the undergraduatelevel�in other words, predominantly graduateinstitutions�is very small. As a result, the samplesize for many disciplines with predominantlygraduate programs is small, and within that group,several disciplines were not represented at all.This distribution is very similar for the two earlier

data collection cycles. Consequently, the entiresample was grouped into only two categories: 1)undergraduate degrees equivalent to 75 to 100percent of total, and (2) undergraduate degreesequivalent to 0 to less than 75 percent of total.

The interaction between the program mixcategories and discipline is both strong andimportant. The pair-wise multiple comparisons bydiscipline are, therefore, examined independentlyfor the two groups, the results of which arepresented in appendix Tables D-13 to D-15 for thethree data sets. The ranking and grouping ofinstructional costs for these two groups follows thegeneral patterns seen in the analyses by Carnegieinstitutional classification, and by highest degreeoffered within the discipline.

• For both program mix categories, servicedepartments such as English and mathematicshave the lowest instructional costs, and thesecosts are comparable to those in the socialscience disciplines.

• Differences in instructional costs were notdetected between the physical sciences andseveral disciplines in the social science forboth program mix categories.

• For the predominantly undergraduateprograms, instructional costs for nursing arecomparable to those in the engineeringdisciplines, and all have costs higher thanother disciplines. Cost for biology atinstitutions with larger graduate programs iscomparable to those in engineeringdisciplines.

Worth noting is the variation in cost amongsubdisciplines in education. The cost per studentcredit hour in the foregoing analysis is that for alleducation subdisciplines combined. A more in-depth examination of cost within educationshowed that there are indeed variations betweenand among its subdisciplines (not shown in tables).Based on the 2000 dataset, direct expense perstudent credit hour taught ranged from $149 inteacher education to $307 in educationaladministration and supervision. Tests showed thatinstructional costs were lowest in discipline-based

22

teacher education (e.g., social studies education,mathematics education, science education, etc.),while general teacher education and curriculumand instruction cost more, at an average of $186per student credit hour taught. As a group, teachereducation costs are lower than the instructionalcost for special education ($205), and generaleducation, educational research/evaluation/statistics, educational psychology, studentcounseling, and instructional media design�all ofwhich average $270 per student credit hour taught.Educational administration and supervision at$307 is more expensive than most othersubdisciplines. It should be noted that educationaladministration and supervision is typically agraduate-level discipline, often with a doctoralcomponent.

Cost Factors

The initial analytical step in A Study of HigherEducation Instructional Expenditures was toidentify factors associated with instructionalexpenditures within each of these 25 academicdisciplines under examination. In examining the25 disciplines within any given data collectioncycle, it is imperative to ensure that sufficient datapoints are available to allow for reliable use of themultiple regression methodology. In certaininstances, e.g., engineering, it is necessary tocollapse disciplines into larger, naturally affiliatedgroupings in order to achieve sufficient datapoints.

Appendix table D-16 displays cost factors for 20disciplines or groups of disciplines underexamination from the 2001 data collection cycle.Four of those disciplines�chemical, civil,electrical, and mechanical engineering�have beencollapsed into a single larger �engineering�grouping. Three disciplines�anthropology,geography, and political science�had insufficientdata points for discrete analysis, and since all threeare social science disciplines, they lend themselvesto a larger grouping called �other social sciences.�Similar groupings were done for the 2000 and the1998 data collection cycles, the results of whichare presented in appendix tables D-17 and D-18,respectively.

Cost factors, as listed in appendix table D-16, wereexamined for modeling purposes, and fallbasically into four broad categories. The firstcategory is measures of department size. Size isdescribed in terms of the total FTE faculty, totalFTE tenured and tenure-track faculty, and FTEinstructional faculty (which adjusts for contractualbuyouts of faculty time for research and serviceactivity). The size of the tenured/tenure-trackfaculty as a proportion of total faculty is alsoconsidered as a cost indicator. Extensive use ofadjunct, part-time faculty, who tend to be paid lesswell than regular faculty, may actually reduce totalinstructional expense. Another aspect ofdepartment size is the extent of the teachingactivity in the department, as measured in terms ofthe academic year student credit hours taught atthe undergraduate level and graduate levelcombined. The number of graduate student credithours taught and as proportion as of the totalstudent credit hours are also examined, as it isgenerally assumed that graduate instruction ismore expensive than teaching undergraduates.

The second group of factors relate to teachingworkload. Workload is described in terms of theaverage number of student credit hours taught perFTE instructional faculty at the undergraduatelevel and at the combined undergraduate andgraduate levels. Workload for tenured and tenure-track faculty is also examined in terms of studentcredit hours at each of the course levels as well asin terms of the proportion of student credit hourstaught by them.

The proportion of total direct expenditures forinstruction that is attributable to personnel costs isthe third category of cost factors, while the fourthcomprises variables that further describe thedepartment in terms of highest degree offered inthe discipline. The 1995 Carnegie classification isused to delineate types of institutions. Highestdegree offered and the institution�s Carnegieclassification are transformed into categorical(dummy) variables for the analysis.

As described earlier, the analytical process foreach of the disciplines was kept as consistent aspossible. To recapitulate, the following protocolswere adopted for all equations:

23

• Cost per student credit hour taught is thedependent variable. Cost is transformed tologarithm in the analysis.

• Data points wherein unit cost is beyond twostandard deviations from the mean are omittedat the onset of the analysis.

• Outliers are defined as those cases in whichthe absolute value of the standardized residualis three or higher, and are subsequentlyomitted.

• Influential cases are identified as those withrelatively high values of Cook�s Distanceand/or Mahalanobis Distance statistics. Thesecases are omitted in the final analysis.

• The quadratic terms of all continuousvariables are tested for inclusion in the modelto account for possible nonlinear relationshipswith cost.

• Interaction terms between selected continuousvariables and categorical variables (highestdegree offered and Carnegie institutionalclassification) were tested for inclusion in themodel. Note, however, that no interactionterms were important cost predictors in allthree data sets, hence they are not listed in thesummary.

• For disciplines that are a two-digit CIPaggregate (e.g., Communication, 09.XX), datapoints belonging to a four-digit subdisciplinewith two or fewer institutions reporting wereeliminated from the aggregation.

The tables display regression coefficients and theircorresponding standardized values (Betacoefficients). Since the dependent variable wastransformed to logarithm, each regressioncoefficient is the equivalent percent increase incost for every unit change in the correspondingvariable. The Beta coefficients allow directcomparison of the relative contribution of eachvariable in predicting cost. The adjusted R2 is theproportion of the variation in cost that isassociated with the variables included in theequation, and is a measure of the goodness of fit of

the equation. Some general observations areapparent from the three sets of analyses:

• Across almost all disciplines, the level of thedepartment�s teaching activity, as measured bytotal undergraduate and graduate student credithours taught, is always associated with directinstructional expense. In the majority ofdisciplines, it has the highest or second highestcontribution in predicting cost. Cost decreasesas the volume of teaching increases. For manydisciplines with a strong quadratic term, costdecreases at a faster rate at lower divisionlevels of instruction. For engineering, art,business, and the combined political science/anthropology/geography group, cost increasesas the proportion of student credit hours thatare offered at the graduate level increases.

• Departmental size (measured in terms of totalnumber of faculty, total number oftenured/tenure-track faculty, or total numberof instructional tenured/tenure-track faculty) isconsistently associated with expense acrossdisciplines. The larger the faculty size, thehigher the cost. Its high explanatory power inpredicting cost is evident in almost alldisciplines.

• The proportion of faculty who are tenured orwho are on tenure track among allinstructional faculty, or among total faculty, isassociated with cost, but to a lesser extent thanthe number of faculty. The higher thisproportion, the higher the cost.

• Among the variables that measure facultyworkload, the average student credit hourstaught per FTE faculty is the most commoncost factor among disciplines. The larger thenumber of credit hours taught, the lower thecost. Its relative contribution in describing costvariation is very high, if not the highest, inseveral disciplines. For some disciplines,regardless of magnitude of faculty workload,decrease in cost is constant. However, formany disciplines with a strong quadratic term,cost decreases at a faster rate when theteaching load is at lower levels than at higherlevels.

24

• Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstructional expenditure is a cost factor in themajority of disciplines. The higher thepercentage, the lower the cost. Its contributionin describing cost, however, is relatively lowin equipment-intensive disciplines, such asengineering and the physical sciences, wherethere is a large added cost of instruction due tononpersonnel expenses.

• For many disciplines, cost differentials existdepending on whether or not graduate degreesare offered in the program. With the facultysize and faculty workload being tied to muchof the variation in cost, most often the relativecontributions of the indicator variables forhighest degree are relatively small. It is worthnoting that in all three data collection cycles,doctoral instruction in biology, chemistry, andphysics substantially increases cost by nearly10 percent on average, which is not surprisingfor disciplines in the physical sciences, giventhe emphasis on small group laboratory andresearch activity at the Ph.D. level.Interestingly, doctoral instruction inphilosophy also increased cost by 10 percent,likely associated with the faculty-intensivenature of small group instruction at the Ph.D.level, and because the other variables thatmeasure the contrast between undergraduateand graduate instructional faculty workloaddid not directly affect cost. Average increasein cost for English is about 5 percent.

• The cost differential due to Carnegieclassification of the institution is usually moreevident in disciplines when the highest degreeoffered is not a cost factor. In business,Carnegie classification is a consistent costindicator with its effects being stronger than inany other discipline. For example in the 2001data collection cycle, costs are higher by 21

percent among research institutions,18 percent higher among doctoral institutions,and 12 percent higher among comprehensiveinstitutions than in baccalaureate institutions.Costs in nursing in research institutions arehigher by almost 10 percent, on average, thanin any other group of institutions; in thediscipline of education, costs are higher byalmost 6 percent on average than in any othergroup.

Summary

Two issues consistently emerge as the most crucialfindings in this analysis of multiple cycles ofDelaware Study data:

• Most of the variance in instructional costsacross institutions, as measured by directexpense per student credit hour taught, isassociated with the disciplinary mix within aninstitution. While there are differences ininstructional costs within a discipline whenexamining cost per student credit hour taughtacross Carnegie classification, they are lessimportant than the difference in instructionalcosts between and across the disciplines thatcompose the curriculum within an institution.

• The magnitude of instructional costs within adiscipline can be predicted based upon thedegree of presence or absence of certainidentifiable cost factors, specifically, volumeof teaching load as measured by student credithours taught is negatively associated with cost,while size of a departmental faculty, tenurerate within that faculty, and to a lesser extent,the presence of graduate instruction arepositively associated with cost.

25

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Two central threads emerge from the analysis ofdata from the Delaware Study. First, there are realand important differences between instructionalexpenditures within the disciplines at a giveninstitution. Second, it is possible to identify majorfactors that are tied to instructional expendituresacross those disciplines.

Of foremost importance is the recognition thatthere are differences in cost between and acrossdisciplines within an institution, and that thesedifferences are associated with most of thevariation when instructional costs are examinedacross institutions. The Delaware Study datacollections have consistently revealed expendituredifferences between and across disciplines rangingfrom a cost per student credit hour taught in thelow $100s in the social sciences to in excess of$400 in engineering and certain physical sciences.The following discussion will focus on theidentification of factors that are tied to importantdifferences among disciplines.

With certain exceptions, direct instructionalexpenditures do not vary substantially within agiven discipline when viewed across Carnegieinstitutional types. It is the differential inexpenditures between and across the disciplineswithin an institution that is substantial�andimportant. The data consistently demonstrate thaton average, whether it is a major researchuniversity or a small baccalaureate college, certaindisciplines are less costly than other disciplines atthe same institutions. Service departments, i.e.,those that satisfy general education requirements,such as English, mathematics, and the socialsciences, are generally the least costly. Becausethey satisfy general education requirements,service departments are in high demand and tendto be major student credit hour producers, one ofthe primary factors associated with reducinginstructional expenditures.

Other disciplines have consistently higher costs.Physical sciences and biology, especially wherethe doctorate is offered, are expensive disciplines.This also is not surprising, given the equipment-intensive nature of these disciplines and the needto offer small group laboratory sections.However, at nondoctoral institutions, somephysical science disciplines are only marginallymore expensive than social science departments.This is likely associated with introductory, non-major sections of chemistry and biology thatfrequently satisfy students� science requirements,and are typically offered in large lecture format,i.e., they are major student credit hour producers.

Three discipl ines�art , nurs ing, andeducation�are consistently comparable to thephysical sciences in terms of instructionalexpenditures. These disciplines, by nature, requireintense individualized instruction, in addition tolectures. Art courses often contain a studiocomponent with a faculty mentor guiding a smallnumber of students. Education and nursing bothhave a practicum associated with instructionwherein students are placed in apprentice roles atclinical sites as part of their curriculum. This typeof instruction is typically more expensive than thetraditional large group lecture format found insocial sciences and humanities programs.

The important disciplinary differences are betweenand across departments at an institution, regardlessof Carnegie institutional category. The differentialpatterns generally hold, whether at a researchuniversity or a liberal arts college. However,certain disciplines, most notably business, displaydistinctly different cost patterns depending uponhighest degree offered. At institutions that grantthe Ph.D., instructional expenditures in businesstend to group with the less expensive socialsciences, while grouping with the more expensivephysical sciences at the master�s and bachelor�sdegree levels. Economies of scale may well betied to this phenomenon, as doctorate-granting

26

institutions in the Delaware Study tend to be large,high-volume student credit hour programs.

The second important issue clarified by this studyis that within an academic discipline, there areclear and measurable variables that are associatedwith instructional expense. Brinkman (1990)postulated that the behavior of marginal andaverage costs can be associated with fourdimensions that are subsequently measured in theDelaware Study. Those dimensions are size (i.e.,quantity of activity or output), scope of servicesoffered, level of instruction (for instructionalcosts), and discipline (for instructional costs).While Brinkman ascribed two of these dimensionsspecifically to instructional expenditures, all four,as discussed below, are applicable.

Economies of scale are very much in evidence inexamining instructional expenditures across thedisciplines among institutions participating in theDelaware Study. Student credit hour production,magnitude of faculty workload, and faculty sizeare the most important predictors of instructionalcosts. Where faculty size is held relativelyconstant, increasing student credit hour productionsubstantially reduces instructional expense. Aproxy variable, i.e., student credit hours taught perFTE faculty, arrives at the same conclusion:increase individual faculty workloads and costs arereduced.

The data also suggest that increasing faculty size istied to increased instructional costs, even ininstances where less well paid, nontenurable full-time faculty and adjuncts are used to increaseteaching activity. This finding is consistent withthe manner in which costs track Carnegieinstitutional classification and highest degreeoffered in a program. In general, research anddoctoral institutions tend to have the highestinstructional expenditures, as do programs thatoffer the doctorate. Because research and publicservice activity are expected of faculty at researchand doctoral institutions, and are components ofany reputable doctoral program, it is reasonable toassume that faculty, particularly tenured andtenure track, in these institutions and programswill have research and public service obligationsas part of their administered workload. Becausethey do things other than teach (i.e., increased

scope of services offered), additional faculty mustbe secured to meet instructional demand, therebyincreasing instructional costs. It is also noteworthythat in instances where the proportion of tenuredand tenure-track faculty is higher, costs are higher.

Other variables are clearly tied to instructionalcosts, but less so than credit hour production,faculty workload, and faculty size. The presenceof a graduate component in the department adds toinstructional expenditures. This is not surprising;it is generally accepted that graduate education ismore costly, given the small classes and highdegree of individual instruction associated withgraduate teaching. The relative contribution ofthis variable is small, compared with the threeaforementioned variables. However, it is worthnoting that over all three data collection cycles,departments offering the doctorate in biology,chemistry, physics, and philosophy increased costsby an average of 10 percent, while Englishdepartments offering the Ph.D. were, on average,5 percent more expensive than non-doctorate-granting departments.

Discussion

The data analyzed from three discrete cycles of theDelaware Study of Instructional Costs andProductivity lead to a number of clear andconsistent conclusions with respect to directinstructional expenditures in higher education.

Foremost is that the disciplinary mix at aninstitution has a profound impact on the overalllevel of instructional expenditures at an institution.Analysis of three cycles of Delaware Study dataconsistently demonstrates that there are real andsubstantial differences between and acrossdisciplines at an institution. With few exceptions,the differences between the disciplines appear tobe more important than the Carnegie classificationof an institution. Simply put, it is possible toexamine two research universities, one with aheavy curricular emphasis on physical sciencesand engineering, the other with emphasis on thesocial sciences and humanities, and findsubstantial differences between overallinstructional costs at the two institutions owing to

27

the disciplinary mix at each. Similarly, it ispossible to examine a research university and abaccalaureate college, each focused on the socialsciences and humanities, and find no difference inoverall unit instructional costs, again owing todisciplinary mix.

Finding that most of the variation in instructionalexpenditures is associated with the mix ofdisciplines within an institution is important inlight of the issues raised in the first part of thecongressionally mandated study. Researchersfound no apparent relationship between the levelof instructional expenditures at an institution andthe tuition rate charged by that institution. Thefindings from this analysis of direct instructionalexpense underscore the difficulty in relating priceto cost at the level of the academic discipline.While direct instructional expense per studentcredit hour taught in civil engineering is threetimes more than that for sociology, it is notpractical for an institution to charge engineeringmajors a tuition rate three times that charged tosociology majors. Indeed, researchers for the firstreport in the congressionally mandated studyfound that institutional tuition rates at publicinstitutions are largely tied to state appropriationlevels, while competitive market forces areassociated with tuition levels at private

institutions. Neither of these external factors hasanything remotely to do with what it costs todeliver instruction in a discipline. Price and costare not interchangeable constructs.

There are important factors that are associatedwith direct expense at the academic disciplinelevel of analysis. Higher education is no differentfrom any other enterprise with respect toeconomies of scale�the larger the volume of unitoutput from a fixed workforce, the lower the unitcost of production. Increasing the size of theworkforce in any substantial way withoutconcurrently adjusting productivity is tied to risesin costs. The scope of services offered by adepartment or program, i.e., the extent to which itmoves beyond instruction into areas of researchand public service, is tied to increases in directinstructional expense for that unit. And finally, theintroduction of graduate education into adepartment, while not as important a predictor ofcost as productivity and faculty size, nonetheless isassociated with increased instructional costs of aunit. It must again be emphasized that theseinternal cost factors are very different from theexternal factors tied to price (i.e., stateappropriations, market forces, etc.) These are non-interchangeable constructs for which no strongstatistical relationship has been found.

28

29

References

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). ReinventingUndergraduate Education. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Brinkman, P.T. (2000). The Economics of Higher Education: Focus on Cost. In M.F. Middaugh (Ed.),Analyzing Costs in Higher Education: What Institutional Researchers Need to Know, Vol. 106,New Directions for Institutional Research Monograph Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Brinkman, P.T. (1990). Higher Education Cost Functions. In S.A. Hoenack and E.L. Collins (Eds.), TheEconomics of American Universities: Management, Operations, and Fiscal Environments.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cunningham, A.F., Wellman, J.V., Clinedinst, M.E., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001). Study of College Costsand Prices, 1988�89 to 1997�98 (NCES 2002�157). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hoenack, S.A. (1990). An Economist�s Perspective on Costs Within Higher Education Institutions. InS.A. Hoenack and E.L Collins (Eds.), The Economics of American Universities: Management,Operations, and Fiscal Environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Jones, D.P. (2000). An Alternative Look at the Cost Question. In Higher Education Cost Measurement:Public Policy Issues, Options, and Strategies. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher EducationPolicy.

Middaugh, M.F. (1995�96). Closing in on Faculty Productivity Measures. In Planning for HigherEducation, 24 (2): 1�12.

Middaugh, M.F. (1998�99). How Much Do Faculty Really Teach? In Planning for Higher Education,27 (2): 1�11.

Middaugh, M.F. (2001). Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards and Benchmarks for Collegesand Universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. (1998). Straight Talk About College Costs andPrices. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Research Associates of Washington. (Annually). Higher Education Revenues and Expenditures:Institutional Data. Washington, DC: Research Associates of Washington.

Taylor, B.E., and Massy, W.F. (1996). Strategic Indicators for Higher Education: Vital Benchmarks andInformation to Help You Evaluate and Improve Your Institution�s Performance. Princeton, NJ:Peterson Guides.

30

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Index of CIP-2000 Codes and Program Titles (NCES:2002�165). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Zemsky, R., and Massy, W. (1990). Cost Containment: Committing to a New Economic Reality.Change 22 (6): 16�22.

A-1

Appendix A

Delaware Study Institutional Participant List

A-2

A-3

Delaware Study Institutional Participant List

Appalachian State UniversityArizona State UniversityArizona State University - WestArkansas State UniversityAsbury CollegeAuburn University - Main CampusAuburn University - MontgomeryAugusta CollegeAverett CollegeBall State UniversityBaylor UniversityBelmont UniversityBlack Hills State UniversityBloomsburg University of PennsylvaniaBlufton CollegeBoston UniversityBowling Green State UniversityBradley UniversityBridgewater State CollegeBrigham Young UniversityButler UniversityCaldwell CollegeCalifornia State University - FresnoCalifornia State University - Long BeachCalifornia State University - San MarcosCarleton CollegeCatholic University of AmericaCentenary College of LouisianaCentral Connecticut State UniversityCentral Michigan UniversityCharleston Southern UniversityChristopher Newport UniversityClarion UniversityClarkson UniversityClemson UniversityCleveland State UniversityCoastal Carolina UniversityCollege of CharlestonCollege of Mount St. JosephCollege of New RochelleCollege of St. MaryCollege of St. ElizabethCollege of the Holy CrossCreighton UniversityDaemen CollegeDakota State University

Davidson CollegeDelta State UniversityDe Paul UniversityDe Pauw UniversityDrew UniversityDrexel UniversityDrury UniversityDuquesne UniversityEast Carolina UniversityEast Tennessee UniversityEastern Mennonite UniversityEastern Michigan UniversityEastern New Mexico UniversityEastern Washington UniversityEdinboro University of PennsylvaniaElizabeth City State UniversityFayetteville State UniversityFlorida Institute of TechnologyFlorida International UniversityFlorida State UniversityFurman UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityGeorgetown UniversityGeorgia Institute of TechnologyGeorgia Southern UniversityGeorgia State UniversityGeorgian Court CollegeGonzaga UniversityGoshen CollegeGrambling State UniversityGrand Valley State UniversityGrinnell CollegeGwynedd-Mercy CollegeHartwick CollegeIndiana State UniversityIndiana University�Purdue University at

IndianapolisIndiana University�South BendIndiana UniversityIowa State UniversityIthaca CollegeJackson State UniversityJacksonville State UniversityJames Madison UniversityKansas State UniversityKeene State College

A-4

Kennesaw State CollegeKent State UniversityLa Salle UniversityLake Superior State UniversityLander UniversityLebanon Valley CollegeLongwood CollegeLouisiana State University�Baton RougeLouisiana State University�ShreveportLouisiana Tech UniversityLoyola Marymount UniversityLynchburg CollegeMarist CollegeMarshall UniversityMarygrove CollegeMarywood UniversityMcNeese State UniversityMercer UniversityMesa State CollegeMiami UniversityMichigan State UniversityMichigan Technological UniversityMillikin UniversityMississippi State UniversityMississippi University For WomenMississippi Valley State UniversityMontana State University - BillingsMontana State University - BozemanMontclair State UniversityMoravian CollegeMount Saint Mary's College (Maryland)Muhlenberg CollegeNazareth College of RochesterNew York State College of CeramicsNiagara UniversityNicholls State UniversityNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityNorth Carolina Central UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityNorth Dakota State UniversityNortheastern UniversityNorthern Arizona UniversityNorthern Illinois UniversityNorthern Kentucky UniversityNorthern State UniversityNorthwestern State University of LouisianaOakland UniversityOberlin CollegeOhio Northern UniversityOhio State UniversityOklahoma City University

Oklahoma State UniversityOld Dominion UniversityOregon State UniversityPacific Lutheran UniversityPark UniversityPortland State UniversityPrairie View A & M UniversityPresbyterian CollegePurdue University CalumetRadford UniversityRamapo College of New JerseyRhode Island CollegeRider UniversityRockhurst UniversityRollins CollegeRowan UniversitySaint Edward's UniversitySaint Louis UniversitySt. Michael�s CollegeSaint Norbert CollegeSt. Paul�s CollegeSalisbury State UniversitySamford UniversitySan Jose State UniversitySeattle UniversitySiena CollegeSlippery Rock UniversitySonoma State UniversitySouth Dakota School of Mine & TechnologySouth Dakota State UniversitySoutheast Missouri State UniversitySoutheastern Louisiana UniversitySouthern Illinois University�CarbondaleSouthern Methodist UniversitySouthern University and A&M CollegeSouthern University � Baton RougeSouthern Utah UniversitySouthwest Missouri State UniversitySouthwest Texas UniversitySt. Bonaventure UniversitySt. Mary's UniversityState University of West GeorgiaSUNY�AlbanySUNY�BinghamtonSUNY�BrockportSUNY�CortlandSUNY�GeneseoSUNY�Institute of Technology�UticaSUNY�New PaltzSUNY�OneontaSUNY�Oswego

A-5

SUNY�PlattsburghSUNY�PotsdamSUNY�Purchase CollegeSUNY�Stony BrookSUNY � University at BuffaloSUNY � College at FredoniaSweet Briar CollegeTaylor University � Fort WayneTaylor University � UplandTeachers College at Columbia UniversityTemple UniversityTennessee State UniversityTennessee Technological UniversityTexas A & M University�Main CampusTexas Tech UniversityTowson State UniversityTrinity CollegeTroy State UniversityTulane UniversityUniversity of AkronUniversity of Alabama�BirminghamUniversity of Alabama�HuntsvilleUniversity of Alabama�TuscaloosaUniversity of Alaska�AnchorageUniversity of Alaska � FairbanksUniversity of Alaska�SoutheastUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of Arkansas�Little RockUniversity of Arkansas�FayettevilleUniversity of California�IrvineUniversity of Central FloridaUniversity of CharlestonUniversity of Colorado�BoulderUniversity of Colorado at Colorado SpringsUniversity of Colorado at DenverUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of DallasUniversity of DaytonUniversity of DelawareUniversity of FloridaUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of GuamUniversity of HartfordUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaUniversity of Houston�Clear LakeUniversity of Houston�Main CampusUniversity of Houston�VictoriaUniversity of IdahoUniversity of IowaUniversity of KansasUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette

University of Louisiana at MonroeUniversity of MaineUniversity of Maine at MachiasUniversity of Maryland � Baltimore CountyUniversity of Maryland�College ParkUniversity of Massachusetts�AmherstUniversity of MiamiUniversity of Minnesota�DuluthUniversity of Minnesota � MorrisUniversity of Minnesota � Twin CitiesUniversity of MississippiUniversity of Missouri�ColumbiaUniversity of Missouri�Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri�RollaUniversity of Missouri�St. LouisUniversity of MontanaUniversity of MontevalloUniversity of Nebraska�KearneyUniversity of Nebraska�LincolnUniversity of Nevada�Las VegasUniversity of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of New OrleansUniversity of North Carolina � AshevilleUniversity of North Carolina�Chapel HillUniversity of North Carolina�CharlotteUniversity of North Carolina�GreensboroUniversity of North Carolina�PembrokeUniversity of North Carolina�WilmingtonUniversity of Northern ColoradoUniversity of Northern IowaUniversity of Notre DameUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of OregonUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh�BradfordUniversity of ScrantonUniversity of South AlabamaUniversity of South Carolina�ColumbiaUniversity of South DakotaUniversity of South FloridaUniversity of Southern IndianaUniversity of Southern MississippiUniversity of Tennessee�ChattanoogaUniversity of Tennessee�KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas � AustinUniversity of Texas�BrownsvilleUniversity of Texas�El PasoUniversity of the Rio Grande�OhioUniversity of UtahUniversity of Vermont

A-6

University of Virginia�CharlottesvilleUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of West AlabamaUniversity of West FloridaUniversity of Wisconsin � MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin�MilwaukeeUniversity of Wisconsin�WhitewaterUniversity of WyomingUtah State UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityWake Forest UniversityWashburn UniversityWashington College

Webster UniversityWest Chester UniversityWest Virginia UniversityWestern Carolina UniversityWestern Kentucky UniversityWestern Michigan UniversityWestern Washington UniversityWichita State UniversityWilkes UniversityWilliam Paterson UniversityWinston-Salem State UniversityWright State UniversityXavier University of LouisianaYoungstown State University

B-1

Appendix B

Data Collection Form

B-2

B-3

2002-03 Delaware Study of Instructional Cost and Productivity

Institution:

Department/Discipline:

Associated CIP Identifier:

Please indicate the average number of degrees awarded in this discipline at each degree level over the three year period from 1998-99 through 2000-01.

Place an "X" in the box below that Bachelor's: Place an 'X' in the box below if this discipline is describes your academic calendar:

Master's : non-degree granting. Doctorate: Semester

Professional: Quarter

A. INSTRUCTIONAL COURSELOAD: FALL SEMESTER, 2001

Please complete the following matrix, displaying student credit hours and organized class sections taught, by type of faculty, and by level of instruction. Be sure to consult definitions before proceeding. Do not input data in shaded cells except for those mentioned in the important note below that pertains to (G) and (J).

Faculty Student Credit Hours Organized Class Sections

FTE Faculty (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) Other Section Types

Classification (A) (B) (C) Upper Div. Undergrad Total Graduate Total Total Lab/Dsc/ (Lecture, Seminar, etc.)

Separately Instruc- Lower Div. Indv. Undergrad Grad. Indv. Graduate Student Rec. (M) (N) (O) (P)

Total Budgeted tional OC*1 OC* 1Instruct. SCH OC* 1

Instruct. SCH Credit Hours Sections Lower Div. Upper Div. Graduate Total

Regular faculty: -Tenured/Tenure Eligible

- Other Regular Faculty

Supplemental Faculty NA

Teaching Assistants: - Credit Bearing Courses NA

- Non-Credit Bearing Activity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

B. COST DATA: ACADEMIC AND FISCAL YEAR 2001-02

1. In the boxes below, enter the total number of student credit hours that were generated during Academic Year 2001-02 during terms that were supported by the department's instructional budget. (NOTE: Semester calendar institutions will typically report fall and spring student credit hours; quarter calendar institutions will usually report fall, winter, and spring student credit hours.)2

A. Undergraduate

B. Graduate

2. In the boxes below, enter total d i r e c t expenditures for instruction in FY 2001-02

A. Salaries Are the benefits included in the number reported for salaries (Y/N)?

B. Benefits If the dollar value is not available, what percent of salary do benefits constitute at your institution?

C. Other than personnel expenditures.

D. Total

3. In the box below, enter total d i r e c t expenditures for separately budgeted research activity in FY 2001-02

4. In the box below, enter total d i r e c t expenditures for separately budgeted public service activity in FY 2001-02

Data Collection Form

______________________________________________

1OC = organized classes2Summer semesters and quarters are not generally supported by the department�s instructional budget.

B-4

C-1

Appendix C

Glossary

C-2

C-3

Glossary

Institution Type

The Delaware Study collects data on teachingloads, instructional costs, and externally fundedscholarly activity from public and private 4-yearinstitutions throughout the United States. Data arecollected using the template in appendix B. Thedata from these colleges and universities areanalyzed within the framework of the 1995Carnegie Classification of Institutions of HigherEducation. The institution types are as follows:

• Research Universities: Includes Research Iand Research II institutions. The minimumcriteria for inclusion in the research universitycategory are a full range of baccalaureateprograms, commitment to graduate educationthrough the doctorate, and a high prioritygiven to research. They award 50 or moredoctoral degrees each year. In addition, theyreceive at least $15.5 million in federalsupport.

• Doctoral Universities: Includes Doctoral I andDoctoral II institutions. The minimum criteriafor inclusion in the doctoral universitycategory are a full range of baccalaureateprograms, and a commitment to graduateeducation through the doctorate. They awardannually at least 10 doctorates in 3 or moredisciplines, or 20 or more doctoral degrees in1 or more disciplines.

• Comprehensive Colleges and Universities:Includes Comprehensive I and ComprehensiveII institutions. The minimum criteria forinclusion in comprehensive college anduniversity category are a full range ofbaccalaureate programs, and a commitment tograduate education through the master�sdegree. They award 20 or more master�sdegrees in 1 or more disciplines.

• Baccalaureate Colleges: I n c l u d e sBaccalaureate I and Baccalaureate IIinstitutions. The minimum criteria forinclusion in the baccalaureate college category

are that they award less than 40 percent oftheir baccalaureate degrees in liberal artsfields.

Academic Department/Discipline

The disciplines selected for benchmarking in theDelaware Study are found in the Classification ofInstructional Programs Taxonomy, developed bythe National Center for Education Statistics. Thedata are typically benchmarked at the four-digitCIP code level. Specifically, the Delaware Studyexamines discrete disciplines within a broadcurricular field. For example, in Engineering (CIPcode 14.XX), data are collected for thoseengineering disciplines at a given institution, e.g.,14.03 (Agricultural Engineering), 14.07 (ChemicalEngineering), 14.08 (Civil Engineering), 14.10(Electrical Engineering), 14.19 (MechanicalEngineering), and so on. Institutions with differentengineering departments would report data for theappropriate four-digit CIP code. The patternwould be repeated across other curricular areas,e.g., Education (CIP code 13.XX), PhysicalSciences (CIP code 40.XX), Social Sciences (CIPcode 45.XX), Visual and Performing Arts (CIPcode 50.XX), Business Management (CIP code52.XX), etc.

Faculty

The Delaware Study collects detailed data onteaching loads, arrayed by category of faculty.Four discrete categories are examined:

• Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty: Thoseindividuals who either hold tenure at theinstitution, or for whom tenure is an expectedoutcome.

• Nontenure-track Faculty: Those individualswho teach on a recurring contractual basis atthe institution, but whose academic title orbudget line render them ineligible foracademic tenure.

C-4

• Supplemental Faculty: Supplemental facultyare characteristically paid from a pool oftemporary funds. Their appointment isnonrecurring, although the same individualmight receive a temporary appointment insuccessive terms. The key point is thatfunding is temporary, and there is noexpectation of continuing appointment. Thiscategory includes adjunct faculty,administrators or professional personnel at theinstitution who teach but whose primary jobresponsibility is nonfaculty, contributedservice personnel, etc.

• Graduate Teaching Assistants: Teachingassistants are those students at the institutionwho receive a stipend strictly for teachingactivity. Includes teaching assistants who areinstructors of record, but also includesteaching assistants who function as discussionor recitation section leaders, laboratory sectionleaders, and other types of organized classsections in which instruction takes place, butwhich may not carry credit and for whichthere is no formal instructor of record.Graduate research assistants are not includedin this category.

Faculty Full-Time Equivalency(FTE)

The Delaware Study develops benchmark data forteaching loads (student credit hours taught perFTE faculty, FTE students taught per FTE faculty)and cost measures (direct research expendituresper FTE faculty). In converting full- and part-timefaculty to FTE faculty, the following conventionsare used:

• Tenured/Tenure-track and Nontenure-trackF a c u l t y : The definition of full-timeequivalency begins with the total FTE valuefor filled faculty positions as they appear inthe fall personnel file at an institution. A full-time faculty member is 1.0 FTE. Anindividual who works three-quarters time andis paid accordingly is 0.75 FTE. Filledpositions are those that have salaries

associated with them. This includes paidleaves such as sabbaticals wherein theindividual is receiving a salary, but excludesunpaid leaves of absence. Institutions areasked to subtract from the total FTE thoseportions of faculty time that are externallyfunded and contractually obligated for activityother than teaching, e.g., research or service.The remainder is instructional FTE, the valueused in teaching load benchmarks. Forexample, suppose Professor Jones is a full-time member of the Chemistry faculty. Hewould initially be reported as 1.0 FTE.Professor Jones has a research grant thatcontractually obligates him to spend one-thirdof his time in research. The externallysupported portion of his position is 0.33 FTE,which would be subtracted from the total FTE.As a result, 0.66 FTE is the instructionalportion of Professor Jones� full-timeequivalency that is used in developingDelaware Study teaching load benchmarks.

• Supplemental Faculty: Full-time equivalencyfor supplemental faculty is calculated bytaking the total teaching credit hours (whichare generally equivalent to the credit value ofthe course(s) taught) for each supplementalfaculty, and dividing by 12. Twelve hours is abroadly accepted standard for a full-timeteaching load.

• Teaching Assistants: Full-time equivalencyfor teaching assistants is either defined as thevalue for the budget line on the institution�spersonnel file, or is calculated using the sameconvention as with supplemental faculty.

Faculty Teaching Load

Teaching loads are measured in terms of studentcredit hours and organized class sections taught inboth regularly scheduled and individualizedinstruction courses. Courses are arrayed by lowerdivision and upper division levels withinundergraduate instruction, and by graduate level.

• Course: An instructional activity, identified byacademic discipline and number, in which

C-5

students enroll, typically to earn academiccredit applicable to a degree objective.Excludes noncredit courses, but includes zerocredit course sections which are requirementsof or prerequisites to degree programs, andthat are scheduled, and consume institutionalor departmental resources in the same manneras credit courses. Zero-credit course sectionsare typically supplements to the credit-bearinglecture portion of a course. Zero-creditsections are frequently listed as laboratory,discussion, or recitation sections inconjunction with the credit-bearing lectureportion of a course.

• Organized Class Course: A course that isprovided principally by means of regularlyscheduled classes meeting in classrooms orsimilar facilities at stated times.

• Individual Instruction Course: A course inwhich instruction is not conducted in regularlyscheduled class meetings. Includes readingsor special topics courses, problems or researchcourses, including dissertation/thesis research,and individual lesson courses (typically inmusic and fine arts).

• Course Section: A unique group of studentsthat meets with one or more instructors.

• Course Credit: The academic credit value of acourse; the value recorded for a student whosuccessfully completes the course.

• Lower Division Instruction: Courses typicallyassociated with the first and second year ofcollege study.

• Upper Division Instruction: Courses typicallyassociated with the third and fourth year ofcollege study.

• Graduate Level Instruction: Courses typicallyassociated with post-baccalaureate study.

• Student Credit Hours: The credit value of acourse (typically three or four credits)multiplied by the enrollment in the course.

Fiscal Data

The Delaware Study collects total d i r e c texpenditure data in certain functional areas, i.e.,instruction, research, and public service. Directexpenditure data reflect costs incurred forpersonnel compensation, supplies, and servicesused in the conduct of each of these functionalareas. They include acquisition costs of capitalassets such as equipment and library books to theextent that funds are budgeted for and used byoperating departments for instruction, research,and public service. In developing the cost modelsused in this study, direct expenditures forinstruction are the focus of analysis. It is thereforeimportant to have a clear understanding of what ismeant by �instruction,� and the components thatconstitute instructional expenditures.

The instruction function, for purposes of thisstudy, includes general academic instruction,occupational and vocational instruction,community education, preparatory and adult basiceducation, and remedial and tutorial instructionconducted by the teaching faculty for theinstitution's students. Departmental research andservice that are not separately budgeted areincluded under instruction. In other words,research that is externally funded is excluded frominstructional expenditures, as are any departmentalfunds that are expended for the purpose ofmatching external research funds as part of acontractual or grant obligation. Also excluded areexpenditures for academic administration wherethe primary function is administration. Forexample, deans would be excluded, butdepartment chairs, whose primary function isinstructional support, would be included.

Direct instructional expenditures are disaggregatedinto three categories:

1. Salaries: All wages paid to support theinstructional function in a given departmentor program during the fiscal year. Whilethese will largely be faculty salaries, theyalso include those for clerical (e.g.,department secretary), professional (e.g., labtechnicians), graduate student (stipends butnot tuition waivers), and any other

C-6

personnel who support the teaching functionand whose salaries and wages are paid fromthe department's/program's instructionalbudget.

2. Benefits: Expenditures for benefitsassociated with the personnel for whomsalaries and wages were reported on theprevious entry. Institutions that bookbenefits centrally are asked to provide, inconcert with their business office, areasonable estimate for departmentalbenefits. Where that cannot be done, theUniversity of Delaware imputes a costfactor based upon the current benefit rate

for the institution, as published in the annualsalary issue of Academe. If no rate isavailable, a default value of 28 percent isused.

3. Other Than Personnel Costs: This categoryincludes nonpersonnel items such as travel,supplies and expense, noncapital equipmentpurchases, etc., that are typically part of adepartment or program's cost of doingbusiness. Excluded from this category areitems such as central computing costs,centrally allocated computing labs, graduatestudent tuition remission and fee waivers,etc.

D-1

Appendix D

Tables

D-2

D-3

Table of Contents

Table Page






D-6 Summary of ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction,by discipline and Carnegie classification, by highest degree offered, andundergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 2001, 2000, and 1998Delaware Study ............................................................................................................... D-14







+

D-4


Table Page







D-5

Table D-1. Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institution�s Carnegie classificationParticipants Nonparticipants

Carnegie classification andinstitutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference

ResearchTotal tenure-track faculty .................................... 46 688 80 626 61 39 8.9Total full-time faculty.......................................... 46 1,008 80 944 65 41 6.4Tenure-track faculty as percent of total full-

time faculty...................................................... 46 68 80 66 2 1 2.2

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 46 20,877 80 17,465 3,412 2,167 16.3Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 46 78 80 68 10 6 12.8FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 46 21 80 18 3 2 12.4

Bachelor�s degrees awarded as percent oftotal .................................................................. 46 66 80 58 8 5 12.5

Master�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 46 24 80 28 -4 -3 -16.6Doctor�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 46 10 80 14 -4 -3 -44.9

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 42 7,230 43 8,700 -1,470 -744 -20.3Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 42 136,842 43 189,807 -52,965 -26,794 -38.7Public service exp per tenured and tenure-

track faculty..................................................... 42 53,559 43 54,554 -995 -503 -1.9Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 42 1,807 43 3,458 -1,651 -835 -91.4Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 42 1,504 43 1,771 -267 -135 -17.8Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 42 605 43 699 -94 -47 -15.5

DoctoralTotal tenure-track faculty .................................... 33 310 77 254 56 39 18.0Total full-time faculty.......................................... 33 500 77 412 88 61 17.5Tenure-track faculty as percent of total full-

time faculty...................................................... 33 63 77 60 3 2 4.7




Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 28 5,152 36 5,981 -829 -466 -16.1Research exp per tenured and tenure-track


track faculty..................................................... 28 22,829 36 20,376 2,452 1,379 10.7Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 28 1,401 36 1,430 -29 -16 -2.1Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 28 1,292 36 1,253 39 22 3.0Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 28 506 36 475 31 17 6.1

See notes at the end of the table.

D-6

Table D-1. Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institution�s Carnegieclassification�Continued

Participants NonparticipantsCarnegie classification andinstitutional characteristic


Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference

ComprehensiveTotal tenure-track faculty .................................... 72 176 457 122 53 46 30.3Total full-time faculty.......................................... 72 291 459 200 91 79 31.2Tenure-track faculty as percent of total full-

time faculty...................................................... 72 59 458 55 5 4 8.0

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 72 6,257 459 4,454 1,803 1,559 28.8Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 72 86 459 84 2 1 2.0FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 72 23 457 25 -2 -1 -7.1


Master�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 72 23 459 27 -3 -3 -13.8Doctor�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 72 2 459 2 0 0 6.4

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 54 4,420 221 4,357 63 51 1.4Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 54 11,893 220 11,974 -81 -65 -0.7Public service exp per tenured and tenure-

track faculty..................................................... 54 12,876 220 13,721 -845 -679 -6.6Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 54 1,060 221 977 82 66 7.8Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 54 1,279 221 1,286 -7 -6 -0.6Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 54 354 221 363 -9 -7 -2.6

BaccalaureateTotal tenure-track faculty .................................... 19 63 596 41 22 21 34.4Total full-time faculty.......................................... 19 111 606 77 34 33 30.8Tenure-track faculty as percent of total full-

time faculty...................................................... 19 53 603 48 5 5 9.8

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 19 1,898 612 1,453 446 432 23.5Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 19 96 612 96 0 0 -0.3FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 19 18 602 20 -3 -3 -15.9


Master�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 19 2 607 5 -4 -4 -240.1




enrollment........................................................ 7 1,014 76 888 126 115 12.4Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 7 1,529 76 1,528 1 1 0.1Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 7 418 76 322 96 88 23.1

1Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997�2001; U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,1997�2001.

D-7


Carnegie classification andinstitutional characteristic N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude ofbias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 48 67 78 67 0 0 0.5









time faculty...................................................... 26 63 84 60 3 2 4.4





faculty .............................................................. 23 64,282 41 50,481 13,802 8,842 21.5Public service exp per tenured and tenure-


enrollment........................................................ 23 1,527 41 1,356 170 109 11.2Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 23 1,331 41 1,236 95 61 7.1Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 23 553 41 452 100 64 18.1


D-8




Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 66 59 464 55 5 4 8.0







enrollment........................................................ 57 1,047 218 979 67 53 6.4Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 57 1,145 218 1,321 -176 -139 -15.3Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 57 383 218 356 27 21 7.0


time faculty...................................................... 14 51 608 48 3 3 5.5

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 14 1,933 617 1,456 478 467 24.7Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 14 97 617 96 1 1 1.4FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 14 19 607 20 -1 -1 -5.5





track faculty..................................................... 9 16,768 72 15,693 1,075 955 6.4Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 9 856 74 904 -48 -43 -5.6Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 9 1,302 74 1,556 -253 -226 -19.5Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 9 350 74 327 23 21 6.6



D-9



N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 53 68 73 67 1 0 1.2









time faculty...................................................... 24 64 86 60 4 3 6.6

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 24 9,979 86 8,962 1,017 795 10.2Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 24 81 86 71 10 8 12.8FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 24 20 86 21 0 0 -1.6





track faculty..................................................... 20 22,130 44 21,140 990 681 4.5Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 20 1,424 44 1,414 10 7 0.7Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 20 1,423 44 1,200 223 153 15.6Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 20 541 44 465 76 52 14.0

Comprehensive (not included in the survey)Baccalaureate (not included in the survey)



D-10




Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 49 67 77 67 1 0 0.7









time faculty...................................................... 26 63 84 60 3 2 4.3






track faculty..................................................... 22 20,464 42 21,965 -1,501 -985 -7.3Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 22 1,425 42 1,414 12 8 0.8Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 22 1,246 42 1,282 -36 -24 -2.9Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 22 509 42 478 32 21 6.2


D-11




Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 63 61 467 54 7 6 11.3







enrollment........................................................ 43 1,022 232 988 35 29 3.4Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 43 1,090 232 1,320 -231 -195 -21.2Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 43 372 232 360 13 11 3.4


time faculty...................................................... 15 54 607 48 6 6 11.6

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 15 2,066 616 1,452 615 600 29.7Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 15 96 616 96 0 0 0.4FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 15 19 606 20 -1 -1 -6.1






enrollment........................................................ 9 946 74 893 53 47 5.6Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 9 1,360 74 1,549 -188 -168 -13.8Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 9 305 74 333 -28 -25 -9.1



D-12




Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 48 68 78 66 2 1 2.4




Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 41 6,570 44 9,282 -2,712 -1,404 -41.3Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........





time faculty...................................................... 35 60 75 61 -1 -1 -2.3







enrollment........................................................ 27 1,525 37 1,340 185 107 12.1Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 27 1,232 37 1,298 -66 -38 -5.3Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 27 488 37 489 0 0 0.0


D-13




Difference(Y1-Y2)

Magni-tude of

bias1

Percentdifference


time faculty...................................................... 54 61 476 55 7 6 10.8






track faculty..................................................... 39 13,550 235 13,555 -5 -4 0.0Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 39 895 236 1,009 -114 -98 -12.7Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 39 1,058 236 1,322 -264 -227 -25.0Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 39 350 236 363 -13 -11 -3.7


time faculty...................................................... 13 67 609 48 19 19 28.9

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 13 2,179 618 1,451 728 713 33.4Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 13 95 618 96 -1 -1 -1.2FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 13 17 608 20 -3 -3 -20.2

Bachelor�s degrees awarded as percent oftotal .................................................................. 13 90 613 94 -4 -4 -4.4

Master�s degrees awarded as percent of total..... 13 10 613 5 5 4 46.8




enrollment........................................................ 2 811 81 901 -89 -87 -11.0Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 2 1,114 81 1,539 -425 -415 -38.2Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 2 438 81 327 110 108 25.2



D-14

Table D-6. Results of the ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction, bydiscipline and Carnegie classification of the institution, highest degree offered, andundergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 1998, 2000, and 2001 DelawareStudy

Factor and data collection cycleSource ofvariation

Degrees offreedom

Sum ofsquares Mean square F-value

Probabilityof F

Carnegie class (CC) by discipline (CIP)1998

CC 2 4.8861 2.4430 85.24 <.0001CIP 24 32.1579 1.3399 46.75 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 3.8341 0.0799 2.79 <.0001Error 3,099 88.8238 0.0287

2000CC 2 5.3914 2.6957 102.42 <.0001CIP 24 43.6920 1.8205 69.17 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 2.6104 0.0544 2.07 <.0001Error 3,140 82.6453 0.0263

2001CC 2 4.9285 2.4643 86.16 <.0001CIP 24 48.5772 2.0241 70.77 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 2.7734 0.0578 2.02 <.0001Error 3,653 104.4761 0.0286

Highest degree offered (HD) by discipline(CIP)

1998HD 2 6.0696 3.0348 113.4 <.0001CIP 24 27.7793 1.1575 43.25 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 3.6752 0.0766 2.86 <.0001Error 2,972 79.5361 0.0268

2000HD 2 5.1815 2.5907 104.34 <.0001CIP 24 34.8753 1.4531 58.52 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 3.8069 0.0793 3.19 <.0001Error 3,067 76.1559 0.0248

2001HD 2 5.2497 2.6248 98.88 <.0001CIP 24 38.1435 1.5893 59.87 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 2.9195 0.0608 2.29 <.0001Error 3,540 93.9682 0.0265

Undergraduate/graduate mix (UGG) bydiscipline(CIP)

1998UGG 1 2.4526 2.4526 77.9 <.0001

CIP 24 37.5560 1.5648 49.7 <.0001UGG X CIP 24 2.5507 0.1063 3.38 <.0001

Error 3,004 94.5782 0.0315 2000

UGG 1 2.1884 2.1884 78.62 <.0001CIP 24 44.1356 1.8390 66.06 <.0001

UGG X CIP 24 2.1691 0.0904 3.25 <.0001Error 3,033 84.4280 0.0278

2001UGG 1 2.4208 2.4208 78.72 <.0001

CIP 24 43.8759 1.8282 59.45 <.0001UGG X CIP 24 2.5170 0.1049 3.41 <.0001

Error 3,569 109.7507 0.0308


D-15

Table D-7. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent of level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study

Carnegie classificationand discipline

Samplesize

Averagecost/SCH Groupings1

ResearchSociology.......................................... 33 124 aPhilosophy ........................................ 47 137 aEnglish .............................................. 50 140 aHistory .............................................. 37 149 a bPsychology ....................................... 39 150 a bEconomics ........................................ 28 153 a bAnthropology.................................... 27 157 a bMathematics ..................................... 53 160 a bPolitical Science ............................... 33 164 a b cGeography ........................................ 23 164 a b cCommunication ................................ 45 169 a b cForeign Languages........................... 84 171 a b cBusiness ............................................ 128 177 a b cComputer Science ............................ 34 204 b c dGeology ............................................ 30 211 b c dArt ..................................................... 114 228 c dEducation.......................................... 96 260 dPhysics .............................................. 33 263 d eChemistry.......................................... 35 264 d eBiology ............................................. 82 276 d eElectrical Engineering...................... 24 359 e fMechanical Engineering .................. 26 379 e fNursing ............................................. 17 388 e fCivil Engineering ............................. 27 411 e fChemical Engineering...................... 25 472 f

DoctoralSociology.......................................... 25 106 aMathematics ..................................... 34 116 a bEnglish .............................................. 37 116 a bHistory .............................................. 29 124 a bPhilosophy ........................................ 34 125 a bGeography ........................................ 16 125 a bAnthropology.................................... 16 126 a b cCommunication ................................ 34 130 a b cForeign Languages........................... 37 131 a b cPsychology ....................................... 34 131 a b cComputer Science ............................ 28 142 a b c dEconomics ........................................ 19 144 a b c dPolitical Science ............................... 27 152 a b c dBusiness ............................................ 97 157 b c dBiology ............................................. 41 191 b c d eGeology ............................................ 22 197 b c d eEducation.......................................... 77 198 c d eArt ..................................................... 84 199 d ePhysics .............................................. 29 203 d e fChemistry.......................................... 30 233 d e f gElectrical Engineering...................... 17 276 e f g hMechanical Engineering .................. 17 315 f g hNursing ............................................. 21 332 g hCivil Engineering ............................. 14 379 hChemical Engineering...................... 9 524 h


D-16

Table D-7. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent of level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study�Continued

Carnegie classificationand discipline

Samplesize

Averagecost/SCH Groupings1

Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Geography ........................................ 21 100 aMathematics ..................................... 80 106 aSociology.......................................... 53 106 aHistory .............................................. 64 112 aEnglish .............................................. 94 116 a bPsychology ....................................... 82 118 a bPhilosophy ........................................ 76 127 a b cPolitical Science ............................... 54 136 a b c dEconomics ........................................ 34 138 a b c dCommunications............................... 82 139 a b c dAnthropology.................................... 16 145 a b c dGeology ............................................ 22 147 a b c dComputer Science ............................ 65 152 b c dBusiness ............................................ 229 153 c dBiology ............................................. 83 155 c dForeign Languages........................... 85 161 c dEducation.......................................... 196 179 dPhysics .............................................. 49 181 d eArt ..................................................... 196 190 d eChemistry.......................................... 63 193 d eElectrical Engineering...................... 13 293 e fNursing ............................................. 46 314 fChemical Engineering...................... 3 321 fCivil Engineering ............................. 10 322 fMechanical Engineering .................. 14 327 f1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-17

Table D-8. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:2000 Delaware Study

Carnegie classification and disciplineSample

sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

ResearchSociology......................................................... 35 130 aPhilosophy ....................................................... 48 134 aEnglish ............................................................. 56 138 aHistory ............................................................. 37 142 a bEconomics ....................................................... 31 145 a bMathematics .................................................... 54 147 a bAnthropology................................................... 28 148 a bPsychology ...................................................... 40 150 a bGeography ....................................................... 25 155 a bCommunication ............................................... 49 164 a bPolitical Science .............................................. 36 168 a bForeign Languages.......................................... 90 169 a bBusiness ........................................................... 132 172 a bComputer Science ........................................... 36 203 b cArt .................................................................... 115 214 cGeology ........................................................... 35 223 cChemistry......................................................... 37 255 c dEducation......................................................... 104 269 c dPhysics ............................................................. 38 284 c d eBiology ............................................................ 99 286 c d eElectrical Engineering..................................... 31 358 d e fNursing ............................................................ 19 368 d e fMechanical Engineering ................................. 30 400 e fCivil Engineering ............................................ 30 401 e fChemical Engineering..................................... 27 484 f

DoctoralSociology......................................................... 14 104 aEnglish ............................................................. 29 113 aAnthropology................................................... 10 121 a bMathematics .................................................... 26 123 a bPhilosophy ....................................................... 24 124 a bForeign Languages.......................................... 25 125 a bGeography ....................................................... 10 126 a bHistory ............................................................. 20 127 a bPsychology ...................................................... 23 136 a b cEconomics ....................................................... 14 139 a b cCommunication ............................................... 26 143 a b cPolitical Science .............................................. 18 151 a b cBusiness ........................................................... 60 163 a b cComputer Science ........................................... 18 167 a b cEducation......................................................... 54 183 b cPhysics ............................................................. 21 191 b c dBiology ............................................................ 27 200 b c dArt .................................................................... 58 201 b c dGeology ........................................................... 18 201 b c dChemistry......................................................... 22 221 c d eElectrical Engineering..................................... 13 318 d e fMechanical Engineering ................................. 12 353 e fNursing ............................................................ 15 357 e fCivil Engineering ............................................ 9 367 e fChemical Engineering..................................... 8 474 f


D-18

Table D-8. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:2000 Delaware Study�Continued


sizeAverage

Cost/SCH Groupings1

Comprehensive and BaccalaureateSociology......................................................... 46 100 aHistory ............................................................. 52 100 aAnthropology................................................... 13 103 a bMathematics .................................................... 65 106 a bEnglish ............................................................. 77 111 a bPhilosophy ....................................................... 50 111 a bPsychology ...................................................... 64 113 a bEconomics ....................................................... 21 117 a b cGeography ....................................................... 19 121 a b cPolitical Science .............................................. 40 129 a b cCommunication ............................................... 63 133 a b cForeign Languages.......................................... 54 137 a b cComputer Science ........................................... 51 138 a b c dBiology ............................................................ 66 141 b c dBusiness ........................................................... 193 150 b c dGeology ........................................................... 20 158 b c d ePhysics ............................................................. 39 168 c d eChemistry......................................................... 49 172 c d eArt .................................................................... 155 174 c d eEducation......................................................... 168 183 d eElectrical Engineering..................................... 10 278 e fNursing ............................................................ 42 323 fMechanical Engineering ................................. 10 333 fCivil Engineering ............................................ 8 362 fChemical Engineering..................................... 4 460 f1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-19

Table D-9. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:1998 Delaware Study


sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

ResearchSociology.......................................................... 34 108 a English.............................................................. 52 122 a b Philosophy........................................................ 49 124 a b History.............................................................. 37 129 a b Psychology ....................................................... 34 131 a b Economics ........................................................ 28 134 a b Anthropology ................................................... 24 139 a b Geography........................................................ 22 140 a b c Mathematics ..................................................... 54 144 a b c Communication................................................ 50 157 a b c Political Science............................................... 36 160 a b c Business............................................................ 149 160 b c Foreign Languages........................................... 81 165 b c Computer Science............................................ 29 171 c d Chemistry ......................................................... 36 205 c d e Art..................................................................... 112 205 c d e Geology ............................................................ 33 208 c d e Education.......................................................... 115 235 d e Physics.............................................................. 35 249 d e Biology ............................................................. 97 261 d e f Nursing ............................................................. 19 300 e f gElectrical Engineering ..................................... 31 360 f gCivil Engineering............................................. 29 379 gMechanical Engineering.................................. 31 415 gChemical Engineering ..................................... 28 432 g

Doctoral English.............................................................. 28 111 a Mathematics ..................................................... 25 113 a Anthropology ................................................... 12 118 a b Geography........................................................ 9 119 a b Sociology.......................................................... 18 122 a b Psychology ....................................................... 24 124 a b Foreign Languages........................................... 26 124 a b Communication................................................ 22 132 a b Philosophy........................................................ 27 138 a b History.............................................................. 21 139 a b Computer Science............................................ 19 141 a b Economics ........................................................ 14 142 a b c Business............................................................ 77 150 a b c Geology ............................................................ 15 159 a b c Education.......................................................... 60 167 a b c Biology ............................................................. 23 167 a b c Political Science............................................... 20 172 a b c Physics.............................................................. 21 178 a b c Art..................................................................... 57 193 b c d Chemistry ......................................................... 22 197 b c d Nursing ............................................................. 16 270 c d Electrical Engineering ..................................... 12 273 c d Mechanical Engineering.................................. 11 321 d Civil Engineering............................................. 8 329 d Chemical Engineering ..................................... 5 355 d


D-20

Table D-9. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegieclassification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:1998 Delaware Study�Continued


sizeAverage

cost/SCHGroupings1

Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Geography........................................................ 19 95 a Sociology.......................................................... 46 101 a Mathematics ..................................................... 55 103 a Psychology ....................................................... 63 105 a History.............................................................. 52 105 a English.............................................................. 74 107 a Philosophy........................................................ 62 111 a Anthropology ................................................... 14 112 a b Economics ........................................................ 26 113 a b Communication................................................ 58 124 a b Political Science............................................... 42 126 a b Biology ............................................................. 67 126 a b Computer Science............................................ 40 133 a b Education.......................................................... 149 145 a b Foreign Languages........................................... 61 147 a b Business............................................................ 178 148 a b Geology ............................................................ 24 156 a b c Chemistry ......................................................... 48 162 b c Physics.............................................................. 42 168 b c d Art..................................................................... 155 180 b c d Chemical Engineering ..................................... 6 251 c d Electrical Engineering ..................................... 10 255 c d Nursing ............................................................. 31 257 d Civil Engineering............................................. 8 262 d Mechanical Engineering.................................. 7 264 d

1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-21

Table D-10. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highestdegree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study

Highest degree offered and disciplineSample

sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctor�sSociology.......................................... 33 132 aCommunication ................................ 17 135 aEnglish .............................................. 47 140 aHistory .............................................. 41 146 aPsychology ....................................... 63 150 aMathematics ..................................... 66 151 aEconomics ........................................ 28 153 aAnthropology.................................... 19 154 aGeography ........................................ 18 166 a bPhilosophy ........................................ 31 167 a bPolitical Science ............................... 27 172 a bComputer Science ............................ 44 182 a bForeign Languages........................... 45 184 a bBusiness ............................................ 59 188 a bEducation.......................................... 151 250 b cGeology ............................................ 33 253 b c dArt ..................................................... 44 253 b c dChemistry.......................................... 55 256 b c dBiology ............................................. 104 266 c dPhysics .............................................. 42 266 c dElectrical Engineering...................... 39 327 d eMechanical Engineering .................. 38 358 d eNursing ............................................. 10 399 eCivil Engineering ............................. 33 423 eChemical Engineering...................... 30 487 e

Master�s Sociology.......................................... 29 101 aEnglish .............................................. 70 111 a bMathematics ..................................... 47 112 a b cPsychology ....................................... 40 113 a b cHistory .............................................. 47 115 a b cPhilosophy ........................................ 23 120 a b c dAnthropology.................................... 14 133 a b c dGeography ........................................ 18 140 a b c dBiology ............................................. 45 145 a b c dEconomics ........................................ 23 146 a b c dPolitical Science ............................... 32 148 a b c dForeign Languages........................... 51 149 a b c dGeology ............................................ 21 150 a b c dComputer Science ............................ 31 154 b c dCommunication ................................ 59 158 c dBusiness ............................................ 201 159 dEducation.......................................... 172 166 dPhysics .............................................. 24 174 d eChemistry.......................................... 29 182 d e fArt ..................................................... 145 213 e fMechanical Engineering .................. 11 296 e f gElectrical Engineering...................... 10 313 e f gCivil Engineering ............................. 12 314 f gNursing ............................................. 49 321 gChemical Engineering...................... 6 472 g


D-22

Table D-10. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highestdegree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level ofsignificance: 2001 Delaware Study�Continued


sizeAverage

cost/SCHGroupings1

Bachelor�s2 Sociology.......................................... 47 100 aHistory .............................................. 39 103 aMathematics ..................................... 53 106 aGeography ........................................ 20 107 a bPsychology ....................................... 51 114 a bPhilosophy ........................................ 92 121 a bEnglish .............................................. 57 122 a bCommunication ................................ 80 134 a b cEconomics ........................................ 28 135 a b c dPolitical Science ............................... 51 135 a b c dComputer Science ............................ 46 136 a b c dAnthropology.................................... 20 140 a b c dForeign Languages........................... 99 148 a b c dGeology ............................................ 21 150 a b c dBusiness ............................................ 178 153 b c dBiology ............................................. 57 163 b c dEducation.......................................... 31 170 b c dPhysics .............................................. 43 174 c dArt ..................................................... 188 187 dChemistry.......................................... 41 190 dElectrical Engineering...................... 7 269 eCivil Engineering ............................. 7 301 eMechanical Engineering .................. 8 312 eNursing ............................................. 24 343 e1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.2Chemical Engineering is not included in the analysis since it has only 1 data point.


D-23



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctor'sSociology.................................................. 35 127 aEnglish ...................................................... 49 132 aMathematics ............................................. 68 140 aHistory ...................................................... 38 142 a bEconomics ................................................ 32 144 a bPsychology 55 149 a bCommunication ........................................ 17 153 a bAnthropology............................................ 21 158 a bGeography ................................................ 18 160 a bPhilosophy ................................................ 27 163 a bBusiness .................................................... 76 173 a bPolitical Science ....................................... 27 174 a b cForeign Languages................................... 49 174 a b cComputer Science .................................... 42 201 b c dArt ............................................................. 50 249 c d eGeology .................................................... 34 253 c d eEducation.................................................. 135 259 d eChemistry.................................................. 50 261 d eBiology ..................................................... 113 279 d ePhysics ...................................................... 44 287 e fElectrical Engineering.............................. 42 334 e f gNursing ..................................................... 13 371 e f gMechanical Engineering .......................... 38 376 f gCivil Engineering ..................................... 34 405 gChemical Engineering.............................. 31 481 g

Master'sSociology.................................................. 25 102 aPsychology ............................................... 40 106 aMathematics ............................................. 41 106 aPhilosophy ................................................ 17 110 aHistory ...................................................... 42 111 aEnglish ...................................................... 66 113 aAnthropology............................................ 14 121 a bBiology ..................................................... 40 131 a bEconomics ................................................ 16 133 a bGeography ................................................ 22 134 a bPolitical Science ....................................... 35 144 a bGeology .................................................... 19 145 a bComputer Science .................................... 26 149 a bForeign Languages................................... 52 149 a bCommunication ........................................ 58 153 bChemistry.................................................. 32 163 b cPhysics ...................................................... 23 166 b c dBusiness .................................................... 149 167 b c dEducation.................................................. 156 174 b c dArt ............................................................. 126 201 c dElectrical Engineering.............................. 7 327 d fNursing ..................................................... 40 335 fMechanical Engineering .......................... 11 373 fCivil Engineering ..................................... 10 383 fChemical Engineering.............................. 6 462 f


D-24



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

Bachelor's Sociology.................................................. 34 102 aMathematics ............................................. 32 108 a bGeography ................................................ 13 108 a bHistory ...................................................... 30 109 a bPsychology ............................................... 30 113 a bPhilosophy ................................................ 70 113 a bAnthropology............................................ 17 115 a bEconomics ................................................ 16 115 a bEnglish ...................................................... 43 117 a bPolitical Science ....................................... 32 130 a bComputer Science .................................... 35 133 a bCommunication ........................................ 61 138 a bForeign Languages................................... 61 141 a bBusiness .................................................... 155 145 a bEducation.................................................. 20 153 a bBiology ..................................................... 37 153 a b cArt ............................................................. 139 168 b cGeology .................................................... 18 172 b cChemistry.................................................. 27 174 b cPhysics ...................................................... 28 176 b c dElectrical Engineering.............................. 4 286 c dMechanical Engineering .......................... 2 287 c dCivil Engineering ..................................... 4 329 c dNursing ..................................................... 21 361 dChemical Engineering.............................. 2 496 d1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-25



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctor'sSociology.............................................. 31 115 aEnglish .................................................. 44 128 aEconomics ............................................ 29 134 aHistory .................................................. 34 136 aCommunication .................................... 16 138 a bMathematics ......................................... 61 145 a bPsychology ........................................... 52 149 a bBusiness ................................................ 78 152 a bComputer Science ................................ 29 170 a b cPhilosophy ............................................ 30 172 a b cGeography ............................................ 15 174 a b c dComputer Science ................................ 28 176 a b c dForeign Languages............................... 38 177 a b c dAnthropology........................................ 19 192 a b c dEducation.............................................. 137 204 b c dChemistry.............................................. 47 208 b c dGeology ................................................ 25 231 b c d eBiology ................................................. 100 242 c d ePhysics .................................................. 40 249 c d eArt ......................................................... 40 262 d e fNursing ................................................. 12 292 d e f gElectrical Engineering.......................... 43 342 e f gCivil Engineering ................................. 33 361 f gMechanical Engineering ...................... 39 413 gChemical Engineering.......................... 31 423 g

Master'sPsychology ........................................... 34 88 aMathematics ......................................... 36 95 a bSociology.............................................. 25 95 a b cEnglish .................................................. 57 101 a b cGeography ............................................ 19 110 a b c dPhilosophy ............................................ 21 114 a b c dHistory .................................................. 37 115 a b c dAnthropology........................................ 16 119 a b c dBiology ................................................. 40 125 a b c dComputer Science ................................ 29 131 a b c dEconomics ............................................ 17 133 a b c d ePolitical Science ................................... 34 133 b c d eCommunication .................................... 55 137 c d eChemistry.............................................. 30 141 c d eForeign Languages............................... 44 143 c d eEducation.............................................. 141 145 d eGeology ................................................ 24 153 d eBusiness ................................................ 137 157 d ePhysics .................................................. 20 160 d e fArt ......................................................... 130 192 e fElectrical Engineering.......................... 6 255 e f gNursing ................................................. 33 261 f gMechanical Engineering ...................... 10 285 f gChemical Engineering.......................... 7 291 f gCivil Engineering ................................. 9 347 g


D-26



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings1

Bachelor's Geography ............................................ 14 90 aMathematics ......................................... 35 104 aHistory .................................................. 37 106 aSociology.............................................. 39 107 aPsychology ........................................... 36 109 aPhilosophy ............................................ 70 113 aEconomics ............................................ 20 116 a bAnthropology........................................ 14 118 a bEnglish .................................................. 47 120 a bComputer Science ................................ 29 129 a bCommunication .................................... 56 139 a bPolitical Science ................................... 32 140 a bBiology ................................................. 42 141 a bGeology ................................................ 20 143 a bForeign Languages............................... 76 147 a bBusiness ................................................ 168 150 a bEducation.............................................. 24 157 a bPhysics .................................................. 31 172 bArt ......................................................... 136 177 bChemistry.............................................. 28 178 b cCivil Engineering ................................. 4 214 b cMechanical Engineering ...................... 2 258 b cElectrical Engineering.......................... 5 274 b cNursing ................................................. 17 275 cChemical Engineering.......................... 3 410 c1Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-27

Table D-13. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline withinundergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedureat the 5 percent level of significance: 2001 Delaware Study

Program mix1 and disciplineSample

sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%Sociology.............................................. 100 108 aMathematics ......................................... 78 113 a bPsychology ........................................... 128 121 a b cPhilosophy ............................................ 107 123 a b cHistory .................................................. 107 124 a b cEnglish .................................................. 123 126 a b cGeography ............................................ 36 130 a b c dEconomics ............................................ 52 137 a b c d eAnthropology........................................ 43 140 a b c d eCommunication .................................... 148 142 b c d eForeign Languages............................... 137 146 c d ePolitical Science ................................... 90 147 c d eGeology ................................................ 27 147 c d e fComputer Science ................................ 61 151 c d e fEducation.............................................. 79 152 c d e fBusiness ................................................ 311 157 d e fPhysics .................................................. 48 174 d e fBiology ................................................. 160 186 e fArt ......................................................... 285 190 fChemistry.............................................. 66 196 fElectrical Engineering.......................... 16 282 gMechanical Engineering ...................... 37 337 gNursing ................................................. 59 338 gCivil Engineering ................................. 24 339 gChemical Engineering.......................... 22 449 g

Undergraduate degree: 0-75%History .................................................. 22 117 aSociology.............................................. 8 130 aEnglish .................................................. 49 132 aPolitical Science ................................... 20 149 a bPhilosophy ............................................ 38 153 a bGeography ............................................ 21 154 a b cEconomics ............................................ 25 155 a b cMathematics ......................................... 88 168 a b cComputer Science ................................ 60 169 a b cAnthropology........................................ 11 169 a b c dCommunication .................................... 8 175 a b c dForeign Languages............................... 58 183 a b c dBusiness ................................................ 128 186 a b c dPsychology ........................................... 26 187 a b c dGeology ................................................ 47 215 b c d eEducation.............................................. 283 236 c d e fPhysics .................................................. 60 236 c d e fChemistry.............................................. 60 246 d e f gArt ......................................................... 93 260 e f gBiology ................................................. 45 320 e f g hNursing ................................................. 23 322 f g hElectrical Engineering.......................... 40 332 g hMechanical Engineering ...................... 21 358 g hCivil Engineering ................................. 27 411 hChemical Engineering.......................... 14 473 h1Based on the number of bachelor�s degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.2Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-28



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%Mathematics.......................................... 61 111 aSociology .............................................. 87 112 aPhilosophy ............................................ 84 114 aEnglish .................................................. 104 117 a bHistory .................................................. 90 121 a bAnthropology........................................ 41 123 a bGeography ............................................ 34 123 a bPsychology............................................ 105 123 a bEconomics ............................................ 43 130 a bComputer Science ................................ 46 142 a b cForeign Languages ............................... 99 145 a b cPolitical Science ................................... 74 148 a b cCommunication .................................... 132 148 a b cBusiness ................................................ 283 151 b cEducation .............................................. 66 157 b cGeology................................................. 25 165 b cArt ......................................................... 225 174 cPhysics .................................................. 31 175 cChemistry.............................................. 57 178 cBiology.................................................. 141 193 cElectrical Engineering.......................... 16 308 dMechanical Engineering ...................... 30 345 dNursing.................................................. 49 353 dCivil Engineering ................................. 21 366 dChemical Engineering.......................... 26 472 d

Undergraduate degree: 0-75%History .................................................. 20 122 aSociology .............................................. 9 122 aEnglish .................................................. 50 124 aMathematics.......................................... 83 137 aPolitical Science ................................... 20 144 aEconomics ............................................ 22 144 aPsychology............................................ 20 148 a bCommunication .................................... 6 148 a bGeography ............................................ 19 158 a bPhilosophy ............................................ 33 165 a bForeign Languages ............................... 66 174 a bAnthropology........................................ 11 175 a bBusiness ................................................ 93 183 a bComputer Science ................................ 57 192 a bEducation .............................................. 245 225 a bGeology................................................. 49 233 a b cChemistry.............................................. 53 244 b cPhysics .................................................. 65 249 b cArt ......................................................... 87 250 b cNursing.................................................. 24 320 cBiology.................................................. 49 337 c dElectrical Engineering.......................... 38 345 dMechanical Engineering ...................... 20 399 dCivil Engineering ................................. 27 416 dChemical Engineering.......................... 12 454 d

1Based on the number of bachelor�s degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.2Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-29



sizeAverage

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%Sociology.............................................. 85 105 aMathematics ......................................... 54 105 a bGeography ............................................ 31 109 a bPsychology ........................................... 98 112 a bPhilosophy ............................................ 81 114 a bEnglish .................................................. 103 115 a bHistory .................................................. 87 118 a bEconomics ............................................ 43 124 a b cComputer Science ................................ 40 127 a b cAnthropology........................................ 32 129 a b c dPolitical Science ................................... 74 139 a b c dForeign Languages............................... 100 140 a b c dGeology ................................................ 27 143 a b c dCommunication .................................... 123 144 b c dEducation.............................................. 64 146 b c dBusiness ................................................ 276 151 c dBiology ................................................. 117 153 c dPhysics .................................................. 33 171 c d eChemistry.............................................. 51 173 c d eArt ......................................................... 223 178 d eNursing ................................................. 39 256 eElectrical Engineering.......................... 16 261 eCivil Engineering ................................. 15 289Mechanical Engineering ...................... 24 350Chemical Engineering.......................... 27 360

Undergraduate degree: 0-75% Communication .................................... 8 100 aEnglish .................................................. 43 110 aSociology.............................................. 10 119 a bHistory .................................................. 22 123 a bGeography ............................................ 15 128 a bEconomics ............................................ 23 136 a b cMathematics ......................................... 82 141 a b cPsychology ........................................... 23 156 a b cComputer Science ................................ 48 168 a b cBusiness ................................................ 105 173 a b cPolitical Science ................................... 18 174 a b c dForeign Languages............................... 58 178 a b c dPhilosophy ............................................ 39 178 a b c dAnthropology........................................ 18 182 a b c dChemistry.............................................. 54 191 a b c dEducation.............................................. 248 195 b c dGeology ................................................ 43 215 b c d ePhysics .................................................. 59 224 c d eArt ......................................................... 84 240 d eNursing ................................................. 22 287 eBiology ................................................. 63 336 eElectrical Engineering.......................... 37 348Civil Engineering ................................. 30 368Mechanical Engineering ...................... 26 391Chemical Engineering.......................... 13 4481Based on the number of bachelor�s degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.2Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline tobe in more than one group.


D-30

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001Delaware Study

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]Communication(CIP: 09.XX)

Computer Science(CIP: 11.XX)

Education (CIP: 13.XX) Engineering1

Cost determinantb-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.017064* 0.63 0.015616* 0.69 0.020877* 1.12

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-trackfaculty ......................................................... 0.008097* 0.43

Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.000980* 0.09

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.005581* 0.63 -0.001115* -0.12

Academic year total student credit hours(undergrad+ graduate) ................................ -3.164E-05* -1.14 -1.031E-05* -0.55 -2.378E-05* -0.82 -7.696E-05* -2.04

Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 5.116E-10* 0.43 3.734E-10* 0.35 1.577E-09* 0.85

Academic year graduate student credithours

Academic year graduate student credithours as percent of total ............................. 0.005778* 0.15 0.001164 0.09

Quadratic term of academic year graduatestudent credit hours as percent of total ....

Percent student credit hours taught bytenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.005023* -0.64 -0.003010* -0.40

Quadratic term of percent student credithours taught by tenured/tenure-trackfaculty (fall data) ........................................ 5.566E-05* 0.81

Average student credit hours per faculty(fall data) .................................................... -0.000725* -0.32 -0.002261* -1.27 -0.002895* -0.97 -0.000615* -0.21

Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.927E-06* 0.67 3.621E-06* 0.51

Average undergraduate student credit hoursper faculty (fall data) ..................................

Quadratic term of average undergraduatestudent credit hours per faculty (fall data).

Average graduate student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ..... 0.000450* 0.11

Average undergrad student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ....

Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.004894* -0.22 -0.002839* -0.14 -0.002665* -0.08 -0.004149* -0.16

Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ........................................................... 0.059237* 0.15 0.048115* 0.14

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.067736* 0.18 0.083602* 0.22 0.040180* 0.09

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................

Constant........................................................... 2.850956 2.628626 2.827763 3.078780 Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.64Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.093950 0.092600 0.108900 0.093280Number of cases used in estimation............... 148 115 345 190Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis ................................ 6 8 19 5


D-31

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001Delaware Study�Continued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Foreign Languages (CIP:16.XX) English (CIP: 23.XX) Biology (CIP: 26.XX) Mathematics (CIP: 27.XX)Cost determinantb-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.002876* 0.25 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.014835* 0.76 0.007957* 0.72 0.013421* 0.89

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-trackfaculty .........................................................

Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty..................

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001022* 0.14 0.001107* 0.14 0.002231* 0.19 0.001289* 0.12


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 3.659E-10* 0.56 0.000000* 0.50 1.063E-10* 0.35


Academic year graduate student credithours as percent of total .............................


Percent student credit hours taught bytenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ....

Quadratic term of percent student credithours taught by tenured/tenure-trackfaculty (fall data) ........................................


Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000004* 0.86 3.503E-06* 0.65

Average undergraduate student credithours per faculty (fall data) ........................

Quadratic term of average undergraduatestudent credit hours per faculty (falldata).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .....

Average undergrad student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000281* -0.17

Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.004793* -0.10 -0.003555* -0.13 -0.007559* -0.16

Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ........................................................... 0.065342* 0.17 0.052144* 0.16 0.103243* 0.25



Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.120510* 0.31

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.080747* 0.18

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ -0.055899 -0.13


omitted in the analysis............................... 9 7 9 6


D-32



Philosophy (CIP: 38.XX) Chemistry (CIP: 40.05) Geology (CIP: 40.06) Physics (CIP: 40.08)Cost determinantb-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.025115* 0.75 0.013965* 0.72 0.025069* 0.55 0.012821* 0.69



Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001704* 0.20 0.003395* 0.32


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 0.000000* 0.79


Academic year graduate student credithours as percent of total ............................. 0.004944* 0.18


Percent student credit hours taught bytenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001631* -0.19



Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) .......................






Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ........................................................... 0.108603* 0.28 0.103160* 0.30 0.084066* 0.19 0.088786* 0.24



Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................






D-33



Psychology (CIP: 42.XX) Economics (CIP: 45.06) History (CIP: 45.08) Sociology (CIP: 45.11)Cost determinantb-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta




Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001594* 0.20


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 2.419E-10* 0.37 0.000000* 0.49 3.519E-10* 0.41












Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.007347* -0.17 -0.005066* -0.12


Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.062445* 0.22 0.066900* 0.20







See notes at end of table.

D-34



Other social sciences2 Art (CIP: 50.XX) Nursing (CIP: 51.16) Business3Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.020065* 0.74 0.008687* 0.58 -0.003729* -0.23 0.010317* 0.59



Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.000621 0.07 0.001347 0.21 0.002416* 0.28

Academic year total student credit hours(undergrad+ graduate) ................................ -2.729E-05* -0.72 -1.558E-05* -0.53 -1.590E-05* -0.86

Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 8.526E-11* 0.17


Academic year graduate student credithours as percent of total ............................. 0.004912* 0.15 0.006699* 0.68

Quadratic term of academic year graduatestudent credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000104* -0.74







Average graduate student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ..... 0.001857* 0.13 0.000337* 0.09



Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ...........................................................


Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.034275* 0.10 0.018645* 0.06

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.030539* 0.08 0.112895* 0.32 0.207096* 0.61


Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ -0.038218* -0.11 0.124025* 0.43

Constant........................................................... 2.862103 3.099232 3.668123 2.883694

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.66 0.60 0.69 0.60

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.097100 0.102760 0.077750 0.091250

Number of cases used in estimation............... 222 337 81 392Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis ................................ 10 12 5 23 *p = 0.051 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19).2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

D-35






Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.013160* 0.84 0.006121* 0.61 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.009967* 0.82

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-trackfaculty ......................................................... 0.009921* 0.39

Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002869* 0.31 0.002036* 0.24 0.002998* 0.26



Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 7.988E-10* 0.64 2.900E-10* 0.32 4.015E-10* 0.43

Academic year graduate student credithours -8.987E-06* -0.14



Percent student credit hours taught bytenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 0.001286* 0.16


Average student credit hours per faculty(fall data) .................................................... -3.303E-04* -0.15 -0.001776* -0.57 -0.002835* -0.96


Average undergraduate student credit hoursper faculty (fall data) .................................. -0.002169* -1.15

Quadratic term of average undergraduatestudent credit hours per faculty (fall data). 2.273E-06* 0.70




Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ...........................................................

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.048331* 0.13


Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.080381* 0.21 0.094296* 0.27 0.050930* 0.12 0.054706* 0.20






D-36




Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.005452* 0.65 0.004457* 1.03 0.002877* 0.29 0.004685* 0.89 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty ..


Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002863* 0.32 0.002441* 0.30 0.005028* 0.44 0.003827* 0.38

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty .................................................







Quadratic term of percent student credithours taught by tenured/tenure-trackfaculty (fall data) ........................................ -0.000043* -0.52

Average student credit hours per faculty(fall data) .................................................... -2.597E-03* -1.03 -0.000945* -0.40 -0.002521* -1.02 -0.002169* -0.96

Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000003* 0.52 2.565E-06* 0.54 1.945E-06* 0.52



Average graduate student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ..... 0.000907* 0.10 -0.000689* -0.11


Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.002291 -0.09 -0.004081* -0.12 -0.008318* -0.28 -0.004609* -0.12




Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.137083* 0.30 0.133872* 0.40

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.060711 0.09 0.060669* 0.14





D-37




Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.002203* 0.35 0.011214* 0.53 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.015942* 0.50 0.008633* 0.61


Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.003330* 0.37 0.004537* 0.33 0.002231* 0.19



Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours.....................................






Average student credit hours per faculty(fall data) .................................................... -1.042E-03* -0.48 -0.001146* -0.52


Average undergraduate student credithours per faculty (fall data) ........................ -0.001237* -0.57 -0.001011* -0.50










Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ 0.041038 0.12




D-38




Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.010358* 0.94 0.007239* 0.75 0.007299* 0.50 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.008768* 0.57


Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002742* 0.27 0.003163* 0.37 0.003105* 0.28 0.003664* 0.35

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty .................................................









Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000003* 1.27





Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.006432* -0.27 -0.005718* -0.15 -0.005534 -0.12 -0.004354 -0.10

Highest degree offered: Doctor�s (1:yes;0:no) ........................................................... 0.132799* 0.39






Constant........................................................... 2.729795 2.943047 2.536328 2.433095Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.72Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.091180 0.072780 0.086900 0.086160Number of cases used in estimation............... 122 61 107 0Number of outliers and influential cases



D-39





Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.006300* 0.67 0.007983* 0.80 0.005955* 0.75 Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.021835* 0.88


Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.001393* 0.16 0.002784* 0.32

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001036 0.14


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 9.974E-10* 0.79 2.587E-09* 1.04



Quadratic term of academic year graduatestudent credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000088 -0.19














Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.142389 0.38

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ 0.118585 0.43

Constant........................................................... 2.911062 2.886270 3.648880 3.126610

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.73 0.57 0.68 0.53



omitted in the analysis ................................ 8 4 1 14 p = 0.05.1 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19).2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

D-40









Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.002538* 0.30 0.003493* 0.34 0.002107* 0.20


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 3.84344E-10 0.35 3.216E-10* 0.58 1.620E-09* 0.69








Average undergraduate student credit hoursper faculty (fall data) ..................................

Quadratic term of average undergraduatestudent credit hours per faculty (fall data).



Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.003600* -0.13 -0.003869* -0.15






Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ -0.049760 -0.13 -0.056526 -0.18




D-41







Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001976* 0.24 0.001016 0.12 0.005045* 0.43


Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 1.368E-10* 0.66 1.438E-10* 0.72





Quadratic term of percent student credithours taught by tenured/tenure-trackfaculty (fall data) ........................................ -0.000042* -0.60


Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 2.375E-06* 0.48




Average undergrad student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000313 -0.13 -0.000406* -0.22

Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005052* -0.17






Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive(1:yes; 0:no) ................................................ -0.036076 -0.10




D-42







Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.001288* 0.15 0.002659* 0.31 0.003543* 0.35

Academic year total student credit hours(undergrad+ graduate) ................................ -2.957E-05* -0.74 -3.278E-05* -1.55 -0.000042* -0.69 -2.632E-05* -0.91





Percent student credit hours taught bytenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001373* -0.16 -0.001381* -0.18



Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000004* 0.84 0.000003* 0.77





Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure .......................................


Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.057013* 0.13 0.053627* 0.13





Constant........................................................... 2.097833 2.498669 2.410171 2.433530

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.54 0.61 0.75 0.77





D-43

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 1998Delaware Study,�Continued






Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.002333* 0.24 -0.001537 -0.17

Academic year total student credit hours(undergrad+ graduate) ................................ -1.220E-05* -0.63 -2.715E-05* -1.28 -0.000022* -1.00 -1.999E-05* -0.86













Personnel expenditure as percent of totalinstr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005459* -0.12







Constant........................................................... 2.553967 2.308420 2.156370 2.174525

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.74 0.71 0.67 0.70





D-44

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, bydiscipline: 1998 Delaware Study�Continued






Tenured/tenure-track instructional facultyas percent of total instr. faculty.................. -0.002937* -0.39

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent oftotal faculty ................................................. 0.002116* 0.24 0.001298* 0.18

Academic year total student credit hours(undergrad+ graduate) ................................ -3.891E-05* -1.11 -0.000057* -1.76 -2.363E-05* -1.37

Quadratic term of academic year totalstudent credit hours..................................... 3.83631E-10 0.25 0.000000* 0.76 2.582E-10* 0.52


Academic year graduate student credithours as percent of total ............................. 0.013120* 0.40 0.002057 0.08 0.005712* 0.54

Quadratic term of academic year graduatestudent credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000684* -0.39 -0.000085* -0.40



Average student credit hours per faculty(fall data) .................................................... -0.001635* -0.86 -0.004566* -1.57 -0.000490* -0.28

Quadratic term of average student credithours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.58506E-06* 0.50 0.000009* 1.12




Average undergrad student credit hours pertenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000570* -0.22 -0.001214* -0.34




Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;0:no) ............................................................ 0.037228* 0.10 0.125685* 0.37






p = 0.051 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19).2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998�2001.

E-1

Appendix E

Technical Notes

E-2

E-3

Technical Notes

General Approach to DataAnalysis

Data analysis in this study focuses on 25disciplines that are typically found at 4-yearinstitutions, regardless of complexity orinstitutional mission. The examination focused onfour-digit CIP wherever possible, or two-digit CIPas appropriate. Those disciplines and theirassociated CIP codes follow.

Table E-1. Classification by instructionalprogram (CIP) codes

CIP Discipline

09.xx Communication11.xx Computer/Info Science13.xx Education14.07 Chemical Engineering14.08 Civil Engineering14.10 Electrical Engineering14.19 Mechanical Engineering16.xx Foreign Languages23.xx English26.xx Biological Sciences27.xx Mathematics38.xx Philosophy40.05 Chemistry40.06 Geology40.08 Physics42.xx Psychology45.02 Anthropology45.06 Economics45.07 Geography45.08 History45.10 Political Science45.11 Sociology50.xx Visual/Performing Arts51.16 Nursing52.xx Business

The total number of analytical units for these 25disciplines ranges from 2,700 in the 1999 datacollection cycle to 4,240 in the 2001 cycle.

Developing National Benchmarks

In analyzing the Delaware Study data within eachdata set, national benchmarks are computed. Theinitial step in the computation is the inclusion ofall institutional responses with each Carnegie classfor a given variable. From those total responses,an initial mean value is calculated. The responsesare then further analyzed to identify those casesthat are beyond two standard deviations above orbelow the initial mean. These cases are thendefined as outliers and are excluded from thesubsequent calculation of the refined mean. Thisconservative approach to benchmark constructionwas taken to ensure that no single or set ofidiosyncratic responses exert undue influence onthe calculation of a mean value or benchmark.This process is known as Windsorization, andtheoretically excludes 2.5 percent of the datapoints at the low and high end of the range. Ineffect, refined means are calculated from themiddle 95 percent of the data points.

Each of the calculated variables described in theGlossary is analyzed to determine whether specificinstitutional characteristics at the academicdiscipline level impact upon teaching loads andexpenditures. Those characteristics include:

• Carnegie institutional classification,

• highest degree offered within the discipline,and

• relative emphasis on undergraduate versusgraduate instruction within discipline.

The Carnegie institutional classification, as aninstructional workload/cost factor, is predicated ona series of assumptions. The expectation is thatresearch universities teach less and cost more thandoctoral universities, which in turn teach less andcost more than comprehensive and baccalaureateinstitutions. This will be examined for each

E-4

discipline, and if and where the assumption isnegated, the issue of sample dependency isexamined.

Two other institutional characteristics lendthemselves to analysis. The assumed impact ofhighest degree offered is straightforward, i.e.,doctorate-granting disciplines will teach less andcost more than master�s-granting disciplines,which in turn will teach less and cost more thanbaccalaureate-only disciplines. This is animportant consideration in looking at the overalldisciplinary mix at an institution. The higher theconcentration of doctorate and master�s degreeprograms, the higher would be the expectedinstructional costs.

It is also important to examine the relativeemphasis on undergraduate versus graduateinstruction. One might look at two chemicalengineering departments, both offering thedoctorate. One teaches only 20 percent of its totalstudent credit hours at the graduate level, while theother teaches over half of its student credit hoursat the graduate level. Consideration of this factorenables distinguishing of cost differentials that arenot so directly captured by either Carnegieinstitutional classification or highest degreeawarded in the discipline. The Delaware Studybenchmarks assess undergraduate versus graduateprogram mix within a discipline by examining thedistribution of degrees awarded at theundergraduate versus graduate levels.

Variation in Cost

National benchmark cost data derived from annualDelaware Study data collection cycles repeatedlyand consistently show variations in cost bydiscipline. Direct instructional expense perstudent credit hour taught ranges from the low$100s for some disciplines in the social sciences towell over $400 in disciplines in engineering andthe physical sciences. It is important tounderstand the nature of these cost differentials.

At the very basic level, historical data from theDelaware Study indicate that costs vary amongdisciplines regardless of institutional mission. The

data further show that within a given discipline,there is variation in cost among the pool ofinstitutions participating in the Delaware Study inany year. This leads to the question as to whereimportant cost differentials occur. Are variationsin cost predominantly occurring among disciplineswithin institutions, or are they mostly due tocategorical differences among the institutionsthemselves? These sources of variance areexamined and described using hierarchical linearmodeling.

The data gathered in the Delaware Study follow aclassical hierarchical data structure. Variablessuch as cost of instruction and faculty workloadare collected at the discipline level and may begrouped by institution. Part of the variance in costcan be attributed to disciplines within institution.However, cost may in turn be affected by the typeof institution such as that based on Carnegieclassification. Hierarchical linear modeling allowsvariance decomposition into within-institution andbetween-institution components.

In the two-level hierarchical data structure,disciplines are considered the level 1 units andinstitutions the level 2 units. The one-wayanalysis of variance, which is the simplest possiblehierarchical model, is applied to cost where noexplanatory variables are used in either disciplineor institution. This provides the �baseline�measure of the variation in cost. In subsequentmodels, the effect of Carnegie classification andbroad discipline grouping according to cost levelsare disaggregated from the variance.

While no inferences on population cost estimatesare possible, similarities or nonsimilarities of costamong the 25 disciplines under examination areanalyzed and described. An in-depth test ofdifference in cost by discipline is applied to thedata using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Howcosts vary by discipline in conjunction withinstitutional mission, highest degree awarded inthe discipline, and the relative emphasis onundergraduate versus graduate instruction in thediscipline is examined. It is important to replicatethe analysis over multiple data cycles forvalidation of the findings; hence data from the1998, 2000, and 2001 Delaware Study datacollections are analyzed and described.

E-5

Cost Factors

Prior analysis of Delaware Study data (Middaughand Graham 1998) suggests that there issubstantial variation in the unit cost of instructionbetween and among individual disciplines andgroupings of disciplines. Based upon that analysis,it can also be postulated that determinants ofinstructional cost may also vary by discipline.Consequently, data from the 1998, 2000, and 2001Delaware Study data collection cycles aresystematically examined to determine factors thatdirectly impact instructional expenditures withineach discrete data collection cycle. The data arefurther examined to determine if there is a patternin cost determinants over time, i.e., across multipledata collection cycles. Specifically, the followingvariables, each of which is a Delaware Studybenchmark, are examined through multipleregression analysis with respect to theirsignificance in predicting the direct cost ofinstruction.

• Department size, as measured by total FTEfaculty and by FTE instructional faculty. (Thelatter is the former, net of any contractualbuyouts for activity other than instruction.)

• Proportion of faculty who are tenured or whoare on tenure track. Tenured and tenure-trackfaculty are, on average, better compensatedthan other categories of faculty. Moreover,tenure makes this group largely a fixed cost.Consequently, the larger this proportion, thehigher the unit cost of instruction.

• Total student credit hours taught in anacademic year. Typically, the unit cost of anitem�in this instance, a student credithour�would be expected to decrease as thenumber of units being produced increases.

• Graduate student credit hours as a proportionof total student credit hours taught. Graduatelevel instruction is more expensive thanundergraduate instruction. Classes aretypically smaller; interactions with faculty,particularly tenured and tenure-track faculty,are more frequent and individualized, etc. Itwould therefore be reasonable to expect that

the more graduate oriented a department, themore expensive the instruction.

• Faculty teaching load during an academic yearas measured by the number of student credithours taught per FTE faculty, and/or thenumber of FTE students taught (a derivative ofstudent credit hours that is sensitive to level ofinstruction) per FTE faculty. It is assumedthat the heavier the teaching load per FTEfaculty, the lower the cost of instruction.

• Personnel expenditures as a percentage of totalinstructional expenditures. For somedisciplines, most notably equipment-intensivedisciplines such as the natural and physicalsciences and engineering, a large added cost ofinstruction is due to nonpersonnel expenses,i.e., expenditures not associated withemployee salaries and benefits. It is assumedthat the unit cost of instruction will be lower indisciplines where most of the instructionalexpense is personnel related.

• Highest degree offered. It is hypothesized thatthe expected cost of instruction in adepartment or discipline that offers only thebachelor�s degree will be lower than thoseoffering graduate degrees as well.

• Institutional control, i.e., publicly versusprivately supported institutions. There arethose who argue that private institutionstypically feature smaller class sizes, moreindividual attention to students, etc. If this isin fact the case, it should impact directinstructional expenditures at those institutions.The feasibility of using this variable wasexamined in 1998, and again in the presentstudy, and in both instances was eliminateddue to the comparatively low participationrate among private institutions, which resultedin too few data points at the academicdiscipline level to yield meaningful and validanalysis.

• Institutional mission, as inferred from the1995 Carnegie institutional taxonomy. It ishypothesized that baccalaureate andcomprehensive institutions intrinsically teachmore in terms of student credit hour volume

E-6

and faculty teaching loads than doctoraluniversities, which in turn teach more thanresearch universities. If true, this impactsdirect instructional expense.

Highest degree offered and institutional mission,as previously defined, have been translated intoindicator variables for multiple regressionanalysis. These variables take on a value of eitherzero or one, where a value of one signifies a classmembership.

Comprehensive cost models were sought for eachdiscipline, using multiple regression analysis. Inaddition to analyzing and describing the linearrelationship of cost and the continuousvariables�such as academic year student credithours taught, academic year graduate studentcredit hours as a proportion of total student credithours taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty,etc.�the quadratic term for each of these variableswas also tested in the model to account forpossible nonlinear relationships with cost.Likewise, the interaction terms between thedummy variables for Carnegie classification andhighest degree offered and the same continuousvariables were analyzed and described.

In order to conform to the assumptions underlyingregression analysis, data points wherein the unitcost is beyond two standard deviations from themean were eliminated at the onset of analysis.These cases were omitted from analysis, as theyare idiosyncratic and potentially exert undueimpact on developing equations. Outliers andinfluential cases were identified by examining theresiduals obtained from initial regression analysesand were subsequently omitted. The majority ofthe outliers have unit cost per student credit hoursthat are grossly high, i.e., standardized residual ofthree or higher. Influential cases were identifiedas those with relatively large values for Cook�sDistance. The study of the residuals from theinitial analysis repeatedly showed that theassumption of constant variance orhomoscedasticity is violated. To correct for this,the dependent variable, cost per student credithour, was transformed to logarithm.

Inclusion of the independent variables in theequation is a function of how strongly thevariables independently or jointly affectinstructional cost. The predictor variables that areincluded in these equations have regressioncoefficients that are significant at the 10 percentlevel. In a few instances, however, some variableswere retained in order to have more meaningfuland complete cost models. In part, inclusion ofthe variables depends upon the magnitude of thecolinearity among these variables. Care was takento ensure that multicolinearity was minimized.

The analytical strategy employed is to identifymajor cost drivers within each of the 25 academicdisciplines under examination, to then determinewhether these cost drivers vary among disciplines,and ultimately to examine if the identified costdrivers are consistent over multiple data collectioncycles. In examining the 25 disciplines within anygiven data collection cycle, it is imperative toensure that sufficient data points are present toallow for reliable use of multiple regressionmethodology. The question of insufficient datapoints occurred in disciplines at the four-digit CIPgrouping. In certain instances, it was necessary tocollapse some disciplines at the four-digit CIP intolarger naturally affiliated groupings in order toachieve sufficient data points as well as to increasethe predictive power of the model. Such is thecase for the four engineering disciplines wherecombining them yielded a more highly predictivecost model. Similarly, combining political sciencewith anthropology and geography produced morereliable cost models than when each is takenindividually.

The analytical process for each of the disciplinesunder examination was kept as consistent aspossible. Specifically, the following protocolswere adopted for all equations:

• Cost per student credit hour taught is thedependent variable. Cost is transformed tologarithm in the analysis.

• Data points wherein unit cost is beyond twostandard deviations from the mean are omittedat the onset of the analysis.

E-7

• Outliers are defined as those cases in whichthe absolute value of the standardized residualis three or higher, and are subsequentlyomitted.

• Influential cases are identified as those withrelatively high values of Cook�s Distanceand/or Mahalanobis Distance statistics. Thesecases are omitted in the final analysis.

• The quadratic term of all continuous variablesare tested for inclusion in the model to accountfor possible nonlinear relationships with cost.

• Interaction terms between selected continuousvariables and categorical variables (highestdegree offered and Carnegie institutionalclassification) were tested for inclusion in themodel.

• Variables are retained in the equation only iftheir regression coefficients are statisticallysignificant at the 10 percent level.

For disciplines that are a two-digit CIPaggregation, data points belonging to a four-digitsubdiscipline with two or fewer institutionsreporting were eliminated from the aggregation.

E-8

U.S. Department of EducationED Pubs8242-B Sandy CourtJessup, MD 20794-1398

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDU.S. DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION

PERMIT NO. G-17

Documents

A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The