a 2-:- . ‘- ..U :1 tic .- x9 . '14- "Kn" ‘Inu’snng-f-Agv‘ . ‘. 1\: '5’3a- 1:» :_ , _ _ : ..’.¢‘1:_-."¢¢¢.‘_-_- .:.x-....:.u' n.1,... . -<~~ «1.2:- -a:-a--‘ v.- ‘.\ .‘mg. ... . v‘ _ _. -: .T=\\ " '\ ‘ = 3‘— :\‘,_-:.'..A .‘ \.C . A \‘r 22.». .A... . v‘ ‘1 ‘ "“‘ ‘\\ ,_ .l .K“:.:_ ’M-‘u-‘Ih'mxm ‘a . LII: -3 1: 1 Michigan State University -. r I4 Illllll'llllllllllllllllllllllllflll l/ 3 1293 01056 1821 This is to certify that the thesis entitled PROFILES OF THAI HIGHER EDUCATION AS MEASURED BY FACULTY, COURSE OFFERINGS, STUDENTS, AND OPERATING BUDGETS presented by Panom Pongpaibool has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Education .. , / c . '39}.- Major professor Date February 2 0 0-7639 ABSTRACT PROFILES OF THAI HIGHER EDUCATION AS MEASURED BY FACULTY, COURSE OFFERINGS, STUDENTS, AND OPERATING BUDGETS BY Panom Pongpaibool This study was planned to discover the distribution of resources and students among nine discipline groupings and among eight multi-purpose Thai universities, and to summarize and compare the distribution of faculty members, students, course offerings, and operating budgets both among the discipline groupings and among the universities in such form as will furnish hard data upon which long range planning may be based. In the study, the faculty are the full-time members assigned to teach in a discipline grouping, the course offerings are the courses that belong to a discipline grouping, the students are all regular undergraduate students allocated to the discipline grouping in which they are expected to get their degree, and the operating budgets are amount of money allocated to a discipline group- ing. The nine discipline groups are Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, Health 0.4-. Panom Pongpaibool Professions, Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. The data were collected from available sources. Faculty data were gathered from faculty lists and institu- tions' bulletins and catalogs. Course offering data were obtained from institutions' bulletins and catalogs. Student data were collected from Education Report, Institutions of Higher Education, Thailand 1971. Operating budget data were gathered from the higher education sections of Budget- ing Bureau's Budget for Fiscal Year 1972. The data were counted and distributed among the nine discipline groupings within each university. The data for Thai higher education were the summation of data of all the eight universities. The data were converted to T-scores. The profiles were drawn using the T-scores across the nine discipline groupings. The findings revealed that in the four characteris- tics measured the profile of Thai higher education was generally high in the Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences; and low in Business and Management, Arts, Education, and Languages and Literature. The profiles of individual universities showed that each university was generally dominated by one discipline group- ing. No pair of universities had the same general profile. Among the four characteristics studied the closest relation- ship was between faculty and operating budgets. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is deeply grateful to a number of individuals who helped him develop and complete this study, especially to the following: To Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, through five years as my major advisor in the Master's program, in his capacity as doctoral committee chairman and thesis director; has provided encouragement, challenge, and warm understanding of immeasurable value to the writer. To each member of the candidate's committee: Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, and Dr. James Burnett whose scholarly assistance has truely been appreciated. To Miss Chantalak Krutkaew and Mr. Anan Khumsin who helped in the process of collecting data. To Miss Malinee Chaumpruk, the writer's niece, who has worked so hard for the writer, without her this study was impossible. To Miss Udomsin Sriboonpen, her help in many ways is very much appreciated. To the Thai Government, who has supported the writer's education in the United States of America. To, last but not least, the writer's brothers and sisters, especially Vanich Pongpaibool, who has never been tired of giving encouragement to his younger brother. ii Tr) Thab Pongpaibool my mother the woman I love most TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . Chapter I. PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND . . . Statement of Problem . . . Sub-Problem . . . . . . The Significance of the Study The Limitations of the Study Definition of Terms . . . II. PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . Philosophical and Theoretical Background . . . . . The Review of Literature . The Determinants of Quality of Higher Education . . Instructural Outputs . . Institutional Environment Output Research Outputs . . . Public Service Outputs . The Allocation of Resources Methods of Study . . . Usefulness of This Study . III. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . Introduction . . . . . Population . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . Sources of Data . . . Collecting of Data . . . Statistical Procedures . iv Page Vi xii [—1 \DKDNI—‘l‘ 12 12 l9 19 20 21 21 21 22 24 27 29 29 29 30 30 34 37 Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . Profile of Thai Higher Education . . . The T- Scores of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . Some Factors Within the Characteristics . . . . . . . Profiles of Individual Thai Universities . . . . . . . . Chiengmai University . . . . . . Chulalongkorn University . . . . . Kasetsart University . . . . . . Khonkaen University . . . . . . Mahidol University . . . . . . . Prince of Songkhla University . . . Silpakorn University . . . . . . Thammasat University . . . .‘ . The Comparisons of Profiles of Each of the Universities With the Eight Universities Taken as a Whole . The Averaged T-Scores and Ranks . . The Faculty T-Scores and Ranks . . . The Courses T-Scores and Ranks . . . The Students T—Scores and Ranks . . The Operating Budgets T-Scores and Ranks . . . . . . . Discussion of the Findings . . . . . The Thai Higher Education . . . . The Relationships Between the Characteristics . . . . . . . The Individual Universities . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions . . . . . . . The Profiles of Thai Higher Education The Prof.iles of Individual Universi. Universities . . . . . . . Comparisons Between the Profiles of the Individual Universities and of the Thai Higher Education . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . APPEDIDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . V Page 39 4O 51 56 56 63 68 74 79 85 89 9O 96 96 101 104 107 110 113 113 117 118 123 125 125 126 127 128 133 204 Table l. 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES The Distribution of Faculty, Course Offerings, Students, and Operating Budgets by Discipline Groupings in Thai Higher Education in 1971 . . . . . T—Scores of Thai Higher Education . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty Numbers of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Course Offerings of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Students of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of the Average of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . The Student Enrollment T—Scores and Graduating Students T—Scores of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between Enrollment Students and Graduating Students and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . The Number of Courses and Number of Credits T—Scores of Thai Higher Education . The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between the Number of Courses and Number of Credits, and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . vi Page 42 45 46 46 47 48 51 52 53 53 54 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between Salary, Operating Budgets, and Other Expenses of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . The T-Scores of Salary, Operating Budgets, and Other Expenses of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Coefficients Between Salary and Other Expenses, and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education . . . . . . . The T-Scores of Chiengmai University . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty Numbers of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . . The Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Chiengmai University . . . . . . . . . . . . The T-Scores of Chulalongkorn University . . The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Chulalongkorn University . . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Chulalongkorn University . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Chulalongkorn University . . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Operating Budgets of Chulalongkorn University . . . . . . . vii Page 55 55 56 57 58 59 59 6O 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 Table 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. The Ranked T— Scores of the Average Of Chulalongkorn University . . . . . . . The Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Chulalongkorn UniverSj-ty C O O O O O O O O O The T—Scores of Kasetsart University . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Faculty of Kasetsart University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Kasetsart University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of Students of Kasetsart University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Kasetsart University . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Kasetsart University . . . . . . . . The Coefficients of Correlation Between Four Characteristics of Kasetsart University . . The T—Scores of Khonkaen University . . The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Khonkaen University The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Khonkaen University The Ranked T-Scores of Khonkaen University Students of The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Khonkaen University . . . . . . . The Ranked T—Scores of the Average of Khonkaen University . . . . . . . The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Khonkaen UniverSj-ty O O O O O O O O O O The T—Scores of Mahidol University . . . viii .Page 66 68 69 69 70 71 71 72 73 75 76 76 77 77 78 79 80 Table 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. S8. 59. 60. The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Mahidol University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Mahidol University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Mahidol University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Mahidol University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Average of Mahidol University . . . . . . . . . . . The Coefficients of Correlation of the Four Characteristics of Mahidol University . . The T-Scores of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Average of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Prince of Songkhla University . . . . . . . . . . . The T-Scores of Thammasat University . The Ranked T—Scores of Faculty of Thammasat University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Thammasat University . . . . . . . . ix Page 81 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 87 88 88 89 91 92 92 Table 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. The Ranked T—Scores of Students of Thammasat University . . . . . . . . . The Ranked T- Scores of Operating Budgets of Thammasat University . . . . . . . . The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Thammasat University . . . . . . . . . The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Thammasat univerSity O O O O O O O O O O O 0 The Averaged T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Averaged T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . The Faculty T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . . . The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Faculty T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . . . The Courses T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . . . The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Courses T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. . . . . . . . . The Students T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . . . The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Students T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . . . Page 93 93 94 95 97 97 101 101 104 104 107 108 Table Page 73. The Operating Budgets T—Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . 110 74. The Ranks of the Discipline Groupings Based on Operating Budgets T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities . . . . . . 111 75. Sum of Data from Eight Universities . . . 135 76. Means and Standard Deviation . . . . . . 140 77. Z-Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 78. T-Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 79. Correlation Coefficient Indices . . . . . 149 Xi LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Chapter I P ROBLEM AND BACKGROUND Statement of Problem The problem is to discover the distribution of resources and students among nine discipline groupings and among eight multi—purpose Thai universities, and to com— pare the distributions of faculty members, students, course offeringsrand operating budgets both among the disciplines and among the universities in such form as will furnish hard data upon which long range planning may be based. Sub—Problems Specifically, this study aims to answer the follow— ing questions. 1. In the eight universities taken as a whole, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and Operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 2. In each of the eight Thai universities, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 3. Comparing each university with each other university and with the eight taken as a whole, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? The Significance of the Study In order to understand‘the present situation of Thai institutions of higher education, one needs to go to their history. The story of Thai institutions of higher learning starts in 1889 when the Royal Medical College was created at Siriraj Hospital. But the first national university was established in 1916 and was given the name Chulalongkorn University, as a memorial to King Chulalongkorn. At the beginning, Chulalongkorn was comprised of four faculties or colleges: Arts and Sciences, Medicine, Engineering, and Political Sciences. Only diploma courses of three years duration were given. At present, Chulalongkorn University has thirteen faculties: Education, Commerce and Accountancy, Political Sciences, Sciences, Engineering, Architecture, Economics, Arts, Medicine, Veterinary Sciences, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Communication Arts. The Democratic Revolution of 1932 was followed by the creation of a second university "Thammasat", in 1933. Its main purpose was to provide education in the field of Law, Politics, and Economics. Formerly Thammasat was an open-door university andrit'granted only a law degree. Since 1959 the University has been further developed. New faculties have been created. At the present time Thammasat is composed of Faculties of Law, Commerce and Accountancy, Political Sciences, Economics, Social Administration, Liberal Arts, and Journalism and Communication. The University is known as "A Center of Social Studies and Humanities". In 1943 Kasetsart University was founded upon the existing College of Agriculture and Forestry. The Univer- sity in the early stages consisted of four Faculties: Agriculture, Cooperative Science, Forestry, and Fishery. Its purpose was to be a center of research and study in the field of Agriculture. In 1952 the field of economics was added to the curriculum and in 1954 the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Medical Sciences was transferred to be a part of the University. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences was created in 1969. At the present time, Kasetsart University consists of eight Faculties: Agriculture, Fishery, Forestry, Arts and Sciences, Engine eering, Economics and Business Administration, Veterinary Medicine, and Education. In 1934 Silpakorn University was created. It was primarily concerned with the instruction and the promotion 1 of research works in the realm of fine arts and national culture. Recently Silpakorn has extended its campus to Nakorn Pathom province. The Bangkok campus consists of four Faculties: Painting and Sculpture, Thai Architecture, Decorative Arts, and Archaeology. Its Nakorn Pathom campus consists of Education and Arts Faculties. Mahidol University was formerly known as the University of Medical Sciences. The University was first the Royal Medical College at Siriraj Hospital and was part of Chulalongkorn University. Later, the college became a university. In 1969, the university's name was changed to the present name, Mahidol University. Mahidol now consists of ten Faculties: Medicine at Siriraj Hospital, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Public Health, Medical Techn01ogy, Tropical Medicine, Sciences, Medicine at Rama Thibordi Hospital, Dentistry at Payathai, and Pharmacy at Payathai. Mahidol is planning to add a Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in the near future. In 1964, Chiengmai University was promulgated as the first of Thailand's provincial univerSities in the northern part of the kingdom. At the beginning Chiengmai University was composed of three Faculties: Humanities, Sciences, and Social Sciences. Chiengmai now consists of seven Faculties: Humanities, Education, Social Sciences, Sciences, Medicine, Argiculture, and Engineering. Khonkaen University was created in 1964 and began operation in 1965. The establishment of this university was a part of the development program for the northeastern region of Thailand.“ The University began with the Faculties of Engineering, Agriculture, and Sciences and Arts. The Faculties of Education and Nursing have since been added. In 1968, Prince of Songkhla University was created, as a part of the development program for the southern region of Thailand. The University began with the Faculties of Engineering and Education. A Faculty of Sciences has since been added. In 1971 Ramkamhaeng University was created in response to the need for more university places for secondary school graduating students. It is the only Open- door university in Thailand now. Ramkamhaeng University consists of the Faculties of Education, Business Administra- tion, Law, and Humanities. The history of their founding reveals that the older universities were vocationally oriented. The newer institutions, however, were founded as part of the develop- ment programs for their regions. At the present time, the concept of universities as vocational centers is in process of change. Each institution is expanding and more programs are being offered at almost every institution. The Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (1967—1971) led the way for change. It stated: The University of Chiengmai and Khonkaen will establish new faculties in such fields as engineering, sciences, and education. The improvement projects being planned for Kasetsart University include plans to double enrOllment capacity as well as to establish new faculties in the fields of arts, engineering, and sciences. At Chulalongkorn University the Faculty of Engineering will be improved through foreign assistance. In addition, a new Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy and the Rama Thibordi Faculty of Medicine will be established as part of the University of Medical Sciences. Several develOpments will take place in relation to establishment of new institutions or relocation of existing institutions. The new University of the South will establish a Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Pattani and a Faculty of Engineering at Songkhla. The recently established National Institute for Development Administration will offer graduate level in public administration, business administration, development economics and applied statistics. The Silpakorn University will be moved to Nakorn Pathom where the Faculties of Arts, Natural Sciences and Music will be expanded (34:196-197). The University of Medical Sciences, mentioned above, is now Mahidol University and the University of the South is Prince of Songkhla University at the present time. Michigan State University, during the years 1964 to 1968, under contract with US AID and the government of Thailand, conducted a project in educational planning in Thailand. Professor Archibald B. Shaw, chief of party from December, 1967 to August, 1968, stated the purposes of the project. The purpose of this-program is to provide assistance in strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Education and the National Education Council in both short and long range educational planning, and to advise on action plans which may have been adopted as educational policy in Thailand (45:1). The project led to many researches and publications and brought trained personnel to help Thailand fulfull her develOpment plans for education at the elementary and secondary levels and in higher education. During this time the National Education Council (NEC), with advice from the MSU staff, caused to many changes in university administra- tion. The creation of Silpakorn University at its Nakorn Pathom campus and the University of the South or Prince of Songkhla University were among those developments. At the present time, the country is in the Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976). The plan stated the purposes concerning higher education as: 1. To level upwards the quality and efficiency of education at undergraduate level. 2. To initiate and support those programs which contribute to the needs of the country, such as agriculture, engineering, medicine, English, and Thai culture, and to encourage graduate programs to produce university teachers and country needs. 3. To support research work and text—book writing. 4. To support the regional universities to become cultural and educational centers of the communities of their region. 5. To initiate and support community colleges (35:25). Both development plans and the MSU project led to many changes in Thai higher education. A new university has been established, one university has been relocated, many universities have been expanded, new roles have been added to the functions of universities, new programs have been developed, and university structure itself, has been reformed. In order to understand the new Thai universities and to have the necessary information to support the changes being made and proposed, new data are needed. The present situation in Thai higher education, particularly with respect to the way resources of trained faculty, qualified students, desirable course offerings, and public money are allocated required new data gathering. One such collection and organization of significant facts is the principal purpose of this study. This study is planned to identify the differences between Thai universities in terms of four characteristics as they relate to university—emplasized fields of study. The four characteristics are number of faculty, course offerings, number of students, and operating budgets. The fields of study are classified into nine disciplines: Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, Health Professions, Language and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. The study is also planned to determine the four characteristics within each university. The comparison between and within universities will be made in terms of profiles. The Limitation of Study The Thai universities included in this study are limited to the public universities under the Office of State Universities that have graduated students in the year 1971. The faculty members to be included in the study are these teaching full-time only. Other kinds of faculty are not included. Course offerings are undergraduate courses only. The students counted are those enrolled in programs leading to bachelor's degree in the eight universities. Operating budgets are departmental budgets of the 1972 academic year. Definition of Terms Faculty: The body of persons responsible for instruction in a university. Student: One who is enrolled in an institution of higher education in a curriculum leading to a bachelor's degree. Curriculum: A systematic group of courses or sequence of subjects required for graduation in a major field of study. Course Offering: Courses listed in a faculty or an institutional catalog. 10 Credit Offering: A number of‘semester credit hours assigned to each course. Operating Budget: The annual expenditure allo- Universit cated to the universities for educa— tional and general purposes, which include faculty salaries and administra— tive expenses. Profile: y: An institution of higher education which is under the control of the Office of State Universities in Thailand. A graph revealing the measured charac- teristics of an inanimate object of scientific scruntiny. Discipline Grouping: A group of subjects that are bound together in a common structure of knowledge. The discipline groupings in this study are based primarily on "A Taxonomy of Instructional Programs in Higher Education," of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. U.S. Department Agriculture: A discipline grouping including Arts: Business General Agriculture, Agronomy, Soil Science, Animal Science; Dairy Science, Poultry Science, Fishery, Horticulture, Food Science, Forestry, Natural Re- sources Management, and Agricultural Economics. A discipline grouping including History, Archeology, Philosophy, Theology, Fine and Applied Arts, Drama, Music, Commun— ication, Library Science, and Archi- tecture. and Management: A discipline grouping including Business and Commerce, Accounting, Banking and Finance, Investments, Business Management and Administration, Hotel and Restaurant Management, Marketing, Transportation Management, Studies. Insurance, and Secretarial 11 Education: A discipline grouping including Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education, Educational Psychology, Educational Administration, Physical Education, and Industrial Arts. Engineering: A discipline grouping including Computer Science, Agricultural Engin- eering, Architectural Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineer- ing, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Geological Engineering, Metalurgical Engineering, Mining Engineering, Environmental Engineering, and Sanitary Engineering. Health Professions: A discipline grouping including Nursing, Dentistry, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathic Medicine, Pharmacy, Dental Hygiene, Public Health, Veterinary Medicine, Medical Technology, Dental Technology, and Radiologic Technology. Languages and Literature: A discipline grouping Sciences including Thai, English, Other Foreign Languages, Literature, Comparative Liter- ature, Classics, Linguistics, and Speech Science. and Mathematics: A discipline grouping including General Physical Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Earth Sciences, Oceanography, Mathematics, and Statistics. Social Sciences: A discipline grouping including Home Economics, Law, Psychology, Public Affairs and Services, Anthropology, Economics, Geography, Political Science and Government, Sociology, Criminology, and International Relations. Chapter II PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE Philosophical and Theoretical Background A university education is a western world heritage. In the Middle Ages, the university was regarded as Studium Generale--"an institution which is a permanent association of scholars and students and which is largely self-govern— ing and mainly self-perpetuating" (12). Its purpose was to preserve and perpetuate theoretical knowledge. In the Medieval period, the university, as Clapp also says, is an institution providing ". . . the esoteric learning necessary to human social life and necessary also to the highest development of man and person". The Medieval university was usually composed of four faculties: Arts, Law, Medicine, and Theology. In the Middle Ages universi- ties were autonomous institutions. The nineteenth century brought another view of the university as an institution dedicated to a search to widen the bounds of knowledge rather than merely to preserve the store of knowledge undiminished from generation to generation. 12 13 In this century, a professor was primarily a research scholar: Philosophy was regarded as pure knowledge, and was highly emphasized. The present ideas of universities were developed from the nineteenth century. The development of the ideas can be seen from various persons' views. Cardinal Newman described the function and purpose of a university education: A university training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end; it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying the national taste, at supplying true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating the exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life. It is the education which gives a man a clear conscious view of his own Opinion and judgements, a truth in develOping them, aeloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them (36:157-158). Devane criticized Newman's idea: The primary aim of Newman's university is to teach the 'diffusion and extension 0f knowledge rather than the advancement. If its objective were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a univer— sity should have students.‘ Newman seems to have no notion that a university can train an investigator, and he naively relegates the task of increasing learning to institutions and academies. His aim is to fit the student, in point of information, intelli- gence, and manners, for the world, not for the labora— tory and the library. There is no real appreciation of the scientific method and temper which have informed our modern universities, nor is there any provision for revealing 'the grand development of human reason, from Aristotle down to Hegel.‘ In short, Newman's ideas were the collegiate and rather static ideas of the great English and American institutions of a century ago. . . (13:5). 14 Hutchins presented his idea of university education as: "The aim of higher education is wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge of principles and cuases". And he further said: "Metaphysics deals with the highest principles and causes. Therefore metaphysics is the highest wisdom (25:98)." The Hutchins idea of higher education highly emphasizes learning and discovering new knowledge rather than the repeating of existing knowledge as in Newman's ideas. Carmichael, in his study--Universities: Common Wealth and America, said, The goal of university education is threefold: l) to assist growth of the individual, his adjust— ment to his environment, the development of his intellectual powers and interests; 2) to prepare students for useful occupations or professions through assisting them in the acquisition of specialized knowledge and skills; and 3) to pro- vide society with intelligent leaders and qualified workers in all those fields of endea- vor, preparation for which requires higher education (9:84). In addition to providing a learning environment, Carmichael indicates another dimension of a university education: the idea of providing university resources to a society. The ideas of university education in Great Britain seem to be different from Charmichael's idea. As Marris quotes the ideas of J.S. Fulton, Vice Chancellor of Sussex and Herbert Butterfield, master of Pembroke College: 15 Fulton: The full aim of a university education is to train the scientific mind in the service of the merciful heart. Butterfield: Universities ought primarily to be regarded as the arena in which there is to occur the electric contact between teacher and pupil (30:171). Neither of them mentioned community service or any similarity in their aim of a university education. Banta (5) defines the goals of higher education as: 1. learning; 2. development of standards for judging the merit of ideas and the selection of worthy problems, and 3. appreciation of the fundamentally human basis for the development of knowledge. Banta's goals are limited to the context of contract between teacher and student only, so they cannot be considered as the general goals of higher education. His goals of higher education are based on the belief that the university does not educate. It is the student who does the educating; he educates himself, and he stimulates the faculty to educate themselves. Mayer points out the aim of a university education is a very ultimate term. He said, The ultimate function of the university is utopian. It is to create a new society in which rationality will prevail. In which beauty will become a way of life. In which science will be used constructively. In which virture and knowledge will coincide, and in which creative ideas will make for human happiness (32:1). and 16 Universities reflect the advancement of mankind. As the civilization has become more complex, as national frontiers have become more obsolete, as science has conquered many parts of nature, universities have a more significant function than ever. To preserve mankind, univer— sities must not only mirrér the dominant current of society, but they must also be beacons of en- lightenment so that society can become more rational and humane (32:3). Mayhew (33) says that American higher education is concerned with the following functions or purposes. 1. Higher education has a screening function. It is a means by which people are screened and some are allowed to enter the higher prestige vo— cations and professions. 2. Higher education has a custodial function. It is a means by which peOple in certain age or class groups are kept somewhat occupied until they can be assimilated by the labor force or retirement. 3. Higher education has a depository function. It has come to be a depository in which the collective memory of the race is preserved for future generations. 4. Higher education is an agent for causing social change. 5. Higher education is a means by which people are helped to find meaning for their lives, or to develop a sense of personal identity. Perkins (40) discusses three aSpects of knowledge: acquisition, transmission, and application. These three aspects reflect in three missions of the university. The acquisition of knowledge is the mission of research, the transmission of knowledge is the mission of teaching, and the application of knowledge is the mission of public 17 service. Perkins believes that these three missions de- scribe the function of the modern university. Higher education in Soviet Russia is linked closely to the nation's needs. The law on higher education in the USSR (1961) defined the objectives of universities and other institutions of higher learning in seven points (27). 1. To train highly skilled specialists, dedicated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, well aware of most recent scientific and technological achievements at home and abroad as well as of the practical aspects of production capable of making the maximum use of modern technology and of inventing the technology of the future. 2. To carry out successfully research which will Contribute to solving the problems involved in the building of communism. 3. To produce textbooks and teaching material of high quality. 4. To train teachers and research workers. 5. To provide advanced training for specialists, graduates of higher education working in various branches of the national economy, the arts, education, and the health services. 6. To disseminate scientific and political knowledge among the population. 7. To study problems connected with the employment of graduates and with the improvement of their training. Thai educators View the aims of university education somewhat different from the westerners. The roles of Thai universities, as Ravi Bhavilai said, ". . . (to perform) their role as agents for development by the training of necessary manpower. . . (6:12)." In a more specific term 18 their role was to train people to be government officials. Bhavilai later suggested‘that the universities should be agents taking part in planning and development of the country. Kasem Sirisamphan thinks a university: . . . is the supreme source of technical knowledge and intellectual wealth of the nation. It is not an 'ivory t0wer' in which academicians can take refuge for their own search for knowledge, or simply to teach their students. It has another major role . . . that of providing technical services for society, in its role as an intellectual and technical leader of society (47:5). From reviewing the ideas of a university, there appear three major stages of development. The first stage is the idea of the university as a teaching-learning institution. The purpose of a university in this stage is to preserve and perpetuate theoretical knowledge. This idea of a university appeared up to the medieval period. In the nineteenth century, another dimension or stage of university appeared. The university in that period began to emphasize research beside the teaching- learning function. The third dimension appears in the later half of the twentieth century, and can be called service function. In addition to teaching and research, the university in the present period is turning to emphasize the providing of service to its society. 19 There could be‘another dimension, but it does not appear in the material reviewed. Perkins calls this dimension, "The Mission of Creating an Ideal Democratic Community." According to Perkins, the mission of this dimension: ". . . stems from the notion that the policies of the universities must conform to the social aspirations of its members and that its very style and organization must conform to the idea of a democratic society (44)". This mission, that Perkins claims to be important does not seem to the Writer to be a proper function of a university. The Review of Literature The Determinants of Quality of Higher Education When Froomkin (19) studied the quality of higher education in the United States, he found eleven variables which, he believes, determines the quality of higher educa- tion. His variables are: 1) expenditures per student; 2) tuition per student; 3) enrollment; 4) research staff; 5) faculty-student ratio; 6) proportion of faculty with doc— torates; 7) percent male; 8) percent teacher; 9) scholastic aptitude test scores; 10) percent to graduate school, and 11) number of doctorates. His findings appeared as: 1. Given a level of ability, a student who attends an institution with higher expenditures per student is more likely to go on to a Ph.D. than one who does not. 20 2. The continuation of a student to graduate school also depends upon his major and the type of institution he attends. 3. Student ability plays an important role in explaining the percentage of students going on to graduate school and Ph.D. production. 4. The ability factor is much more important, if coefficients are to be trusted, than expendi- tures per student. 5. If this finding is to be credited, recruit- ment of talented students is likely to pay off more than school subsidies. At the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) seminar in 1970, the Committee prOposed "An Accounting structure for the Outputs of Higher Educa- tion: One Proposal". In the proposal, the outputs consist of four parts: instructional outputs, institutional environ- ment outputs, research outputs, and public service outputs. Following are variables in each part. Instructional Outputs Cognitive Attributes of Students: Level of General Knowledge Level of Knowledge in Chosen Field Basic Language Arts Skills Critical Thinking and Reasoning General Intelligence Affective Attributes of Students: Self—concept Satisfaction with Educational Experience Citizenship Values Achievement Motivation 21 Tangible Attributes of Students: Earning Power Awards Affiliations Advocations G.P.A. Level of Educational Attainment Flexibility of Employment Areas of Career Interest Institutional Environment Outputs Academic Environment Attributes: Rate of Student success Mean Time to Reach Degree Faculty Turnover Faculty Availability to Student Academic Resources Available Quality of Instruction Academic Aptitude Mix Student Stress Faculty Stress Social Environment Attributes: Degree of Social Activity on Campus Racial Mix Socio-Economic Mix Family Attitude Characteristics Social Involvement of Student Body Percent Resident (on campus) Students Rate of Marriage Among Students Physical Environment Research Outputs Reorganization of Knowledge New Inventions and Developments New Ideas and Concepts Personal Involvement of Students and Others Public Service Outputs Student Involvement in Community Faculty Inv01Vement in Community Cultural Activities Available 22 Recreational'Activities Available Continuing Educational Activities Social Criticism Personal Services Indirect Community Benefit Community Psychic Income Product Testing It is important to notice that this proposal is only a draft. The Allocation of Resources Martin and Cheek (30), in 1960, studied the expendi- ture for state institutions of higher education, particular— ly in Kentucky. They compared the expenditure for higher education with four variables: general expenditure, personal income, state population, and degree-credit enrollee. Jamrich (26) studied the incomes and expenditures of the colleges and universities of New York State. He said: Four critical factors in any consideration of the adequacy of educational opportunity are 1) financial resources; 2) appropriateness of programs and curricular; 3) availability of qualified instructional staff for these programs, and; 4) the availability of physical facilities. Jamrich studied only the financial resources, one of the four factors. He divided institution income into five sources: student fees, endowment, public sources, private gifts, and sales and services and all others. The study was reported in 1960. The report showed that, in 1958-59, the public four-year institutions drew the largest amount 23 of their income from public sources (84%). Student fees came second, but accounted for only 13 percent. Sales and services and all others accounted for 3 percent. No income was realized from endowment and private gifts. The study also compared the 1958-59 income with the 1948-49 income. The percentages showed a variation in income resources. When income was analyzed in terms of expenditures, the largest amount of income was spent for instruction with $1,371 per student. Expenditure for plant operation and maintenance was $761, and administration was $536 per student. No expenditures were reported for research. Broomkin (19), in 1970, studied the diversity in the post-secondary system. In course offerings by disci— pline, he found that about 60 percent of all class hours were offered in the fields of social sciences, business, law, liberal arts, and humanities. About 17 percent were offered in the physical sciences including biological and health professions. Slightly more than 10 percent were offered in fine and applied arts, including architecture. By level of instruction, some 58 percent of all class hours were offered at the first two years of under- graduate level. An additional 5 percent were vocational courses at all levels. Upper-diversion undergraduate students received about 29 percent. Graduate and advanced professional work accounted for about 8 percent. 24 After expenditure was determined, Froomkin found the diversity of costs. Roughly 55 percent of all current expenditures are consumed in delivering the primary function of post-secondary institutions: instructional services. Expenditures per student are higher in private than in public institutions. Universities tend to spend more than four-year liberal arts and teachers' colleges. Educational expenditure, according to Froomkin, is defined as the sum of outlays on instruction and departmental research, libraries administration, and plant Operating costs. Methods Of Study There have been two groups trying to characterize and classify institutions of higher education in the United States. The first group was led by Pace, the second group was led by Astin. In 1958, Pace and Stern (38) first developed the College Characteristic Index. The test was composed of items which described college environments as a system of pressures, practices, and policies. These environments were believed to influence the development of students toward the attainment of important goals of higher education. The analysis Of the test revealed that the test could differentiate the press Of different college environments. 25 In 1959, Thistlethwaite (48) reported that he used the College Characteristic Index developed by Pace and Stern to identify student cultures and faculty character- istics which motivate students to seek doctoral degrees. The test was administered to 916 of the National Merit Scholars and Certificate of Merit Winners at 36 colleges. The findings showed that college faculty and student culture had significant influence of the college press in one field differed from those in other fields. Astin (l), in 1962, tried to identify the differences between colleges and universities. Instead of looking at college press as Pace and Stern did, he considered the main characteristics of institutions. The characteristics of institutions were institutional type, financial, student, faculty, and miscellaneous characteristics. The sample of his study was composed Of 335 institutions. The results Of his factor analysis indicated that there were six significatn dimensions Of college environments. The first dimension, Affluence, accounted for the largest amount Of variance. The highest loading variable on Affluence was Operating budget. The other dimensions were Size, Private (vs. Public), Masculinity (vs. Femininity), Realistic (Technical) Emphasis, and Homogeneity. 26 Richards, Jr; Randrand“Rand'(40;'41)"applied Astin's method to junior colleges in 1966 and to medical colleges in 1969. From the junior college study, they found six factors relating to college characteristics. These six factos were called Cultural Affluence, Technical Specifi- cations, Size, Student Age, Transfer EmphaSis, and Business Orientation. From the medical college study they found four factors: Affluence, Canadian vs. U.S. Admissions Practices, Size, and Emphasis on Hospital training. Astin (3), in 1965, also reported a study Of college and university characteristics in terms Of freshmen input and environmental factors. The freshmen input factors were characterized as Intellectualism, Estheticism, Status, Leadership, Fragmatism,and Masculinity. Environ- mental factors were identified as Estimated Selectivity, Size Of the Institution, and six Personal Orientations: Realistic, Scientific, Social, Conventional, Enterprising, and Artistic. The study found that student bodies entering various types of institutions vary greatly on some of those six input factors and eight institutional environmental factors. In 1970, Richards, Jr.; Seligman and Jones (42), tried to identify college environment by using faculty and curriculum as the factors. They followed Astin by using his six types of personal orientations as a classification of environments. By their method, they classified faculty 27 members and curriculum into the types of orientations and then transformed scores to standard scores.‘ The study showed that faculty and curriculum can be used to identify college environments, and they can be used to reveal the different emphases of colleges to subject matter areas. The literature show some factOrs relating to characteristics of college and university environments, and these factors can be used to identify the differences between colleges and universities. The main factors appearing in many studies are Affluence and Size. Affluence is identified as operating budget, and Size as size of student body. Another factor appearing accord- ing to type of college, is the emphasized field Of study. Faculty and curriculum are also dimensions of college characters. Usefulness of This Study Many ways have been discussed for judging colleges and universities. Some research has suggested classifica— tions of institutions by use of a characteristics scale. Other authorities have sought to relate income and expendi- ture data to institutional purpose and effectiveness. This study extends the research to characterize one nation's universities in terms of the emphasis given the fields of study. Four factors are examined. They furnish the basis for a series Of profiles, using the 28 factors of numbers cf facuity, number of students, number of credit*hours in course offerings, and operating budgets. The aim is to profile the individual university. the whole of higher‘education is Thailand, and the distri— bution of resources among nine study groupings or disci- plines. Chapter III THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction This research study was designed to analyze the data collected on four characteristics of Thai universities: number of the faculty members, number of credits the insti— tutions offer, number Of students, and operating budget. These four characteristics were used to identify the pro- files of Thai universities. There was no need for using questionnaires or tests to collect the data. All data were collected from various statistics sources and documents Of each university, and Of Thai government Offices. Population The population consists of the institutions in Thailand that have been recognized as universities by the Thai standard and that have graduated students in or before 1971. Within this limitation, there were eight institutions in the whole population. . Chiengmai University Chulalongkorn University Kasetsart University Khonkaen University Mahidol University Prince of Songkhla University Silpakorn University Thammasat University. mflmUI-waH O 29 30 Only one Thai university Was excluded from the population because it did not have students graduated in or before the year 1971. This institution is Ramkamhaeng University. The statistics of the four characteristics of the eight institutions in the population were collected both for the individual university and for each discipline grouping in the following categories: 1. Number of students enrolled in 1971. 2. Number of graduating students in 1971. 3. Number of faculty. 4. Number Of courses offered. 5. Operating budgets in baht. 6. Salaries in baht. '7. Other expenses in baht. Procedure Sources of Data The data were gathered from the following sources: 1. Educational Report, Institutions of Higher Education, Thailand: 1971. This report was issued by the Office of the National Educational Council, Office of the Prime Minister. The report contained the most recent statistics concerning students and faculty of the institu- tions of higher education in Thailand. The statistics of enrollment'and of graduating students are of the year 1971. 31 The statistics of enrollment from the report are categor- . ized by sex, level, fields of study, and institutions. This report-waS'also used as the source of data of faculty when the‘direct information could not be collected. 2. The institution's catalogs. The catalogs which at least set out curriculum, number Of courses and credits listed, were collected from the institutions and sometimes from the faculties within the institutions. The following are catalogs collected: Chiengmai University: Requirement for Degrees Study Programs Courses of Instruction, NO. 1505, October 1972. Chulalongkorn University: a) Faculty Of Commerce and Accountancy Curriculum for 1971 (reprinted 1972). b) Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University Announcement 1972-1973. c) Faculty Of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University Announcement 1971-1972. d) Faculty Of Education, Chulalongkorn University (unprinted material, no date available). e) Faculty of Social Sciences, Chulalongkorn Univer- sity, 1971 (unprinted material, no date available). f) Pharmacy Curriculum, Chulalongkorn University, (unprinted material, no date available). g) Faculty Of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, 1967 (unprinted material). h) Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University 1966. i) Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (unprinted material, no date available). 32 j) Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chulalongkorn University 1973-1974. k) Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University 1973. Kasetsart University: Bulletin of Kasetsart Univer- sity 1971. Khonkaen University: Bulletin for the Academic Year 1972-1974. Mahidol University: Mahidol University Announcement 1970-1971. Prince of Songkhla University: a) Education Curriculum, Prince Of Songkhla Univer- sity 1968. b) Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkhla University 1969. c) Faculty Of Sciences, Prince of Songkhla Univer- sity (unprinted material, no date available). Silpakorn University: a) Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University (unprinted material, no date available). b) Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University 1969 (unprinted material). c) Faculty of Fine Arts, Silpakorn University 1972 (unprinted material). d) Faculty Of Thai Architecture, Silpakorn University (Unprinted material, no date available). Thammasat University: Student Manual 1972, Thammasat University. 3. The Budget Information. The budgeting data were gathered from the "Budget for Fiscal Year 1972", Document Number 3, Volume 2, 1972 (Thai Education). This document has budgeting statistics Of every university in Thailand. The budgets were categorized by faculty of each institution 33 under ten types Of expenses: salaries, permanent wages, temporary wages, renumerations, ordinary expenses, materials and supplies, equipment, land and buildings, subsidies, and other expenses. 4. Faculty Information. The faculty statistics were collected from the institution catalogs except those where faculty lists are not included in the catalogs. The faculty statistics gathered are: Chiengmai University: a) Statistics 1972, Chiengmai University, October 1972. b) Faculty List, Chiengmai University, 1972 (unprinted material): Chulalongkorn University: a) b) C) d) e) f) Faculty List of Faculty of (unprinted material). Faculty List of Faculty of 1972 (unprinted material). Faculty List of Faculty of (unprinted material). Faculty List of Faculty Of (unprinted material). Faculty List of Faculty of (unprinted material). Faculty List of Faculty of 1972 (unprinted material). Arts,'l972 Communication Arts, Medicine, 1972 Education, 1972 Pharmacy, 1972 Social Sciences, Prince of Songkhla University: The Faculty List of Prince Of Songkhla University, 1972 (unprinted material). 34 Collecting of Data From the statistics and materials collected, the data needed were selected and classified into nine cate- gories of discipline groupings: Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Engineering, Education, Health Professions, Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. The enrollment data were drawn from Table l Of the book, "Educational Report, Institution of Higher Education, Thailand: 1971." Since not all the data in Table l are needed, selection was made in order to be within the bound- ary of the population. The data were selected department by department. The categorization Of the data was made by considering the description of that department, not by what faculty that department belongs to. The statistics Of the first year students at some institutions were not classified. In case of an overlap between departments within a faculty and discipline grouping, the first year data were manipulated before being classified into dis- cipline groupings. The enrollment data of any faCulty which did not have graduating students within and before 1971 were excluded (except for the new Faculty Of Engineer— ing at Chiengmai University). The graduating student data were gathered from Table 3 of the same book--Educational Report, Institution of Higher Education, Thailand: 1971. Table 3 reveals the 35 number of students graduating by department within an institution and by degree in the academic year 1971. The bachelors degree graduates are the only ones counted. The curriculum data, number of courses and number of credits within a discipline grouping, were counted from the collected catalogs or bulletins. One weakness found while this process was being done, was the different years of publication. The range Of publication is between 1966-1972. This difference was expected since many of the institutions did not have the catalogs printed every year. This study concentrated on current use rather than year of pUblication. When the data were tabulated into discipline groupings, the judgment was made on course detail not on course title. The number of courses and credits of the trimester system, when found, was changed to the semester system by multiplying by 2 and dividing by 3. This manipulation was made in very few occasions since every institution in the study had the semester system except one faculty at one university. When one course appeared in the course description in more than one department, only one was counted. When there were no credit hours indicated on any course, a number was assigned by comparing it to com- parable course which had the same class meeting hours per week. When there were no indications Of credit hours and 36 and class meeting hours at all, the credit hours were reassigned as the same as mode of credit hours of courses in that department. A course with no credit was counted zero credit. A course with varying credits was counted the median credits, for example, a l-5-credits-course was counted only 3. The faculty data were gathered from the lists of each single institution and Of each faculty. Only full- time teaching members were counted inclusively. Males and females were not separated. The budget data were collected by reclassifying the statistics reported in "budgeting Information". In the book, the statistics were presented in uniform terms, faculty by faculty. When a faculty member belonged to more than one dicipline, the budget was divided according to the ratio Of number Of credits in each discipline grouping. The budgets counted as Operating budgets are those in salaries, permanent wages, temporary wages, renumerations, ordinary expenses, materials and supplies, and equipment categories. 'For the purpose of comparison within budgeting information, two other kinds of budgets: salaries and other expenses were also collected. "Salaries" consists of the data that appeared in the salary category. "Other Expenses" consists of data from subsidies and other expenses categories. 37 Statistical'Procedures ' The processes employed in the study were the pro- cedures of changing the raw scores to T-scores and the process of finding correlation coefficients. The compu- tations were done on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University's Computer Center. The nine discipline groupings were the units Of clasSification of each characteristic. The process of computation was as follows: 1. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation were computed. Mean was the sum of scores across the nine discipline groupings divided by the number of discipline groupings. The standard deviation was computed by the formula: s = />:(xi —, $02 N when S = standard deviation, xi = scores in the character- istics, E = mean score, and N = number of discipline groupings with scores greater than zero. 2. The scores within each characteristics then were changed to Z-scores by the formula: Z. = x. - 1 1 - X S when Zi = Z-score i. 38 3. The Z-scores within each characteristic were trans- formed to T-scores by the formula: T. lOZ. + 50 J. 1 when Ti = T-score i, Zi = Z-score i. The transformed T- scores have the mean of 50 and the standard deviation of 10. The T-scores makes the comparison of data possible. 4. Finally, the inter-correlation coefficients among characteristics within an institution, and within the entire Thai higher education system were computed by the formula: r = in °Zyi N when r = correlation coefficient, Zy = Z-score i of set x, i ZX = Z-score i of set y, N = number Of discipline groupings i the Z-scores presented. Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The data that had been collected as reported in Chapter III were assembled in raw form in several series of tables set out in the Appendix. The figures that repre— sent the four resource-use categories are tabulated for each discipline in each university. Summary tables have been accumulated in various combinations to show relation- ships among disciplines in a single university, among the universities in each discipline, and among the four resource-use factors. These tables, and the refined data that are derived from them, are the material from which answers are found to the three principal questions posed in Chapter I. 1. In the eight universities taken as a whole, what are the differences in the amount Of resources Offaculty, course offerings, students, and Operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 2. In each of the eight Thai univerSities, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, 39 40 course offerings, students, and operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 3. Comparing each university with each other university and with the eight taken as a whole, what are the differ— ences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and Operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? Profile of Thai Higher Education The raw data are gathered in one summary for all of Thai higher education that are presented in Table l. The numbers of faculty, of course Offerings, Of students, and of thousands Of baht in Operating budgets are listed for each Of the nine discipline groupings in all of the universities. The computations of raw scores indicated a mean and standard deviation Of faculty members Of 487 and 341 respectively. These figures showed that there were great variation among the discipline groupings when measured by the number of faculty. Business and Management had the smallest number of faculty while Health Professions had the most. The range was between 177 and 1234. Sciences and Mathematics had the second highest number Of faculty. The rest did not differ greatly. The mean Of the number of credits Offered was 2119 41 and the standard deviation was 1292. The figures also indicated great variation among discipline groupings. Un- like the situation with faculty members, Sciences and Mathematics Offered the largest number of credits and Education Offered the least. The range was between 730- 5137. 42 5 momcmaxm msepmnmmo pow wmuommsm mpflmm mo mWCMmSOQB mo HmQESZ u mpmvasm IT bmaaomcm mucowspm mo HGQEDZ H mpcmosum mpflbouu mmmuou mo mEHoB GH Umummmo mommmoo mo Hmnfisz u mmmwnoo mMQQEmE wbmnoom mElefiasm mo Hmflasz n wwaoomm mmmvmv mmmwm mvmmn «mmma ooowma mmhom mawvm oaoaa momma mommm mommcsm omawm mnovfi nmmm omma mmww mvmm Hmom mmwm omam ommm mpcmbspm vsoma mmwm hmam moma omam mmma omm mmn wmwa mmma mmmnsoo msmv mow mmm mam Hmma mom sum spa omm mmm anemone amuOB .om.oom om mama swam cm Doom mom mpnd mom mOHumH Ihmgomnmso .Hhma CH coagm05©m ngmflm Hana cw mmcflmsonw mafiamflomfla an mommosm UQflHMHmmO mam smucmcspm .mmcwummmo mmusoo .muasomh mo coausnfiuumflo m£BII.H mamme 43 For the number of students in each discipline groupings, the mean was‘4;132with a standard deviation of 3612. The size of the standard deviation was effected mainly from Social Sciences which had.I4,073students while the rest enrolled between.I.536and.4,l32o The mean of the operating budgets was 46,688 thousand baht and the standard deviation was 52,933 thousands. The Health Professions deviated from the other groups the most. Its score was 188,000 thousands baht. The lowest score was in Business and Management with 11,610 thousands. Outside the Health Professions, there were no considerable variations among discipline groupings. Among the four characteristics, Health Professions led the score in numbers of faculty and operating budgets. The Sciences and Mathematics led in the number of course offerings. Social Sciences led in the number of students. The least were Business and Management in number of faculty and operating budgets; Education in number of course offerings; and Languages and Literature in number of students. The T-Scores of Thai Higher Education The raw data were converted first to Z—scores and then to T-scores to make the comparisons more meaningful by reducing the figures to the same scale-—that is, all have the same mean and the same standard deviation. 44 In Table 2 are set out the same data as in Table 1, but converted to T—scores. TABLE 2.--T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc* Faculty 45 42 41 47 45 72 45 64 49 Courses 46 46 40 39 46 58 48 73 54 Students 46 44 49 47 45 51 43 48 78 Budgets 46 45 43 46 48 77 44 55 46 Average 46 44 43 45 46 65 45 60 57 *Agr = Agriculture Arts = Arts Bus = Business and Management Educ = Education En = Engineering Hlth = Health Professions Lang = Languages and Literature Sc = Sciences and Mathematics Soc.Sc = Social Sciences The T-Scores Across Discipline Groupings.--When the T-scores across the nine discipline groupings were examined, the figures showed significant findings. The T-scores of faculty members were dominated by the Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics group- 'ings. The Health Professions were two standard deviations above the mean (50) at 72. Sciences and Mathematics 45 T-scores were 64, 1.4 standard deviation above the mean. The rest were lower than the mean. The lowest T-score was 41, one standard deviation below the mean. Social Sciences T-score was about the average. The discipline groupings, when rearranged by the order of T-scores of faculty numbers appeared as follows: TABLE 3.--The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty Numbers of Thai Higher Education. Bus Arts Lang En Agr Educ Soc.Sc Sc Hlth T-Scores 41 42 45 45 45 47 49 64 72 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T-scores of courses offered differed from those of faculty characteristics. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was the highest at 73, 2.3 standard deviation above the mean. The Health Professions T-score was almost one standard deviation above the mean. Education had the lowest T-score (39). The order of discipline groupings in terms of T- scores are as follows: 46 TABLE 4.--The Ranked T—Scores of Course Offerings of Thai Higher Education. Educ Bus En Agr Arts Lang Soc.Sc Hlth Sc T-Scores 39 40 46 46 46 48 54 58 73 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The students T-scores differed from the two others set out above. The T—score of Social Sciences was the highest at 78, 2.8 standard deviations above the mean. Except for Health Professions, all the other discipline groupings had T—scores lower than the mean, and did not differ much among each others. The order of discipline groupings and their T-scores are in Table 5. TABLE 5.--The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Thai Higher Education. Lang Arts En Agr Educ Sc Bus Hlth Soc.Sc T-Scores 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 78 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T-scores, when the operating budget data were used, distributed very closely except for Health Professions whiCh was far apart from the rest. The Health Professions T-scores was 77, 2.7 standard deviation above the mean. 47 Sciences and Mathematics were second at 55, 2.2 standard deviations below Health Professions. The others were not much different from each other. The discipline groupings ranked by the order of T-scores are in Table 6. TABLE 6.--The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Thai Higher Education, Bus Lang Arts Educ Agr Soc.Sc En Sc Hlth T-Scores 43 44 45 46 46 46 48 55 77 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 When the averages of T-scores for the four charac— teristics were made within each discipline grouping, Health Professions still led with the T-score of 65. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was 60, and 57 for Social Sciences. These three discipling groupings were above the average T-score. Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, and Languages and Literature T— scoreswere lower than the average, and did not differ from each other much. The T-scores of the lower groups were between 43-46. The ranked T-scores of the discipline groupings are presented in Table 7. 48 TABLE 7.--The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Thai Higher Education. Bus Arts Educ Lang En Agr Soc.Sc Sc Hlth T-Scores 43 44 44 45 46 46 57 60 65 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The profiles of Thai Higher Education presented in graphic form in terms of T-scores across discipline group- ings are set out in separate charts in the Appendix. The T—Scores Within Discipline Groupings.-—The Te Scores revealed clear pictures of differences between the four characteristics within a discipline grouping. The Agriculture groupings had very uniform T- scores across the four characteristics (45, 46, 46, 46). The Arts groupings had a little variation across the four characteristics (42, 46, 44, 45) with its lowest T—score (42) in number of faculty members. The Business and Management T—scores were almost uniform (41, 40, 49, 43) except the students T-score was comparatively high with 49, although still slightly below the mean. 49 The Education T-scores were uniform between faculty, students, and operating budgets characteristics with scores of 47, 47, and 46 respectively. Its course offerings T- score was the lowest single T-score in the table, at 39. The Engineering T-scores were almost equal in three characteristics at 45-46. The T-score for Operating budget deviated from the group, to 48. The Health Professions T-scores varied from 51 to 77. The faculty, course offerings, students, and operating budgets had T-scores of 72, 58, 51, and 77 respectively. Its students T-score was the lowest, yet it was above the mean. The Languages and Literature T-scores were 48, 48, 43, and 44 within the four characteristics. Its only comparatively high T-score was in the course characteristic, where it was 2 below the mean. The Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were varied. The highest T-score was 73 in course offerings and the lowest T-score was 48 in student numbers. The four T4 scores were 64, 73, 48, and 55. The Social Sciences T-scores showed variation among the different characteristics. Its T-scores were 49, 54, 78, and 46 with the highest at student and the lowest at operating budget characteristics. 50 Agriculture, Arts, Engineering,and Languages and Literature showed the least variation among the T-scores across the four characteristics. The highest range among these three discipline groupings was 4. Business and Management, and Education showed the medium variation of T-scores across the four character- istics. Their range was 9 and 8 respectively. Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences showed the most variation of T—scores of the four characteristics. The ranges were 26 in Health Professions, 25 in Sciences and Mathematics, and 29 in Social Sciences. The profiles of distribution of the four character- istics among the nine discipline groupings in all Thai higher education in graphic form are found in the Appendix. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics Across Discipline Groupings.--The Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used in others to find the relationships between characteristics. The correlation are presented in Table 8. 51 TABLE 8.--Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Thai Higher Education. Courses Students Budgets Faculty .78 .14 .93 Courses .21 .54 Students .03 The correlation coefficients showed very low relationships between students and the other characteris— tics: faculty, course offerings, and Operating budgets; the indices were .14, .21, and .03 respectively. The faculty characteristic was highly related with course offerings and operating budgets, with the indices of .78, and .93 respectively. The index of correlation between course offerings and Operating budgets was moderate (.54). Some Factors Within the Characteristics l. Graduating Students.-—The number of graduating students related closely with the number of students enrolled, which was the number used as student character- istic. The correlation coefficient index between them was .93. When graduating students were put into a profile of Thai higher eudcation and this profile was compared with the profile based on student characteristic, the two pro— files were very similar in shape (see profiles of total 52 enrollment and graduating students in Appendix). The only two major points of difference between these two profiles were at the Business and Management, and Health Professions. The T-score for numbers of graduating students in these discipline groups were higher than those for the enrolled students. The T-scores of other discipline groupings stayed close together. The comparison of the T-scores based on graduating students and the student characteristic is shown in Table 9. TABLE 9.——The Student Enrollment T-Scores and Graduating Students T-Scores of Thai Higher Education. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Enroll- ment 46 44 49 47 45 51 43 48 78 Graduat- ing 45 44 55 45 43 58 41 44 74 When the graduating students were used as a substitute for the student characteristic, the relationships between graduating students and faculty numbers, course offerings, and operating budgets were somewhat changed but not signi- ficantly. The correlation coefficients between graduating students and other characteristics were still low as were the indices of the student characteristic and others. The substitution of graduating students for the student charac- teriStic, generally did not improve the predictions of other characteristics. 53 The correlation ceofficient indices are presented in Table 10. TABLE lO.--The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between Enrollment Students and Graduating Students and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education. Factors Faculty Courses Budgets Enrollment .15 .21 .03 Graduating .23 .12 .22 2. Number of Courses.—-Number of courses was analyzed along with number of credits. It appeared that these two factors were highly related. The correlation index between them was .99; an almost perfect correlation. The number of courses T—scores and the number of credits T—scores were almost identical, which can seen in Table 11. TABLE ll.--The Number Of Courses and Number of Credits T-Scores of Thai Higher Education. Factors* Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Courses 46 48 38 39 44 57 49 72 56 Credits 46 46 4O 39 46 58 48 73 54 *Courses = Number of Courses Credits = Number of Credits 54 The graphs of the number of courses T—scores and numberzof credits T-scores included in the Appendix clearly demonstrate the close relationship between these two factors. When number of scourses was used as a curriculum characteristic instead of number of credits, the relation— ships between curriculum and the other characteristics were not improved. The correlation indices, as shown in Table 12, were somewhat lower than those of number of credits as a curriculum characteristics. TABLE 12.--The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between the Number of Courses and Number of Credits, and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education. Students Graduating Factors Enrolled Students Faculty Budgets Courses .25 .12 .75 .51 Credits .21 .22 .77 .54 3. Salary and Other Expenses.——Sa1ary factor is one part of the total Operating budget, while other expenses factor is the budgets in subsidies and other expenses categories. Both salary and other expenses related well with Operating Budget. The correlation coefficient indices are shown in Table 13. The correlation coefficient indices between the three characteristics were as high as .995 for 55 Operating budgets and salary. The lowest coefficient index was .977 between salary and other expenses. TABLE 13.--The Correlation Coefficient Indices Between Salary, Operating Budgets, and Other Expenses of Thai Higher Education. Operating Other Factors Budgets Expenses Salary .995 .977 Operating Budgets .993 The T-scores of these three factors are shown in Table 14. Their graphs based on the T-scores (which can be seen in the Appendix) were very much similar in shape. The only slight differences were the T-scores in Engineering w which had a range of 5 T-scores, and in Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences which had ranges of 2 and 4 T-scores. TABLE 14.-—The T—Scores of Salary, Operating Budgets, and Other Expenses of Thai Higher Education. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Salary 46 45 43 46 46 77 44 54 48 Opt.Bud.* 46 45 43 46 48 77 44 55 46 Other Ex.** 47 44 43 45 51 76 44 56 44 56 *Opt. Bud. = Operating Budgets **Other Ex. = Other Expenses When salary and other expenses were correlated with faculty, course offerings, and students, the indices were close to those when correlated to operating budgets. The indices are shown in Table 15. TABLE 15.--Correlation Coefficients Between Salary and Other Expenses, and the Other Characteristics of Thai Higher Education. Students Students Budgets Faculty Enrolled Graduating Courses Credits Salary .91 .08 .28 .50 .52 Opt.Bud. .93 .03 .22 .51 .53 Oth.Ex. .92 -.04 .15 .52 .55 Profiles of Individual Thai Universities So far the data have been grouped as though all the eight universities studied were really one. That method of summarizing gave data for Thai higher education taken as a whole. In this section each university is looked at in turn. Chiengmai University Chiengmai was the only university in Thailand which had a prOgram leading to at least a bachelor's degree in 57 every discipline grouping at the time of this study. Its engineering program, however, was recently developed and there were no graduating students at Chiengmai in this discipline grouping. The raw data of Chiengmai University were manipu- lated as presented in Table 16 (the Z-scores are to be found in the Appendix). TABLE l6.—-The T—Scores of Chiengmai University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty 47 44 43 46 42 76 46 57 49 Courses 52 46 41 43 36 54 48 71 60 Students 40 40 54 58 32 59 48 54 64 Budgets 47 45 44 46 48 78 45 52 46 Average 47 44 46 48 40 67 47 59 55 The T—Scores Across Discipline Groupings.—-The T- scores of Chiengmai University on faculty numbers showed a low profile in the Engineering and in the Business and Management groupings, and high in the Health Professions. The lowest T—score was 42 and the highest was 76. The T— Score range was 34 or 3.4 standard deviations. This wide range was affected by the high T—score of Health Profes- sions which was 2.6 standard deviations above the mean 58 T—score. Sciences and Mathematics grouping was the only other group in which T-scores were above the mean. T- scores for the seven other discipline groupings were below the mean, ranging from 42 to 49. The ranked T-scores of faculty numbers are shown in Table 17. TABLE l7.--The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty Numbers of Chiengmai University. En Bus Arts Lang Educ Agr Soc.Sc Sc Hlth T-Scores 42 43 44 46 46 47 49 57 76 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T—scores on courses differed from the set of T—scores on faculty. The Engineering grouping was still low and fell further behind the rest of the group at 36. Unlike faculty T-scores, four courses T-scores: Sciences and Mathematics, Social Sciences, Health Professions, and Agriculture, were above the mean. Engineering, Business and Management, Education, Arts, and Languages and Litera— ture T-scores were below the mean. The range of T—scores was 35. The ranked T-scores of courses are shown in Table 18. 59 TABLE 18.--The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Chiengmai University. En Bus Educ Arts Lang Agr Hlth Soc.Sc Sc T.-Scores 36 41 43 46 48 52 54 60 71 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The students T-scores across discipline groupings were well over the mean in Business and Management, Educa- tion, Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences; and far below the mean in Agriculture, Arts, Engineering, and Languages and Literature. Engineer- ing was still the lowest in the T-score profile at 32, while Social Sciences was the highest at 64. The ranked discipline grouping according to their T-scores are shown in Table 19. TABLE l9.--The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Chiengmai University. En Arts Agr Lang Bus Sc Educ Hlth Soc.Sc T-Scores 32 4O 4O 48 54 54 58 59 64 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The Operating budgets T-scores differed in the over— all picture from the other characteristics T-Scores. Health 6O Professions was the highest group and deviated away from the rest at 78. The other eight discipline groupings clustered together in a range of 44 to 52. Seven groups: Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, and Languages and Literature had scores within the 44 to 48 range. The lowest was Business and Management which had the T-score of 44. The ranking of discipline groupings are presented in Table 20. TABLE 20.--The Ranked T—Scores of Operating Budgets of Chiengmai University. Bus Arts Lang Educ Soc.Sc Agr En Sc Hlth T-Scores 44 45 45 46 46 47 48 52 78 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The averaged T—scores are revealed in the overall profile of Chiengmai University in the Appendix. It appeared that the highest score was in Health Professions which was influenced by very high scores in faculty and operating budgets. Sciences and Mathematics were the second highest at 59. Social Sciences with high scores in courses and students, had a score of 55. Engineering was the lowest in overall profile, scored at 40. Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, and Languages and 61 Literature had scores within the 44 to 48 range. The ranking T-scores of the average are presented in Table 21. TABLE 21.——The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Chiengmai University. En Arts Bus Agr Lang Educ Soc.Sc Sc Hlth T-Scores 40 44 46 47 47 48 55 59 67 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T-Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.-- When T-scores of the four characteristics within disci— pline groupings were compared, the findings were as follows: Agriculture was high on courses (52), low on students (40). Arts was about the same on every characteristic, but low on students. Business and Management was high on students (54), low on courses (41). Education was high on students (58), low on courses (43). Engineering was high on operating budgets (48), low on students (32). Health Professions were high on Operating budgets (78) and faculty (75), low on courses (54). 62 Languages and Literature were about the same in every characteristic. Sciences and Mathematics was high on courses (71), low on operating budgets (52). Social Sciences was high on students (64), low on operating budgets (46). The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The correlation coefficient indices, based on Pearson Product Moment method, among the four characteristics: faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets are presented in Table 22. TABLE 22.--The Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Chiengmai University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .51 .47 .96 Courses .49 .26 Students .31 Faculty highly related with operating budgets, but related considerably lower with courses and students. The coefficient indices of courses and students with any characteristics were generally low. 63 The correlation coefficient indices showed that faculty and operating budgets might be used as predictors of one another. Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn did not have a program leading to a degree in the Agriculture grouping area. However, there was one two—credit—course which can be categorized in the agriculture group. T-scores of Chulalongkorn University are presented in Table 23. TABLE 23.--The T-Scores of Chulalongkorn University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty 35 42 44 58 49 67 48 64 45 Courses 38 49 46 39 57 50 49 74 48 Students 28 47 57 59 60 43 43 59 53 Budgets 38 47 44 49 51 68 43 67 44 Average 35 46 48 51 54 57 46 66 48 The Chulalongkorn faculty T-scores were highest in the Health Professions at 67. Sciences and Mathematics came close at 64. The other discipline group placed over the mean was Education at 58. The very slight attention to the field of Agriculture led to the lowest T—score for faculty in that discipline group. Arts had the next 64 lowest T-score at 42. When discipline groupings were ranked according to their T-scores, the result appeared as in Table 24. TABLE 24.--The Ranked T—Scores of Faculty of Chulalongkorn University. Arts Bus Soc.Sc Lang En Educ Sc Hlth T.-Scores 42 44 45 48 49 58 64 67 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The courses T-scores of Chulalongkorn were high in the Sciences and Mathematics at 74. Engineering was also high (57) but far below Sciences and Mathematics. Because only one course was assigned to Agriculture, its T—score was only 38- the lowest. Education was also low at 39. The rest of the discipline groupings did not differ much. The ranking of the discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 25. TABLE 25.-—The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Chulalongkorn University. Agr Educ Bus Soc.Sc Lang Arts Hlth En SO T-Scores 38 39 46 48 49 49 50 57 74 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 65 The students T-scores showed different figures from faculty and courses T-scores. Except for the Agri- culture grouping, the T-scores stayed comparatively close together. Health Professions and Languages and Literature were low at 43. There were five groups above the means. Engineering's T—score was the highest at 60, but this is only one T-score above Education, and Sciences and Math— ematics. When discipline groupings were ranked according to their T-scores, the result appeared as in Table 26. TABLE 26.--The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Chulalongkorn University. Hlth Lang Arts Soc.Sc Bus Sc Educ En T-Scores 43 43 47 53 57 59 59 60 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The Operating budgets T-scores were high in the Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics at 68 and 67 respectively. The Engineering and Education T-scores were about the mean. Besides the Agriculture grouping for which there was no data on this characteristic, Lang- uages and Literature T-score was the lowest at 43. Social Sciences, and Business and Management T-scores were close at 44. When the discipline groupings were ranked according to their T-scores, they appeared as in Table 27. 66 TABLE 27.--The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Chulalongkorn University. Lang Bus Soc.Sc Arts Educ En Sc Hlth T-Scores 43 44 44 47 49 51 67 68 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The averaged T—scores of all four characteristics was high in the Sciences and Mathematics at 66. Health Professions was also high but 9 points lower than Sciences and Mathematics. Education and Engineering were the other two groups which T-scores higher than mean score. Arts, and Languages and Literature were the lowest groups besides Agriculture. When the discipline groupings were ranked according to their T-scores, they appeared as in Table 28. TABLE 28.-~The Ranked T—Scores of the Average of Chulalong- korn University. Agr Lang Arts Soc.Sc Bus Educ En Hlth Sc T-Scores 35 46 46 48 48 51 54 57 66 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l When all the T-scores within each discipline group- ing were considered, they revealed: 67 Arts T-scores were low in faculty, but the other characteristics were nearly equal, just below the mean. Business and Management T—scores were high in students, while in the other characteristics they were four to six points below the mean. Education T-scores were high in faculty and students, low in courses and about average in operating budgets. Engineering T-scores were high in students, low in faculty. Health Professions T-scores were low in students, high in faculty and operating budgets. Languages and Literature were high in courses and faculty, low in students and Operating budgets. Sciences and Mathematics T—scores were high in courses, low in students. Social Sciences were high in students, low in Operating budgets and faculty. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The coefficients of correlation between the combination of faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets are presented in Table 29. 68 TABLE 29.——The Correlation Coefficients Between the Four Characteristics of Chulongkorn University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .52 .42 .92 Courses .45 .67 Students .32 Number of faculty highly related with Operating budgets but moderately related with courses and was low in relationship with students. Courses showed low relationship with students, but was moderately related with Operating budgets. Students showed low relationships with every characteristic. The only high relationship was between faculty and Operating budgets. Faculty might be valuable to be used as a predictor of operating budgets. Kasetsart University Just like the Agriculture data at Chulalongkorn University, the Kasetsart data on Arts grouping were found only in the courses characteristic. When T-scores of each characteristic were calculated from the data, they appeared as in Table 30. 69 TABLE 30.--The T-Scores of Kasetsart University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty 72 38 42 46 46 45 45 54 62 Courses 70 42 43 44 49 42 42 65 53 Students 77 42 48 46 48 45 45 51 48 Budgets 75 40 42 46 46 47 48 58 48 Average 74 41 44 46 47 45 45 57 53 The T-Scores Across Discipline Groupings.--The T-scores of faculty across discipline groupings showed high scores in Agriculture at 72, Social Sciences at 62, and Sciences and Mathematics at 54. Business and Management was the lowest score among the disciplines for ‘which data existed. Education, Engineering, Health Pro- fessions, and Languages and Literature T—scores were very close to each other at 45—46. The ranking of discipline groupings according to their T-scores were as in Table 31. TABLE 31.——The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Kasetsart University. Bus Lang Hlth Educ En Sc Soc.Sc Agr T-Scores 42 45 45 46 46 54 62 72 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 70 The T-scores of courses across discipline groupings appeared high in Agriculture at 70. Sciences and Mathe- matics at 65, and Social Sciences at 53. Engineering T- score was at about the mean. In the low T—score groups were Arts, Health Professions, and Languages and Literature at 42. The ranking of discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 32. TABLE 32.—~The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Kasetsart University. Arts Hlth Lang Educ Bus En Soc.Sc Sc Agr T—Scores 42 42 42 43 44 49 53 65 70 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T—scores of students across discipline groupings were high at 77 in Agriculture: 2.7 standard deviations above the mean. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were about at the mean. In the other discipline groupings, except Arts, the scores were not much different. Health Professions, and Languages and Literature were low at 45. The discipline groupings, when ranked according to T—scores, appeared as in Table 33. 71 TABLE 33.-~The Ranked T—scores of Students of Kasetsart University. Hlth Lang Educ Bus En Soc.Sc Sc Agr T-Scores 45 45 46 48 48 48 51 77 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T-scores of operating budgets were also highest in Agriculture at 75. Sciences and Mathematics was the only other group in which the T-score was above the mean at 58. There were no data in Arts. Business and Manage- ment T-score was the lowest at 42. The scores in Education, Engineering, Health Professions, Languages and Literature, and Social Sciences were in a cluster between 46 and 48. The ranking discipline groupings according to their T- scores appeared as in Table 34. TABLE 34.——The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Kasetsart University. Bus Educ En Hlth Soc.Sc Lang Sc Agr T-Scores 42 46 46 47 48 48 58 75 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The averaged T-scores of all characteristics still revealed the highest in the Agriculture group at 76. 72 Sciences and Mathematics which generally had high scores on every characteristic were also high but 17 points lower than the Agriculture T-score. The Arts T-score was ob— viously low. Except Arts, Business and Management averaged T-score was the lowest at 44. Health Professions, and Languages and Literature scores were low at 45. The ranking of discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 35. TABLE 35.-—The Ranked T—Scores of the Average of Kasetsart University. Arts Bus Hlth Lang Educ En Soc.Sc Sc Agr T-Scores 41 44 45 45 46 47 53 57 74 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T—Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.-- When the T—scores within each discipline groupings were compared, they appeared as follows: Agriculture T—scores were high on students, low on courses. All Agriculture T-scores were the highest when compared with other groups. Arts T-scores were meaningless to be compared. Business and Management T—scores were high on students, low on other characteristics. 73 Education T-scores were close on every character- istic. Engineering T-scores were relatively close, but high on courses. Health Professions T-scores were high on operating budgets, low on courses. Languages and Literature T-scores were high on operating budgets, low on courses. Sciences and Mathematics T—scores were high on courses, low on students. Social Sciences T—scores were high on faculty, low on students and operating budgets. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The coefficients of correlation between faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets are presented in Table 36. TABLE 36.-—The Coefficients of Correlation Between Four Characteristics of Kasetsart University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .86 .84 .87 Courses .82 .90 Students .95 74 The correlations at Kasetsart were generally high. Courses were highly related with the other charac- teristics. Students were highly related with Operating budgets, and related moderately high with others. Operating budgets were related with all other characteristics higher than did any of the remaining com- binations. Operating budgets were the best predictor of the other characteristics. Khonkaen University At the time this study was made, Khonkaen University had programs leading to degrees in Agriculture, Education, and Engineering. Sciences and Mathematics, and Languages and Literature (English) were offered for the completion of those degrees. But some courses could be classified into Arts, Health Professions, and Social Sciences group- ings. Because of this set up, student data were found only in Agriculture, Education, and Engineering, and the faculty and Operating budgets data were found in Agriculture, Education, Engineering, Languages and Literature, and Sciences and Mathematics. Courses data were presented in every discipline grouping, except Business and Management. The T—scores of every Characteristic, in order to make them 75 comparable, were calculated across eight discipline group— ings omitting Business and Management. The T-scores represented in Khonkaen University are in Table 37. TABLE 37.-~The T-Scores of Khonkaen University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty 60 39 - 56 65 39 47 56 39 Courses 71 41 - 47 57 40 45 55 43 Students 63 43 - 55 69 43 43 43 43 Budgets 59 40 - 51 68 40 43 58 40 Average 63 41 - 52 65 41 45 53 41 The faculty T—scores across discipline groupings showed that Engineering had the most faculty: 65 in terms of T-score. The Agriculture T—score was 60, Education and Sciences and Mathematics T—scores were tied at 56, and Languages and Literature T-score was the lowest among the disciplines which the data presented, at 47. Only Lang- uages and Literature were below the mean because many discipline groupings had zero data. The ranked discipline groupings among those where the data were presented are shown in Table 38. 76 TABLE 38.--The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Khonkaen University. Lang Educ Sc Agr En T-Scores 47 56 56 60 65 Ranks 5 4 3 2 1 The courses T—scores across discipline groupings were high in the Agriculture at 71. Engineering and Sciences and Mathematics were next at 57 and 55 respec- tively. The courses T-scores in Health Professions was the lowest at 40 (only one two-credit-course was presented). Arts T—score was also low at 41. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T—scores are presented in Table 39. TABLE 39.-—The Ranked T—Scores of Courses of Khonkaen University. Hlth Arts Soc.Sc Lang Educ Sc En Agr T-Scores 4O 41 43 45 47 55 57 71 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The students T-scores across discipline groupings were meaningful only in Agriculture, Education, and Engine- ering. Among these three discipline groupings, Engineering 77 showed the highest T-score at 65, Agriculture was second at 63, and Education was the last at 55. The ranking of the three discipline groupings are presented in Table 40. TABLE 40.-—The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Khonkaen University. Educ Agr En T-Scores 55 63 65 Ranks 3 2 l The Operating budgets, like the faculty T-scores, had data in five discipline groupings. Among these five groups, Engineering T-score was the highest at 68. Agriculture and Sciences and Mathematics were close to- gether at 59 and 58, respectively. The Languages and Literature T-score was low at 43. When the discipline groupings were ranked according to their T-scores, they appeared as presented in Table 41. TABLE 41.-—The Ranked T—Scores of Operating Budgets of Khonkaen University. Lang Educ Sc Agr En T-Scores 43 51 58 59 68 Ranks 5 4 3 2 l 78 The averaged T-scores of all characteristics across eight discipline groupings revealed the highest T-score in Engineering at 65 with Agriculture close at 63. Arts, Health Professions and Social Sciences T-scores were equal at 41. These three groups had only course data. The ranking of discipline groupings based on averaged T—scores are presented in Table 42. TABLE 42.——The Ranked T-Scores of The Average of Khonkaen University. Arts Hlth Soc.Sc Lang Educ Sc Agr En T-Scores 41 41 41 45 52 53 63 65 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T—Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.-— Agriculture T—scores were high in courses, low in the other characteristics. Education T-scores were high in students, low in courses. Engineering T-scores were low in courses, high in the other characteristics. Languages and Literature T—scores were high in faculty, low in operating budgets. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores did not vary much except for the students T-score which is not meaningful. 79 The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. —-The Coefficients of correlation between faculty, courses, students, and Operating budgets are presented in Table 43. TABLE 43.--The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Khonkaen University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .88 .83 .96 Courses .78 .91 Students .83 The indices were generally high for any combination. These high correlations might have been effected by lack of data in many discipline groupings. Except for course offerings, the data were presented for only five discipline groupings: Agriculture, Education, Engineering, Languages and Literature, and Sciences and Mathematics. The inter— pretation of the above indices is less meaningful. Mahidol University At Mahidol University, there were only three groups of programs leading to a degree: Health Professions, Scien- ces and Mathematics, and Education. The courses which were classified in Education groupings were in Health Education, and many of the courses in the Sciences and 80 Mathematics were offered as part of the Health Professions programs. Although Education and Sciences and Mathematics programs were presented in the study, they were associated tightly with Health Professions. However, the transforma- tion of data to T-scores had to be done across all disci— pline groupings except Agriculture because of the occurence of data on course offerings characteristics in other categories. The transformed T-scores of the data at Mahidol University are presented in Table 44. TABLE 44.--The T-Scores of Mahidol University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty - 44 44 45 45 73 45 60 44 Courses - 44 44 45 44 73 45 60 45 Students - 46 46 46 46 76 46 47 46 Budgets - 46 46 46 46 76 46 50 46 Average - 45 45 46 45 75 46 54 45 The T—scores of faculty across the disciplines the data presented: Education, Engineering, Health Professions, Languages and Literature, and Sciences and Mathematics, showed a very high score in Health Professions. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was next at 60. Education, Engine- ering, and Languages and Literature accounted for very 81 little with T-scores of 45 each. The ranked discipline groupings where the data were presented are shown in Table 45. TABLE 45.—-The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Mahidol University. Educ En Lang Sc Hlth T-Scores 45 45 45 60 73 Ranks 5 4 3 2 l On courses, the T-scores were very much the same distribution as on faculty. Health Professions T—score was still high at the same level, at 73. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was also 60. Arts, Business and Management, and Engineering scores 44, and Education, Social Sciences, and Languages and Literature scored 45 each. The ranking discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 46. TABLE 46.-—The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Mahidol University. Arts Bus En Educ Lang Soc.Sc Sc Hlth T-Scores 44 44 44 45 45 45 60 73 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 82 The students T-scores for which the data appeared in only Education, Health Professions and Sciences and Mathematics, also showed high T-scores on Health Pro— fessions. Sciences and Mathematics, and Education T—scores were equal at 47, 2.9 standard deviations away from Health Professions. The ranked T-scores of these three disci- pline groupings are presented in Table 47. TABLE 47.-—The Ranked T-Scores of Students of Mahidol University. Educ Sc Hlth T-Scores 47 47 76 Ranks 3 2 l The operating budgets data also appeared on only Education, Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics. The T-scores of these three groups showed a very high T- score on Health Professions at 76, the Sciences and Mathe— matics T—scores was next at 50, and the Education T-score was 46. The ranked T-scores of the three discipline group— ings are presented in Table 48. 83 TABLE 48.--The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Mahidol University. Educ Sc Hlth T-Scores 46 50 76 Ranks 3 2 l The averaged T-scores of all characteristics across dicipline groupings still had the same distribution as individual characteristics. Health Professions T-score was the highest at 75. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was next at 54. Education, and Languages and Literature came third in an averaged T-score of 46. The rest, which had a few data on courses scored the lowest at 45. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 49. TABLE 49.—~The Ranked T—Scores of Average of Mahidol University. Arts Bus En Soc.Sc Educ Lang Sc Hlth T-Scores 45 45 45 45 46 46 54 75 Ranks 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T-Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.—-When T-scores within Education, Health Professions, and Sciences 84 and Mathematics were compared across characteristics: Education T-scores were about the same on all characteristics. Health Professions T-scores were high on all characteristics. Languages and Literature T-scores were abOut the same on every characteristic. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were high on faculty and courses, low on students. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The correlation coefficients between faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets are presented in Table 50. TABLE 50.--The Coefficients of Correlation of the Four Characteristics of Mahidol University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .998 .87 .92 Courses .86 .91 Students .99 The interpretation Of the correlations will not be made since there were so small a number of discipline groupings. 85 Prince of Songkhla University Prince of Songkhla University had three main pro— grams leading to degrees: Education, Engineering, and Sciences and Mathematics, in the year 1972. The data on students and operating budgets were found and categorized into these three discipline groupings. However, faculty data were presented in Languages and Literature, and Social Sciences beside those three groupings. Course offernings data were found within all the discipline group- ings except Agriculture, and Health Professions. In order to make all data comparable between disciplines and characteristics, they were transformed to T-scores across seven discipline groupings, namely Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, Languages and Liter- ature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. The T-scores of Prince of Songkhla University across seven discipline groupings appeared as in Table 51. TABLE 51.--The T-Scores of Prince of Songkhla University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty — 39 39 51 62 - 48 67 43 Courses - 44 43 45 53 - 50 73 44 Students — 43 43 59 50 - 43 70 43 Budgets - 42 42 54 65 - 42 64 42 Average - 42 42 52 58 - 46 69 43 86 Based on faculty data appearing in the five dis- cipline groupings: Education, Engineering, Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences, showed the highest T-score at 67. The Engineering T-score was next at 62, and the Education T—score was 51. Lang- uages and Literature had the score of 48, while Social Sciences T-score was the lowest at 43. The ranked disci— pline groupings according to their T-scores are_presented in Table 52. TABLE 52.--The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Prince of Songkhla University. Soc.Sc Lang Educ En Sc T-Scores 43 48 51 62 67 Ranks 5 4 3 2 l The courses T-scores across the seven discipline groupings revealed the highest score at 73 in the Sciences and Mathematics. Languages and Literature T-score came third at 50 behind the Engineering T—score. Education T— score was low at 45. The T-scores of Business and Manage- ment, Arts, and Social Sciences were low at 43, 44, and 44 respectively. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 53. 87 TABLE 53.--The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Prince of Songkhla University. Bus Arts Soc.Sc Educ Lang En Sc T-Scores 43 44 44 45 50 53 73 Ranks 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The students T-scores among Education, Engineering, and Sciences and Mathematics groups showed the high score in the Sciences and Mathematics at 70. Three of them were about one standard deviation away from the others. The ranked among the three discipline groupings are presented in Table 54. TABLE 54.--The Ranked T—Scores of Students of Prince of Songkhla University. En Educ Sc T-Scores 50 59 70 Ranks . 3 2 l The operating budgets T—scores were vastly differ— ent from those of other characteristics. The Engineering T-score was high at 65. Sciences and Mathematics T-score came close at 64. Education T-score was below the others at 54. The ranking of the three discipline groupings appeared as presented in Table 55. 88 TABLE 55.--The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Prince of Songkhla University. Educ _ Sc., En T-Scores 54 64 65 Ranks 3 2 l On the average of all four characteristics, the score was still the highest in the Sciences and Mathe- matics, at 69. Engineering T-score was 11 points lower at 58. Education T-score was 52, and Languages and Liter- ature T-score was the lowest at 46. The Arts, Business and Management, and Social Sciences T-scores were very low. The ranked of the seven discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 56. TABLE 56.——The Ranked T-Scores of Average of Prince of Songkhla University. Bus Arts Soc.Sc Lang Educ En Sc T—Scores 42 42 43 46 52 58 69 Ranks 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T—Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.--When the T-scores within the discipline groupings: Education, Engineering, and Sciences and Mathematics were compared, the 89 findings were: Education T—scores were high on students, low on courses. Engineering T-scores were high on Operating budgets and faculty, low on students and courses. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were high on courses and students, relatively low on operating budgets. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The coefficients of correlations were computed and pre- sented in Table 57. TABLE 57.-—The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Prince of Songkhla University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .86 .81 .94 Courses .80 .73 Students .80 The number of units measured was low. The inter- pretations of correlations indices were less meaningful, so they are not done in this study. Silpakorn University Silpakorn University has two campuses: one is in the Bangkok area, the other campus is at Nakorn Pathom 9O province. Since the Nakorn Pathom campus did not have any graduating students by the time of this study, this campus was excluded form the study. The Bangkok campus had programs in Painting, ArcheOlogy, and Architecture which all were classified as Arts. All students were only in the Arts groupings and this was true with faculty and operating budgets. The courses data appeared on seven discipline groupings: Agriculture (one course in Agricul- tural Economics), Arts, Business and Management, Engin— eering (as a part of the program in Architecture), Lang- uages and Literature, and Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. Because of the lack of data in many discipline groupings, the transformed T-scores were not attempted. The presented data obviously indicated that the Silpakorn University at Bangkok campus was an Arts institution. Thammasat University Thammasat University offered programs leading to degrees in five discipline groupings: Arts, Business and Management, Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathe— matics, and Social Sciences. The students, faculty, and operating budgets data appeared in these five discipline groupings, but the courses data appeared across the nine discipline groupings. The other four discipline group- ings where the courses data presented were Agriculture, 91 Education, Engineering, and Health Professions. The courses in these four discipline groupings were fewer in number. The T—scores were made across the nine dis- cipline groupings because of the presence of courses data as mentioned above. The T-scores are shown in Table 58. TABLE 58.--The T—Scores of Thammasat University. Factors Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Faculty 42 51 55 42 42 42 55 48 74 Courses 42 53 46 44 43 43 56 48 75 Students 46 47 50 46 46 46 46 46 78 Budgets 43 52 53 43 43 43 50 47 76 Average 43 51 51 44 44 44 52 47 76 The T-Scores Across the Discipline Groupings.--The T-scores of faculty characteristic across nine discipline groupings revealed Social Sciences was much the highest, at 74. Social Sciences T-scores was 19 points higher than the second leading T—score in the Business and Management, and Languages and Literature. Sciences and Mathematics T—score was low at 48. IThe T—scores in Agriculture, Edu- cation, Engineering, and Health Professions are meaning- less, for reasons given above. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T—scores are presented in Table 59. 92 TABLE 59.--The Ranked T-Scores of Faculty of Thammasat University. Sc Arts Bus Lang Soc.Sc T-Scores 48 51 55 55 74 Ranks 5 4 3 2 1 I The T—scores of courses characteristic still showed the highest T-score in Social Sciences at 75. Languages and Literature T-score was 56, 19 points below Social Sciences T—score. Arts came next to Languages and Litera- ture at 53. Agriculture, Education, Engineering, and Health Professions T-scores were low and very Close to- gether. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T-scores are presented in Table 60. TABLE 60.--The Ranked T-Scores of Courses of Thammasat University. Agr En Hlth Educ Bus Sc Arts Lang Soc.Sc T-Scores 42 43 43 44 46 48 53 56 75 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The T-scores of students characteristic were domin- ated by Social Sciences T-score with the score of 78. The next score was 50 in the Business and Management. Arts, 93 Languages and Literature, and Sciences and Mathematics accounted very little. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T-scores appeared as in Table 61. TABLE 61.-—The Ranked T—Scores of Students of Thannasat (University. Sc Lang Arts Bus Soc.Sc T-Scores 46 46 47 50 78 Ranks 5 4 3 2 l The T-scores of operating budgets characteristic also indicated the highest in the Social Sciences at 76. The T—score of Business and Management was next but low at 53. Arts T-score was close to that of Business and Management at 52. Languages and Literature T-score was about the mean, and Sciences and Mathematics T-score was 47, the lowest. The ranked discipline groupings according to their T—scores appeared as in Table 62. TABLE 62.--The Ranked T-Scores of Operating Budgets of Thammasat University. Sc Lang Arts Bus Soc.Sc T-Scores 47 50 52 53 76 Ranks 5 4 3 2 l 94 When the T—scores were averaged across the four characteristics within each discipline grouping, Social Sciences T—score was highly dominating of the others with the score of 76. Arts, Business and Management, and Languages and Literature were scored very close together at 51-52. Sciences and Mathematics T-score was low at 47. Agriculture, Education, Engineering, and Health Professions which had the data only in the courses category, were scored low and away from the five others. The ranks of discipline groupings according to the averaged T—scores are presented in Table 63. TABLE 63.--The Ranked T-Scores of the Average of Thammasat University. Agr En Hlth Educ Sc Arts Bus Lang Soc.Sc J T-Scores 43 44 44 44 47 51 51 52 76 Ranks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l The T-Scores Within the Discipline Groupings.--Con- sidering the T—scores within each discipline grouping found that: Arts T-scores were very much the same except that they were low in the students. Business and Management T—scores were high in faculty, low in courses. 95 Languages and Literature T-scores were high in courses, low in students. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were about the same in every characteristic. Social Sciences T-scores were the highest compared to any discipline groupings T—scores and were about the same in every characteristic. The Relationships Between the Four Characteristics. --The coefficients of correlation between faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets are presented in Table 64. TABLE 64.--The Coefficients of Correlation Between the Four Characteristics of Thammasat University. Factors Courses Students Budgets Faculty .95 .89 .97 Courses .89 .95 Students .96 The coefficients of correlation were high among any combination of the four characteristics. Any characteristics may be used as predictors of others. But one caution must be made that the number of measured units was only five among the characteristics except for courses. This high incidence might be effected by the low number of the units of measurement. 96 The Comparisons offProfiles of Each of the Universities With the Eight UniVersitieE Taken as a Whole Chiengmai University, as mentioned before, was the only university in Thailand which had programs in all of the nine discipline groupings. Chulalongkorn University did not have a program in Agriculture, while Kasetsart University lacked an Arts program. Thammasat University had five programs. The other four Thai Universities had programs in three discipline groupings or less. For the purposes of this study the prOfile comparisOns will be restricted to the four universities that offer work in all or nearly all of the discipline groupings. These are: Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat. This restriction gives T-scores that are more validly compar- able. The Averaged T-Scores and ' Ranks The averaged T-scores of Thai Higher Education, and of Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities are set out in Table 65. Each discipline grouping is given a rank in the averaged T-scores in Table 66. 97 TABLE 65.--The Averaged T—Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst.* Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc .Thai 46 44 43 45 46 65 45 60 57 Chieng 47 44 46 48 40 67 47 59 55 Chula 35 46 48 51 54 57 46 66 48 Kaset 74 41 44 46 47 45 45 57 53 Them 43 51 51 44 44 44 52 47 76 Inst.* = Institution Thai = Thai Higher Education Chieng = Chiengmai University Chula = Chulalongkorn University Kaset = Kasetsart University Tham = Thammasat University TABLE 66.—-The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Averaged T—Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Tham- masat University. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 4 8 9 7 5 l 6 2 3 Chieng 6 8 7 4 9 l 5 2 3 Chula 9 7 5 4 3 2 8 l 6 Kaset l 9 8 5 4 7 6 2 3 Tham 9 4 3 6 8 7 2 5 1 '7.— 98 The scores and ranks showed that in Thai higher education as a whole, the heaviest emphasis was given to the Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences with T-scores of 65, 60, 57, and ranks of l, 2, and 3, reSpectively. Chiengmai UniverSity's T—scores and ranks for the discipline groupings nearly matched Thai higher education. The T-scores were very close, and the three highest ranked discipline groupings were ranked the same. Chulalongkorn also showed Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics as the two top scores, but here the third rank was held by Engine— ering instead of Social Sciences. At Kasetsart, the highly emphasized discipline groupings were Agriculture, while the other two top ranks were Sciences and Mathe— matics, and Social Sciences.- Thammasat was highly concen- trated on Social Sciences, with a T-score of 76 and first rank. It differed from the other universities. There was no Health Professions program at Thammasat, and it did not emphasize Sciences and Mathematics either. The other two discipline groupings which ranked second and third were Languages and Literature, and Business and Management. The group of disciplines which ranked 4, 5, and 6 were considered to be moderately emphasized. The moderate emphases in Thai higher education were Agriculture, Engine- ering, and Languages and Literature. At Chiengmai, they 99 were Education, Languages and Literature, and Agriculture. Chulalongkorn put the moderate emphasis on Education, Business and Management, and Social Sciences. Kasetsart had Engineering, Education, and Languages and Literature in this category, while Thammasat had Arts, and Sciences and Mathematics. Although Education was ranked sixth at Thammasat, that score was closer to the lower group than to the moderate group. The less emphasized discipline groupings in Thai higher education were Education, Arts, and Business and Management. Chiengmai also had Arts, and Business and Management as its less emphasized discipline groupings, but its least emphasis was on Engineering. Chulalongkorn had less emphasizing on Arts, Languages and Literature, and Agriculture. Chulalongkorn did not have a full program in Agriculture. Thammasat had no program in Agriculture, Education, Engineering, or Health Professions. When the T-scores and ranks within each discipline grouping was considered, they showed that: Agriculture was highly emphasized at Kasetsart, and had not emphasis at Chulalongkorn and Thammasat. The T- scores were generally low except at Kasetsart. Arts were moderately emphasized at Thammasat, less emphasized and low T-scores at the other universities and in Thai higher education. 100 Business and Management was highly emphasized at Thammasat, moderately so at Chulalongkorn, and less empha— sized in Thai higher education and Chiengmai. Education was moderately emphasized at Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, and Kasetsart, less emphasized at Thai higher education, and there was no program at Thammasat. Engineering was highly emphasized at Chulalongkorn, moderately emphasized at Kasetsart and Thai higher educa— tion, less emphasized at Chiengmai, and no program at Thammasat. Health Professions were highly emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn, less em-., phasized at Kasetsart, and there was no program at Thamma— sat. Languages and Literature was highly emphasized at Thammasat although the T-score is not very high, moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Kasetsart, and less emphasized at Chulalongkorn. Sciences and Mathematics were highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, at Chulalongkorn, and at Kasetsart, and moderately emphasized at Thammasat. Social Sciences was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Kasetsart, and at Thammasat, and moderately emphasized at Chulalongkorn. 101 The Faculty T—Scores and Ranks The faculty T-scores and ranks of Thai higher education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities are presented in Table 67 and Table 68 respectively. TABLE 67.--The Faculty T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 45 42 41 47 45 72 45 64 49 Chieng 47 44 43 46 42 76 46 57 49 Chula 35 42 44 58 49 67 48 64 45 Kaset 72 38 42 46 46 45 45 54 62 Tham 42 51 55 42 42 42 55 48 74 TABLE 68.--The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Faculty T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Tham- masat UniverSities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 5 8 9 4 6 l 7 2 3 Chieng 4 7 8 5 9 l 6 2 3 Chula - 8 7 3 4 l 5 2 6 Kaset 1 - 8 5 4 6 7 3 2 Tham - 4 3 - - - 2 5 1 102 Generally, the faculty T-scores distribution were close to the averaged T-scores distribution. The highly emphasized discipline groupings at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai were Health Profes- sions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. They were Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Education at Chulalongkorn; Agriculture, Social Sciences, and Sciences and Mathematics at Kasetsart; and Social Sciences , Languages and Literature, and Business and Management at Thammasat. The moderately emphasized discipline groupings were Education, Engineering, and Agriculture at Thai higher education; Agriculture, Education, and Languages. and Literature at Chiengmai; Engineering, Languages and Literature, and Social Sciences at Chulalongkorn; Engine- ering, Education, and Health Professions at Kasetsart; and Arts and Sciences and Mathematics at Thammasat. The less emphasized discipline groupings were Languages and Literature, Arts, and Business and Manage- ment at Thai higher education; Arts, Business and Manage- ment, and Engineering at Chiengmai; Business and Manage- ment, and Arts at Chulalongkorn; and Languages and Liter— ature, and Business and Management at Kasetsart. 103 When T-scores and ranks were considered within each discipline grouping, they showed that: Agriculture was placed the highest at Kasetsart, moderate ranks but low T-scores at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai. Arts was moderately emphasized at Thammasat, less emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn. Business and Management was highly emphasized at Thammasat, less emphasized at the others. Education was highly emphasized at Chulalongkorn, moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Kasetsart. Engineering was moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chulalongkorn, and at Kasetsart, least emphasized at Chiengmai. Health Professions was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn, and moderately emphasized at Kasetsart. Languages and Literature was highly emphasized at Thammasat, and ranked 5 to 7 at other institutions. Sciences and Mathematics was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, at Chulalongkorn, and at Kasetsart; and moderately emphasized at Thammasat.’ Social Sciences was ranked first at Thammasat, highly emphasized but moderately socre at Thai higher 104 education, at Chiengmai, and at Kasetsart; and moderately emphasized at Chulalongkorn. The Courses T-Scores and Ranks The courses T—scores are presented in Table 69, and their ranks are presented in Table 70. TABLE 69.--The Courses T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 46 46 40 39 46 58 48 73 54 Chieng 52 46 41 43 36 54 48 71 60 Chula 38 49 46 39 57 50 49 74 48 Kaset 70 42 43 44 49 42 42 65 53 Tham 42 53 46 44 43 43 56 48 75 TABLE 70.—-The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Courses T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thamma- sat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 6 5 8 9 7 2 4 l 3 Chieng 4 6 8 7 9 3 5 l 2 Chula 9 4 7 8 2 3 5 l 6 Kaset l 8 6 5 4 7 9 2 1 Tham 9 3 5 6 8 7 2 4 l 105 The highly emphasized discipline groupings based on courses T-scores and ranks were Sciences and Mathe- matics, Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics at Thai higher education; Sciences and Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Health Professions at Chiengmai; Sciences and Mathematics, Engineering, and Health Professions at Chulalongkorn; Agriculture, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences at Kasetsart; and Social Sciences, Lang- uages and Literature and Arts at Thammasat. The moderately emphasized discipline groupings were Languages and Literature, Arts, and Agriculture at Thai higher education and Chiengmai; Arts, Languages and Literature, and Social Sciences at Chulalongkorn; Engineering, Education, and Business and Management at Kasetsart; and Sciences and Mathematics, and Business and Management at Thammasat. The less emphasized discipline groupings based on courses T-scores and ranks were Engineering, Business and Management, and Education at Thai higher education and Chiengmai; Business and Management, Education, and Agricul— ture at Chulalongkorn; Health Professions, Arts and Lang- uages and Literature at Kasetsart; and Education, Health Professions, Engineering, and Agriculture at Thammasat. Within the discipline groupings, the courses T- scores and ranks showed the following results: 106 Agriculture was heavily emphasized at Kasetsart; moderately emphasized at Chiengmai and Thai higher educa- tion; and less emphasized at Chulalongkorn and Thammasat. Arts was highly emphasized at Thammasat; moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn; and less emphasized at Kasetsart. Business and Management was moderately emphasized at Thammasat and Kasetsart; and less emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn. Education was moderately emphasized at Kasetsart, and less emphasized at the others. Engineering was highly emphasized at Chulalongkorn; moderately emphasized at Kasetsart; and less emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Thammasat. Health Professions was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn; and less emphasized at Kasetsart and Thammasat. Languages and Literature was highly emphasized at Thammasat; moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn; and less emphasized at Kasetsart. Sciences and Mathematics was highly emphasized at every institution except at Thammasat which the score was moderate. 107 Social Sciences was most heavily emphasized at Thammasat; highly emphasized at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Kasesart; and moderately emphasized at Chulalongkorn. The Students T—Scores and Ranks The students T-scores and ranks of Thai higher education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities are presented in Table 71 and Table 72, respectively. TABLE 71.-~The Students T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 46 44 49 47 45 51 43 48 78 Chieng 40 40 54 58 32 59 48 53 64 Chula 28 47 57 59 60 43 43 59 53 Kaset 77 42 48 46 48 45 45 51 48 Tham 46 47 50 46 46 46 46 46 78 108 TABLE 72.--The Ranks of Discipline Groupings Based on the Students T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 6 8 3 5 7 2 9 4 l Chieng 7 8 5 3 9 2 6 4 l Chula - 6 4 2 l 8 7 3 5 Kaset l - 5 6 4 8 7 2 3 Tham - 3 2 - — — 4 5 l The students T-scores and ranks revealed that Social Sciences, Health Professions, and Business and Management were highly emphasized at Thai higher education; Chiengmai highly emphasized Social Sciences, Health Professions, and Education; Chulalongkorn highly emphasized Engineering, Education, and Sciences and Mathematics; Kasetsart highly emphasized Agriculture, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences; and Thammasat highly emphasized Social Sciences, and Business and Management. The moderately emphasized discipline groupings were Sciences and Mathematics, Education, and Agriculture at Thai higher education; Sciences and Mathematics, Business and Management, and Languages and Literature at Chiengmai; Business and Management, Social Sciences, and Arts at 109 Chulalongkorn; Engineering, Business and Management, and Education at Kasetsart; and Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Arts at Thammasat. The less emphasized discipline groupings were Engineering, Arts, and Languages and Literature at Thai higher education; Agriculture, Arts, and Engineering at Chiengmai; Languages and Literature, and Health Professions at Chulalongkorn and Kasetsart. Within the discipline groupings, the T-scores and ranks showed that: Agriculture was heavily emphasized at Kasetsart, with low T-scores at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai. Arts was moderately emphasized at Thammasat and Chulalongkorn, and less emphasized at Thai higher educa- tion and at Chiengmai. Business and Management was highly emphasized at Thai higher education and at Thammasat, and moderately emphasized at the others. Education was highly emphasized at Chulalongkorn and at Chiengmai, and moderately emphasized at Thai higher education and at Kasetsart. Engineering was highly emphasized at Chulalongkorn, moderately emphasized at Kasetsart, and less emphasized at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai. 110 Health Professions was highly emphasized at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai, less emphasized at Chulalongkorn and at Kasetsart. Languages and Literature was moderately emphasized at Thammasat and at Chiengmai; less emphasized at Chulalong- korn, at Kasetsart, and at Thai higher education. Sciences and Mathematics was highly emphasized at Kasetsart and at Chulalongkorn; and moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Thammasat. Social Sciences was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, at Kasetsart, and at Thammasat; and modertely emphasized at Chulalongkorn. The Operating Budgets T—Scores and Ranks The comparison of Operating budgets T-scores and ranks are presented in Table 73 and Table 74, reSpectively. TABLE 73.--The Operating Budgets T-Scores of Thai Higher Education, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 46 45 43 46 48 77 44 55 46 Chieng 47 45 44 46 48 78 45 52 46 Chula 38 47 44 49 51 68 43 67 44 Kaset 75 40 42 46 46 47 48 58 48 Tham 43 52 53 43 43 43 50 47 76 111 TABLE 74.--The Ranks of the Discipline Groupings Based on Operating Budgets T-Scores of Thai Higher Edu- cation, Chiengmai, Chulalongkorn, Kasetsart, and Thammasat Universities. Inst. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Thai 5 7 9 6 3 l 8 2 4 Chieng 4 8 9 6 3 l 7 2 5 Chula - 5 7 4 3 l 8 2 6 Kaset l - 8 7 6 5 3 2 4 Tham - 3 2 - - - 4 5 l The scores and ranks showed that the highly empha- sized discipline groupings were Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Engineering at Thai higher education, Chiengmai, and Chulalongkorn; Agriculture, Sciences and Mathematics, and Languages and Literature at Kasetsart; and Social Sciences and Business and Management at Thammasat. The moderately emphasized discipline groupings were Social Sciences, Agriculture, and Education at Thai higher education and Chiengmai; Education, Arts, and Social Sciences at Chulalongkorn; Social Sciences, Health Profes- sions, and Engineering at Kasetsart; and Arts, Languages and Literature and Sciences and Mathematics at Thammasat. The less emphasized discipline groupings were Arts, Languages and Literature, and Business and Management at Thai higher education and Chiengmai; Business and 112 Management, and Languages and Literature at Chulalongkorn; Education and Business and Management at Kasetsart. Within each discipline grouping, the T-scores and ranks also showed that: Agriculture was heavily emphasized at Kasetsart and moderately emphasized at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai. Arts was moderately emphasized at Thammasat and at Chulalongkorn, and was less emphasized at Thai higher education and at Chiengmai. Business and Management was highly emphasized at Thammasat, with less emphasis at the others. Education was moderately emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn; and less emphasized at Kasetsart. Engineering was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn; and moder- ately emphasized at Kasetsart. Health Professions was heavily emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn; and moderately emphasized at Kasetsart. Languages and Literature was high ranked but low score at Kasetsart; moderately emphasized at Thammasat; and less emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, and at Chulalongkorn. 113 Sciences and Mathematics was highly emphasized at Thai higher education, at Chiengmai, at Chulalongkorn, and at Kasetsart; but moderately emphasized at Thammasat. Social Sciences was heavily emphasized at Thammasat, moderately emphasized at the others. Discussion of the Findings The Thai Higher Education Among the nine discipline groupings, there were only three groups with averaged T-scores above the mean, while six groups had scores below the mean. The above average T-score groups had scores ranging from 57 to 65, while the scores for the low T—scores groups were from 43 to 46. It was more likely that overall efforts in Thai higher education was concentrated on those three groups: Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. Less effort was spent on Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, and Languages and Literature. A close look at the three above average discipline groupings found that they showed high variation of scores between the different characteristics. Health Professions showed only average scores on students, not high on courses, but very high on faculty and Operating budgets. This might imply that resources (faculty and Operating budgets) were put into it heavily, while productivity (students) was low. 114 Social Sciences showed an opposite picture to Health Professions. Social Sciences scores were low on faculty and operating budgets, but high on students. This results in the implication that there can be high student production with low resources. Sciences and Mathematics' picture differed from the other two discipline groupings. Sciences and Mathematics T-scores were high on faculty and courses, not quite high on Operating budgets, but low on students. The apparent low productivity with high consumption of resources (faculty) may relate to the fact that this discipline grouping served a dual role to the institutions: a service function and a productive function. Sciences and Mathe- matics at Chulalongkorn, in addition to serving its own students, was provided as a service program to medical students in what was called the pre-medical program. At Kasetsart, Sciences and Mathematics was also a service to the Agricultural program. The whole Sciences and Mathe- matics at Khonkaen University was provided for Engineering and Agriculture at that university, which means there was no productivity for itself at all. Another possible cause of law productivity for Sciences and Mathematics was the hidden Sciences and Mathematics program within other depart- ments. It was found within the curriculum of Agriculture, Health Professions, Education, Engineering, Business and Management, and Social Sciences. 115 Among the low T-score groups, Languages and Liter- ature show the same picture as Sciences and Mathematics. Languages and Literature was considerably high on courses, but low on operating budgets, faculty and students. Lang— uages and Literature (actually Thai and English), was found within other curricula, too. It was either a service course offering by language departments, or hidden courses operat- ing within other departments. Education revealed still another picture. Education was low on courses, but in other characteristics, T—scores were comparable. This phenomenon was easily explained. The Education curriculum, generally elementary and secondary education, consisted of general education, education and one or two major fields besides education. This implied that Education production was serviced from many depart- ments, having hidden faculty and operating budgets. Business and Management, with a relatively high student score, but low on the other characteristics, implied that less resources were needed for a high student produc- tion rate. The Arts T-score for faculty number was low when compared with the T-scores for other characteristics. This low T-score was hard to explain. There might be two reasons: first, the relationship between the other characteristics and faculty were in fact low; or secondly, that they seem 116 low as contrasted with the scores in Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics. four 1. Some conclusions are possible based on the T—scores. Health Professions served fewer students with high cost and resources. Social Sciences and Business and Management served more students with low cost and resources. Sciences and Mathematics, and Languages and Literature had comparatively high number of courses with low number of students. Education had fewer courses compared to students, faculty, and Operating budgets. Arts had less faculty compared with students, courses, and operating budgets. Agriculture was balanced in productions, cost and resources. Other conclusions are possible when based upon the characteristics studied. The most productive (in terms of students served) dis- cipline groupings was Social Sciences. The highest cost of operation was in the Health Pro- fessions. The highest number of faculty was in the Health Pro- fessions. The highest number of credits offered was in Sciences and Mathematics. 117 The Relationships Between the Characteristics The correlation coefficient indices showed two important results. First, the relationships between number of students and other characteristics were low to no relationship at all. This means that the student variable varied almost freely from faculty, courses, and operating budgets. High spending in operating budgets did not depend on the number of students, the larger or smaller number of courses or credits was not based on students, and more or less faculty also was not related to the number of students.~ The inde- pendent variation Of student characteristic may be caused by the fact that a single program is not composed only of courses of one discipline grouping. General education and supporting subjects are pulled from various disciplines. Each discipline has its own operating budget, and the faculty members are assigned according to the field they teach. So they are not directly related to students in a specific program. Another reason for high and low cost of operation was largely related to discipline groupings. Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Engineer- ing were high in cost per student. Social Sciences and Business Management were low in cost per student. The combination of high costs and low costs per students in 118 these disciplines leads to a low overall relationship between number of students and Operating budgets. Secondly, the relationship between faculty and Operating budgets was high. The Operating budgets factor was made up of items of salary, permanent wages, temporary wages, remunerations, ordinary expenses, material and supplies, and equipment. Salary weighed over half the total Operating budgets. Salary alone also related closely to faculty. So the close relationship between faculty and operating budgets was explainable. It is important to call attention again to this point that the Thai higher education in this study was limited to cover only the universities in Thailand, except for Ramkamhaeng University. The College of Education and its branches, and the Institute of Technology were not included. The College of Education produced most of the teachers and related occupations for the country. If these two institutions were added the entire profile of Thai higher education would be changed. The Individual Universities Generally, the following conclusions can be made, based on the averaged T-scores: l. Chiengmai University was dominated by Health Profes- sions; Engineering was the least emphasized. 119 2. Chulalongkorn University was dominated by Sciences and Mathematics, and by the Applied Sciences except Agriculture. 3. Kasetsart University was heavily dominated by Agri— culture. 4. Khonkaen University was dominated by Engineering and Agriculture. 5. Mahidol University was almost entirely devoted to Health Professions. 6. Prince of Songkhla University was dominated by Sciences and Mathematics. 7. Silpakorn University at Bangkok campus was devoted entirely to Arts. 8. Thammasat University was heavily dominated by Social Sciences. In the case of Chiengmai University, although Health Professions was scored higher than any other disci- pline groupings in terms of average, it did not dominate every aspect. Health Professions T—scores were very high in faculty and Operating budgets, but somewhat low in students and courses. The heavy scores of Health Profes- sions might be due to the fact that the School of Medicine had been founded long before the University itself was established. 120 Chiengmai's profiles are much closer to the entire Thai higher education than are those of any other univer— sity. Its highest scores were in Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics was second, and Social Sciences was third. Though the fourth to nineth ranked disciplines differed from those of the entire Thai higher education, the scores were close. If the Thai higher education pro— files reflected the typical Thai university, Chiengmai was like that. Chulalongkorn, the Oldest university in Thailand, scored high in Sciences and Mathematics, and in Applied Sciences: the Engineering and Health Professions. Generally, the Chulalongkorn T-scores did not differ much among the discipline groupings, or, in the other words, the T-scores range was small when Agriculture was not counted. All three high—score-discipline—groupings were in the faculties when the university was first founded. Social Sciences was the only discipline of those found in the early univer- sity that did not score well above the mean score. It is interesting further, to note that the T-scores within the discipline groupings at Chulalongkorn fluctuated from characteristic to characteristic. There was no con- sistancy in any set of scores. In Engineering, for example, the highest T-score was 60, while the lowest was 49 with the range of 11 compared to 3 in Thai higher education. 121 Kasetsart University showed heavy scores in Agri- culture. The second leading score was in Sciences and Mathematics which was found largely in terms Of courses, within Agriculture programs. Some programs at Kasetsart were considerably close to Agriculture. Entomology and Plant Pathology, for example, were counted as Sciences, but were Offered by the Faculty of Agriculture. This finding was not surprising since Kasetsart was originally founded to be a college of Agriculture. The name "Kasetsart" itself means Agriculture. T—scores within discipline groupings at Kasetsart, generally, did not fluctuate much. Except in Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences, the differences between high and low T—scores within one discipline grouping was low. This less fluctuating T-score reflected the consider- ably high correlation coefficient indices between the four characteristics. Mahidol University, although it showed programs of study in fields of Education and Sciences and Mathematics, along with Health Professions, they were actually Health Professions related programs. Education was Health Educa- tion. A large number of Sciences and Mathematics courses were to be found within the Health Professions programs. Thammasat University, one of the earliest founded, was largely dominated by Social Sciences. This was 122 generally known since the University's full name is "Thammasat University—~A Center fOr Social Studies." But Sciences and Mathematics, and Arts were found along with Business and Management at this University. In short, a Thai university, as data revealed, was likely to be a center of one certain discipline of study, with exceptions at Chulalongkorn and Chiengmai. Kasetsart was a center for agricultural studies; Mahidol was a center of Health Professions; Silpakorn was a center of Arts (mainly Fine Arts); Thammasat was a center of Social Sciences. These universities had not changed much from the way each was originally founded. Those early programs still dominate the profiles of their institutions. The universities that were founded later at the time of this study, conducted programs in only three discipline group- ings and did not account much in the total figures of the Thai higher education system. Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECO“-W~’-’FNDATI ON Summary This study was planned to discover the distribution of resources and students among nine discipline groupings and among eight multi-purpose Thai universities, and to summarize and compare the distribution of faculty members, students, course offerings, and operating budgets both among the disciplines and among the universities in such form as will furnish hard data upon which long range plan- ning may be based. The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. In the eight universities taken as a whole, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and Operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 2. In each of the eight Thai universities, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course offerings, students, and operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? 123 124 3. Comparing each university with each other university and with the eight taken as a whole, what are the differences in the amount of resources of faculty, course Offerings, students, and Operating budgets currently used in the nine discipline groupings? All the characteristics measured in the eight universities were assigned to the nine discipline groupings: Agriculture, Arts, Business and Management, Education, Engineering, Health Professions, Languages and Literature, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. The faculty counted here were the full-time members assigned to teach in a discipline. The students are all regular undergraduate students allocated to the discipline grouping in which they are expected to get their degree. The course offer— ings are the courses that belong to a discipline grouping. When they are accumulated, the number of credit hours for each was taken into account. The operating budget is that amount of money allocated to pay salaries, wages, remuner- ations, materials and supplies, ordinary expenses and equip- ment in the discipline groupings. Student data were collected from Education Report, Institutions of Higher Education, Thailand 1971. Course offering and faculty data were gathered from the Insitu- tion's bulletins and catalogs, and faculty lists. Operating budget data were obtained from the higher education sections of Budgeting Bureau's, Budget for Fiscal Year 1972. 125 The data were counted and distributed among nine discipline groupings within each university. The data for the total Thai higher education was the summation of data of all the eight universities. Then means and standard deviations were calculated, and the data were converted to Z-scores and T-scores. across the nine discipline groupings. Conclusions The Profiles of Thai Higher EducatiOn Analysis of the T-scores revealed that: The profile of Thai higher education was high in Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences; and low in Business and Manage- ment, Arts, Education, and Languages and Litera- ture when measured by combining the T-scores for faculty, course Offering, students, and operating budgets. The profile of Thai higher education was high in Health Professions, and Sciences and Mathematics; and low in Business and Management and Arts when measured by faculty. The profile of Thai higher education was high in Sciences and Mathematics, and Health Professions; and low in Education and Business and Management when measured by courses. Profiles are T—scores 126 The profile of Thai higher education was high in Social Sciences and low in Arts, Languages and Literature, Agriculture, and Engineering when measured by students. The profile of Thai higher education was high in Health Professions, and low in Business and Management, and Languages and Literature when measured by operating budgets. The profiles of Thai higher education showed the most variation among the T—scores for the four characteristics in Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences; and varied the least in Agriculture, Arts, Engineering, and Languages and Literature. The profile of Thai higher education as measured by faculty was highly related with the profile of Thai higher education as measured by Operating budgets. The Profiles of Individual UniVersities When the profiles were measured by faculty, courses, students, and operating budgets; the findings are: 1. Chiengmai University profile was high in Health Professions and was low in Engineering. 127 Chulalongkorn University profile was high in Sciences and Mathematics and Applied Sciences except Agriculture, and was low in Arts and Languages and Literature. Kasetsart University profile was high in Agriculture and was low in Business and Management, Health Professions and Languages and Literature. Khonkaen University profile was high in Engineering and Agriculture. Mahidol University profile was high in Health Professions. Prince of Songkhla University profile was high in Sciences and Mathematics. Silpakorn University profile was high in Arts. Thammasat University prOfile was high in Social Sciences. The profile of any one university as measured by faculty related highly with the profiles of that university when measured by Operating budgets. Comparisons Between the Pro- files of the Individual Universities and of the Thai Higher Education 1. NO individual university profile closely matched the profile of the total Thai higher education system. 128 2. The profile of Chiengmai University most nearly matched that of the total Thai higher education system. Recommendations This study attempted to measure Thai universities and Thai higher education by using available basic data and converting them to comparable figures. There had been no such kind of study employed for any higher education institution in Thailand, so it is hard to evaluate the effectiveness of this tudy. Its usefulness is largely in that it introduces a new approach to the study of the Thai higher education system. By itself it does not have clear implications of a practical nature, other than as setting a direction to the gathering and treatment of significant data. Its usefulness is in the extent to which it helps to understand the present situation in comparative terms. For futher use and development of the method of study, the following recom— mendations are made. 1. Try to use other factors related to or within the characteristics used. A single characteristic may not give a good profile of an institution. For example, for the curriculum characteristic, a better representative may be the sum of other characteris— tics related Or within the curriculum at large, such 129 as number of courses offered each year, number of credits offered each year, measurable non- academic curriculum, and activities. The averaged T-scores of each factor relating to curriculum may represent a better profile than using the number Of credits alone. The same sort of en— largement may be helpful with the faculty, students, and operating budget characteristics. Seek out other independent characteristics that can add to the profile of institutions. Some other characteristics involved in the picture of the institution are student background (both academic and non-academic), library size, class- rooms, laboratories, space, administrators, and non-teaching staff. Adding these characteristics may improve the effectiveness of this method of study. Seek better ways to group the data. Classifying the data into nine discipline groupings may nOt yield the best results. Better results may be achieved from regrouping the disciplines into more or less than nine groups. Another point, the groupings may be based on other factors. Holland (24) grouped them according to the types of personality of those in the related occupations. 130 For further studies, the following recommendations are made: 1. To study the differences and similarities of the goals and practices of each university. It is clear from this study that different Thai universities emphasized the different disciplines. If there is any study finding out whether goals and their practices are different or the same, it will be valuable for future planning of those universities. To study the causes of fluctuating scores in Health Professions, Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. At these three discipline groupings, the discrepancies of T—scores between different charac- teristics are large. It may be significant to find out what causes them. To find the variation within a discipline grouping when it is measured by characteristics. One dis- advantage Of this study is it does not show what accounts the most and/or the least for variation within a discipline grouping. One discipline grouping consists of a variety of similar disci- plines. Each discipline does not count the same amount in the total. Furthermore, each of the disciplines grouped here in a discipline grouping differs from one characteristic to another. A study 131 of these variations within a discipline grouping may lead to more understanding of the profile Of institutions. 4. To study the manpower needs of the nation for people trained at college level and to compare them with the profile of the Thai higher education system. This study will be useful in planning higher education for the nation. A new study should include the college of Education, the Institute of Technology, and the Ramkamhaeng University. 5. To study the quality and effectiveness of the teaching staff. Such a study may provide more useful picture than can these profiles and will bring more understanding of the nature of Thai universities. 6. To study the curriculum practices of Thai universities. 7. To study the nature of students at Thai univer— sities. To those who may use the results of this study, it is recommended: 132 Judgement should not be made as to whether one university is better than another. The findings do not lead to that kind of judgement and the study does not intend to make it. A high Health Professions score at Mahidol does not imply that Mahidol is better than Thammasat, which had no Health Professions program. APPENDICES 133 APPENDIX A TABLES OF DATA GATHERED FROM THE EIGHT THAI UNIVERSITIES RAW DATA MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Z-SCORES T-SCORES CORRELATION INDICES 134 135 mmmam mam mama mmm ommma mmam aom mma mmm mmma mmmmmaxmm mmmmm mamm ommm «mam mmmam amm mmom mmm mmma ommm mamammm ammmm «mmm mmmm mmmm mmmmm moms mmmm mmaa mmma mmam mmmmmsm mmaamammo« mmmm mmm mmm mmm mam om mmm oam mmm mmm maammmo mo .02 mmma mmm mmm mma mma mm mm om maa ama mmmmsoo mo .02 amm mm ama mm mom ma om ma om mm muasomm mmm aom moa mm mma o maa mm om mm mmaumsmmau mmmm mam mmm one mmm am amm mmm mmm mmm ammaaaoamm Dawns/am: asammad mo Bmo 3mm mmmmma mama sammm aomm ommmm mmmma mmmm mmom mmmm momma mmmcmmxmm mamsmm mmomm mmmmm mmmaa ommmoa mmmma mmmma mmmm momma mmmma Nasmamm... mmaomm mmmmm mmmmm mmmma ooomma mmmmm mammm oamaa mmmma mmmmm mmmmmnm mcaamamEOm «moma mmmm smam moma mmam mmma mmm mmm mmma mmma maammmu mo .02 mmmm aooa omma mmm mmoa mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmmmsoo mo .02 mmmm mmm mmm mam omma mom mmm mma mmm mam muasomm same aaam amm mmm mmma «as amm Naaa mmm amm mcammsmmaw omamm mmoma mmmm mmma mmmm mmmm amom mmmm_ omam mmmm ammeaaomgm moaumosmm mmmmam amme mo mama 3mm amuoe om.oom om mama maam mm 65mm mmm mama amm moaama lumpomamsu .mmeuamam>flcb pnmmm scam mama mo.EDmnl.ms mammH 136 momma mama mmom amaa mmma mmm maoa mmm o omam mmmmmaxmm mammm momm mamm mmmm moma mmam aaom mmoa o mmaaa .samammm mamma mmaa mamm ooma mmam omam omom mmma o mmmma mummmsm mcaamummo« mmmm maa mmm maa oma mmm mma aaa mma omm maammnu mo .02 mmaa ama mmm ma ma oaa maa mm ma mam mmmasoo mo .02 amm oma mm ma aa ma am om o oam muasomm amm ma om ma a mm am mm o mma mcammsmmaw mmoa mmm mom mma mma mmm mam mmm o mmma ammeaaoamm bamamfiacs pammummmm mo mama 3mm mmmmm mmm aamm mmm mmam mmaa mmm mmm amm o mmmmmame mmamm mmaa mmmaa ammm omoma mmam ommm moaa ammm o mumammm mmmmm mmam mmmam .mmma mmmmm momaa .maam mmom mmam o mummmsm mmaamamEOm mmmm mmm mama mmm maa mam ma mmm mmm m mammoao mo .02 mmaa mma mma mmm mm omm mm moa mma a mamasoo mo .02 moma mm mmm maa amm mma mom mm mm o muasomm amaa mmm mmm maa mmm mom mam omm mma o mmammsmmmo ammm mmoa mmma mmm mam omma mmma mama mmm o mmmaaaoamm bags/Ha fioxmaoamasfi mo Bmo 3mm Hmpoe 8.00m om magma Spam cm 058 mmm mg Hg mompmm IHmpomHmaU ESECOUIIfih gamma”. 137 mammm omom o mmmam o amm o mmmmmaxmm mmmam mmmm o mmmmm o aaaa o mamammm aoomma mmmaa o mmmmaa o mmaa o mammmsm mmaamamEOm mmmm mmaa maa amom mm ama o maammao mo .02 moma mmm mm omm ma mm m o mmmasoo mo .02 mmm mmm ma amm ma ma o o muasomm amm m o mam o om o o mmaamsmmao mmom mm o ammm o mma o o mmmeaaommm muamum>acs aomanmz_ao mumo.3mm amaaa mamm mom 0 mamm aaoa o o mmmmmmxmm mmmm mmmm mom 0 ammm amma o o mamammm ammma aaaa aam o mamm mamm o o mmmmmsm maammHmEOm mmm mma am m amm ma 0 m whammmo mo .02 mmm ma ma a am am 0 a mmmasoo mo .02 aom oa ma 0 om mm o o muasomm maa o o 0 mm o o o mmaamsmmau aam o o o moa ama o o ammEaaoamm wpmmmammficb :mmvaconva .uao mama 3mm ampom. om mama as? am 058 mam moflmm IsmuomHmaO Umaaqwflcooll . m a. mag 138 mmoa o o o o o o o mmoa o mmmmmaxma mmmm o o o o o o o mmmm o mumammm mmma o o o o o o o mmma o mammmsm mmaamamQOm maa oa am mma 0 mm o m maa m . maammno mo .02 aom m om ma 0 ma 0 m amm .m mmmnsoo mo .02 am o o o o o o 0 am 0 muasomm moa o o o o o o o mma o maaamsmmaw mmm o o o o o o o mmm o acmeaaoacm bemsmmfics Faoxmmamm mo mumo 3mm mmmaa o mmom o o mmmm momm o o o mmmmmaxmm mmaoa o amam o o mama mmam o o o mamammm mmaam o mmmm o o momm mmom o o o mammmsm mgaumamQOm maaa mm mam maa o mam aa m mm o maammno mo .02 oaa ma mam mm 0 mm om a ma o mmmasoo mo .02 mma m mm ma 0 ma am 0 o o mnasomm ma 0 o o 0 ma 0 o o o maaamsmmaw omma o mmm o o mom mma o o o mmmsaaopmm mummsmmfisb mgmcom mo mofinm mo mama 3mm H309 Om .Oom cm 9.3 Spam cm ODE mum mp2 ama. momumm IHmpomHmmU mmncaacoouu.mm mamas 139 magma mo mmcmmsoza ma « mamm mmma mma mmm o o o mmm amm o mmmmmmxmm mmmmm mmoma oama mamm o o o mmam ammm o _samammm mammm mmoaa mmma ammm o o o mmma mmmm o mammmnm mmaamamQOm omam mooa mma ama ma ma oa aaa mmm m mmammao mo .02 mmm amm mm maa m a ma mm ama m mmmasoo mo .02 mmm maa mm mm o o 0 mm ca 0 muasomm mmmm amaa ma mm o o o mam mma o mmaamsmmaw mmoaa mmmaa maa mam o o o amaa ama o ammeaaoamm mummum>flcb pmmmEEmga mo mamm 3mm ampoe omdom om , mama flax; Fa 8mm mam maaa. amm moflma Iamuomnmnu cmscflucOOII.mn mammH 140 TABLE 76.--Means and Standard Deviation. Institutions and Standard Characteristics Means Deviations Total Thai Higher Education Enrollment 4132.22 3611.50 Graduating 813.00 547.58 Faculty 486.56 340.76 NO. of Courses 769.89 407.39 NO. of Credits 2119.33 1292.17 Operating Budget 46688.46 52933.25 Salary 28324.16 28172.11 Expenses 18480.31 25049.30 Chiengmai University Enrollment 536.33 271.48 Graduating 95.44 54.04 Faculty 81.02 86.61 No. of Courses 139.78 70.20 NO. Of Credits 429.33 244.31 Operating Budget 7775.61 11536.96 Salary 4293.73 6098.72 Expenses 3481.88 5550.31 Chulalongkorn University Enrollment 925.67 428.04 Graduating 254.89 117.81 Faculty 134.33 87.55 NO. of Courses 164.33 133.62 NO. Of Credits 418.11 344.48 Operating Budget 10424.81 8620.87 Salary 7577.60 5329.53 Expenses 2847.21 3537.05 TABLE 76.-—Continued 141 Institutions and Standard Characteristics Means Deviations Kasetsart University Enrollment 448.33 543.35 Graduating 74.89 125.06 Faculty 73.44 63.49 No. of Courses 131.78 102.24 No. of Credits 331.89 266.84 Operating Budget 5091.03 4995.66 Salary 3324.01 3250.55 Expenses 1767.02 1775.42 Khonkaen University Enrollment 113.87 156.59 Graduating 14.00 24.76 Faculty 25.50 22.56 No. of Courses 32.25 30.68 No. of Credits 99.87 103.87 Operating Budget 2471.38 2598.45 Salary 1203.96 1185.17 Expenses 1397.96 1738.39 Mahidol University Enrollment 383.12 945.03 Graduating 111.75 267.52 Faculty 124.12 216.71 NO. of Courses 162.87 243.58 No. of Credits 462.25 704.70 Operating Budget 16875.45 38734.41 Salary 8960.58 20807.62 Expenses 7914.88 17935.65 TABLE 76.--Continued 142 Institutions and Standard Characteristics Means Deviations Prince of Songkhla UniverSity Enrollment 194.29 263.80 Graduating 1.86 4.55 Faculty 22.71 21.62 NO. of Courses 58.57 69.93 NO. of Credits 158.86 210.54 Operating Budget 3495.20 4287.85 Salary 1454.97 1754.28 Expenses 2040.23 2562.30 Thammasat University Enrollment 1565.44 3641.10 Graduating 263.11 469.98 Faculty 37.56 46.21 No. of Courses 82.00 107.08 No. of Credits 236.67 306.71 Operating Budget 2949.42 4237.76 Salary 2544.06 3631.78 Expenses 405.37 608.77 (NOTE: All budget, salary, and expense figures are in Thousands of Bahts). 143 TABLE 77.-Z-Scores. Character- Soc. istics Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang SC Sc TOtal Thai Higher Education Enrollment -.44 —.56 -.12 -.29 -.49 .09 -.72 -.21 2.75 Graduating -.50 -.63 .55 -.48 -.67 .81 -.87 -.59 2.37 Faculty -.45 -.78 -.91 -.32 -.54 2.19 -.51 1.37 -.05 No. of Courses -.37 -.21 -1.21 -1.06 -.60 .75 -.10 2.23 .57 No. of Credits -.38 -.36 -l.05 -1.08 -.43 .78 -.24 2.34 .42 Operating Budget -.38 —.54 -.66 -.42 -.19 2.67 -.61 .51 -.38 Salary -.41 -.47 -.67 -.37 -.37 2.71 -.59 .39 -.22 Expenses -.34 -.63 -.66 -.48 .06 2.59 —.63 .64 -.56 Chiengmai University Enrollment -.97 -.98 .43 .83 -1.79 .89 -.24 .43 1.41 Graduating -.42 -.84 -.25 .36 -1.77 .94 -.23 .25 1.95 Faculty -.27 -.59 -.73 -.36 -.80 2.57 -.42 .69 -.09 NO. of Courses .44 -.35 -.99 -.79 -l.58 .64 -.21 1.61 1.23 No. of Credits .16 -.35 -.90 -.74 -1.39 .35 -.23 2.09 1.02 (berating Budget -.31 -.52 -.57 —.43 -.25 2.77 —.45 .16 -.39 Salary‘ -.28 —.47 -.54 -.37 -.58 2.78 -.35 .07 -.26 Expenses -.35 -.58 -.59 -.48 .12 2.70 -.55 .26 -.53 Chulalongkorn University Enrollment —2.16 -.31 .75 .95 1.01 -.66 -.70 .86 .26 Graduating -2.16 -.65 .81 .76 .46 .31 —.93 .20 1.20 Faculty -l.53 -.78 -.62 .77 -.14 1.68 —.22 1.38 —.53 NO. of Courses -l.22 .03 -.46 51.06 .49 -.58 .44 2.32 .03 NO. of Credits -1.21 -.15 -.39 -l.09 .66 -.01 -.06 2.39 -.15 Operating Budget -l.21 -.34 —.63 —.12 .14 1.84 -.72 1.65 —.62 Salary —1.42 -.16 -.65 .21 -.03 1.97 -.67 1.34 -.59 Expenses —.80 -.59 -.54 -.60 .37 1.51 -.74 2.01 -.61 TABLE 77.--Continued 144 Character- Soc istics Agr Arts Bus Educ Eh Hlth Lang Sc Sc Kasetsart University Enrollment 2.74 —.83 -.23 —.38 -.23 —.53 -.46 .11 -.21 Graduating 2.78 -.60 -.33 -.43 -.15 -.57 -.48 -04 -.25 Faculty 2.15 -l.16 -.84 -.35 -.40 -.46 -.50 .36 1.21 NO. of Courses 2.10 -.82 -.77 -.13 -.21 -.84 -.87 1.33 .22 NO. of credits 1.98 —.79 -.70 -.60 -.15 -.76 -.81 1.50 .32 Operating Budget 2.51 -l.02 -.75 -.41 -.39 —.33 -.18 .76 -.19 Salary' 2.51 -l.02 -.70 -.40 -.28 -.53 —.18 .77 -.16 Expenses 2.47 —1.00 -.83 -.42 -.60 .05 -.17 .75 -.25 Khonkaen university Enrollment 1.28 -.73 — .49 1.87 -.73 —.73 —.73 -.73 Graduating 1.29 -.57 - -.57 2.10 -.57 -.57 -.57 —.57 Faculty 1.00 -l.l3 - .55 1.53 -l.l3 -.33 .64 -l.l3 NO. Of COurses 2.14 —.92 - -.27 .71 -1.02 -.50 .51 —.66 NO. of credits 1.77 -.88 - -.49 1.26 -.94 -.63 .65 -.73 Operating Budget .93 -.95 - .06 1.83 -.95 -.71 .76 -.95 Salary 1.18 -l.02 - .31 1.45 —l.02 -.76 .87 -1.02 Expenses .51 -.80 - -.20 2.27 -.80 -.63 .47 -.80 thidol University Enrollment - -.41 -.41 -.28 -.41 2.64 —.41 -.34 -.41 Graduating — -.42 -.42 -.16 -.42 2.64 —.42 —.39 -.42 Faculty - —.57 -.57 -.52 -.52 2.29 —.52 .98 -.57 NO. of COurses — —.62 -.63 -.43 -.61 2.41 -.41 '.71 -.41 NO. of Credits - -.64 -.64 —.47 —.61 2.25 -.45 1.04 —.48 Operating Budget — —.44 —.44 —.40 -.44 2.63 —.44 -.05 -.44 Salary - -.43 -.43 —.38 -.43 2.63 -.43 -.10 -.43 Expenses - -.44 —.44 -.42 -.44 2.62 -.44 -.01 -.44 TABLE 77.-COntinued 145 Character— Soc istics Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang SC Sc Prince of Songkhla University Enrollment - —.74 -.74 .90 .04 - —.74 2.00 —.74 Graduating - -.41 -.41 -.41 2.45 - —.41 -.41 —.41 Faculty - -l.05 -l.05 .06 1.22 - -.17 1.68 —.68 Nb. of Courses — —.67 -.82 -.55 .21 — .12 2.28 -.57 No. of Credits - -.65 -.74 -.55 .25 - -.05 2.31 -.58 (Perating Budget - —.82 -.82 .36 1.50 - -.82 1.41 -.82 Salary’ — -.83 -.83 .56 1.63 - -.83 1.13 -.83 Expenses - -.80 -.80 .22 1.38 - -.80 1.58 -.80 Thammasat University Enrollment -.43 —.30 -.03 -.43 -.43 -.43 -.36 —.40 2.81 Graduating -.56 —.27 .82 -.56 -.56 -.56 -.36 -.53 2.57 Faculty -.81 .05 .46 -.81 -.81 —.81 .53 -.21 2.41 NO. of Courses -.75 .36 -.42 -.64 -.73 -.72 .57 —.19 2.51 NO. of Credits —.75 .31 —.41 -.64 -.73 -.72 .60 -.17 2.51 Operating Budget —.70 .21 .27 -.70 -.70 -.70 -.04 —.28 2.62 Salary -.70 .20 .25 -.70 -.70 -.70 —.Ol v.26 2.62 Eupenses -.67 .29 -.38 .67 -.67 -.67 -.23 -.39 2.61 146 TABLE 78 . -'I‘-Scores . Characters istics Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Iang Sc. . Soc.Sc. Total Thai Higher Education Enrollment 46 44 49 47 45 51 43 48 78 Graduating 45 44 55 45 43 58 41 44 74 Faculty 45 42 41 47 45 72 45 64 49 'No. of Courses 46 48 38 39 44 57 49 72 56 No. of Credits 46 46 4O 39 46 58 48 73 54 (berating Budget 56 45 43 46 48 77 44 55 46 Salary 46 45 43 46 46 77 44 54 48 Expenses 47 44 43 45 51 76 44 56 44 Chiengmai University Enrollment 40 40 54 58 32 59 48 54 64 Graduating 46 42 48 54 32 59 48 53 70 Faculty 47 44 43 46 42 76 46 57 49 No. of Courses 54 46 40 42 34 56 48 66 62 No. of credits 52 46 41 43 36 54 48 71 60 Operating Budget 47 45 44 46 48 78 45 52 46 Salary 47 45 45 46 44 78 46 51 47 Ebcpenses 47 44 44 45 51 77 44 53 45 Chulalongkorn University Enrollment 28 47 57 59 60 43 43 59 53 Graduating 28 43 58 58 55 53 41 52 62 Faculty 35 42 44 58 49 67 48 64 45 No. of Courses 38 50 45 39 55 44 54 73 50 No. of credits 38 49 46 39 57 50 49 74 48 Operating Budget 38 47 44 49 51 68 43 67 44 Salary 36 48 43 52 50 7o 43 63 44 Expenses 42 44 45 44 54 65 43 7O 44 147 TABLE 78.-~0ontinued Character— istics Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc. Soc.Sc Kasetsart University Enrollment 77 42 48 46 48 45 45 51 48 Graduating 78 44 47 46 48 44 45 50 47 Faculty 72 38 42 46 46 45 45 54 62 ‘No. of Courses 71 42 42 49 48 42 41 63 52 NO. of credits 70 42 43 44 49 42 42 65 53 Operating Budget 75 40 42 46 46 47 48 58 48 Salary .75 40 43 46 47 45 48 58 48 Empenses 75 40 42 46 44 51 48 57 47 Khonkaen University Enrollment 63 43 - 55 69 43 43 43 43 Graduating 63 44 - 44 71 44 44 44 44 Faculty 60 39 - 56 65 39 47 56 39 Nb. of Courses 71 41 - 47 57 40 45 55 43 NO. of Credits 68 41 - 45 63 41 44 56 43 (pirating Budget 59 40 - 51 68 40 43 58 40 Salary 62 40 — 53 64 40 42 59 40 EXpenses 55 42 - 48 73 42 44 55 42 Mahidol university Enrollment - 46 46 47 46 76 46 47 46 Graduating — 46 46 48 46 76 46 46 46 Faculty - 44 44 45 45 73 45 60 44 NO. of Courses - 44 44 46 44 74 46 57 46 NO. of Credits - 44 44 45 44 73 45 60 45 Operating Budget - 46 46 46 46 76 46 50 46 Salary — 46 46 46 46 76 46 49 46 Empenses - 46 46 46 46 76 46 50 46 148 TABLE 78 .-—COntinued Character— istics Agr Arts 4 Bus Educ En Hlth Lang .Sc. Soc.Sc Prince of Songkhla .University~ Enrollment — 43 43 59 50 — 43 70 43 Graduating - 46 46 46 74 — 46 46 46 Faculty - 39 39 51 62 - 48 67 43 iNo. of Courses - 43 42 44 52 — 51 73 44 No. of Credits - 44 43 45 53 — 50 73 44 Operating Budget - 42 42 54 65 - 42 64 42 Salary' - 42 42 56 66 - 42 61 42 Expenses - 42 42 52 64 - 42 66 42 (Htmuesat University Enrollment 46 47 50 46 46 46 46 46 78 Graduating 44 47 58 44 44 44 46 45 76 Faculty 42 51 55 42 42 42 55 48 74 Kb. of Courses 43 54 46 44 43 43 56 48 75 No. of Credits 42 53 46 44 43 - 43 56 48 75 Cperating Budget 43 52 53 43 43 43 50 47 76 Salary 43 52 52 43 43 43 50 47 76 Expenses 43 53 54 43 43 43 48 46 76 149 TABLE 79.-Correlation Coefficient Indices . Characteristics I II III IV ‘V' VI 'VII ‘VIII Total Thai Higher Education Enrollment 1.00 .93 .14 .25 .21 .03 .08 -.04 Graduating 1.00 .23 .14 .12 .22 .28 .15 Faculty 1.00 .76 .78 .93 .92 .92 NO. of Courses 1. 00 . 99 . 51 .50 .52 NO. of Credits 1.00 .54 .52 .55 Operating Budget 1.00 1.00 .99 Salary' 1.00 .98 Expenses 1.00 Chiengmai University Enrollment 1.00 .93 .47 .52 .49 .31 .39 .21 Graduating 1.00 .51 .70 .62 .33 .42 .23 Faculty 1.00 .57 .51 .96 .97 .93 NO. of Courses 1.00 .97 .33 .38 .27 NO. of Credits 1.00 .26 .29 .22 Operating Budget 1.00 .99 .99 Salary' 1.00 .96 Ekpenses 1.00 Chulalongkorn University Enrollment 1.00 .85 .42 .43 .45 .32 .33 .27 Graduating 1.00 .47 .18 .25 .35 .40 .25 Faculty 1.00 .38 .52 .92 .94 .81 NO. of Courses 1.00 .96 .49 .39 .61 NO. Of Credits 1.00 .67 .56 .79 Operating Budget 1.00 .98 .96 Salary 1.00 .89 Expenses 1.00 TABLE 79.--Cbntinued 150 Characteristics I II III IV' V' VI VII 'VIII Kasetsart University Enrollment 1.00 1.00 .84 .85 .82 .95 .95 .92 Graduating 1.00 .82 .84 .81 .94 .94 .91 Faculty 1.00 .87 .86 .87 .87 .84 NO. of Courses 1.00 .98 .91 .93 .87 NO. of credits 1.00 .90 .91 .86 Operating Budget 1.00 1.00 .99 Salary 1.00 .97 Expenses 1.00 Khonkaen University Enrollment 1.00 .92 .83 .73 .78 .83 .81 .83 Graduating 1.00 .74 .73 .83 .82 .76 .87 Faculty 1.00 .81 .87 .96 .98 .89 NO. of COurses 1.00 .97 .81 .87 .67 NO. of Credits 1.00 .91 .93 .83 Operating Budget 1.00 .98 ' .96 Salary' 1.00 .89 Expenses 1.00 thidol University Enrollment 1.00 1.00 .87 .92 .86 .99 1.00 .99 Graduating 1.00 .86 .91 .85 .99 .99 .99 Faculty 1.00 .99 1.00 .92 .91 .93 NO. of Courses 1.00 .99 .95 .95 ~95 NO. of Credits 1.00 .91 .90 .92 Operating Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 Salary 1.00 1.00 Expenses 1.00 TABLE 79.-Continued 151 Characteristics I II III IV V VI VII VIII Prince of Songkhla University Enrollment 1.00 .02 .81 .79 .80 .80 .75 .82 Graduating 1.00 .50 .08 .10 .61 .67 .57 Faculty 1.00 .85 .86 .94 .91 .96 NO. of Courses 1.00 1.00 .70 .60 .76 No. of Credits 1.00 .73 .63 .78 Operating Budget 1.00 .99 1.00 Salary 1.00 .97 Expenses 1.00 Thammasat university Enrollment 1.00 .95 .89 .89 .89 .96 .96 .96 Graduating 1.00 .92 .83 .83 .96 .96 .97 Faculty 1.00 .95 .95 .97 .98 .96 NO. of Courses 1.00 1.00 .95 .95 .93 NO. of Credits 1.00 .95 .95 .92 Operating Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 Salary 1.00 1.00 Expenses 1.00 APPENDIX B PROFILES OF THAI HIGHER EDUCATION AND OF THE EIGHT THAI UNIVERSITIES IN TERMS OF T-SCORES ACROSS NINE DISCIPLINE GROUPINGS 152 153 .Profile of Thai Higher Education A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-score Scale T-Scores , . . - , , , ,1‘: 75. 7o . 65 . 60. 55- 50 . 45 . 40. .35- 30 . Air Arts ABus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc' Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 154 Profile of Thai Higher Education B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores’ so. 75 . ‘ . i.é‘ 7o. 65 o' 60 . 55 - 50 - #5 . o————ad\\\\¥k““ //J/ j; 35 . 30 . Air Arés Bus Edfic ta Hlth L655 56 SocISc Discipline Groupings T-Scores‘ 80 . 75 . 7O . 65 . 60 . 55 . 50 o. 45 . 40 . 35 . 155 Profile of Thai Higher Education C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. Agr Arts Bus Edam ta Hlth L655 Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 156 Profile of Thai Higher Education D. Distribution Of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-ScoreS; 80 .i 75- 70 . 65. 60. 55 0 50 .4 45 . 40. 35- '2 ; O ’ IIIII ....... Air Arts Bus Educ ta Hlth Lafig 86 366236 Discipline Groupings‘ 157 Profile of Thai Higher Education E. The Average of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scornsg 80 - 75- 7o. 65. 60. 55- 50- 45- uo . Aér Arts Bds B686 ta Hlth Lass 58 366236 Discipline Groupings [A O1 co Profile of Thai Higher Education F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores ----- a Faculty V 00000 = COUTSOB 80 ° -,-,-.= Operating Budgets ; * I“ 75 o _. .I ‘. .°. ,7“ , . 7° ‘ . I \‘ - H \i . '. '1 \ . 65 - .7, \\. 0‘ [I \\ . I, . ~I \‘ - 60 I] O x), j / 'l \\ - / '. 5'5 ' .II -' ' "' .'I o. '. - I/ .4 0‘ ‘ ‘ / .l ' \O 'I- ‘\ .' I .’ \ so - ---------------------------- v’-;.-'-- «Tar-- ---\-&b-------- so 0 t4.-O. O ’\ ,‘ ' “5 . 0&8.\ .//'/ I. W ' \ ' '. \q f O \O~ . / u - ‘I‘g ' o .0- 35 ' 30 ' Aér Arts Eds Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 159 Profile of Thai Higher Education G. Comparison of T—Scores for Number Of Students Enrolled and Number of Graduating Students. T-Scores 80. ————— = Enrolled Students ----- = Graduating Students 75- 70. 65. 60. 55' ° . // \ 50' J, \ / Jo\. 50 ‘r \ F r / / \ ‘ // 0\\\;?o\e d/y//r \ I a 5 . Jkd \0\ \\ 40. 35- 30- Axir Arts B113 Edfm Eu Hlth Larig sé SocISc Discipline Groupings 160 Profile of Thai HiGher Education H. Comparison of T-Scores for Number of Courses Offered and Number of Course Credits Offered. T-Sco es ' r = Courses 80 ° ----- = Credits 75. 7o. 65. 60 o 55- 50. ............................... 1 45 . 40 . 35° 0 0 O O O O - O O 0 Apr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 161 Profile of Thai Higher Education I. Comparison of T-Scores for Operating Budgets, Salary, and Other Expenses. T-Scores = Operating Budgets Air Arts Bus Edfic BA Hlth Lang 56 866236. Discipline Groupings 162 Profile of Chiengmai University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. I T-Scores 80 . 70 ° 60 ° leO o 35 ° 30 ° o A. Aer Arts Bus Educ Bn Hlth Lang 55 566286 Discipline Groupings 163 Profile of Chiengmai University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, On a T-Score Scale. T-Scores 80. 75. 7o. 65. 60. 55. 50. 1+5. 40 35. 30. t—a—n Air Arts Bus Edac En Hlti Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 164 Profile of Chiengmai University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75. 7o . 65. 60 . 55- 50 . 45 . no . 35- Aér Arts Eds Educ ES Hiéh LeSg 85 Soc:Sc Disciplire Groupings 165 Profile of Chiengmai University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores - e 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 Q 55 . 50 . 45 . 40 . 30 o Aér Arts 863 Educ En Hlth Lang '86 800380 Discipline Groupings 166 Profile of Chiengmai University E. The Average of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scorcs 80~° 75.-- 7o . 65 - 60. 55 . 50 . 45 .. 40.. Agr Aits Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sci! Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings T-Scores 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 “5 no 35 30 167 Profile of Chiengmai University F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. ._____ = Students ----- = Faculty co... = Courses = Operating Budgets a 'I\\ .l‘ 1‘ I‘- f’ i P. Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 168 Profile Of Chulalongkorn University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores .80- fill.“ 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 ° 5° ’ v) 45 . no . ' I _.". f:; 35 - d 30 ' Aér Arts Bus Educ EA Hlth Lang sé SocISc Discipline Groupings 169 Profile of Chulalongkorn University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . ,,,,,, 75 . 70 o 65 . 60 . 55 Q 50 . #5 . 40 . 35 . 30 . 3%: Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lefig sé 800:3c Discipline Groupings 170 Profile of Chulalongkorn University C. Distribution Of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores‘ 80 . 75 . 7O . 65 . 60 . 55 . 50 . “5 O 40 . 35 - Aér Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Discipline Groupings Sc SocZSc 5o? 171 Profile Of Chulalongkorn University D. Distribution Of Operating Budgets among the T-Scores 80 75 7O 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. ....... i Air Arts Bag Educ En Hlth Lafig Discipline Groupings sé Soc:Sc 172 Profile of Chulalongkorn University E. The Average of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores‘ l 80 . 75- 70- 65. 60- 55° 50' 45- no- 35’ 30' Agr Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang 35 SocZSc Discipline Groupings 173 Profile Of Chulalongkorn University F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores Students ----- Faculty 80 . ..... Courses Operating Budgets 75- 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 - 50 o “5 O 40 . 35 - Air Arts {Eds Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 174 Profile of Kasetsart University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores so. 75. 7o. 65 . 6o. 55 . 5o. #5 . 40 . 35 ' . A 5 Eiif’f..' 30 . Aér Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lafig Sc. Soc.Sc: Discipline Groupings'I 175 Profile of Kasetsart University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. vvvvv T-Scores 'i f 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 o 55 . 50 o 45 . “0- ' =1 -;v;._::;.:i 35 . Aér Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang 56 366136 Discipline Groupings 176 Profile of Kasetsart University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores . a . . 5...? m --------- '80, _ '. ‘.I ‘ I'T 1' 7.. 70 . 65. 60. 55'. '50 . 45 . . . . 5 . . t . . . ‘ ‘ I 0 . . . , i ' ..... , . , i . . n . u I ' I V ----- 35 . 4 .. , . ~ , .1. 3o. , '43; u.. is Arts 808 Educ 3:6 Hlth 1565 $8 666:36 Discipline Groupings 177 Profile of Kasetsart University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores ., 3.5. 80. y '32‘: ’75. 7o. 65. 6o. 55. 50. L75. 40 . ...... Air Arts B133 Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc ‘ Discipline Groupings 178 Profile of Kasetsart University E. The Average of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores; 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 ° 50 ' as. 40 . 35 ' Air Arts 865 Bdfic BE Hléfi' Lang sé SocZSc Discipline Groupings 179 Profile of Kasetsart University F. Comparison Of the Four T—Scores in EaCh Discipline Grouping. Students Faculty Courses Operating Budgets 8o . _._._ 75 . 70 . 65 . 6o . 55 4 50 . b5 . 40 . 35- 30 . Agr Arts Bus Educ Ed Hlth Lads Sc SocISc Discipline Groupings 180 Profile of Khonkaen University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores 80. i : 75 . f 70. 1 65. .: 60. Mfg... 55- ...... ,l‘ t 50. A 45. ;;2 ..... 4,.1; ...... to. ':;" 35. I f 30. i .;1 ...... Aér Arts Pacific 61% Hlth Lang 65 366136 Win: Discipline Groupings 181 Profile of Khonkaen University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-s66r.s’ , ~ ; 2:» 92553—937 75 o , ., . . _ . 7o . ..... 65 . 60. """ 55 Q 50 . 45 . no . 35. 30. Aér Arts Educ Ea Hlth Lads 36 566186 Discipline Groupings 182 Profile of Khonkaen University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75 . 7O . 65 . 60 . 55 . 50 . [45 O 40 . 35 . 30 . Aér Arts Educ Eh Hlth Ladg Sc SoctSc- Discipline Groupings 183 Profile of Khonkaen University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores ------ '80 . 75° ( Ii? W 70 ' ,...;1 65 . a..;.H - . ,, u l ll -v-y- 60. - i. . . u . ' .......... 558° , i: ' . ' .1 lé'f . ; f£":;::.'.:' 50 , ..... - ....... 1-1--1--- -----;----ai--—- -L-QL;--a.L}-L}-§5o %; 45 . ''''' no . . . . A ' . ...‘ ‘4 : .é‘gig..§;;:: . , i . m 7‘ ; L ‘ 35 . i . . . t f a . . , - Q , , I , ‘ I 30 ' . f I u r . 1 ~ ~ . c i l ....... C l ...... i i O . I Aér Arts Educ Efi Hlth' Lafig 36 366266 Discipline Groupings 184 Profile of Khonkaen University E. The Average of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scoresi so. 75- 7o. 65- 60- 55- so. 45. [400 35° 30° Air Arts Educ En Hlth Lafig $6 SocISc Discipline Groupings 185 Profile of Khonkaen University F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. ! T-Scores; 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 “5 40 35 30 ..... = o- .0... -.-.- = Students Faculty Courses Operating Budgets. ....... ...... Air Arts Educ Efi Hlth Lang sé Discipline Groupings SOOZSO. T-Scores 80 7s 70 65 6o 55 50 us no 7 .35 30 186 Profile of Mahidol University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. ...... ......... ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘‘‘‘‘‘ Arts Bus Eddc En Hlth Lang ; Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 187 Profile of Mahidol University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores ..... -80 . , 75 . 7o 65 6o 55 50 “5 40 . 35- 30° Arts Bds Educ EA Hlth Lacg sé Soc:Sc Discipline Groupings 188 Profile of Mahidol University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75 70 65 60 55 50 ’45 40 . 35. 30. Arts Bus Educ Efi Hlth Lads sé 806:50 Discipline Groupings 189 Profile of Mahidol University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scorep 80 75 7o 65 6o 55 '50 1+5 to 35 30 Arts BGs Educ ES Hlth Lefig 55 366336.. Discipline Groupings 190 Profile of Mahidol University E. The Average of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 0 50 - 45. 40 . Arts 565 Educ Efi Hlth L665 85 SocISc Discipline Groupings 191 Profile of Mahidol University F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. Students Faculty Courses Operating Budgets T-Scores. ----- 80 . ' .0... "Ill! 75 . 70 o 65. 60. 55. 50 . 45 . 40 . 35. 30 o Arts Bds Educ . Ed Hlth Lads Sc Soc:Sc Discipline Groupings 192 Profile of Prince of Songkhla University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-SCOTCS . . .7 .l:.: ..T.:AE 80 . 75. 7o. 65. 6o. 55. 50 . 1+5. 40 . 35 . 30 . Arts Bds Eddc En Lang Sc Soc:Sc Discipline Groupings 193 Profile of Prince of Songkhla University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75. 7o . 65 . 60. 55. 50 . 45 . 40 . 35 . 30 o Arts Bds Eddc 65 Lafig sé SocISc Discipline Groupings 194 Profile of Prince Of Songkhla University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75- 70. '65. A60 . 55- ‘50 . 45 . ho . ..... 35' * w’ : .::"?Lf. 30 . Arts Bds Eddc Ed Ladg Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 195 Profile of Prince of Songkhla University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T-Score Scale. T-Scores, 80. 75. 70. 65. 60. 55- 50. [4'50 40. 35- 30. ..... 0 Arts Bds Eddc En Lads Sd Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 196 Profile of Prince of Songkhla University E. The Average of the FOur T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 . \p 50 . 45. #0 . 35 - 30 - Arts Eds Eddc Ed Lads $6 Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings T-Soores 80 75 7O 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 197 Profile Of Prince of Songkhla University F. Comparison of the Four T-Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. ..__ = Students ----- = Faculty Courses -.-.- = Operating Budgets S Arts Eds 5456 Ed Lafig Sc SocISc Discipline Groupings 198 Profile of Thammasat University A. Distribution of Faculty among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 75 70 65 6O 55 50 “5 40 35 30 \7 :ihii:5'o Aér Arts B133 Edfic Er‘n Hlth Laag 36 366256 Discipline Groupings 19% Profile of Thammasat University B. Distribution of Course Offerings among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75 I 70. 65. 60 . 55. 50. b5 . ho . 35. Air Arts Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 200 Profile of Thammasat University C. Distribution of Students among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scores 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 60 . 55 - 5o . 1L ' 45 . aflr”’°/////M\\\\\c 3] . c,” e no . . 35 . 30 . Agr Arés Bus Educ En Hlth Lang Sc Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 201 Profile of Thammasat University D. Distribution of Operating Budgets among the Discipline Groupings, on a T—Score Scale. T-Scoresi; 80 . 75 . 70 . 65 . 6O . 40 . 35 - 30- Aér Arés Bus Educ E6 Hléh Lang Sc. Soc.Sc Discipline Groupings 202 Profile of Thammasat University E. The Average of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. T-Scores 80 . 75 . 70 . 65. 60- 55- [+50 14'0- 30' Agr Arts Bus Edfic ES Hlth Lang sé Soc:Sc Discipline Groupings 203 Profile of Thammasat University F. Comparison of the Four T—Scores in Each Discipline Grouping. ._____ = Students T-Scores ----- = Faculty 80 . 00000 = Courses ? Operating Budrets 75 . 7O . 65 O 60. 50 . 1+5. #0. 35 . Air Arts Bus Edfic Efi Hlth Lang sé Soc:Sc Discipline Groupings BIBLIOGRAPHY 704 10. ll. 12. 13. 205 Astin, Alexander W., "An Empirical Characterization of Higher Education Institution," Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, LII, No. 5 (19627, 224-235 Astin, Alexander, W., "Measuring Student Outputs in Higher Education," The Outputs of Higher Education: Their Identification, Measurement, and Evaluation. Boulder, Colorado: WICHE 1970, p. 75-83. Astin, Alexander W., Who Goes Where To College, Chicago: Science Research Associate, Inc., 1965. Babbidge, Homer D., Jr, and Rosenzweig, Robert M., The Federal Interest in Higher Education, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Banta, Thomas J., "The Goals of Higher Education," Journal of Higher Education, XXXVI, No. 8 (1966), 435-440. Bhavilai, Ravi, "The Universities Contribution to Planning and Implementation of National Development," Journal of the National Education Council, VI, No. 9, (1972), 11-17. Brief Information about Universities and the College of Education in Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand: Nation- al Education Council, 1966. Brook, G.L., The Modern University, London: Andre Deutsch, 1965. Carmicheal, Oliver C., Universities: Commonwealth and American, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Capital and the Campus, State Responsibility for Post—Secondary Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, New Students and New Places, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Clapp, Margaret, The Modern University, Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1968. Devane, William Clyde, The American University in the Twentieth Century, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1957. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 206 Dressel, Paul L., College and University Curriculum, Berkley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corpor— ation, 1968. Ebel, Robert L., Essential of Educational Measurement, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1972. Enthoven, Alain C., "Measurement of the Outputs of Higher Education: Some Practical Suggestions for Their Development and Use," in The Outputs of Higher Education: Their Identification, Measurement, and Evaluation, Boulder, Colo: WICHE 1970, 51-58. Fehl, Noah Edward, The Idea of a University, Hong Kong, Chung Chi College, 1962. Financing Public Higher Education in New York, A staff report on the Fiscal Status of the City University of New York, November 1965. Froomkin, Joseph, Aspirations, Enrollments, and Resources, Washington: U.S. Government Printing OffiCe, 1970. Gardner, John W., "Quality in Higher Education," in Mayhew, Lewis B., Higher Education in the Revolu- tionary Decades, Berkley, California: McCutchan PubliShing Corporation, 1967, 147-153. Good, Carter V., Dictionary of Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Holland, John L., "A Theory of Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VI, No. l, (1959), 35-43. Holland, John L., "Explorations of a Theory of Voca- tional Choice and Achievement: II. A Four-Year Prediction Study," Psychological Reports, XII, (1963), 547-594. Huff, Robert A., and Chandler, Marjorie, A Taxonomy of Instructional Programs in Higher Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1970. Hutchins, Robert Maynard, The Higher Learning in America, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 38. 207 Jamrich, John X., A Summary and Analysis of Incomes and Expenditures of the Colleges and Universities of New York, Michigan State University, 1960. Janne, Henri, The University and the Needs of Contem- porary Society, Paris: InternatiOnai'Asseeiation of Universities, 1970. Kerr, Clark, The Uses of the University, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Kerr, Clark, "Introduction: The Evaluation of National Systems of Higher Education," in Burn, Barbara B., Higher Education in Nine Countries, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1971, 1-6. Marris, Peter, The Experience of Higher Education, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964. Martin, James W., and Cheek, Delores 8., Comparative State and Local Government General Expenditure for State institutions of Higher Education, Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1960. Mayer, Frederick, Creative Universities, New York: College and University Press, 1961. Mayhew, Lewis B., College Today and Tomorrow, San ___—,.-,..__. Francisco: Jossey—Bass Inc., 1971. The National Economic Development Board, The Second National Economic and Social Deve10pment Plan (1967 :"197i), Bangkok, Thailand: Office of the Prime Minister, 1969. The National Economic Development Board, The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan, (1972 — 1976), Bangkok, Thailand: A draft compiled by the Ministry of Education, 1971. Newman, John Henry Cardinal, The Ideal of a University, New York: Longmans Green and Co., 1947. Pace, C. Robert, "An Evaluation of Higher Education: Plans and Perspectives," Journal of Higher Educa- tion, XL, No. 9 (1969), 673-681. Pace, C. Robert, "Methods of Describing College Cultures," Teachers College Record, LXIII, No. 4 (1962), 267-277. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 47. 293 Pace C. Robert and Stern, George 6., "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environment," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIX, No. 5,(19S8), 269-277. Perkins, James A., "The Dynamics of University Growth", Mayhew, Lewis B., Higher Education in the Revolu- .. a.» Ptblishing Corporation, V, No.4,(1966) 147-153. Richards, James, M., Jr.,; Rand, Lorraine M.; and Rand, Leonard P., "A Description of Medical College Envir- onments," American Educational Research Journal, V, No. 4, (1966), 617—658. Richards, James, M., Jr.: Rand, Lorraine M.; and Rand, Leonard P., "Description of Junior Colleges," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVII, No. 4, (1966), 207-214. '"'” Richards, James M., Jr; Saligman, Richard; and Jones, Paul K., "Faculty and Curriculum as Measures of College Environment," Journal of Educational Psychology, LXI, No. 4'.(1970)’ 424-432. Piesman, David, "Where is the College Generation Headed?" in Bellman, Samuel 1., The College Experience, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1662, 232-244. Shaw, Archibald B., "Final Report on the Michigan State University Thailand Projectiin Educational Planning 1964 — 1968.” (Mimeographed report), East Lansing, 1969. Shaw, Archibald, B., and Buasri, Thamrong, Teachers in Thailand's Universities: An Analysis and Forcast, Bangkok, Thailand: National Education Council, Education in Thailand, Publication No. Four, 1968. Sirisamphan, Kasem, "The Universities' Role in Providing Technical Services to Government Departments," Journal of the National Education Council, VI, No. 9 (1972), 4-10. Thistlethwaite, Donald L., "College Press and Student Achievement," Journal of Educational Psychology, L, No. 5, (1959), 183—191. "illilillill‘lill?