Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 045 004 HE 001 787
TITLE 1970 Statistical Profile Independent CaliforniaColleges and Universities. A Report to The JointCommittee on Higher Education, California StateLegislature.
INSTITUTION Association of Independent California Colleges andUniversities, Los Angeles.
PUB DATE Mar 70NOTE 94p.
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price M7-$0.50 HC-$4.80DESCRIPTORS Degrees (Titles), *Educational Finance, Enrollment,
*Higher Education, *Private Colleges, Salaries,*Statistical Data, Student Characteristics
IDENTIFIERS *California
ABSTRACTThis report is a statistical summary and analysis of
the operations of independent colleges and universities inCalifornia. It includes data on: enrollment, degrees granted, income,expenditures, assets, capacity for additional enrollment, studentcharacteristics, and faculty salaries and degrees for the period1964-1969. In analyzing the data, member institutions were groupedwith other institutions possessing similar characteristics. (AF)
1970
STATISTICAL PROFILE
INDEPENDENT CALIFORNIA COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
A Report to
The Joint Committee on Higher Education
California State Legislature
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSONORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OFVIEW OR CFINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES-SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.
Prepared byThe Association of Independent California
Colleges and UniversitiesOne Wilshire Building
Los Angeles, California 90017March 1970
Table of Contents
Page
PREFACE
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
II. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 8
Ill. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Enrollment 11
Educational Income and Expenditures 21
Percentage of Income from Various Sources 35Percentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
Operating Income and Expenditures 42
Assets and Fund Balances 50
Capacity for Additional Students 60
State Scholarship Program 74
Student Characteristics 79
Degrees Awarded 80
Faculty Ranks, Salaries, and Degrees 88
IList of Tables
Page
Enrollment 12 - 20
Educational Income and Expenditures 22 - 2326 - 34
Percentage of Income from Various Sources 38 - 41Percentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
Operating Income and Expenditures 43 - 49
Assets and Fund Balances 53 - 59
Educational Income and Expenditures Per FTEby Institution - 1968-69
64 - 67
Tuition and Fees Charges 68 - 70
Increases in Undergraduate E--irollment and in 76 - 78State Scholars for Various Time Periods byInstitution
Degrees 81 - 87
Distribution of Full-Time Faculty by Ranksand Degrees
89
Average Salaries, Full-Time Faculty 90
PREFACE
This report is a statistical summary and analysis of the operationsof independent colleges and universities in California. It includes fiscaland demographic data for the period 1964-69. This current report updatesinformation gathered in a previous study conducted by the Association ofIndependent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU). That report,entitled "A Statistical Profile of Independent Higher Education in California"was published in August, 1968, and covered the period 1956-67.
Both the current study and the previous study were made possibleby support provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on Higher Education.These studies are intended to shed light on the significance of independentinstitutions to the State of California. Their educational programs as wellas their personnel, physical plants, and financial resources are an im-portant asset for California. The State government has a rather directinterest in the enrollment load carried by these institutions and in the sizeof the load they can carry in the future for if enrollment growth in theseinstitutions is curtailed the result will be even higher educational costsfor the State. It follows from this that the State has an interest in thefinancial condition of independent colleges and universities now and inthe future for finances largely determine the quality and extent of theeducational services they can provide to citizens of California.
SCOPE
11The following types of data are reported in this study: enrollment,
degrees granted, income, expenditures, assets, capacity for additional
1
enrollment, student characteristics, and faculty salaries and degrees.Enrollment information is reported for all AICCU member institutions
(there were 50 members when data were collected, now there are 51).11 Financial information is reported for 46 institutions (the four omitted are
relatively small). Other types of informationcapacity, student, and faculty
It are reported for 40 or more institutions.In analyzing the data, member institutions were grouped with other
1institutions possessing similar characteristics. The same six groupsestablished for the 1968 Statistical Profile were retained in this study.
IThe, names of the institutions in each group and the basis for assignmentare included in Chapter II.
U
U
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STUDY
The format of the report is based on the study design developedin 1967 by an ad hoc committee of business officers from member institutionsincluding Jack Hartley, Janet Hoit, Larry Hendon, Robert Hervig, andVirgil Wilkinson. Members of this committee and Robert Gilmore, Chairmanof the AICCU Committee on Financing of Independent Higher Education, alsoreviewed the draft of the current report,
Dr. Joseph McCloskey, as a consultant to AICCU, laid out thequestionnaire for this study. Dr. Clifford Stewart joined the study mid-wayas Director of Research for the Association. He helped pull data togetherand prepared several parts of the analysis.
Karen Pedersen, Consultant for the Joint Legislative Committee onHigher Education, served as liaison with the Committee and also providedhelpful encouragement.
The contributions of all the persons named above are greatly appreciatedfor they improved the quality of the study. However, the persons responsiblefor the content of this report are Morgan Odell, Executive Director of AICCU,and Betty Katanick, Staff Secretary and Research Assistant for AICCU.
ii
I
Chapter ISUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A quick glance at the data gathered in this study may suggestthat the independent colleges and universities of California possessboth vigor and good financial health. It is true that enrollment inthese institutions has continued to grow at a fairly steady 5% annualrate and that both their income and expenditures have increasedsubstantially each year.
However, a closer look at the data reveals a somewhat differentpicture. For instance:
Half the AICCU institutions had deficits in their balance sheetsin 1968-69, more than in any previous year.
Educational expenditures grew faster than educational incomethroughout the past five years.
Operating reserves are growing smaller in proportion toeducational budgets.
Reduced amounts of money are being put into endowment- -increasingly, gifts must be used to meet operating expenses.
Tuition charges have been raised faster than ever before- -institutional income from tuition and fees increased anaverage 9% per student for each of the last five years.
In 1968-69, the figure jumped to 12. 5% per student.
Student aid expenditures have increased at a faster rate thanexpenditures for any other purpose to help needy students meethigher costs and to assure diversity in the student body.
1
k.
Most institutions now rely on income from tuition to meettwo-thirds or more of their educational costs. For all AICCUinstitutions together, excluding the large universities, the per-centage of total income obtained from tuition has increased almost1% each year for the last decade.
Without question, this trend will continue and even acceleratebecause the tuition increase has become an annual event for virtuallyall institutions.
Also the increases for this next year are generally largeramounts than before.
This rapid driving-up of tuition charges has been the onlyeffective response available to independent institutions to meetexploding educational costs, which have advanced an average 14. 5%per year, 9% per student per year.
At a basic level this strategy has worked. It has enabledinstitutions to avoid bankruptcy. But with tuition being raised ata faster rate than the rate of increase in family income, there isa continual shrinking in the pool of students who can afford to attendindependent institutions.
If an institution elects to minimize its tuition increases inorder to survive, it probably will not have enough income to main-tain educational standards and educational quality.
The evidence suggests that this is already happening to someAICCU institutions.
What can be done to assure an adequate pool of studentsfinancially able to attend independent colleges and universities?
One method is to grant scholarships to needy students and thisis why increasing the number of awards in the California State Scholar-ship program would appear to be so helpful to both the independentcolleges and to the State.
For if these institutions have a sufficient pool of students todraw from they will be able to maintain and increase their enrollment.
2
3
Public institutions will be relieved of the task and the cost ofeducating all additional students.
This study shows that independent institutions have thephysical capacity to accommodate additional students. The limitingfactor is their financial capacity.
Another method for assuring an adequate pool of potentialstudents is to obtain additional income from sources other thantuition in sufficient amount so that tuition increases can be heldto reasonable limits.
Two possible sources of such funds are increased gifts andgovernmental grants to institutions.
Probably both will be required if independent institutions areto remain independent.
General Financial Condition
Two years ago a prominent consulting firm analyzed thefinancial condition of independent colleges and universities inCalifornia and predicted that financing problems would grow worseeach year. Specifically, the study by McKinsey and Company for.--cast that AICCU institutions would not be able to generate enoughincome to maintain their programs and also -.:ontinue a limited rateof enrollment growth.
To a degree the McKinsey projections have been realizedduring the two subsequent fiscal years. A number of AICCU in-stitutions did not raise enough income to maintain their programsand half the AICCU institutions ended the 1968-69 fiscal year witha deficit, which meant deficits at more institutions than in any previousyear. Further, McKinsey was very accurate in its forecast of enroll-ment growth for the two-year period.
However, probably due to accelerated inflation the McKinseyprojections on cost increases turned out to be somewhat low. Butfortunately the estimates on income were also low, as indicated bythe following figures:
4
1968-69 Fiscal Year - All AICCU Institutions
McKinsey Estimates Actual
Educational Income $242, 600, 000 $261, 200, 000
Educational Expenditures $244, 400, 000 $259, 900, 000
McKinsey said flatly that AICCU institutions would never actuallyexperience the magnitude of deficits projected in its study because,in the absence of sufficient income, institutions would cut back ontheir programs and thus reduce costs.
How were AICCU institutions able to generate nearly $19 millionmore in income in 1968-69 than predicted two years earlier?
The answer is found in tuition charges. McKinsey projecteda 6% annual increase in tuition income per full-time equivalent student,believing that that was the extent of the increase that could and shouldbe made.
However, the data show that for all AICCU institutions as agroup Tuition Income per FTE increased 9% over the previous yearin 1967-68 and 12. 5% over the previous year in 1968-69.
Income from Other Sources (miscellaneous activities and netfrom Auxiliary Operations and Sponsored Research) was also higherthan anticipated and Gift income was slightly above what was expected.Only income form Investments (Endowment) was below what wasanticipated.
But the big increase in income--the reason that most institutionswere able to maintain relative financial health--was due to the factthat these institutions were able to increase tuition and fees chargesso rapidly.
5
Many AICCU institutions have been able to advance tuitioncharges at a rapid rate and still maintain a strong demand foradmission on the part of students. But there is no ignoring thefact that these institutions are getting closer to the unknown butyet very real point where they can no longer raise tuition at afaster rate than the increase in family income. That positionhas already been reached by many independent institutions in otherStates and by some in California.
Although there is no way to estimate precisely the tuitionincrease slow-down point for most California independent collegesand universities, one thing is sure: These institutions are shorteningthe time in which they will reach that point. Two years ago, two-thirds of the AICCU member institutions increased their tuition;last year 80% did; and this year over 90% have announced plans foranother increase effective next fall.
6 (ur
FINANCIAL PROFILE FOR 1968-69 FISCAL YEARAll AICCU Institutions
McKinsey Projections Compared to Actual Income and Expenditures
Educational Income (in thousands) Projected Actual
Tuition and FeesGifts
$123,
48,129
965
$136, 369
51,418
Investment 22, 377 20, 649
Other 48, 113 52, 761
$242, 584 $261, 197
$13, 613,000 more income than anticipated.
Educational Expenditures (in thousands) Projected Actual
Administration and General $ 50, 140 $ 56, 029Instruction 131, 674 133, 089
Student Aid 27, 483 32, 600
Library and Plant Operations 35, 080 38, 154
$244, 377 $259, 872
$15, 495,000 more expenditures than anticipated.
Result: For the 1968-69 fiscal year, for all AICCU institutions together,educational income exceeded educational expenditures by one and one-thirdmillion dollars instead of falling short by two million dollars as predictedby McKinsey. However, half of the institutions closed the year with adeficit.
Note: The amounts shown on this page include income and expendituredata for 50 AICCU institutions while the Group Totals on Educational Incomeand Expenditures shown on page 28 include data for the 43 institutions thatsupplied full financial information. For this reason the amounts on thispage are larger.
I
If
LI
Chapter II
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The types of information collected in this study are basically thesame items covered in the Statistical Profile Study of two years ago.However, several new items have been added, namely, year-end fundbalances; physical capacity for additional students; student characteristicsdata including place of residence, ethnic baclground, and admission testscores by institution; and faculty data on salaries, degrees, and ranks.
In addition, th.to study contains a new statistical analysis of the StateScholarship Program and offers a method for determining the fiscal capacityof institutions to maintain or add to their enrollment.
GROUPING OF INSTITUTIONS
By retaining the same six institutional groups used in the earlierstudy we are able to see what has happened to group trends observed twoyears ago. Only two institutions were moved to a different group for thisstudy.
The following factors determined the assignment of institutions togroups:
1. Type of institution--university, college, or institute2. Breadth and orientation of curriculum3. Percentage of graduate students4. AICCU classificationbased on amount of total assets and
amount of instructional budget5. Church affiliation, if any
The assignment factors are elaborated on page 9 and the names ofthe institutions in each group are listed on page 10.
9
GROUPING OF INSTITUTIONS
Explanation of basis used in assigning individualinstitutions to the groups
GroupNo. inGroup
Type ofInstitution Curriculum
AveragePercentGraduateStudents
AICCU*Classifi-
cationReligiousAffiliation
I 3 University & Widely 52% 18 NoneInstitute Diversified
II 7 University Diver sified 35% 9-16 Yes for mostin group
III 10 College Liberal Arts 8% 5-12 No for most
IV 19 College Liberal Arts 30% 2 -8 Yes for almostall
V 7 College Liberal Arts 19% 1-4 Yes for most
VI 4 College & Spe cialized 54% 1-7 NoneInstitute
* AICCU institutions are classified according to a systemwhich places each one on a level from 1 to 18 accordingto amount of total assets and amount of instructionalbudget for the institution.
** All the Claremont Colleges are included in this group.
INSTITUTIONS BY GROUP
GROUP I
California Institute ofTechnology
Claremont University CenterLoma Linda UniversityLoyola UniversityUnited States InternationalUniversity
Claremont Men's CollegeHarvey Mudd CollegeMills CollegeOccidental CollegePacific Union College
GROUP II
GROUP III
GROUP IV
Azusa Pacific CollegeBiola CollegeCalifornia College of Arts and CraftsCalifornia Lutheran CollegeChapman CollegeCollege of the Holy NamesCollege of Notre DameDominican College of San RafaelImmaculate Heart CollegeLa Verne CollegeMarymount College.
California Baptist CollegeMenlo CollegePacific CollegePacific Oaks College
GROUP V
GROUP VI
Golden Gate CollegeNorthrop Institute of Technology
10
Stanford UniversityUniversity of Southern California
University of the PacificUniversity of San FranciscoUniversity of Santa Clara
Pitzer CollegePomona CollegeScripps CollegeUniversity of RedlandsWhittier College
Mount Saint Mary's CollegePasadena CollegePepperdine CollegeSt. Mary's College of CaliforniaSan Francisco College for WomenUniversity of San Diego.-
College for MenUniversity of San Diego -
College for. WomenWestmont College
St. John's CollegeSt. Patrick's CollegeSouthern California College
Monterey Institute of ForeignStudies
San Francisco Art Institute
11
I
I
III
II
I
11
11
I
LI
Chapter III
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
ENROLLMENT
11
Enrollment in AICCU institutions has continued to grow at a fairlysteady rate. Growth in Total Students through the decade of the Sixtiesaveraged just over 5% per year. Increases in the second half of thedecade were at a slightly slower rate than during the first half.
On the other hand growth in full-time students was greater in thesecond half of the decade. During this period there was only a smallincrease in part-time graduate students and virtually none in part-timeundergraduates.
Growth patterns during the last five years differed substantiallyamong the various groups. Group VI, which includes the more specializedinstitutions, grew at twice the average rate in all measures (Total Students,Full-Time Undergraduates, Full-Time Graduates, and Full-Time-Equivalentstudents), Group II, the smaller universities, had the second fastest growthin all measures (1-1/2 times the average). At the same time, growth inGroup V, the smaller colleges, was below average in all measures. Infact, when the 16 institutions in Group IV and V with less than 700 full-timeundergraduate students are considered a group, we see no growth in enroll-ment during the last five years. Eight of the 16 have fewer students in 1970than they did in 1965.
The ratio of undergraduate to graduate students was quite stable forall groups except Group VI during the period 1964-65 to 1969-70. Percentageof undergraduates increased by 5% for Group VI; for all groups together itincreased by 2% (from 56. 6% to 58. 6 %).
Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time students increased for each of thegroups during the period except Group V where it declined slightly. Over-all, the change was from 71% to 75%.
12
ANNUAL ENROLLMENT GROWTH IN PERCENTAGESFOR ALL AICCU INSTITUTIONS AND FOR THE SIX GROUPS
OF INSTITUTIONS DURING VARIOUS TIME PERIODS
Total Students
5-YearAverageGrowth59-64
5-YearAverageGrowth64-69.
1-YearGrowth67-68 to68-69
1-YearGrowth68-69 to69-70
Number1969-70
All Groups 5.6 4.6 5.9 4.8 104,437
Group I 3.8 1.3 2.8 2.4 33,938
II 7.3 7.o 5.6 10.8 28,031
III 3.5 4.7 4.4 4.9 12,393
IV 9.1 6.5 13.7 0.0 20,635
V 9.2 4.5 4.6 -0.5 2,787
VI N/A 9.2 11.1 10.1 6,653
Full-Time Under-Graduates
All Groups 4.2 4.9 1.9 7.2 61,203
Group I 2.1 1.6 -4.4 8.5 14,866
II 4.o 7.o 2.7 8.9 15,140
III 3.8 5.0 4.o 5.2 11,454
Iv 7.6 5.1 4.1 5.5 14,427
v 8.2 4.7 6.6 -1.3 2,267
VI N/A 12.9 3.9 9.6 3,049
Full-Time Graduates
All Groups 8.7 9.4 -3.9 7.4 11,303
Group I 4.2 5.5 -6.6 5.3 7,059
II 4.o 19.5 14.1 1.8 2,008
III 4.8 10.4 10.4 3.4 286
IV 5.2 14.1 -17.4 32.4 1,162
v 9.5 1.7 0.5 3.2 226
VI N/A 74.0 18.3 22.7 562
FTE
All Groups N/A 5.2 4.2 6.1 91,065
Group I. N/A 1.9 0.4 4.9 29,895
II N/A 7.6 5.4 10.2 23,646
III N/A 5.0 4.5 5.1 12,038
IV N/A 6.6 7.5 4.4 17,683
v N/A 4.7, 6.6 -3.2 2,577
VI N/A 12.5 8.6 9.8 5,226
ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGES:UNDERGRADUATE, GRADUATE, AND FULL-TIME
13
Total Groups
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
Undergraduate 56.6 58.1 58.8 59.4 57.2 58.6
Graduate 43.4 41.9 41.2 40.6 42.8 41.4
Full-Time 71.3 73.1 75.2 76.6 73.5 75.3
Group I
Undergraduate 47.6 47.2 47.0 46.7 47.1 48.2
Graduate 52.4 52.8 53.0 53.3 52.9 51.8
Full-Time 64.8 66.4 69.5 72.8 68.6 72.0
Group II
Undergraduate 65.2 66.1 69.2 64.8 63.1 64.7Graduate 34.8 33.9 30.8 35.2 36.9 35.3Full-Time 71.6 74.3 78.3 74.8 74.1 73.0
Group III
Undergraduate 91.4 91.3 91.5 92.5 92.2 92.4Graduate 8.6 8.7 8.5 7.5 7.8 7.6Full-Time 93.3 93.4 93.7 94.7 94.6 94.7
Group IV
Undergraduate 69.8 70.8 71.3 71.0 66.2 69.9Graduate 30.2 29.2 28.7 29.0 33.8 30.1Full-Time 73.1 75.3 76.1 76.7 70.4 75.6
Group V
Undergraduate 81.5 82.8 83.0 80.7 82.1 81.3Graduate 18.5 17.2 17,0 19.3 17.9 18.7Full-Time 90.1 91.4 91.6 88.8 89.8 89.4
Group VI
Undergraduate 40.4 40.8 50.3 49.2 46.0 45.9Graduates 59.6 59.2 49.7 50.8 54.0 54.1
Full-Time 41.3 42.3 53.9 56,3 53.5 54.3
1-4
keso
m,I
IM
7771
1
EN
RO
LLM
EN
T D
AT
A
t' _w
estiw
irnie
Fal
aiP
omo@
*ow
lic
e!O
ngilsw=41
GR
OU
PT
OT
AL
UN
DE
RG
RA
DU
AT
ES
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
1969
-70
I
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE MI
47,126
50,960
53,799
56,041
57,100
61,203
5.4
8,98
08,
279
8,17
1
61,970
7,647
63,688
9,797
66,897
8,996
70,199
0.0
4.6
56,106
59,239
50,6
3854
,441
57,2
5359
,210
61,2
8965
,014
5.1
GR
AD
UA
TE
ST
UD
EN
TS
Ful
l-Tim
e
'P
art-
Tim
e
Tot
al
FT
E
7337
8,245
9,435
10,7
3210
,517
16,708
27,2
25
11,3
03
16,760
28,0
63
9.0
2.3
4.7
14,945
15,317
23,5
62
14,495
23,9
30
14,406
25,1
3822
,282
14,7
14 813
15,6
36
81
16,7
00 877
17,779
()07
18, 904
953
927
3,399
19,9
28
1 02
7
1 066
3,634
6.2
4.7
5.2
4.9
PR
OF
ES
SIO
NA
LM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al
826
832
3,075
931
3,29
0
935
3,178
2,85
2428
314
403
398
5,418
401
5,680
448
6,175
104,437
0.8
4.6
4.6
4,919
5,040
5,50
1
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L F
TE
83,307
87,841
91,401
94,244
99802
70,168
75,014
79,414
82,369
85,839
'91.069
9.4
ENROLLMENT DATA
GROUP I
UNDERGRADUATES
Full-Time
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
.69
1969
-70
VE
tRA
GE
EA
AN
NU
AL
1969
-70
12,8
1+2
13,0
9513
,534
14,2
0913
,705
14,8
663.
0
2,17
01,
851
1,61
694
91,
944
1,49
8-5
.4
15,0
1214
,946
15,1
5015
,158
15,6
4916
,364
1.
13,7
1013
,835
14,1
8014
,589
14,4
8315
,465
2.5
(.3RADUATE STUDENTS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
5 41
65
749
6 34
67
0.1
6 70
80
.4
8 91
38
808
218
28
0-
.14
.4
1461
14 6
121
10
61 0
10,4
5010
,592
11 101
11,5
6911
,701
11,9
122.
7PROFESSIONAL
Med
icin
e
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al
004
82R
640
4
356
347
426
42.0
64
86.
0
941
1,01
51,100
846
958
50.
0
428
314
403
398
401
448
1.0
2,22
82,
180
2,48
62,
246
2,35
32,
518
2.5
GRAND TOTAL
31,5
6931
,680
32,1
9732
,367
33,2
1533
,938
1.4
TOTAL FTE
26,3
8826
607
276
28 4
0428
2e 8
2.5
=M
PI
RF
AII7
047
1114
Pi*
bloi
4N
al N
M W
ad10
*100
0
EN
RO
LLM
EN
T D
AT
AG
RO
UP
II
UN
DE
RG
RA
DU
AT
ES
Fui
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
19P
4-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
1969
-70
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE (%)
10,4
9112
,039
12,7
1313
,411
13,7
6715
,140
7.6
2,08
61,
985
2,22
82,
138
15,5
49
2,19
1
15,9
58
2,97
0
18,1
10
7.3
7.6
12,5
7714
,024
14,9
41
11,3
3613
,026
13,8
2514
,310
14,7
2816
,313
7.6
GR
AD
UA
TE
ST
UD
EN
TS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
969
1,23
81,
572
1,73
31,
978
2, 0
084,
596
6,6o
4
15.7
6.0
8.4
3 42
13
464
3 44
1
5,01
3
3,89
7
5,63
0
4,37
6
6,35
44,
390
4,70
2
2,35
6
310
2,57
1
315
2,94
4
320
3,25
0
325
3,75
2
355
531
2,10
1
4,01
6
387
588
2,34
2
11.2 4.6
4.6
8.7
PR
OF
ES
SIO
NA
LM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tc
tal
470
485
505
1,80
0
515
1,95
01,
541
1,69
7
2,32
1
19,2
88
21-1
91
21,2
23
2,62
5
21,5
79
2,79
0
234.
969
20,3
50
2,9E
27_
25,2
99
21,1
167
3,31
7-
28,0
31
7.4
7.9
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L F
TE
16,0
1318
,094
19,3
9423
,646
8.2
ENROLLMENT DATA
GROUP III
UNDERGRADUATES
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
.68
1968
-69
1969
-70
I
A V
EN
RA
GE
EA
019
14A
L
8,97
49,
521
10,0
3210
,462
10,8
8511
,454
5.1
328
339
324.
312
322
319
0.0
9,30
29,
860
10,3
5610
,774
11,2
0711
,773
4.9
9,10
59,
659
10,1
5510
,593
11,0
4711
,621
5.1
GRADUATE STUDENTS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
186
223
250
250
276
286
9.0
334
345
366
289
325
334
0.0
520
568
616
539
601
620
3.5
319
361
398
366
4o6
417
5.5
PROFESSIONAL
Med
icin
e
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al
GRAND TOTAL
9,82
21Q
,428
10,9
7211
,313
11,8
0812
,393
1203
8
4.7
5.1
TOTAL FTE
9,42
410
.020
10.5
5310
.959
11.4
53
ENROLLMENT DATA
GROUP IV
UNDVRGRADUATES
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
1969
-70
I
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE (%I
11,1
9712
,392
12,8
7013
,127
13 6
6414
,427
5.2
2,43
12,
313
2,26
42,
273
3,11
32,
016
-3.9
13 6
2814
705
15 1
3415
400
1677
7
12,0
0213
152
13 5
6013
.938
1483
8GRADUATE STUDENTS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
518
7 8
862
10
8 8
116
21-.
188
201
2 0
22
022
0 0
10.0
2 40
27
2,92
13 1
080
82
8 11
4 2
1-2
406
11.6
11 1 1
122
16
PROFESSIONAL
Med
icin
e
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al
GRAND TOTAL
16,0
331
4 8
18,0
5518
480
20
6 6
206
.2
TOTAL
FT
E1
114
6 4
121
11
161
686.
0
(70
ENROLLMENT DATA
GROUP V
UNDERGRADUATES
Full -Time
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FTE
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
I19
67-6
819
68-6
919
69.7
01
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE I
%)
1,912
2,055
2,099
2.156
2,298
2,267
3.5
221
200
200
290
2,446
2,278
240
2,538
2,430
243
I2,510
2,334
1.9
3.4
3.0
2,133
4255
2,299
2,207
2,009
2.170
GRADUATE STUDENTS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E.
204
209
217
218
219
226
2.1
11
17
11
12
43
51
35.9
215
226
228
230
262
277
5.1
208
216
221
223
237
243
3._4
___
PR
OF
ES
SIO
NA
LM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al
GRAND TOTAL
TO
TA
L F
TE
2,348
2,481
2,386
2,527
2,428
2,676
2,501
2,800
2.667
2,787
2,577
3.5
3.0
2,217
= =
Kal
iIN
NS
NW
INN
Ow
lM
il M
I IN
Nm
ini
mil
pm p
m!
EN
RO
LLM
EN
T D
AT
AG
RO
UP
VI
UN
DE
RG
RA
DU
AT
ES
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
1964
-65
1966
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
1969
-70
I
A V
g ItR
GE
EA
AN
NU
AL
110
1 8
82
2 6
62
8104
12.2
144
1 1
11
681
81
0
IMIN
IIMI
4 0
o4
614
68
2,47
62,
599
3,32
63,
502
3,76
34,
004
10.1
GR
AD
UA
TE
ST
UD
EN
TS
Ful
l-Tim
e
Par
t-T
ime
Tot
al
FT
E
4468
181
3845
862
4.o
379
671
410
3o4
814
.6
423
739
591
666
230
374
379
538
689
934
32.4
PR
OF
ES
SIO
NA
LM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
Tot
al F
TE
06
390
8240
40-1
.6
26
4,24
7
260
4,55
1
.790
5,07
1
40
4
6 428
8
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L F
TE
2,97
33,
233
4,05
54,
380
4,75
85,
226
11.9
O
I
I
I
II
I
I
21
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES
Educational Income is defined as Operating Income less Expendituresfor Auxiliary Enterprises and Sponsored Research. Thus EducationalIncome is the money available for the on-going instructional work of aninstitution and the activities necessary to support instruction.
Educational Expenditures is defined as the funds spent for thesepurposes. Of course, in some years. Educational Expenditures may exceedEducational Income.
The average annual rate of increase in Educational Income for allgroups Logether was close to 14% throughout the decade. During mostyears Group II was several percentage points ahead of this figure primarilybecause its enrollment grew at a faster rate than other groups while Group IIIwas consistently below for the opposite reason. Most of the groups maintaineda fairly even growth rate throughout the decade.
The income source which grew at the fastest rate was income fromTuition and Fees, accelerating to an increase of over 17% for the TotalGroups in the year between 1967-68 and 1968-69. Gift Income and OtherIncome also grew at a favorable rate, around 10% or more for all groups formost of the years of the decade. However, growth in Investment incomewas at a lesser rate, with a very sharp drop during the last year coveredby the study.
Educational Expenditures, year-to-year, were also quite even foreach of the groups. Again Group II was somewhat above the average growthrate and Group III somewhat below, for the reasons previously cited.Student Aid expenditures grew faster than expenditures for any other purpose.Expenditures for Administration and General expenses also increased at asomewhat faster rate than Total Educational Expenditures while OtherExpenses and Instructional Expenses increased at a slightly slower rate.
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN EDUCATIONAL INCOMEFOR ALL AICCU INSTITUTIONS AND FOR THE SIX GROUPS
OF INSTITUTIONS DURING VARIOUS TIME PERIODS
5-Year 5-YearAverageverage
1 -YearGrowth
1-YearGrowth
Growth Growth 66-67 67-6859-64 64-69 67-68 68-69
Total EducationalIncome
All Groups 14.0 14.0 12.8 13.1Group I 14.7 13.5 12.5 12.5
II 13.4 18.2 19.7 18.4III 10.3 7.8 5.8 8.3IV 16.2 15.7 11.4 12.1V 12.7 13.5 5.3 13.8
VI N/A 15.2 19.5 15.3Tuition and FeesAll Groups 13.1 14.9 13.3 17.2Group I 12.1 12.2 9.4 17.3
II 14.8 38.9 20.9 18.6III 9.4 11.5 9.4 11.2IV 20.3 19.2 16.0 20.1V 15.2 16.7 13.1 12.8VI N/A 15.1 15.2 19.3
Gifts
All Groups 14.7 10.7 10.3 11.9Group I 7.5 11.2 11.3 15.2
II 11.2 17.4 24.2 20.2III 10.7 -1.2 -3.1 -2.1IV 14.8 11.3 4.9 0.3V 12.3 12.2 -12.5 12.1VI N/A 28.4 26.3 36.9
Investment
All Groups 7.4 7.8 8.3 0.8Group I 7.5 6.8 10.4 -1.6
II 8.o 14.0 -13.5 19.0LEI 7.1 9.6 9.7 3.6P1 9.9 -1.2 0.0 -7.7v 3.3 25.o 20.3 51.6VI N/A 16.2 3.0 20.6
OtherAll Groups 19.5 18.1 3.6.3 9.4Group I 22.4 20.4 18.3 10.7
It 13.9 14.9 17.5 11.7III 19.7 1.7 -14.9 33.7IV 5.8 8.8 4.9 -4.1V 13.2 2.2 -10.3 11.4VI N/A 0.5 89.9 -53.6
22
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURESFOR ALL AICCU INSTITUTIONS AND FOR THE SIX GROUPS
OF INSTITUTIONS DURING VARIOUS TIME PERIODS
5-Year 5-Year 1-Year 1-YearAverage Average Growth GrowthGrowth Growth 66-67 67-6859-64 64-69 67-68 68-69
Total EducationalExpenditures
All Groups 13.9 14.5 13.3 13.4
Group I 14.7 13.4 12.9 12.1
II 12.3 17.7 20.6 19.2III 9.7 12.3 8.4 10.9
IV 17.1 16.6 9.7 13.3v 12.6 18.8 13.7 14.1
va N/A 20.0 14.5 19.8
Administrationand General
All Groups 13.3 15.9 13.8 16.2
Group I 13.3 12.5 11.3 10.9II 12.7 21.0 30.3 24.7
III 10.4 14.6 3.4 12.3
IT 16.9 16.5 6.o 18.5v 14.7 20.2 15.8 15.4VI N/A 28.7 36.4 19.7
Instruction
All Groups 14.4 13.0 10.8 12.0Group I 15.1 11.6 6.5 11.6
II 12.6 16.5 19.6 16.oIII 9.5 11.6 11.1 8.4IV 10.0 17.6 13.0 11.4V 15.0 18.1 13.6 9.3VI N/A 16.2 3.9 15.4
Student Aid
All Groups 15.7 19.9 26.4 13.3Group I 17.4 21.2 35.1 10.2
II 17.7 18.9 10.3 24.5III 7.0 15.7 14.3 14.8Iv 14.6 16.2 9.2 13.9V 34.8 38.7 39.7 22.1VI N/A 50.5 46.4 37.0
Other
All Groups 11.6 13.9 11.3 15.7Group I 12.5 14.5 13.4 17.6
II 9.8 15.2 14.9 15.2III 10.3 9.5 5.9 13.5iv 13.1 14.7 6.7 8.4v 4.8 10.5 -1.9 20.4VI N/A 11.6 0.2 32.6
23
24
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURES PER FTE
Total Educational Income varies with changes in enrollment. Thegross Educational Income figures do not take into account differencesin enrollment growth among institutions ordifferences in rate of growthfrom year-to-year at the same institution.
A more accurate understanding of income and expenditures trendsmay be gained by use of per FTE (full -time equivalent enrollment) figures.Such figures eliminate the effects of varying enrollment and thus reveal criticaldifferences in income and expenditures.
Examination of income per FTE data show Total Income for the TotalGroups ranging narrowly between an increase of 8. 5% and 9. 0% each yearin the decade. Income from Tuition and Fees for all groups together in-creased at a slightly higher rate through the period and so did income fromOther Sources. However, only Groi-43 I institutions received substantialamounts from Other Sources.
Gift income per FTE'increased about as rapidly as Total income perFTE for Group I and Group U. The rate of increase in Gifts was much lessfor Groups III, IV, and V, with dollar income from Gifts actually decliningfor Group III during the period 1964-69.
Investment income per FTE increased less than half as fast as Totalincome for all groups together.
Two specific items deserve mention:During the final year covered by the study there was a sharp upswing
for the Total Groups in Tuition and Fees Income per FTE (from 9.0% to12.5%). Yet the increase in Total income per FTE for the last year wasabout the same as the five year average. This meant that the substantialincrease in Tuition and Fees income was matched by a corresponding declinein Investment income and in Other income.
Another notable development was the drastically reduced increase inEducational income for Liroups IV and V during the last year. The increaserate for the final year was about one-third that of the four previous years.The problem for Group IV was that the amount of dollar income from Investmentand Other Sources was less than for the previous yez..1: while Gift dollar income
%MI -r,rrt
25
remained about the same. Only Tuition and Fees income increased atthe rate of previous years. The problem of Group V was that increasesin both Tuition income a..id Gift income were less than 2% over the previousyear against the approximate 8% to 9% increase in income needed to main-tain educational programs at the same level.
Total Educational Expenditures per FTE grew at a faster rate thanEducational income per FTE for the Total Groups and for all but Groups Iand II during the five year period, 1964-69. Evidence of an increasingnegative trend is the fact that in the last year covered by the study no groupexperienced a greater increase in Total income per FTE than in TotalExpenditures per FTE.
Expendibires for the Total Groups for Administration and Generalpurposes increased at a slightly faster rate than Total Expenditures perPTE during the 1964-69 period. This was also true for each of the groupsexcept Groups I and IV. Interestingly, the dollar amount per FTE spentfor Administration and General was much the same for all groups exceptGroup VI, which spent substantially less.
The greatest increase in expenditures was in Student Aid; the growthrate in Student Aid 119enditures exceeded growth in Total Expenditures forall groups except Group IV where it was slightly slower. There was, however,a rather wide range among the groups in dollar expenditures per student.
The largest differences in dollar expenditures among groups was inexpenditures for Instruction, although the rate of increase during the fiveyear period was about the same for all groups but Group VI, which was slower.Here, Group I, partly because of a much higher percentage of graduateenrollment, had much the highest expenditures. In the last year reported bythe study Groups IV and V fell substantially below their average rate ofincrease in Instructional Expenditures per student. In fact Group V expendedfewer dollars per student in 1963-69 than in the previous year.
I
I
I
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN EDUCATIONAL INCOME PER FTEFOR ALL AICCU INSTITUTIONS AND FOR THE SIX GROUPS
OF INSTITUTIONS DURING VARIOUS TIME PERIODS
5-YearAverageGrowth64-69
1-Year.Growth
56 -67 to67-68
1-YearGrowth67-68 to68-69
Amount68-69
(in dollars)
Total EducationalIncome Per.FTE
All Groups 8.2 8.9 8.6 3,101Group I U.S 11.3 12.4 4,910
II 9.8 14.1 12.2 2,175
III 3.1 1.5 4.9 2,821
IV 7.8 6.9 2.7 1,986
v 6.o 2.8 1.5 1,903
VI 2.5 10.6 5.9 1,156
Tuition and FeesPer FTE
All Groups 9.0 9.0 12.5 1,612
Group I 10.2 7.1 17.2 1,913
II 10.5 15.1 12.3 1,523
III 6.7 5.1 7.7 1,779Iv 11.0 11.4 10.3 1,313
V 9.0 10.6 1.9 1,210
VI 2.2 6.7 9.7 997
Gifts Per FTE
All Groups 5.2. 6.1 7.4 609
Group I 9.2 8.9 15.0 972
II 9.2 18.6 13.9 434III -4.7 -7.1 -5.1 496
TV 3.6 0.9 -8.1 445V 4.9 -14.3 1.2 316
VI 14.0 16.6 25.0 105
ILvestment Per FTE
All Groups 2.5 4.5 -3.6 246
Group I 4.9 8.1 -2.0 499II 5.8 -18.3 13.1 69
III 4.9 5.1 0.0 4164tv -6.6 -6.3 -14.7 12
v 16.6 17.8 36.9 loo
VI 3.1 0.0 6.1 17
Other Per FTE
All Groups 12.1 12.0 4.9 634Group I 18.2 15.6 10.5 1,526
II 6.8 12.0 6.4 149
III -2.4 -18.1 30.0 130IV 1.0 0.9 -12.5 216
V -3.8 -5.9 -8.6 277
vi -8.0 76.5 -55.o 37
26
27
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES PER FTEFOR ALL AICCU INSTITUTIONS AND FOR THE SIX GROUPS
OF INSTITUTIONS DURING VARIOUS TIME PERIODS
5-YearAverageGrowth64-69
1-YearG.-owth66-67 to67-68
1 -YearGrowth67-68 to68-69
Amount68-69
(in dollars)
Total EducationalExpenditures Per FTE
All Groups 8.8 9.0 9.0 3,079Group I 11.5 10.1 12.4 4,865
II 9.4 14.9 12.9 2,183III 7.4 4.1 7.5 2,777Iv 8.6 5.3 3.7 2,007v 11.0 11.1 3.1 1,673va 6.6 5.7 10.1 1,093
Administration andGeneral Per FTE
ALL Groups 10.3 9.6 11.5 660Group I 10.5 8.9 10.9 701
II 12.5 24.4 18.1 651III 9.4 -0.9 8.9 753iv 8.4 1.9 8.6 622v 12.3 13.3 4.,2 629
VI 14.4 26.3 10.1 398
Instruction Per FTE
All Groups 7.4 6.7 7.5 1,580Group I 9.5 6.1 11.5 2,759
if 8.0 13.9 10.1 956III 6.8 6.8 4.9 1,248Iv 9.6 8.4 1.9 922V 9.6 11.1 -1.1 653
vl 3.3 -3.2 6.4 513
Student Aid
All Groups 14.0 21.5 8.8 387Group I 19.0 31.9 10.3 719
II 10.5 5.8 17.5 228III 10.7 9.8 11.0 301ry 8.o 5.2 3.7 189v 29.5 36.3 10.3 149va 34.3 30.3 30.0 39
Other Per FTE
All Groups 8.2 7.1 11.0 452Group 1 12.3 10.8 17.5 686
II 7.0 9.4 9.4 348III 4.9 1.9 1.9 475Iv 7.0 2.8 -0.8 274V -9.7 -3.9 y.o 242VI -0.7 -7.1 21.1 143
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s) (
Per
FT
E fi
gure
sin
dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
TO
TA
L
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
.66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE
( %
)
75,8
0389,557
99,333
112,
541
131,
946
14.9
1,13
71,
256
1,31
31
433
1,61
29.0
33,1
4539,551
40,405
44,5
5049
,872
10.7
497
554
534
567
609
5.2
14,8
3615
,888
18,466
19,9
96 255
20,164
246
7.8
2.5
222
223
244
26,6
3130
,251
40 764
47,422
51,894
634
18.1
12.1
399
424
539
604
150,
415
175,
247
198,
968
224,
509
2,85
9
253,
876
3,10
1
14.0
8.2
2 25
12,
437
2,63
0E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& G
ener
al
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E.
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
Per
FT
E
29,6
8134,344
40,833
46,478
54,0
0515
.9
445
481
540
592
115,465
1,47
0
660
129,
310
1,58
0
37,0
25 452
10.3
13.0
7.4
13.9
8.2
78,964
89,7
03104,246
1,18
41,
257
1,37
8
21,9
5924
,939 35
0
28,7
25 380
31,9
94 407
329
Stu
dent
Aid
15,2
9218
,585
22,1
7227
,991
31,7
1619
.9
Per
FT
E22
926
0
167,
571
2,348
293
195,
9762
21÷
928
2,59
1
356
387
252,
056
14.0
14.5
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1454
396
2 18
72,
825
o8.8
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL.
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
WO
's)
(Per
FT
E fi
gure
sin
dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
I
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE (90
34,2
3440
785
42,3
8646
,383
54,3
9712
.2
1,29
71,
533
1,52
61,
633
1,91
310
.2
18,
18,0
3720
,832
21,5
4823
,991
27,6
4211
.2
683
783
776
845
972
9.2
10,8
4311
,586
13,0
8614
,448
14,1
956.
8
411
435
471
509
.
499
43,4
05
4.9
20.4
20,6
2923
,257
33,1
8339
,253
782
874
1_21
951,
381
1 52
618
.2
83,7
4396
,460
110,
203
124,
075
139,
639
13.5
3,17
33
625
3 96
84
368
4 91
011
.5E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& G
ener
al
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
12 3
7414
,134
16,1
4117
,958
19,9
2112
.5
4653
181
632
0110
.
50,4
1156
,527
64,8
3170
,319
78,4
6411
.6
1,91
02,
125
2,33
42,
476
2,75
99.
5
Libr
ary
&P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns11
,329
12,8
6211
4,63
416
,592
19,5
1814
.5
Per
FT
E42
948
352
758
468
612
.3
Stu
dent
Aid
9,45
611
,698
13,7
1018
,522
20,4
5321
.2
Per
FT
E35
844
049
465
271
919
.0.
Tot
al83
,570
95,2
2110
9,31
6
3 93
6
123,
391
4 34
4
138,
356
4,86
5
13.4
11.3
Per
FT
E3,
166
3 57
9
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
Goo
's)
(Per
FT
E F
igur
es in
Dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
II
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er
Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE Iv
161_
316
19.,21
922
840
727,590
1,35
6
7,745
381
32,7
00
1,52
3
9,31
0
434
18.9
10.5
17.4
9.2
14.0
1,01
91,
062
1,17
8
6,23
34 882
5,302
02
832
1
880
945
1 447
1,25
21,
490
55
49
7561
69
5.8
1,82
22,
342
2,43
22,
856
3,186
14.9
114
128
125
140
149
46,686
6.8
18.2
23,9
0027,808
32,952
39,443
1,493
6,50
9
1,537
7,26
1
1 699
8 600
1 938
11,2
07
2,17
5
13,9
80
9.8
21.0
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SA
dmin
istr
atio
n &
Gen
eral
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
Per
FT
E
406
401
44
1
168
869
651
20,5
24 956
12.5
16.5
8.0
11 le
12 k
w 691
14
763
699
422
84756
263
5,641
291
6,479
318
7,465
348
15.2
7.0
264
Stu
dent
Aid
Per
FT
E
2,443
2,78
01
184
40
IIM 1. 2
4°I
/2
228
46,871
18,9
10.5
17,7
9.4
153
154
Tot
al24
221
02
6o
1 681
Per
FT
E1
222
1833
0
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s) (
Per
FT
E F
igur
es in
Dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
III
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er
Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE00
11,2
3112
;682
14,2
5515
603
1,65
1
17,3
52
1,779
11.5
6.6
1,374
1 464
1,57
1
5,11
27,
000
5,10
44,941
4 841
446
4 060
416
1,269
-1.2
-4,1_
626
8o8
563
523
2, 8
033,
007
347
1,33
8
3,979
395
1,11
3
3 92
4
415
949
9.6
4.9
1.7
343
1,18
2
145
155
123
100
130
-2 ,L
I___
___
7.8
3.1
20.3
2824
,027
24,0
5125
,417
27,522
2,488
2,77
42,
652
2,689
2,82
1E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& G
ener
al
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
Per
FT
E
4 277
5 246
6,327
697
6,542
692
7,346
753
14.6
9.4
523
606
7,83
49,
141
10,1
05
1,114
11,2
32
1,189
12,1
78
1.248
11,6
6.8
959
1,056
3,20
53,430
3,850
4,078
4,630
475
9.5
4.9
392
396
424
432
Stu
dent
Aid
1,636
1,969
2,237
247
2,557
271
2,934
301
15.7
10.7
Per
FT
E20
022
7
Tot
al16,952
19,786
22,519
24,409
27 o88
12.3
7.4
Per
FT
E2,074
2,28
5.
2,482
2,584
12,
777
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s) (
Per
FT
E F
igur
es in
Dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
IV
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
6519
65-6
619
66-6
719
67-6
819
68-6
9A
VE
RA
GE
AN
NU
AL
INC
RE
ASE
196
)
10,3
8612
,68o
15,0
35
1 06
8
17,4
43
1,19
0
2110
10
1,31
3
19.2
11.0
862
935
4,64
35,
696
6,76
67,
101
7,12
3
445
293 12
11.3
3.6
-_,1
.2__
____
-6.6
385
420
481
484
206
230
209 15
209 14
17
2,46
12,
786
3,43
43,
605
3,45
98.
8
204
205
244
246
216
1.0
17,6
9621
,392
25,4
4428
,358
31,7
851,
5-7
1,46
81,
577
1,80
81,
934
1,98
67.
8E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& G
ener
al
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
5,39
86
329
7,92
88,
405
573
13,2
51 904
4,04
1
276
9,96
0
622
14,7
61 922
4,38
1
274
16.5
8.4
17.6
9.5
14.7
7.0
448
467
563
11,7
25 833
3,79
2
269
7,70
59,
411
639
694
3, 2
43
239
2,52
4
Per
FT
E20
9
Stu
dent
Aid
1,66
31,
995
147
2,43
6
173
2, 6
61 182
3 02
7
189
16.2
8.0
Per
FT
E13
8
Tot
al Per
FT
E
17,2
9020
,978
25,8
8128
,358
1,93
5
32,1
29
2,00
7
16.6
8.6
1,43
41,
547
1,83
8
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
(000
's)
(Per
FT
E F
igur
es in
Dol
lars
)
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
F
Oth
er Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
EE
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& G
ener
al
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
Per
FT
E
Stu
dent
Aid
Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
GR
OU
P V
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
I%)
938
1,119
1,366
1,545
1,743
16.7
854
930
1 073
1,187
1 210
9.0
287
549
464
406
455
12.2
261
456
365
312
316
4.9
59
67
79
95
144
25.o
54
56
62
73
100
16.6
365
387
410
395
399
2.2
332
322
322
303
277
3.8
1,649
2,122
1,764
2,319
1,822
2,441
1,875
2,741
1,903
13.5
6.o
1,501
433
527
438
623
533
758
595
294
786
604
861
661
289
906
629
941
653
348
20.2
12.3
18.1
9.6
10.5
3Q4
483
452
9.18
281
233
212
234
231
222
242
9.7
38.7
29.5
18.8
11,0
58
87
126
176
215
149
2,410
1,673
53
72
99
1,857
135
2,112
1,622
1,207
1,518
1,099
1,262
1,458
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
(000
') (p
er F
TE
Fig
ures
in D
olla
rs)
GR
OU
P V
I
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Per
FT
E
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Per
FT
E
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Per
FT
E
Oth
er
Per
FT
E
Tot
al Per
FT
E
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
(AVrz
.G.E
ArZ
AL
2698
307
23,
451
3,977
4 744
15.1
907
950
851
908
997
2.2
184
172
290
366
501
28.4
62
53
7284
105 82
14.0
16.2
4553
66
68
1516
16
16
173.
2
172
141
192
364
176
0.5
5844
47
83
37
-8.0
3,099
3,438
3,999
4,775
5,503
15.2
1,04
21,
063
986
1.09
11,156
2.5
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SA
dmin
istr
atio
n &
Gen
eral
Per
FT
E
Inst
ruct
ion
Per
FT
E
Libr
ary
& P
lant
Ope
ratio
ns
Per
FT
E
690
847
1,15
81,
580
1,89
228
.7
232
262
286
361
398
14.4
1,338
1,50
6
466
2,03
4
502
2,11
5
483
2442
513
16.2
3.3
450
440
367
113
514
127
92
515
118
135
683
143
185
11.6
0.7
50.5
148
Stu
dent
Aid
3656
Per
FT
E12
17
2,77
6
858
23
3,798
q38
30
4,345
2
39
5,20
2
1,09
3
34.3
20.0
6.6
Tot
al Per
FT
E
2,304
842
35
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME FROM VARIOUS SOURCESPERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES
The trends and developments previously identified are reflectedin the figures for the five year period showing percentage of income fromvarious sources and percentage of expenditures for various purposes.Total Groups
For all groups together there were only moderate changes in incomeand expenditure patterns during the period.
Income from Tuition and Fees moved from 50% to 52%.Other income increased by three percentage points- -from 17. 5%
to 20. 5%.Income from Gifts and Income from Investments each declined
by about 2%.Expenditures for Administration and General were at 20% or 21%
of Total Expenditures throughout the period.Library and Plant Operations expenditures stayed at 15%.Student Aid expenditures increased from 10. 5% to 12. 5%.Expenditures for Instruction declined from 54% to 51%.
Group I
Percentage of Income from three sources--Tuition, Gifts, andinvestmentall dropped slightly during the p, The one item thatincreased was Other income, coming largely from the net of SponsoredResearch income over Sponsored Research expenditures, which increasedsignificantly during the period.
It is noted that Group I received a much lower (around 40%) percentageof income from Tuition than the other groups and a much higher percentagefrom Other Sources (around 30%).
On the expenditure side the only significant changes were a three andone half percent decrease in expenditures for Instruction and a similarincrease in Student Aid expenditures.
36
Group IIThis group received a higher percentage (70%) of Total income
from Tuition than all but Group VL There was very little change in thepercentage of income received from each source during the period.
The only notable changes in expenditures were a slight increasein Administration and Genera] and a slight decline in Instructional ex-penditures.
There were significant differences in expenditure patterns betweenGroup I and Group II with Group II devoting 12%-14% more of its expendituresto Administration and General and about the same percentage less forInstruction. Further, at the end of the period, Group II had a smallerpercentage of expenditures for Student Aid than Group I (15% comparedto 10%).
There was a remarkable similarity in expenditure patterns amongGroups II, III, and IV. All were around 30% for Administration andGeneral expenditures, 45% for Instruction, 10% for Student Aid, and 15%for Library and Plant Operations.
Group IIIGroup III showed the greatest change in income patterns during the
period. Income from Tuition increased from 55% to 63% while incomefrom Gifts and Grants declined from 25% to 18%. Group III, then, wasthe group whose reliance on Tuition and Fees income increased the mostduringg the period.
Fxpenditure patterns changed very little during the period.
Group IVLike Group III Tuition increased substantially while Gifts declined.
Other income also declined.Again, expenditure patterns changed very little during the period.
Group VThis group follow the genera] trend toward greater reliance on
Tuition as a source of income.Expenditure is for Instruction and Administration and General
were fairly steady Lnrough the period but percentage of expenditure forStudent Aid increased substantially while expenditures for Library andPlant Operations declined.
37
As compared to Groups II, III, and IV this group expended around8% more of its income for Administration and General and about 5% lessfor Instruction during the five year period.
Group VIThis group is unique because of its very great reliance on Tuition
and Fees. In 1968-69, 86% of income came from this source. Obviously,none of the other sources was very significant except that Gifts and Grantsdid comprise 9% of Total Income in 1968-69. Funds allocated to StudentAid were just about one-third the percentage spent for this purpose bymost of the other groups.
38
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE DATAPercentage of Income from Various Sources
Percentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
GROUP TOTAL
INCOME 1964-65 1965.66 1966.67 1967.68 1968-69
Tuition & Fees 50.4 51.1 49.9 50.1 51.9
Gifts & Gra fits 22.1 22.5 20.3 19.8 19.6
Investment Income 9.9 9.1 9.3 8.9 7.9
Other 17.7 17.3 20.4 21.1 20.4EXPENDITURESAdministration & General 20.3 20.5 20.8 20.9 21.4
Instruction 54.1 53.5 53.2 52.1 51.3
Library & Plant Operations 15.1 14.9 14.7 14.4 14.7
Student Aid 10.5 11.1 11.3 12.6 12.6
39
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE DATAPercentage of Income from Various Sources
Percentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
GROUP I
INCOME 1964-65 1965-66 1966.67 1967-68 1968-69
Tuition & Fees
Gifts & Grants
Investment Income
40.9 42.3 38.4
19.5
37.4
19.3
38,9
21.5 21,6 19.9
12.9 12.1 11.9 11.6 10.1
Other 24.7 24.1 30.1 31.6 31.1EXPENDITURESAdministration & Ceneral
Instruction
Library & Plant Operations
Student Aid
14.8 14.9 14.8 14.6 14.4
60.3 59.3 59.3 56.9 56.8
13.6 13.5 13.4 13.4 14.1
11.3 12.3 12.5 15.1 14.8
GROUP II
INCOME
Tuition & Fees
Gifts & Grants
Investment Income
Other
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69
68.3 69.1 69.3 69.9 70.4
20.4 19.2 18.9 19.8 19.9
3.7 3.4 4.4 3.1 3.2
7.726.8
8.4
26.8
7.4
26.4
7.328.6
6.8
29.8
43.8
15.9
10.4
EXPENDITURESAdministration & General
Instruction
Library & Plant Operations
Student Aid
45.9 45.8 45.4 44.9
17./4 17.4 17.3 16.6
10.1 10.2 10.9 10.0
40
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE DATAPercentage of Income from Various Sources
Percentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
GROUP III
INCOME
Tuition & Fees
Gifts & Grants
Investment Income
Other
1964-65 1965.66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69
55.2 52.8 59.3 61.4 63.1
17.725.1 29.1 21.2 19.4
13.8 12.5 14.8 15.4 14.8
5.8 5.6 4.7 3.7 4.8EXPENDITURESAdministration & General
Instruction
Library & Plant Operations
Student Aid
25.2 26.5 28.1 26.8 27.1
46.2 46.2 44.9 46.0 44.9
18.9 17.3 17.1 17.1
9.6 9.9 9.9 10.4 10.9
GROUP IV
INCOME
Tuition & Fees
Gifts & urants
Investment Income
Other
1964-65 1965-66 W66-67 1967-68 1968-69
58.7 59.2 59.1 61.5 66.1
26.2 26.6 26.6
0.8
25.1
0.7
22.4
0.61.1 1.1
13.9
31.2
13.1
30.1
13.4
30.6
12.7
29.6
11.0
31.0EXPENDITURESAdministration & General
Instruction
Library & Plant Operations
Student Aid
4b.6 44.9 45.3 46.7 45.9
14.6 15.4 14.7 14.3 2).
9.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.4
41
GROUP V
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE DATA
Percentage of Income from Various SourcesPercentage of Expenditures for Various Purposes
INCOME 1964.65
Tuition & Fees 56.9
Gifts & Grants 17.1
I nves:ment Income 3.6
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968.69
52.7 58.8 63.3 63.6
Other 22.1EXPENDITURESAdministration & General 35.9
Instruction 40.1
Library & Plant Operations 19.3
Student Aid
25.9
3.1
18.2
20.0
34.7
41.0
18.5
3.2
17.7
36.6
40.8
16.7_
3.916.2
37.2
40.8
16.6
5.3
14.7
37.7
39.1
15.3 13.7 14.4
6.8 8.3 Q.2_
GROUP VI
INCOME
Tuition & Fees
Gifts & G rants
Investment Income
Other
196465 1965.66 1966.67 1967-68 1968.69
87.1 89.4 86.3 83.3 86.2
5.9 5.0 7.3 7.7 9 . 1
1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4
5.5 4.1 4.8 7.7 3 . 2EXPENDITURESAdministration & General
Instruction
Library & Plant Operations
Student Aid
27.6 30.5 30.5 36.3 36.3
53.4 54.3 53.7 48.7 46.9
17.5 13.3 13.6 11.9 13.1
1.4 2.1 2.4 3.1 3.5.
42
OPE1 AT1NG INCOME AND EXPENDITURES
A comparison of Total Operating Income and expenditures patternsfor the period 1964-69 with those of the preceding five year period showslittle change for most of the groups.
For the Total Groups Operating Income increased less than OperatingExpenditures during the period 1964-69 (13.6% to 14.1%). Only Group IIhad a [zreater increase in Operating Income than in Operating Expenses.
Two items are included in Operating Income and Expenditures thatarc not a part of Educational Income and Expenditures. One is AuxiliaryIncome and Expenditures and the other, Sponsored Research Income andExpenditures.
For the Total Groups both Auxiliary income and Auxiliary Expendituresincreased at a much more rapid rate during the period 1964-69 than duringthe preceding five years (about 17. 5% annually compared to 7. 5 %). However,this was due almost entirely to the fact that Stanford University assumedfull fiscal responsibility foe the functioning of the Stanford Hospital in1968-69 and this added approximately $21 million to Auxiliary Operations.Without this sizeable addition, the rate of increase for the Total Groupsfor the two five year periods would be about the same.
For the period 1964-69 Auxiliary Expenditures grew at a faster ratethan Auxiliary Income. This was true for each of the groups. Thus therewas a substantial reduction in the net income from Auxiliary Operationsthat institutions use to help meet educational costs.
Sponsored Research Income and Expenditures increased only halfduring the 1964-69 period as during the preceding five years. But
the annual rate of increase was still significant. Further, SponsoredResearch Income increased at a faster rate than Research Expenditures(11. 8 % to 9. 2%) which meant an increase in the net income from this source.
7:or the five year period 1964-69 the increased net income fromResearch more than balanced the drop in net income from Auxiliary Operations.However, net income from Research was significant only for Group I.Further, Group I experienced an 8% drop in net income from this sourceduring the last year covered by the study.
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
NIII
TU
RE
DA
TA
-(0
00's
) (I
n D
ol/a
rs)
GR
OU
PT
OT
AL
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE (%)
75,_
803
89,557
99,333
112,
541
131,
946
15.0
28,504
53,952
33,380
36,900
40,849
914
8.0
18.6
14,836
15,888
11,422
18,466
14,733
19,996
14,221
20,164
21,379
10,784
4,641
5,599
Z.,
025
7,65
09,
023
18,1
44,107
48,907
53,938
57,396
81,622
16.6
64,601
74,534
90,6
9110
2,04
910
1,15
511
.8
243,
276
279,
859
317,
566
350,753
406,138
13.6
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
12,0
4714
,133
17,2
4519,359
21,9
98
32,0
07
129,
310
16.2
16.1
13.1
17,634
20,2
11
891703
23,588
104,246
2'7_
, 119
115,465
78,964
7,18
18,418
10,3
11
17,9
89
11,9
56
19,6
78
13,2
54
23,5
06
16.6
12.9
14,3
7716
,325
15,2
9218,585
22,1
7227
,991
31,7
1620
.0
145,
495
16'7
,375
195,551
221,568
251,
791
14.7
17.6
9.2
14.1
41,2
0746,444
51,344
68,270
315,
165
54,618
72,749
348,
935
78,966
74,568
405,
325
52,484
59,138
272,
957
239,
186
1,77
;vi
ft,44
41.
...44
I...N
OP
row
l61
001
WW
IR
AM
ES
§M
EIN
IWO
1.00
01
OP
ER
AT
MG
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s) (
In D
olla
rs)
GR
OU
P I
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
'
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
19F
6-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)
34,2
3440
,785
42,3
8646,383
54,397
12.2
15,9
241,
262
18,8
9321
,080
24,647
14495
11.5
6.9
10,8
4311,586
13,086
14,448
7,63
17,556
10,5
149,
780
15,9
6320
.2
2 11
32,
570
19,688
2,65
5
21 6
94
2 91
1
23,1
22
2,995
46,163
9.1
26,2
11.8
18,161
60,679
70,5
1186,505
, 505
96,
96,785
94,954
149,
585
4 620
170,
958
5,56
9
195,
733
6 348
214,
509
7,43
9
253,314
8,13
0
14,o
15.1
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
7 754
8 965
979
310
,519
11,7
9111
.0
50,4
1156
,527
64,831
70,319
78,464
11.7
4 066
4,711
5,944
6,837
7,665
11,853
17.2
13.0
7,263
8,151
8,690
9,755
9,45
611,698
13,710
18,522
20,4
53
138,
356
21.3
13.4
83,5
7095
,221
109,
316
123,
391
17,4
7019
,387
21,418
22,9
10
67,924
45,3
69
68,306
26.9
9.0
48,3
7255
,111
64,112
149,
412
169,
719
194,
846
213,
825
252,
031
14.0
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
--
(000
's)
(In
Dol
lars
)
Jai
GR
OU
P II
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
)966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE 1%)
16,3
1619
,219
22,8
4-0
27,590
32,7
0019
.0
3,90
14,
275
4,375
5,649
6,35
112
.9
880
945
1,447
1,25
21,
490
14.0
1,62
51,857
1 894
2 28
42
906
15.6
981
1,027
1,858
2,09
62,959
31,7
11,0
7212
,433
13,2
4013,886
14,491
6.9
3 09
43,
245
3,440
4,907
5,00
612
.8
37,8
6943
,001
49,094
57,264
65,903
14.9
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
2,10
52.
298
2,91
73,433
3,938
16.9
4,404
5,00
35,683
7,774
10,0
4222
.9
11,1
9312
,495
14,7
9317
,687
2534
20,5
24
2,83
7
16.3
_17
.71,
476
1,71
62
064
2 75
23
040
3 577
3 945
4 628
13.9
2 4L
!32,
780
3 571
3,94o
4,90
219
.0
2.4,
373
27,2
9232
,605
12,7
30
39,313
13,3
54
46,871
14,1
50
17.7
7.3
11.4
10,685
11,944
3,284
3,249
3,41
2'4,467
5,067
38,3
4242,485
48,747
57,134
66,088
14.5
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s) (
In D
olla
rs)
GR
OU
P II
I
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
.67
1967
-68
1968
.69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)
11,2
3112 682
14,255
3,726
15,603
3,423
17,352
3,067
11.
15.0
4,099
5,810
2, 803
3,007
3,579
3,924
4,060
9.7
690
1,047
94
11,378
8,808
780
1,92
8
9,285
623
1,262
1,774
9,580
946
16
19, 7.4
6.2
1.01
31,
190
7,965
7,182
745
673
593
27,763
2,006
32,374
2,649
33,333
3,262
35,156
3,
3, 256
11.232
38,041
3, 630
12,178
8.2
16,6
12.4
11.6
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
2,271
2 597
3,065
10,105
7,834
9.141
695
848
923
1 033
787
1,151
3,278
2,934
26,887
13.5
11.2
15.7
12.8
2,144
2 423
2,561
1,636
1,969
2,237
22,1
2,557
24,151
16,586
19,627
6,690
7,674
8, 689
9,115
624
9,573
946
9.3
6.2
745
673
24,021
27,974
_593_
31,435
33,890
37,406
11.6
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
- (
000'
s)(I
n D
olla
rs)
GR
OU
P IV
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
.67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)
10,386
12,680
15,035
17,443
21,0
1019
.2
4,734
567
86,
525
7,066
7,14
210.8
206
230
209
209
193
-1.5
702
815
1,142
1,137
1,041
10.3
496
744
1,00
4966
1,10
522
.1
6,388
7,450
8,163
8,800
8,956
8.8
8310
512
210
7
35,728
223
39,670
28.0
14.
22,995
27,702
32,200
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion.
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
2,68
52
898
3,788
3,902
4,659
14.8
2,71
33,
431
9,411
4,14
0
11,725
4,50
3
13,251
5,30
1
14,761
18.2
17.7
7,705
809_
970
2,23
6
1995
1,17
2
2,56
1
2436
1 29
7
2 64
2
2,661
28,2
56
7,408
1,31
5
300
2
3,027
32,0
65
7,722
12,9
15.6
16.2
1/:,7 9.3
11680
1663
17,2
5520
,941
25,8
22
6,836
5,42
16,412
83
105
122
32,7
80
107
35,771
223
40,010
28.0
15.1
22,7
5927
,458
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
(000
's)
(In
Dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
V
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UIN
CR
EA
SE
IVA
L
938
1,11
91,
366
1,54
51
743
16.7
280
541
438
352
387
8.4
5967
7995
144
25.0
3877
8611
295
30.1
78
2654
6881
.0
946
979
1, 0
951,
153
1 21
66,
5
184
328
529
443
565
32.3
2,45
23,
119
3,61
93.
754
4,21
914
.5E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
Gen
eral
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
239
282
326
347
426
15.8
194
245
353
439
480
25,4
483
623
758
861
941
18.1
7396
104
114
122
13.7
160
185
190
175
176
2,11
2
917
396
3,42
5
226
21,
2,41
0
1,00
0
477
3,88
7
9.0
38.7
18.9
11.1
34.4
17.9
5887
126
1,20
71,
518
706
1,85
7
822
657
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
146
291
478
Tot
al2,
010
2,51
53,
157
p444
Fir
isW
O M
ilN
EN
MIN
NM
IV
IMIN
N M
N 0
.0
OP
ER
AT
ING
INC
OM
E A
ND
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
DA
TA
MO
's)
(In
Dol
lars
)G
RO
UP
VI
INC
OM
E
Tui
tion
& F
ees
Gift
s &
Gra
nts
Inve
stm
ent I
ncom
e
Oth
er
Stu
dent
Aid
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
IV
2,698
307
23 451
3 977
4 744
15.1
153
112
186
271
379
25.4
4553
66
68
8216
.2
9870
103
128
112
3.3
3160
104
95
122
40.8
358
392
938
1,15
0 --1
216 --
35.7
----
----
3,383
3,759
4 848
5 689
6,659
18.5
EX
PE
ND
ITU
RE
SG
ener
al
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Inst
ruct
ion
Libr
ary
Pla
nt O
pera
tions
Stu
dent
Aid
Sub
tota
l
Aux
iliar
y E
nter
pris
es
Spo
nsor
ed R
esea
rch
Tot
al
392
477
370
604
554
952
628
1,12
9
763
30.3
26.5
298
1,33
81,506
2,03
42,
115
2 44
216
.2
6277
2Q0
104
410
141
374
135
4,345
914 --
164
519____
185
5,20
2
1,15
2
27.5
8.2
50.5
20.0
41.9
--
8
36
56
2,776
92
3,798
849
2,50
4-
284
321
----
--
2.78
83,097
4,647
5.,2
596,
394
22.8
50
ASSETS AND FUND BALANCES
This 1970 Statistic..: Study includes data on fund balances in additionto data on income and expenditures collected in the previous study. To-gether, the two types of information provide a more complete picture ofthe fiscal condition of individual institutions and groups of institutions.The pi oblem with looking at income and expenditures alone is that institutionsmay avoid the appearance of a deficit at the end of the year by transferringmoney from an existing fund or may create an apparent deficit by transfersto such funds.
In this study we are interested in the beginning-year and end-yearbalances in each of the significant funds of an institution; Current Funds(General and Restricted); Endowment Funds; Loan Funds; Life IncomeContracts; Plant Funds, including physical assets; and Total Assets.
How much should the various funds increase each year for aninstitution to maintain financial health?
There are no exact answers to this question but it would seem thatthe Current Funds balance should increase nearly as fast as Total Edu-cational Expenditures in order to maintain a satisfactory level of operatingmoney.
This has not happened. In fact, for the Total Groups the annual rateof increase in the Current Funds balance during 1964-69 was 3. 4% as com-pared to a 14. 5% annual increase in Total Educational Expenditures and an8. 8% increase in Educational Expenditures per FTE.
Clearly, a major portion of income that in former years went tomaintaining Current Funds balances is now being use to meet educationalcosts.
How much should the Endowment Funds balance increase each yearto keep pace with rising educational costs?
While Total Education Expenditures increased at a rate of 14.5%annually during the last five years, Total Endowment increased at a lesserrate, 10. 3%, but Income from Endowment (Investments) grew at just 7. 8%per year. It would appear that in order for Income from Endowment togrow as fast as Educational. Expenses next year, Total Endowment Fundswould need to be increased immediately by over 16%--$80 million.
51
However, against this need for faster growth in Endowment Fundsthere was a sharp decline in growth during the last year covered by thestudy--4. 6% for the Total Groups compared to the five year averageof 10. 3%.
Again it seems clear that some funds that in former years wouldhave gone to building Endowment Funds instead were swallowed up bymounting educational costs. This appears to apply particularly to Group I.
About the only bright spot in the endowment picture is the rapidgrowth in Life Income Contract funds experienced by Groups I, III, andIV and to some extent, Group II. Prospectively, almost all these fundsmay be added to Endowment Funds at some time in the future if they arenot immediately consumed by educational expenses at the time they becomeavailable. But until they can be converted to endowment or cash theyprovide no income for the institution that holds them.
Loan Funds for all groups together increased at the rapid rate of23% annually during the period, a substantially faster growth than anyother fund.
It should be quickly noted, however, of the money involveddoes not belong to colleges and univers5.ues--over 70% is Federal dollarsmade available for institutior;_,1 on a nine-to-one matching basis.Further, the great majority of the money is notrin college hands but hasloaned to students, subject to repayment.
The value of these funds is that they have permitted students toattend college who otherwise could not have: met the costs and, just asimportant, they have permitted the institutions to make greater increasesin their tuition charges. Thus, student loan funds should be recognizedfor the part they play in helping institutions maintain financial health.
Students are depending on loans to a greater degree than ever before.In fact, Loan Funds increased at almost twice the rate of Tuition Incomeduring the five year period. But how much more will students be willingor able to borrow?
The data indicate the same slow-down in the case of Loan Fundsas is observed in the growth of most of the other funds. The growthincrease during each of the last 'wo years has been less than the fiveyear average for each of the groups but Group III.
52
How much growth in the Plant Fund balance is desirable?Since so much of Plant Funds are made up of the value of the
physical assets of an institution, the answer to thjs question dependslargely on the adequacy of the existing physical plant.
The data on physical capacity presented in another section of thisreport indicate that almost all institutions have adequate capacity forpresent enrollment and that many institutions have space for additionalenrollment. Therefore, it appears that in general, plant expenditureshave kept pace with space needs. However, there is evidence that moremoney should have been spent for maintenance of plant and for purchaseof equipment and library books.
Growth in Total Assets again reflects the slow-down in the growthof the arious funds. For all groups except Group III the five year averagegrowth rate was higher than the growth during the last year covered by thestudy. Group III ran counter to the trend because of a substantial additionin Life Income Contracts that year. The final year figures for Groups IVand V give cause for alarm. In thu case of. Group IV there was a slightdollar decline in Plant Funds and Current 7unds during the final year.For Group V Total Assets actually declined in value in the last year re-flecting the decline during the same yeas in Loan Funds and in TotalEndowment.
lam
aN
NE
EN
E11
1111
MI
Olin
1111
1111
MIN
ME
NM
IMI
NW
*1'0
r-7`
771
AS
SE
TS
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
GR
OU
PT
OT
AL
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
.67
1967
-68
1968
-69
EI
VE
RA
GN
CR
E
AN
NU
AL
AS
E (
%)
87 4
9687
,292
91 9
5788
001
96 6
192.
4
72 7
0777
025
82 6
7390
226
86 9
734.
5
326
838
365
081
4116
463
2648
41
10.
61 2
470
,977
78,0
9488
,035
120,
829
46.
8
18.
EM
I18
424
'702
08
140
4.8
ioX
6o 2
665
0,3,
1
066
i 41
1814
01
01
42
01
688
ME
M
80,1
3910
8 67
212
414
0 30
014
5 1
21
.
---r
te#1
V-1
10.4
hurl
land
Im II
NM
IM
ISS
NN
W11
1111
1111
1101
01om
my
*a*
AS
SE
TS
GR
OU
PI
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
1964
.65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
(AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
1%
)
63,331
59,792
60,431
59,904
66,751
1.2
59,529
61,638
62,614
67,972
64,185
1.7
245,
574
272,
950
309,
840
342,881
351,
675
9.4
37,251
40,1
3547,008
53,079
14.9
__39_,341
9,073
11,4
2114
,315
18,972
20.2
256,
031
282,988
320,169
_16,4o8
351,857
394,978
11.4
663,879
726,040
807,504
886,030
949,638
9.4
26,559
27,3
4126,888
32,155
31,267
4.2
AS
SE
TS
GR
OU
PII
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
VE
RA
GE
AN
NU
AL
(%)
6,835
7,933
10,8
5010
,991
122
1.
2,957
6,495
24,165
IL/193
10,787
10,389
40,573
3,867
10975
168,987
6.'
17.9
6.4
2 .8
15.8
20,978
34,636
3,910
0
132,
355
37,135
3 575
224
154,509
3,017
3,510
62
0
109,
808
4,668
93,474
131,
929
158,
161
1a8,
122
6 22
124
8 01
41
1
28,7
1949,183
61,821
66 8
624
.
14.1
a4,
1010
to*
Mill
Mil
lidM
EM
ME
MM
ini
Wit
PE
Win
ewil
.01014
AS
SE
TS
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
GR
OU
P II
I
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE (90
6,38
99,
018,356
8_, 0
52
3,91
2
9,05
3
4,167
41_,
549
-7.6 2.2
8, 801
7,03
2
54,0
1060
,936
27,588
65,2
90
30,559
74.562
32,870
82,9
00
98:719
11.3
23.0
25.5
85
2,426
2,798
3,466
5,249
6,475
27.7
83,896
95,7
6011
7.18
713
11.9
8315
1,79
015
.9
181,
107
203,
127
22,9
1026
0,62
9313,600
14,7
6 4o8
,9,392
12,724
12,933-
13,999
21,5
AS
SE
TS
t
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
GROUP Iv
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
M8-
69--
---I
AV
ER
AG
EA
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
MI
10,312
9,757
10 68
10
14
10,108
0,5
18.1
9.5
22.3
26.2
1,164
1,445
1,879
1 944
2,266
71408
5,164
6,710
5,132
5,144
6,286
6,492
4 982
5,713
2,306
2,628
4-0
4,726
2,647
3,745
62,552
68,283
76,097
103,165
83,278
112,923
82,771
114,427
7.2
8.0
84,113
91J602
17,665
21,900
24,651
126,208
284514'
112.6
* Data reported for 14 of 19 colleges in group.
=
AS
SE
TS
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
GROUP V
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
EIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)A
NN
UA
L
142
199
143
203
224
11.9
49
116
185
150
261
51.9
270
299 -
330
.1,
108
908
3504
-
231
293
424
2,45
7
4,34
2
386
2,49
0
4,26
42..7
12,_
8
19:5
1 538
1 869
2,12
6
2,092
2,714a
314
7
644
1.686
1,4E
L22
8_._
___
* Data reported for 3 of 7 colleges in group.
AS
SE
TS
GR
OU
P V
I
FU
ND
BA
LAN
CE
SC
urre
nt F
unds
Gen
eral
Res
tric
ted
End
owm
ent F
unds
Life
Inco
me
Fun
ds
Loan
Fun
dsP
lant
Fun
ds, i
nclu
ding
Phy
sica
l Ass
ets
TO
TA
L
PLA
NT
DE
BT
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE I'M
487
598
1,49
02,
077
2,146
44.9
207
299
450
320
323
1,25
1
11.8 9.4
874
987
783
1,08
5
47
57
1,555
78
2,11
3
122
3,541
180
4,09
39-9
29.8
1,419
3,034
3,496
4,914
7,145
7,939
2701
144
258
399
499
369
26.5
11
I
I
I
11
11
lE
60,tr
CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL STUDENTSMost of the California independent colleges and univr1rsities plan to
increase their enrollment in the years ahead. However, their ability toachieve continuing growth will be determined largely by two factors:money and space.
The purpose of this section of the report is to examine the financialand physical capacity of these institutions to accommodate additional students.Financial Capacity
Financial capacity for enrollment may be estimated by projectingpast income and expenditure trends into future years. This is the methodused in this study. It shows how many students an institution can accom-modate one, two, or five years from now if present trends continue. Themethod also can be used to determine how much more income an institutionor a group of institutions would need in order to increase enrollment at agiven level, i. e. , 2% or 4% annually.
The calculations below illustrate the method by examining thefinancial capacity to accommodate students of all 50 AICCU institutions,considered as one group. In this example, enrollment capacity is estimatedfor the 1969-70 year based on income and expenditure trends of the previousfive years. The shortcoming of this approach is recognized in that surplusdollars in one institution can not be transferred to another that has a deficit.Also, in a year when an institution is able to generate more income than itneeds to maintain existing enrollment the institution may elect to use partof its additional funds for some other purpose than adding enrollment. Itmay choose to pay off a previous year's deficit or choose to build up theendowment fund, an action generally neglected in recent years.
EducationalIncome
Amount1968-69(in 000's)
AveragePercent
Increase1964-69
EstimatedAmount1969-70(in 000's)
Tuition Fees $136, 369 9. 0* $148, 642Gifts 51, 418 10.7 56, 920Investment 20, 649 7. 8 22, 260Other 52, 761 18.1 62, 311
Total $258,452 $290, 133Educational
Expenditures 259, 872 8. 8* 282, 74.1
$ 7, 392*per FTE
61
Thus, $7, 392,000 would be available for adding additional students,when all 50 institutions are considered as a group.
If the net. cost of adding one FTE student is assumed to be $1, 600(the difference between the average educational expense per FTE and theaverage amount a student pays in tuition and fees) then the $7, 392,000would permit 4, 620 additional FTE students to be enrolled in the 1969-70academic year, an increase of approximately 5.4%. (It is interesting tonote that the FTE increase for the 1969-70 year was actually 5, 200 FTEas compared to the 4, 620 suggested by the above calculations.)
Another approach to estimating financial capacity is to make pro-jections n the basis of the percentage increases that occurred between1968 and 1969 instead of using the average increases in the various incomesources of the five year period, 1964 to 1969. On this basis all institutionstogether would be able to enroll 3, 892 additional students instead of 4,620.
It is clear that the present financial capacity of institutions to addstudents was achieved largely by the very substantial increases in tuitioncharges made in recent years by these institutions. What would the situationbe if tuition increases were limited to the average annual increase in generalpersonal income, say 6%, instead of the 9% and 12. 5% per FTE increasesof recent years? The answer is that with only a 6% increase in tuitionincome but with other sources increasing at the 1968-69 rate, there wouldhave been no financial capacity for additional students this year, when allinstitutions are considered as one group. Indeed, under these circumstancesthe group of institutions would have needed at least $2-1/2 million moreincome simply to maintain the previous year's enrollment.
It must be recognized that at some point in time institutions are forcedto limit their increase in charges to an amount approximating the increasein general personal income. Otherwise, they will not be able to attract asufficient number of students unless there are substantial increases inscholarship funds,
When the method of analysis described above is applied to the individualgroups, a somewhat different picture emerges. This is due to the widevariations among groups in cost-per-student and in the percentage of thatcost covered by tuition and fees.
62
The table below suggests that a large portion of the financial capacityfor additional students is located in Groups V and VI, the groups with thesmallest enrollment. In one sense this is accurate because these two groupshave the smallest differential between FTE educational expenditures andFTE tuition income. But the figures below greatly overstate actual capacitybecause they do not take into account available physical facilities or howrapidly institutions can grow. Actually, both groups together would bedoing well to absorb as many as 300 additional students in one year.
financial Capacity toAccommodate Additional Students
Projections Basedon 5-year (1964-69)Average Increases
in Each of the FourIncome Sources
Projections Basedon 1968 to 1969
Average Increasesin Each of the Four
Income Sources
Projections Basedon 1968 to 1969
Average IncreasesWith a 6% Per FTEMaximum on Tuition
IncreasesGroup I 1, 300 712Group II 1, 737 497Group III 211Group IV 713Group V 700 1, 000 849Group VI 2,180 3, 440 1, 680
Total Students 5, 917 6, 373 2,529
Comparison of Educational Expense and Educational IncomeIn order to permit more intensive study of financial capacity to
accommodate enrollment, educational expense and educational income havebeen calculated for each member institution. The following table providesthe picture for the 1968-69 year. The earlier Statistical Profile studyshowed that 19 of 42 institutions had deficits in 1966-67. In 1968-69 thenumber had increa sed to 21 of 43.
The cost of education per student is based on costs of instruction,library, administration, and general plant maintenance, and student aid.It excludes sponsored research and auxiliary enterprises.
1
1
1
I
I
For the purposes of this analysis, institutions were placed intothree categories, A, B, and C, according to the classification methoddeveloped by Levin and Osman in their recent study "Alternative Methodsof State Support for independent Higher Education it: California. "1
Then, because it Contained so many institutions, Categor3 C 'wasdivided into three parts, actually groups IV, V, and VI in the AICCUclassification scheme.
The Levin and Osman categories arrange institutions primarilyaccording to the average Schola.,tic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of theirentering freshmen.
Tuition and Fees ChargesA table showing the Total Tuition and Fees charge for each member
institution for each year 1964 through 1970 follows the table on EducationalIncome and Expenditures per FTE.
Again, the institutions are arranged according to the Levin andOsman categories.
1, Alternative Methods of State Support for Independent HigherEducation in California, Henry M. Levin and Jack W. Osman,Coordinating Council for Higher Education, February 1970.
63
EDUCATIONAL INCOME MW EXPENDITURES PER FTE
BY INSTITUTION - 1968-69
InstitUtions are identified by letters in the left hand column.
The to
line for each
institution crows educational income and expenditures in thousands of dollars.
The
bottom:line for each insti.,tution Shows educational income and expenditures per FTE
in dollars.
Institution
and FTE
Category A
a1,467
b11,106
c792
609
343
657
g1,298
h522
i777
j1,732
k1,585
12,049
Total
Category A
22,328
TUition
& Fees
Income
Gift
Income
Investment
Income
Other
Income
Educational
Income
Educational
Expenditures
FTE*
Surplus
FTE*
Deficit
3,067 --
8,583
3,167
4,129
18,946
18,632
2,091
5,851
2,159
2,815
12,916
12,701
215
22,058
12,748
11,419
19,856
66,081
66,581
1,986
1,148
1,028
1,788
5,950
5,995
45
1,433
387
358
98
2,276
2,310
1,809
489
452
124
2,874
2,917
43
958
.742
. 742
6o
2,502
2,965
1,573
1,218
1,218
99
4,108
4,868
76o
655
649
.156
225
1,685
1,694
1,910
1,892
455
656
4,913
4,939
26
1,129
362
:65
89
1,645
1,765
-1,718
551
99
135
2,503
2,686
183
2,434
1,024
.990
-14
4,434
11,591
1,875
789
763
-11
3,416
3,537
121
964.
.757
.525
- 4
1,852 .
1,883
1,847
703
1,006
- 8
3,548
3,607
59
1,353
75o
616
194
2,913
2,949
- 1,741
965
793
250
3,749
3,795
46
3,364
596
584
386
4,930
4,803
1,942
344
337
223
2,846
2,773
73
2,793
624
577
53,999
3,995
1,762
394
364
32,523
2,521
2
3,227
116
189
330
3,862
23997
1,575
57
92
161
1,885
1,463
422
42,477
26,206
18,646
25,974
113,303
112,201
1,902
1,174
835
1,163
5,074
5,025
49
*Difference between Educational Income per FTE and Educational Expenditures per FTE.
rn 4,
r--7
11.5,4
1 t4
P*04
00,04
$.064
4;0_44
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURES PER FTE
BY INSTITUTION - 1968 -69
Institutions are identified by letters in the left hand column.
The top line for each
institution shows educational income and expenditures in thousands of dollars.
The
bottom line for each institution shows educational income and expenditures per FTE
in dollars.
Institution
and FTE
Tuition
& Fees
Income
Gift
Income
Investment
Income
Other
Income
Educational
Income
Educational
Expenditures
FTE
Surplus
FTE
Deficit
Category B
29,272
1,845
3,409
1,322
511
1,197
4,776
1,991
7,006
1,827
5,773
1,148
5,908
1,382
57,613
1,675
6,311
398
964
374
128
300
20083
904
236
845
168
1,086
254
11,180
325
1,409
89 5 2 0 0 0 0
104
27
71 14
12529
2,456
71
18,920
1,193
674
261
117
274
724
302
890
232
18938
656
153
22,230
646
55,912
3,525
5,052
1,959
756
1,771
5,700
2,376
8,904
2,322
6,878
1,368
7,775
1,818
93,479
2,717
52,831
3,330
5,045
1,957
693
1,623
5,851
2,439
9,148
2,385
7,182
1,429
7,733
1,808
91,448
2,658
195 2
148
10
59
63 63 61
m15,864
n2,578
0427
A2,399
3,835
r5,027
s4,276
Total
Category B
34,406
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURES PER FTE
BY INSTITUTION - 1968-69
Institutions are identified by letters in the left hand column.
The top line for each
institution shows educational income and expenditures in thousands of dollars.
The
bottom line for each institution shows educational income and expenditures per FIE
in dollars.
Tuition
Institution
& Fees
Gift
Investment
Other
Educational
Educational
FTE
FTE
and FTE
Income
Income
Income
Income
Income
Expenditures
Surplus
Deficit
Category C
Group IV
975
527
13
160
1,675
1,569
t809
1,205
651
16
198
2,070
1,939
131
1,446
1,216
3129
2,794
2,703
u1,470
. 984
827
288
1,901
1,839
62
1,513
525
4187
2,229
2,495
1,560
541
4193
2,298
2,572
274
3,608
436
25
154
4,223
4,226
1,563
189
11
67
1,830
1,830
-
749
630
5180
1,564
1,580
939
789
6226
1,960
1,980
20
652
214
983
958
1,068
1,668
547
23
212
2,450
2,731
281
435
346
18
96
895
2,028
848
674
35
187
1,744
1,984
240
937
637
1191
1.766
2,119
1,442
980
2294
2,718
3,260
542
1,145
124
10
45
1,324
1,318
1,566
170
14
62
1,812
1,803
9
4,870
4,086
443
7o
9,469
8,930
1,775
1,490
162
26
3,453
3,256
197
1,061
253
0421
1,735
1,883
997
238
0396
1,631
1,770
139
1,220
449
13
251
1,933
1,502
1,240
456
13
255
1,964
1,526
438
3,256
899
51
112
4,318
4,291
1,718
474
27
59
2,278
2,264
14
1,278
332
41
310
1,961
2,021
1,328
345
43
322
2,038
2,101
63
738
569
0-37
1,270
1,397
1,218
939
0-61
2,096
2,305
209
1,086
271
0228
1,585
1,613
1,414
353
0297
2,064
2,100
36
970
yr2,309
x798
Y391
z513
as
650
bb
731
cc
2,743
dd
1,064
ee
984
ff
1,895
gg
962
hh
606
ii
768
Sub-Total
Category C
Gmup TV )
24,969
1,413
652
36
146
2,247
11,514
636
2,580
39,699
39,733
2,249
9
lf,"
1Pa
lma
WO
,M
IMI
=I
MIN
MN
NM
ME
IN
MI
INN
1-ttt
l
EDUCATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURES PER FTE
BY INSTITUTION - 1968-69
Institutions are identified by letters in the left hand column.
The top line for each
institution shows educational income and expenditures in thousands of dollars.
The
bottom line for each institution shows educational income and expenditures per FTE
in dollars. Tuition
Institution
& Fees
Gift
Investment
Other
Educational
Educational
FTE
FTE
and FTE
Income
Income
Income
Income
Income
Expenditures
Surplus
Deficit
Categoryg
Group V
921
54
104
148
1,227
936
jj
526
1,751
103
198
281
2,333
1,779
554
266
304
556
631
606
kk
324
821
938
15
173
1,947
1,870
77
96
53
18
91
258
224
11
67
1,433
791
269
1,358
3,851
3,343
508
460
44
17
104
625
646
mm
524
878
84
33
198
1,193
1,233
4o
Sub-Total
Category C
Group V
1,743
455
144
399
2,741
2,412
1,441
1,209
316
100
277
1:902
1,674
228
Category C
Group VT
nn
2,078
1,398
673
185
89
13 6
27
13
1,623
781
1,570
756
25
00
134
289
2,157
188
1,403
o 044
328
521
3,888
490
3,657
231
pp
1,960
2,406
1,228
8o
41
4221
85
43
2,613
1,333
2,399
1,224
109
586
651
1,111
48
82
2746
2136
747
1,275
741
1,264
11
Sub-Total
Category C
Group VI
4,744
501
82
177
5,504
5,200
4,758
997
105
17
37
1,156
1,093
63
Total
Category C
31,456
12,470
862
3,156
47,944
47,345
-423,862
1,318
523
36
132
2,0C9
1,984
25
MINA
Fes!
Wm*
WMO
WO NEM
IM
OM
O- Om*
Percentage
AlTiOJ AND 2,ES CHARGiS
Annual
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
Increase
1964-65 to
1969-70
Category A
California Institute of
$1,597
$1,847
$1,847
$1,847
$2,162
$2,162
6.2
Technology
Stanford University
1,410
1,575
1,575
1,770
1,920
2,145
8.7
Claremont Men's College
1,420
1,570
1,570
1,770
1,785
2,015
7.2
Harvey Mudd College
1,460
1,660
1,680
2,000
2,000
2,380
10.3
Pitzer College
1,515
1,675
1,775
1,795
2,175
9.4
Pomona College
1,475
1,565
1,675
1,775
1,902
2,106
7 ..3
Scripps College
1,480
1,480
1,580
1,675
1,880
2,110
7.3
Mills College
1,595
1,595
1,755
1,755
1,935
2,040
5.o
Occidental College
1,470
1,551
1,701
1,704
1,913
2,110
7.5
University of Redlands
1,270
1,421
1,423
1,625
1,630
1,827
7.5
Whittier College
1,185
1,220
1,310
1,310
1,454
1,550
5.4
Category B
University of Southern
1,243
1,525
1,524
1,530
1,846
1,846
8.2
California
Loyola University
1,115
1,115
1,265
1,325
1,425
1,532
6.5
United States Inter-
national University
1,221
1,221
1,470
1,470
1,659
1,959
9.9
University of the Pacific
1,395
1,545
1,650
1,786
1,926
2,140
8.9
(College of the Pacific)
University of San Francisco
896
960
1,072
1,072
1,232
1,232
6.5
University of Santa Clara
1,200
1,200
1,404
1,410
1,620
1,725
7.5
Category C
Group IV
Azusa Pacific College
952
895
1,049
1,149
1,311
1,277
6.0
Biota College
680
880
923
1,100
1,100
1,350
14.6
Calif. College of Arts
and Crafts
770
980
980
1,210
1,210
11.9
Calif. Lutheran College
1,150
1,220
1,323
1,448
1,563
1,643
7.3
Chapman College
1,072
1,082
1,289
1,289
1,501
1,506
7.0
College of Holy Names
700
700
700
1,050
1,050
1,250
12.3
College of Notre Dame
770
875
875
975
1,100
1,200
9.2
Dominican College of
75o
755
850
85o
950
:1,050
7.0
San Rafael
15=
777171a011DIS
et*GLe`g"i
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
Percentage
Annual
Increase
1964-65 to
1969-70
Immaculate Heart College
$824
$995
$1,100
1,230
$1,480
$1,480
12.4
La Verne College
1,050
1,16o
1,270
1,37o
1,520
1,680
9.9
Loma Linda University
95o
950
980
1,206
1,350
1,400
8.o
(Col.of Arts & Science)
Marymount College
85o
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,290
1,535
12.5
Mt. St. Mary's College
goo
goo
1,00o
1,080
1,080
1,080
3.7
Pacific Union College
920
956
1,010
1,215
1,35o
1,410
8.9
Pasadena College
1,020
1,020
1,018
1,035
1,146
1,287
4.7
Pepperdine College
992
1,120
1,120
1,280
1,440
1,600
10.0
Saint Mary's College
1,053
1,027
1,127
1,149
1,677
9.7
San Francisco College
875
for Women
875
goo
goo
13.10T,
1,230
7.0
Univ. of San Diego,
86o
855
954
1,078
1,290
1,360
9.6
College for Men
Univ. of San Diego,
970
1,070
1,100
1,100
1,320
8.o
College for Women
Westmont College
1,173
1,250
1,422
1,539
1,539
1,680
4.3
Category C
Group V
Calif. Baptist College
689
Menlo College
Pacific College
Pacific Oaks College
St. John's College
719
850
1,250
66o
800
715
85o
1,400
75o
800
720
870
1800
1,000
72o
872
1,650
835
1,000
720
1,112
1,850
948
1,000
72o
10.0
10.3
9.4
5.7
St. Patrick's College
220
Southern Calif. College
644
220
744
220
854
5o
1,0579
50
1,0504
945
1,127
33.8
11.8
Category C
Group VI
Golden Gate College
586
592
663
663
758
6.6
Monterey Institute of
Foreign Studies
935
1,13
01,230
1,230
1,240
1,440
9.o
Northrop Institute of
Technology
San Francisco Art Institute
855
770
855
900
_545
1,200
1,065
1,200
1,176
1,200
6.6
li.6
1964-65
Median Tuition and Fees
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
Average
Percentage
Increase
1964-65 to
Average
Percentage
Increase
1967-68 to
Average
Percentage
Increase
1968-69 to
1969-70
1968-69
1969-70
Category A
$1,4
60$1
,770
$1,902
$2,110
7.6
7.5
10.9
Category B
1,210
1,440
1,639
1,785
8.o
13.8
8.9
Category C
Group IV
875
1,100
1,290
1,360
9.2
17.3
5.4
Group V
744
870
872
1,000
6.1
0.2
14.7
Group VI
813
1,073
1,133
1,188
7.7
5.6
4.9
71
Physical Capacity
The following table shows for 1968-69 the number of hours class-rooms were scheduled each week (R:00 a. m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturdayexcluded) and the number of additional students that could be accommodatedif the classrooms were used 30 hours per week.
Although the standards developed in 1966 for the public segmentsof higher education) called for 34 hours per week use of classrooms (8:00 -5:00 M-F) and the Restudy standards2 called for 36 hours per week, actualusage was closer to 30 hours.
The type of information furnished by the participating institutions andused in the various computations is shown below. All meetings (laboratories,studios, independent study, etc. ) were included in the student load reportedby the colleges but only the number of classrooms was given; therefore,colleges in which students were heavily involved in using laboratory orother non-classroom physical facilities would appear to have greaterclassroom utilization than is the case.
If the utilization was less than 30 hours per week, a computationwas made assuming this higher level of use in order to determine thenumber of additional students that could be accommodated. These resultsare shown in the second column of the table.
1. Space Utilization Study, California Public Higher Education,Coordinating Council for Higher Education, No. 1027,September 1966.
2. A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education,T. R. McConnell, T. C. Holy and H. H. Serrians, CaliforniaState Department of Education, Sacramento 1955.
I
I
I
I
Method Used for Determining Student Capacity
A Number of Students (FTE)B Student Class LoadC Average Class SizeD Total Number of Hours All Classes Meet (per week)
A. B.i.e.,E Number of ClassroomsF Numbers of Hours Each Room is Used Per Week
Di. e. ,
Institutions Using Classrooms Less Than 30 Hours Per Week1968-69
(Institutions Identified by Letter)
Number of HoursEach Classroomis Used Per Week
72
No. of Extra StudentsThat Could be Accom-modated if ClassroomsWere Used 30 Hours
Per Week
A 19 846
B 10 1, 695
C 25 372
D 29 25
E 12 1, 288
F 18 906
G 22 270
H 10 9381 13 686J 26 142
K 18 754L 18 711
M 10 919N 22 3 11
0 14 635P 12 146
Q 21 205
R ^JO4. 0 144
10, 933
73
The eighteen institutions listed above could accommodate 10, 993more students (an average of 611 each) without building more classroomsor increasing average class size. For fourteen additional institutionsthe data indicate classroom use in excess of 30 hours per week. Threeother colleges state that they have reached their enrollment limits. Ifwe assume that the fifteen remaining institutions could accommodatestudents in the same proportion as the 35 covered in this particular study,then some 5, 000 more students could be added. This would mean existingphysical capacity in AICCU institutions for approximately 16, 000 morestudents. This would represent a substantial increase (14. 5 %) over presentenrollment in AICCU institutions.
Although the institutions indicated that laboratories, practice rooms,studios, etc. were in reasonable balance with classrooms, it should beremembered that this analysis is for classroom use only. Also, increasedenrollments would require additional expenditures for a.variety of purposes,e. g. , additional faculty and staff, office space, library resources, and parkingand auxiliary enterprises.
Conclusion
The findiags in this section on financial rapacity and physical capacityshould be regarded as tentative and experimental. Additional work is re-quired to devise more precise methods for estimating both types of capacity.Also, procedures for relating financial capacity to physical capacity needto be developed. Finally, the new methods and procedures should be appliedto each institution individually while taking into account the institution's ownplans for growth. With these steps it will be possible to make valid projectionsconcerning the capacity of independent institutions to accommodate additional.students.
The conclusion about capacity that can be stated at this time is asfollows:
Overall, independent institutions have adequate physical space toaccommodate additional students; they will ha..,e financial capacity tomaintain present enrollment levels as long as they are able to raise tuitioncharges fast enough to keep up with increases in educational expense; theywill have financial capacity for additional students only to the extent thatthey can obtain more funds than needed to keep up with the expense of main-taining present enrollment.
74
STATE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
The statistical analysis beginning on page 76 brings together severaltypes of related data concerning admission of undergraduate students.
This table provides clear evidence of a number of previously recognizedstatistical tendencies and cause-effect relationships.
Institutions with high average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scoresfor entering freshmen (the Category A institutions in the Levin and Osmanstudy) tend to enroll a relatively small percentage of their applicants.
These same institutions tend to have a higher percentage of StateScholarship winners among their California-resident undergraduate students.
Category A has grown less in enrollment than the other two categories.It has also had a smaller percentage growth in number of State Scholars,partly because it began the period with a much larger base.
Expansion of the Scholarship Program in recent years has had themost effect on the Category B institutions. Category B added 1,000 moreScholarship winners than Category A during the five year period and alsohad the most growth in total enrollment. This is not the only data thatindicates that the greater the increase in State Scholars the greater theincrease in total enrollment.
It seems certain that there is more room for Scholarship winnersin both Category A and Category B institutions. It would appear that manyinstitutions ultimately could reach an enrollment of State Scholarshipwinners equal to 30% of their California-resident students. The total isnot likely to rise much above that figure even with expansion of the StateScholarship program. The reason for this is that many students do nothave sufficient economic need to qualify for such scholarships and alsosome students receive other awards which make them ineligible.
The independent college share from further expansion of the StateScholarship program might be distributed rather evenly among CategoriesA, B, and C. But partly because of more rapid increase in total enrollment(past and anticipated) the largest portion of the additional Scholarshipwinners probably would enroll in Category B institutions.
75
With more awards available the State Scholarship Program mightgive, Category B institutions and many of those in Category C the kindof economic boost they need to be able to take more students. This isbecause with more scholarships available, such institutions would beable to keep tuition charges more in line with rapidly rising educationalexpenditures. Added income permits a college to finance a largerenrollment.
.
Institution
Total Full-
Time Under-
graduates
1969-70
Percent
Increase
1964-65
to
1969-70
INCREASES IN UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND IN STATE SCHOLARS
FOR VARIOUS TIME PERIODS BY INSTITUTION
Percent
Total
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number
Increase
State
Increase
Increase
California
California
1967-68
Scholars
1964-65
1967-68
Undergrads
Undergrads
to
1969-70
to
to
1969-70
1969-70
1969-70
1969-70
1969-70
Percent
California
Undergrads
With State
Scholarships
196q-70
Median
Scholastic
Aptitude
Test (SAT)
Score
1969-70
Percent
Freshmen
Applicants
Enrolled
1969-70
Category A
a757
14
4136
16
19
28
212
64
1,446
18.3
h6,221
94
714
55
42
53
3,297
22
1,400
c818
37
8153
151
47
66
54o
28
1,240
24.3
d377
29
30
104
335
64
241
43
1,340
23.7
e661
.332
22
66
78
65
430
15
1,140
23.2
f1,277
12
-2
211
15
86o
766
28
1,359
g519
43
864
129
73
55
285
22
1,170
36.4
h750
46
58
38
61
43
323
18
1,177
29.6
11,703
16
642o
43
4o
691,175
36
1,275
i1,606
20
13
275
131
72
87*
1,357*
20*
1,175
k2,094
20
8155
87
118
781,633
91,040
Total
Category A
16,783
18
62,355
58
44
6o
10,058
23
1,24
0
Category B
7,888
22
4885
166
73
90*
7,099*
12*
1,121
1
1,562
13
17
335
126
139
921,437
23
1,085
47.8
2,194
91
50
90
275.
67
90*
1,975*
5*
02,591
34
2370
330
101
90*
2,332*
16*
1,060
p3,814
59
6497
373
64
82
3,127
16
1,070
38.2
q3,211
45
14
647
225
59
90
2,890
22
1,109
37.9
Total
Category B
21,260
37
12
2,824
216
76
89
18,860
15
1,078
t=5,
Pt"!
PM11
1.11
ME
IIII
IIII
1111
1I=
NM
=II
MI
laid
1111
4E
ui"-
-1
Total Full-
Time Under-
graduates
Institution
1969-70
INCREASES IN UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND IN STATE SCHOLARS
FOR VARIOUS TIME PERIODS BY INSTITUTION
Percent
Percent
Increase
Increase
1964-65
1967-68
to
to
1969-70
1969-70
Total
State
Scholars
1969-70
Percent
Percent
Increase
Increase
1964-65
1967-68
to
to
1969-70
1969-70
Percent
California
Undergrads
1969-70
Number
California
Undergrads
1969-70
Percent
California
Undergrads
With State
-
Scholarships
1969-70
Median
Percent
Scholastic
Freshmen
Aptitude
Applicants
Test (SAT)
Enrolled
Score
1969-70
1969-70
Category C
Group IV
r734
62
923
475
73
573
It
36.7**
1,268
28
8111
1,750
311
64
812
14
975
36.7
2,160
103
63
15
1,400
200
85*
986*
2*
969
43
14
81
523
161
91
882
9953
56.8
V1,480
163
18
82
242
122
85*
1,258*
7*
1,004
w548
-5
151
82
76
92
504
10
1,048
61.2
318
-5
-26
21
-12.5.
31
91
289
7945
317
-35
14
-39'
-21
93
295
567.7
z413
-8
-3
68
31
79
93
384
18
1,010
as
.624
42
26
36
266
177
92
574
6958
44.7
bb
571
97
79
116
1,557
1,188
92
525
22
cc
1,768
26
22
83
8,300
108
87
1,538
5891
76.4
dd
643
-33
-37
83
82
6o
96
617
13
1,009
56.1
ee
1,649
55
17
149
116
96
84
1,385
11
ff
985
16
166
843
'44
81
798
890.1
gg
933
-0.6
251
467
142
74
690
7
hh
ii
911
497
7
-3
5
-4
142 9
loo
-31
129
13
94 82
856
407
17 2
1,060
921
55.6
jj
55o
111
4o
47
1,075
571
92*
506*
9*
1,016
kk
11
409
e2a
-8
52
11
22
51
127
122
338
122
195
92*
78
376*
646
14*
20
984
1,063
47.8
10.0
Total
Category C
Group IV
17,575
29
91,426
211
144
8514,944
10975
=4'
Mr,
,,If
f1W
eil
fafi
lIO
N N
M M
I11
1.1
I=M
INm
umm
ow
Total Full-
Time Under-
graduates
Institution
1969-70
Category C
Group V
INCREASES IN UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND IN STATE SCHOLARS
FOR VARIOUS TIME PERIODS BY INSTITUTION
Percent
Percent
Increase
Increase
1964-65
1967-68
to
to
1969-70
1969-70
Total
state
Scholars
1969-70
Percent
Percent
Increase
Increase
1964-65
1967 -62
to
to
1969-70
1969-70
Percent
California
Undergrads
1969-70
Number
California
Undergrads
1969-70
Percent
California
Undergrads
With State
Scholarships
1969-70
Median
Percent
Scholastic
Freshmen
Aptitude
Applicant:
Test (SAT)
Enrolled
Score
1969-70
1969-70
ITU
nh 00 PP
(14
rr
SS
Total
Category C
Group V
Category C
556
541.
286
56
178
19o-
46o
2,267
516 78
1,926
529
3,049
60,934
33 9
38
367
-54
-24
35:
78
105
72
100 78 29
17 5 1
300
-31
-13 6
29 67 7
28 14 9
18 7
32 0
28 9
21
.115
1 1
29 6 37
6,757
500
700
967 o
87
800
2,100
423
100
100
48o
600
64o
136
260
25o
191 8
125
1,100
135
100
123
500
147
74
71
81
84
98
87
92*
85*
90 95
75*
42
64 56 78.2
395
438
240
55
336
175*
391*
2,03
0
490 59*
809
339
1,69
7
47,589
5 2
13 0 8 5*
5*
6 0.2
2*
4 2 2
14.2
942
41.3
39.1
63.o
61.0
34.7
44.3
2122,12.11
tt
uu
vv
ww
Total
Category C
Group VI
Grand Total
*Estimated
79
STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
The preceding section of this report dealing with the State ScholarshipProgram includes data on several student characteristics:
1. Percentage of California resident undergraduate studentsby institution and by category of institution (A, B, and C).
2. State Scholarship winners by institution and by category.3. Median Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores by institution
and by category.Data on number of foreign students and on the ethnic background of
students were also collected from 35 member institutions representing54% of the total AICCU full-time enrollment.
Summary of findings for 1969-79 academic year:1. Percentage of full-time undergraduate students who are
California residents (all institutions): 78. 2%
2. Percentage of all (graduate and undergraduate) full-timestudents from foreign countries (35 institutions): 5.4%
3. Percentage of all full-time students with Spanish surnames,excluding foreign students (35 institutions): 3. 3%
4. Percentage of all full-time students who are Black, excludingforeign students (35 institutions): 4. 6%
5. Percentage of all full-time students who are American Indians(35 institutions): 0. 6%
6. Percentage of all full-time students who are Oriental, excludingforeign students (35 institutions): 4. 7%
7. Percentage of California resident full-time undergraduatestudents who hold State Scholarships (all institutions): 14. 2%
80
DEGREES
The percentage of increase in 4-year degrees during theperiod corresponds to the increase in full-time undergraduates.The increase in Master's degrees parallels the increase in full-time graduate students. These two relationships apply generallyfor the total groups and for each of the groups individually.
As with enrollment, the increase in graduate degreesawarded was about twice the undergraduate rate.
Both Group I and Group II showed a very substantial increasein Doctoral degrees.
Group II led all the groups in rate of average annual increasein 4-year degrees, Master's degrees, and Doctoral degrees.
r"--
1=
14;,1
44,1
A4
PO
si01
01IN
NS
NW
NM
IM
ilIii
14,6
141*
-'Mri
ltttti
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
GR
OU
P T
OT
AL
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1665
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)
223
247
230
269
260
10.5
9,28
o9,
589
4,54
7
10,1
13
5,03
6
10,6
69
5,68
8
11,1
67
5,91
8
4.7
8.2
4,31
8
724
808
947
1,07
11,
223
14.0
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
189
206
206
211
200
1-3
132
136
547
141
568
155
657
162
702
5.3
11.7
451
107
9997
120
112
1.0
15 4
2416
,179
17 3
3818
840
19,7
446.
4
f=ii*
S4
1411
1M
N M
N O
MO
ME
l111
.10
4.4
10#t
.ti
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
GR
OU
P I
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE (
V
221
63,
323
3,56
3
7:i,3
24
4 09
0
3,26
7
3 94
0
-0.3 4.4
3 31
03
256
682
748
875
943
1 04
711
.3P
rofe
ssio
nal
Med
icin
e
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
111
1111
8 84
128
104
131
99
4.2
2.6
89 252
298
290
278
269
1.5
109_
912
011
21.
0
8 6
828
08,
947
8,86
52.
9
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
GR
OU
P II
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
.67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(%
)
1,556
1,828
1,993
2,326
2,516
12.8
507
715
715
879
1,065
20.4
41
57
71
125
175
43.7
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
78
89
88
:3
69
2.6
43
41
57
51
63
10.0
164
217
231
313
343
20.2
2,392
2,953
3 ],_.63
3,783
4,246
15.4
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
IM
N N
MI
MIN
iii E
IM
INI
WIN
in*
iii=
1P
leti
tI
GR
OU
P II
I
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
.67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
3842
4238
517.
6
1 80
41,
902
1 95
12,
188
2,18
54.
9
160
195
248
278
317
18.6
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
2,00
32.
142
2,24
22,
5.(2
72
46
2
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
GR
OU
P IV
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
(IQ
5546
5562
521,
31,
899
1,98
62,
105
387
2,07
4
329
2,37
8
367
5-7
7.4
275
283
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
2,22
92,
315
2,54
72,
465
2,79
75.
8
mrs9
wym
I1
raw
-or
mi
DEGREE DATA
GROUP V
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
1965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE
iv
9211
799
119
105
2.9
206
241
279
310
328
12.3
65
56
213
.6
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GRAND TOTAL
304
363
383
435
43"
03 rn
DE
GR
EE
DA
TA
GR
OU
P V
I
2-Y
ear
Deg
rees
4-Y
ear
Deg
rees
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Doc
tor's
Deg
rees
1964
-65
0965
-66
1966
-67
1967
-68
1968
-69
AV
ER
AG
E A
NN
UA
LIN
CR
EA
SE I
V
3536
2644
371.
3
490 60
4166
293
447
493
o 1
118
___
146
227
39.4
Pro
fess
iona
lM
edic
ine
Den
tistr
y
Law
Pha
rmac
y
GR
AN
D T
OT
AL
3532
4766
9026
.6
62o
577
653
703
847
8.1
88
FACULTY RANKS, SALARIES, AND DEGREES
Information about faculty ranks and faculty degrees was collectedfor 35 institutions in Groups II through VI. At least half the institutionsin each group are included in the sample.
Information about faculty salaries was collected for 29 of 36institutions in Groups II, III, and IV.
All information is for the 1969-70 year.The data show that Group III has the highest ratio of full-time to
part-time faculty (89-11). Groups II and IV are next, each with a ratioof 70-30. Group V has a ratio of 59-41. The ratio for Group VI is 34-66.A smaller proportion of full-time faculty members would be expected inthese special-purpose institutions.
Among the full-time faculty, Groups II and III have the highestpercent of Ph. D's 62% and 61% respectively, followed by Group IVwith 46%, and Groups VI and V with 33% and 32%. The Ph. D. is thedegree most frequently held by faculty members in the Group II and IIIinstitutions, and the Master's degree for those in Groups IV, V, and VI.
In each group represented, that is, II through VI, the most commonlyheld rank is Assistant Professor and the least common is Instructor.
Number and Percent of Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty Members
Full-Time Part-TimeTotalNumber Percent Number Percent
Group II 1,112 70 479 30 1,591
Group III 663 89 82 11 745
Group IV 952 70 404 30 1,356Group V 84 59 59 41 143
Group VI 99 34 193 66 292
89
Distribution of Full-Time Facultyby Ranks and Degrees
1969-70
Prof. Assoc. Asst. Instr. Other Total
E(212rTa.grkL, % No. % No. % No. $
GROUP II
Ph.D. 249 36 192 28 209 3o 37 5 - - 687 62
Masters 35 10 76 21 176 49 73 20 2 .05 362 32
Bachelors - - - 23 36 32 51 8 12 63 6
None - - - - - - -
Total 284 25 268 24 408 37 142 13 10 .01 1,112 100
GROUP III
Ph.D. 164 4o 118 29 125 31 0 - 407 61
Masters 19 9 47 23 66 32 76 37 0 - 208 31
Bachelors 1 .02 1 .02 11 23 29 62 5 11 47 7
None 0 0 - 0 - 1 100 1 -
Total 184 28 166 25 202 3o 106 16 5 .08 663 99
GROUP IV
Ph.D. 161 37 1452 34 1192 28 8 .02 - - 434 46
Masters 16 .03 94 19 245 50 131 27 3 .01 489 51
Bachelors - 2 .07 6 22 162 60 3 .11 272 3
;one - - - - - - 2 2 100 2
Ibtal 177 19 241i 25 3702 39 1552 16 8 .08 9522 100
GROUP VPh.D. 15 56 6 22 3 11 - - 3 11 27 32Masters - - 12 23 25 48 9 17 6 12 52 62
Bachelors - - - - - - 63 60 2 40 5 6
None - - - - - -
Total 15 18 18 21 28 33 12 14 11 13 84 100
GROUP VIPh.D. 6 18 14 42 7 21 5 15 1 .03 33 33Masters 4 10 8 20 15 38 - - 13 33 40 40Bachelors 3 14 4 18 9 41 - 6 27 22 22None - - - - - - - 4 loo 4 4
Total 13 13 26 26 31 31 5 .05 24 24 99 99ilmmisiaargorik
90
Concerning salary, Group III institutions pay the highest maximum,average, and minimum rates at the Professor and Instructor ranks, andwith the Group II institutions, pay the highest rates at the AssociateProfessor and Assistant Professor ranks.
There is some overlap between the Professor and Associate Pro-fessor ranks and considerable overlap in salaries between the Associateand Assistant Professor ranks.
Average SalariesFull-Time Faculty
1969-70
Professor
Group II Group III Group IV
Maximum 19,320 $20,270 $14,533Average 15,628 16,776 13,194Minimum 12,935 14,269 11,658
Associate ProfessorMaximum 15,166 14,829 12,703Average 12,720 12,856 11,271Minimum 10,913 101999 9,865
Assistant ProfessorMaximum 12,862 12,821 11,020Average 10,449 10,431 9,336Minimum 8,723 9,164 8,074
InstructorMaximum 9,627 10,160 8,922Average 8,643 9,016 7,799Minimum - 7,393 8,022 7,118
