71-2048 COOLIDGE, Herbert Everett, 1942IMPACT OF SPONSORED PROJECTS ON SELECTED ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING, 1964-1969. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, higher University Microfilms, A XEROXCom pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan IMPACT OP SPONSORED PROJECTS ON SELECTED ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS OP MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING 1964-1969 By Herbert Everett Coolidge A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University n partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 ABSTRACT IMPACT OP SPONSORED PROJECTS ON SELECTED ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS OP MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING 1964-1969 By Herbert Everett Coolidge This study was concerned with the relationship between sponsored project funds and general funds expended In specific departments at Michigan State University during a five year period from 1964-65 to 1968-6 9 . The primary hypothesis was that sponsored projects draw additional general fund monies to the department in excess of all cost sharing provisions. In addition, four secondary hypotheses were developed. One, sponsored projects have expenditures charges against general funds, both to prevent overruns and to prolong the life of the grant while using general funds that will be lost if not used. Two, faculty positions move from sponsored projects to general fund monies. Three, faculty paid by general funds increase at a greater rate than student credit hours or majors' in a research oriented department. Pour, for senior faculty (Professor-Associate Professor) Herbert Everett Coolidge there has been a decrease in both number of sections taught and student credit hours produced. It was the intent of the study to show by the support of the hypotheses that sponsored project funds were a factor in increasing the general funds of depart­ ments that received enough outside support to be classi­ fied as research oriented. It was also hoped to quantify the extent of the relationship should it be shown to exist. Methodology Twenty departments were selected from within Michigan State University from three basic areas: the Sciences and Engineering, Social Sciences, and Humanities. The first area had ten departments, and there were five each in the latter two areas. They were arbitrarily selected because of the desire to sample the various groups of disciplines; and because the data for five years were complete for each department. Data collected included the general fund budget, general fund expenditures, sponsored project monies expended, number of faculty, student credit hours, majors, and other sources of depart­ mental income. The data were gathered for each year of the study. Analysis was accomplished by noting absolute change between variables, calculating percentages of change within variables, and change between variables. In Herbert Everett Coolidge addition, simple correlations were calculated for the five major variables: sponsored project funds expended, general funds expended, student credit hours, majors, and full-time equivalent faculty paid from general funds with the ranks of instructor-professor. The correlations were calculated for the total twenty departments, for various subsets, and for each department individually. Partial third order correlations were calculated for the entire sample between sponsored project funds expended and general funds expended, while holding constant the effect of student credit hours, majors, and faculty. Findings of the Study There were eight departments which had strong research programs (sponsored project funds equal to forty per cent of general funds expended). Seven of these had a simple correlation of .7 or higher between the sponsored project funds and the general funds expended. When compared to the correlations between the instructional variables and the general fund, the correlations of outside funding and general funds were sufficiently large for the primary hypothesis to be supported by six of these departments. Data from four additional departments tended to support the hypothesis, but the small size of their instructional program tended to negate the looked for rise in general fund expenditures. Herbert Everett Coolidge For departments the simple correlation between sponsored project funds and general funds expended was But when computed by a. third-order partial cor­ relation which held the effect of student credit hours, majors, and faculty constant, a correlation of .762 was obtained. This further substantiates the primary hypothesis. The first and second of the secondary hypotheses could not be substantiated because of the lack of data. The third, on the rise in faculty size was substantiated; however, it was possible to show the same results in departments that are growing rapidly but that are not research oriented. The fourth, on the level of instruc­ tional activity Could not be clearly substantiated but the data did show a decline in teaching throughout the departments of the sample. The findings do indicate a real need to consider the flow of sponsored project funds to the departments when the general fund academic budgets for the departments is made. As the sources of general fund revenue become increasingly tight, the understanding of the factors that increase the requests for general funds at the department level become of vital importance. DEDICATION To my grandparents D r . and M r s . L . E . Coolidge M r . and M r s . G . W . Grier, Sr. To my parents Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Coolidge To my wife Carolyn For so many things In so many ways 11 AC KNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Paul L. Dressel this writer owes a special thanks, not only for his invaluable help in the preparation of this dissertation, but for his assistance and support throughout the entire doctoral program. The privilege of working under such a scholar in the Office of Insti­ tutional Research has been most valuable. Each member of the candidate's committee: Dr. Joe L. Saupe, Dr. Edward B. Blackman, Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, Mr. Merrill R. Pierson, and Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, has in his own way assisted greatly. This has truly been appreciated. All those on the staff of the Office of Institutional Research have been willing to help in any way possible. This was deeply appreciated. Special mention should be given to Jane Gabel, who assisted with the many activities that were necessary for the completion of this study. ill TABLE OP CONTENTS Page D E D I C A T I O N ...................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... ill LIST OP T A B L E S ................................... . LIST OP A P P E N D I C E S ................................ vi viii Chapter I. II. III. IV. RATIONALE FOR THE S T U D Y .................... 1 Introduction ............................. National Background ................... Impetus for Study . . . . . . . . Local B a c k g r o u n d ...................... Problem ................................ 1 2 6 8 9 REVIEW OP RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . 16 ORGANIZATIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE S T U D Y ............................. 28 Selection of the S a m p l e ................ Collection of D a t a ...................... Statistical Approaches ................ 28 31 38 ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S ....................... 1*1 Departmental Profiles . . . . . . . Sciences and E n g i n e e r i n g ............. Social Sciences ...................... H u m a n i t i e s ............................. Analysis of Correlations in Support of the Primary Hypothesis ................ Analysis of the Secondary Hypotheses . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE R E S E A R C H .................... . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . C o n c l u s i o n s ............................. Recommendations for Future Research . . iv *12 *42 56 62 68 82 89 91 93 9** Chapter Page B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................ APPENDICES . 97 100 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Simple Correlations Over All Departments . . 2.Simple Correlations for Ten Science and Engineering Departments, and Ten Social Science and Humanities Departments . . . . 3. 70 Simple Correlations for Eight Research Oriented Departments and the Twelve Remaining Departments ........................ 4. Simple Correlations for Ten Science and Engineering Departments, Five Social Science Departments, Four Social Science Departments, and Five Humanities D e p a r t m e n t s ................................72 5. Simple Correlations for Eight Research Departments and Five Growth Departments 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. . 69 . 71 73 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Physical Science Departments ................ 74 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Engineering Departments .................... 75 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Life Science-Agricultural Departments . . . . 76 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Life Science-Biological Departments ............. 77 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Life Science-Medical Departments ................ 78 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Social Science Departments .......................... 79 Simple Correlations for Comparisons of Humanities Departments ....................... 80 Percentages of Change for Three Variables for Eight Research Oriented Departments . . . 86 vi Page Table 15. Percentages of Change for Three Variables for Three Growth Departments .................... 87 Percentages of Change for Three Variables for the Departments of History and Mechanical E n g i n e e r i n g ................... . 87 vii . LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. DATA PROFILES OF TWENTY DEPARTMENTS . . . B. PERCENTAGE OF SPONSORED PROJECT FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ................. 101 122 C. PERCENTAGES OF CHANGE FOR FIVE VARIABLES FROM 1964-65 TO 1968-69 FOR TWENTY D E P A R T M E N T S ..................................... 124 D. SIMPLE CORRELATIONS ........................ viii 126 CHAPTER I RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY Introduction The academic department Is receiving Increased attention as more observers of higher education realize its importance as the operational unit of the university. For a long time research and research funding has been an important topic of educational debate. is concerned with both. This dissertation Sponsored projects, those activities funded with non-general fund money, have had a great impact on American higher education. Due to the system used in awarding the funds, the central administra­ tion has to a large degree been by-passed in favor of the department. The changes that have come about from this inflowing of outside funds to the department have not been adequately described, nor has there been a serious attempt to examine the relationship between these funds and the department's general fund budget that is determined by the central administration. Such is the goal of this study. The impact of outside support on the university general fund has been the subject of some speculation. An Increase In research support for the sciences was thought to have moved university funds to the humanities. Such outside support was regarded as a bonus to the institution. Could in fact, this outside money Increase the general fund monies required for the receiving departments? If so, this would limit the increase in general funds that could go to the humanities, and might put such areas in even a less favored position than before the outside money began to flow into the institution. Certainly there are some sources of sponsored projects that result in little, If any, additional financial requirement on the university. Most programs, however, require some type of innovation or expansion, which sooner or later requires expenditures to some extent from the general funds of the department. This is in addition to the time of the investigator and the overhead the department carries. It Is the purpose of this study to investigate the possibility that the increase in outside support results in an increase in general funds for the department. National Background The American University since World War II has experienced major changes. The diversity and size of the student body Is perhaps the most noticeable, but others may be equally important. The individual professor no longer does the same things, nor is he supported in the same manner. The three functions of a university: instruction, 3 research, and public service, have changed in their relative positions to one another. Instruction has been moved from the predominant position to one that is in many cases subservient to research, while public service Increases. Research has always been the concern of the university and the professors therein. The mode of operation before World War II, however, did not support the professor for his research, but for his classroom activities. He taught his classes and did research when he could. With the coming of World War II the nation turned to Its universities to aid in the development of armaments and other projects needed for the war effort. It was the realization that the universities had a tremendous potential that could be turned to problems of national significance that changed the nature of American higher education. No longer was the professor Just an Instrument to inform the student of the wonders of the ancient worlds; he was a national resource to be supported and watched over. If research could win the war, then research could be equally important in peacetime, both for non-military and defensive needs. Organizations and methods of financing research came Into being within the federal government. In the non-military areas the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health have been the major sources of federal support, although almost all governmental agencies have provided some support to higher education for research at some time. The Department of Defense has, of course, provided most of the support for military purposes; however, both the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have supported projects with military and peaceful applications. At this time it is necessary to bring the first of the qualifiers to this subject. but not "big" science. Our concern is with "little" This distinction is based on whether the supported project is of the size that requires a separate institution to carry out its activities, even though funded to universities or associations of universities. Thus the national laboratories like Argonne, Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge are "big" science and are not a concern of this paper. It would be wise to note that "little" science does not mean small funding, for numerous grants are for hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Up to this point no mention has been made of nonfederal support of research, this is not an indication that such support is non-existent or unimportant. But the fact is that it was federal support that brought research to the prominence it now holdq. Primary sources of non- federal support are foundations and industry. have served a vital function. Foundations They, to the greatest extent, have been able to support projects that would have been unsupported otherwise, for they have the greatest 5 Imlependence of action. Industrial support has never materialized to the degree some have projected. Because industry has a definite profit motive behind its activities, most industrial grants border on the applied or development work with most professors having a strong bias to basic research. The preceding has been a brief summary of how research has come to its position of importance and the sources of its support. Since the majority of support was federal, It has only been In the past year that one could question if a decrease in monetary terms was possible. Certainly the trend since World War II has been for more and more aid to research In higher education. Such massive support has changed higher education. It is well documented that not all disciplines of higher education have been equally supported; most graduates with Ph.D. degrees express a strong preference to do research over teaching; undergraduate students complain of being taught by the teaching assistant, and not the world famous professor that initially attracted them to their present institution; plus while almost all Institutions have received some support for research activities, it has overwhelmingly gone to less than one hundred institutions. 6 Impetus for Study Research and the support of research has been, and probably will be, one of the most debated topics in higher education. Trying to determine what has been Its effect, and the educational implications have been the concern, not only of those receiving the funds, but also of those who are distributing them. One such effort was a study supported by the National Science Foundation and recently completed. Entitled "Impact of Federal Support of Science on the Publicly Supported Universities and Four-Year Colleges in Michigan" by Dressel and Come, it undertook the study of the impact of research over ten years within a state system of higher education. Within a state that had the number one recipient of federal support for research (The University of Michigan), a major recipient of Agricultural Experiment Station funds (Michigan State University), several institutions moving at various rates from teachers colleges to university status, plus undergraduate colleges just coming into being, the impact of federally sponsored research Is immediately apparent. The absolute amounts of funds involved in the different institutions of the state are extreme. The University of Michigan expended in 1965-66 in the areas of science under study, some 7>900 times the amount expended by Ferris State College. Equally large differences in the number of faculty with research appointments and the number of graduate students paid from research grants can be seen between the institutions. Faculty desire to research more and teach less, because they see research and its related activity of publication as more important to their career. This study covered the areas defined as science by the National Science Foundation. To keep the size of the study manageable, data were summarized by these areas for each institution. This precluded, however, the opportunity to study the departments where the money was being used. The department is increasingly being seen as the central operational unit of the university, for as the faculty exert more control over their affairs, the power of the university administration to direct is diminished. Large universities do have special organizational centers that conduct research in specific areas. It is still, however, the professor within his department who is the primary unit in initiating research proposals, receiving the funds to support the projects, and directing them to their conclusion. It is thus apparent that while total changes IPaul L. Dressel and Donald R. Come, Impact of. Federal Support of Science on the Publicly Supported Universities and Four-Year Colleges In Michigan (National Science Foundation, Contract NSF-C-506, 1970;, pp. 22-23* 8 can be viewed by studying larger units, the changes take place at the departmental level, and the department must be the focus of the study. Local Background Michigan State University is a research oriented university. The amounts of research monies accepted have climbed during the five year period of this study from 14.2 million in 1964-65 to 22.2 million in 1968-69* The year of 1967-68 proved to be an exception to the normal pattern of growth, as 30.6 million was received that year. The national stature of Michigan State is further highlighted by the fact that in federal obligation for fiscal year 1968, MSU was 22nd in the nation with over 31*5 million d o l l a r s . 2 of course not all this was for research projects, as building grants and other projects were included, but much of the federal support had direct links to research. Based on the NSF study, the spread of research at Michigan State among the areas of science is becoming more balanced, with both the physical and medical sciences increasing while agricultural science is decreasing. It is thus assumed that Michigan State University is a typical university for a study of this nature. 2 "Total Federal Obligations to 100 Universities and Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, by Agency, Fiscal Year 1968," Higher Education and National Affairs, XIX (January 30, 1970), 7* 9 Problem The subject of this dissertation can be stated as what impact or changes have come about because of the sponsored project support received by the departments selected. What has been the impact on the academic staff, on the students, and on the financial support provided by the university? Primarily, there will be concern for the financial implication of the impact of these funds. primary hypothesis is as follows. The "Sponsored projects draw additional general fund monies to the department in excess of all cost sharing provisions." The importance of this hypothesis needs to have additional background. The central administration of Michigan State and its offices concerned with the administration of research grants looks upon funds for sponsored projects as coming in a separate, distinct stream apart from the general fund monies supplied by the state and tuition. To them general fund monies are used for instruction (which can include time for research, but is essentially student oriented), and sponsored project funds are used for research. This "fiction" is maintained by separate funds in the accounting- system. Furthermore, university budgets are made without any real consideration of this other stream of departmental support. The point hardly needs to be made that university direction is essentially carried out 10 through the funds of the general fund budget, or so It Is generally believed. Moving from the position of the central administration to that of the department another picture emerges. To the chairman the departmental function Is to carry out instruction, research, and public service. Since the three products can scarcely be separated, It is not illogical to assume that all sources of support can be used as the chairman sees fit, to accomplish the goals of the department. Besides, it is only the tightness of the university's financial position that prevents it from supporting research in a more substantial manner. Because sources of research support (mainly the federal government) are only filling in for the university, the department sees no conflict. Ignored is the question of "if the university supported research, would it need to supply the same amount of funds as is currently the case to have a balanced educational program?" How big does the research program of a department need to be and how is this determined? This difference between central administration and department leads to fundamental questions. Can the administration lead while concentrating only on part of the department's support, and can the department follow its own desires by being able to receive funds separate from all administrative control. More precisely, by developing its own sources of financial support, can the department 11 actually raise its general fund budget faster than the central administration would normally do so? It would normally be assumed that if additional funding was received from one source that less might be required from other sources. that just the opposite occurs. It is the contention here This is possible because the central administration ignores the sponsored project support, when considering its general fund budget, thus allowing the department to empire build If it can because no total university direction Is forthcoming. The process of substantiating the primary hypothesis will be by collecting various data that are believed to have direct bearing on the problem. There Is no one figure or other determined statistic that can conclusively show the relationship between general fund monies and funds for sponsored projects. It is only by combining financial, instruction, student, and staff data that if a relationship exists it can be shown. Secondary hypotheses have been stated that support the primary hypothesis. First is, "Sponsored projects have expenditures charged against general funds, both to prevent overruns and to prolong the life of the grants while using general funds that will be lost if not used." Grants can and do require more in expenditures to complete than Is budgeted. Sometimes the university pays for the overrun, but what also happens Is that the investigator charges to general funds expenditures legitimately incurred in the sponsored project. While such charges are generally in the category of supplies and services, the switching of salary sources for the investi­ gator or other staff is not uncommon. There is a two-fold reason for the switching of expenses, other than project overruns. First, monies budgeted but not expended in the general fund revert to the central administration at the end of each fiscal year. to June 30.) (A fiscal year is from July 1 If it is not spent it is lost to the department at least partially. In the area of salaries, up to 50 percent of the salary savings may be retained by the department. The second point for switching funds is that the department’s general fund budget Is based to a large degree on what it expended in the past. To receive increases, need must be shown, and what is a more positive indication than spending all you had in past periods? It can be seen that spending all the general funds Is better than only keeping half of the unspent salary budget; establishes a base for larger request next year. It also What has been Implied, but not yet stated is that research monies do not have to be spent within the current fiscal year. They can be used until the project is successfully completed. For the department, the procedure of saving project monies, while spending all budgeted general fund monies within each fiscal year becomes a method for 13 departmental flexibility. To the university it may result in expending funds for expenditure sake. A second secondary hypothesis is "Faculty positions move from sponsored projects to general fund monies." Involved here is the "soft" vs. "hard" conflict. Soft money is sponsored project funds that can disappear at the end of the project, or by the cutting back of federal funds. Hard money is general funds, which comes from state appropriations and tuition, and is considered to be far less subject to change. While sponsored project positions may offer a chance to observe a prospective faculty member in a non-tenure position, it can be misused by bringing an additional faculty member on campus and Involving the central administration in a squeeze play. For it is harder to remove a proven professor from campus whose salary support has disappeared than it is to deny a department an additional position paid from general funds. To the extent that positions paid by soft money are used to supply proven individuals for already approved general fund position no harm is caused, but if they enable the department to expand in a manner out of line with university goals, the increase on general funds is very evident. Two additional secondary hypotheses have been stated. One, "Faculty paid by general funds increase at a greater rate than student credit hours or majors in a research oriented department," and secondly, "For senior faculty (Professor and Associate Professor) there has been a decrease in both number of sections taught and student credit hours produced." These two hypotheses are inter­ related, if load is decreased then additional professors are needed to teach the same number of students and courses. This is backed up by the assumption that the complement of time spent in instructional activities is research. While public services and administrative duties do require time of the professor, the majority of his time is spent in instruction or research, if one changes either up or down it will directly change the other. The larger the supply of sponsored project monies, the more likely it will be to have reduced instructional loads. No doubt some of the instructional load will be taken by teaching assistants and other lower cost personnel, but senior faculty must be present to direct the instructional activities of these teaching assistants and to instruct in the upper division and graduate courses. If research time increases, then additional instructional help is needed to maintain the same amount of instruction, if this is accompanied with a decrease in instructional activities per professor for the department then the increase in instructional help is even larger. While the university is aware that released time for research is a form of cost sharing, they tend to ignore the additional 15 cost of personnel to carry on the Instructional program at the same level. Only If the staff Increases their average instructional load to compensate for the research time of their colleagues can the university escape the added cost of instruction produced by research. The preceding discussion on the impact of sponsored project funds on the operations of the department and concurrent effect on general funds has been highlighted by stating the primary hypothesis and the four secondary hypotheses that proved the structure for this study. The seriousness of the problem is apparent, for the sources of general funds, the state and tuition are Increasingly reacting in a negative manner to requests for additional funds. The university may be unwittingly adding to this additional need for general funds, by ignoring the impact of some of its activities. Compounding the problem is the action of the central administration who by Its methods of operations appear to deny the existence of the problem outlined. If the problem is recognized, the lack of data to show the impact of sponsored project funds is an additional handicap. This study is designed not only to show that such a problem exists, but to provide data that begin to show the extent of the problem. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP RELATED LITERATURE Recent literature dealing with the university and Its research activities Is extensive; especially prominent is the discussion of research Involving federal sponsorship. However, research directly related to this study is sadly lacking, for, to borrow from economics, the literature is macro-oriented and this study is micro-oriented. In other words, most authors show a far greater concern for the national and regional issues involved than they do for the problems of the individual Institution. When the institution is considered few of the problems mentioned deal with the financial aspects and still fewer of these can truly be said to consider the Impact on the general funds of the university. Most literature has only a sentence scattered here and there that has a real bearing on this topic. No articles or books were found that concentrated on the Impact of research funds as expressed in the hypotheses of this paper. Those that came the closest were authored by Dr. Dressel and Dr. Come of Michigan State University. 16 17 Taking the various sources considered in chronological order, the first book is by Kidd, American Universities and Federal Research, which is now eleven years old.-*- He, like most of the writers, talks of the goals of the federal agencies and functions of the universities. He observes that there will be conflicts between the two parties, and that adjustments must be sought to allow each to have his way to the maximum extent possible with the minimum sacrifice by each group. The more permanent the funding source sees itself, the greater will be the accomodation of the university, especially if they view the university’s research capabilities as necessary to their mission. In a chapter on research co sts,,Kidd states that the extent of federal payment can be decided by looking at the mission of the agency. If the agency Is purchasing research, then full payment is due. If It is sponsoring research, full payment may not be required. This Is followed by the statement that: When sponsored research is indistinguishable from research which the university would be willing to support from its own funds, it can be maintained that any federal supplement Is a boon to the faculty members and the university. This supplement permits the university to perform more effectively one of Its basic functions, support of research undertaken at the Initiative of faculty members and freely pursued by them.2 ICharles V. Kidd, American Universities and Federal Research (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1959). 2Ibid., p . 84. 18 While this statement is true on its face, it is carrying it to the extreme that has been so costly for higher education. Kidd follows up the above point by suggesting that federal support for research may result in a "freeing of general university research funds for departments, i notably arts and humanities, which receive little or no federal s u p p o r t . ’' ^ if the initial hypothesis of this study is correct Just the opposite will have occurred. Imbedded in Kidd's remarks is a basic contradiction. On one hand, he notes that if the unreimbursed indirect costs are too big a burden, the university can control this by the amount of research support it accepts. However, four pages later this appears: "the universities of the nation cannot be viewed as agents free to participate in or to refrain from research financed by the federal government."1* This is based on two reasons: one, an obligation to serve the government; and, two, the compe­ tition of keeping up with institutions of comparable stature. The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education by Rlvlin provides one important f e a t u r e . 5 The second and third chapters give a good account of the 3ibid., p. 85. **Ibid. , p . 88. 5Alice M. Rivlln, The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education (Washington. D . C . : The Brookings Institution, 1961). 19 development of the federal role In higher education. Both the amounts and forms of federal support are covered. In addition, Rivlln, like Kidd, thinks federal funds may release funds to other less supported areas. Professors In the social sciences and humanities sometimes bemoan the concentration of federal funds In the natural sciences and the "imbalance" that this creates in university life. The situation has certainly been hard on the morale of those in the nonscientific fields, but the availability of federal funds in the sciences actually may have given the universities more freedom to devote non-federal resources to research in other fields.® She agrees to the concept of full payment of overhead on purchased research and states that indirect costs are real, thus cannot be ignored, especially on a large volume of research. Orlans has recorded in The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Education the results of the first major study on federal participation in the activities of colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s .7 While his finding on student quality, and similar data are not of direct concern, Orlans does make several valid points. In discussing teaching loads, he points out the natural reduction in teaching loads that follows if research will support part of the scientist’s time. 6Ibid., p. 50. 7Harold Orlans, The Effect of Federal Programs on Higher Education: A Study of 36 Universities and Colleges (Washington, D . C . : The Brookings Institution, 1962). 20 Result, "the net effect of all variations is a larger staff, that teaches on average, less than is the rule in departments without government funds."® This pan produce a definite increase in general fund monies to a department, and is directly brought about by the sponsored projects. Not only are more staff required but at a higher price, 'scientists tend to be paid more than humanists, to be hired at a higher rank, to be promoted more rapidly, and therefore to earn more at a given age even where there is a fixed salary scale for each r a n k . "9 The discussion of cost sharing does not add any new insights into that problem. Science and the University, like the two books that follow, is an edited volume, containing the views of various leaders on the major problems of sponsored research on the university campus.10 Keenan, the editor, is associated with Purdue University, the host institution of the symposium where these papers were initially given. Because of the location and sponsorship much of the book has a strong mid-west orientation. This is of interest because of the geographical relationship to Michigan State University, the institution under study, but it does not bear directly on the problems of this study. 8Ibld., pp. 109-110. 9lbid., p. 115. ^•°Boyd R. Keenan, ed., Science and the University (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966). 21 The American Council on Education has published Sponsored Research in American Universities and Colleges, edited by Strickland.11 The definitions of sponsored research found in the book is of interest. The term "sponsored research" is an umbrella term, under which huddle a number of different sorts of operations, each with its distinctive relationship between donor, grantee, and institution. These range from the individual faculty member who gets a grant or contract; through the different kinds of institu­ tional grants (administrative, faculty committees, alumni, institutional foundation, etc.); to the various kinds of grants from outside sources — private donors, foundations, government agencies, industrial organizations, international agencies (UNESCO, etc.)12 This paper is concerned with the same types of activities, but what seems to be a more meaningful term is sponsored projects. Research is a misleading term when applied to too wide a range of activities. One of the authors in the book, Eurich has done a good job of defining the problem areas of research. As he sees them they a r e : 1. Direct control by those who support research. 2. Unnatural development of the institution caused by outside support. 3. Intensified competition between institutions or in crasser terms — raiding. ^ S t e p h e n Strickland, ed., Sponsored Research in American Universities and Colleges (Washington. D .C . : American C o u n c i l o n Education, 1967). 12Alvin C. Curich, "Reflections on University Research Administration," Sponsored Research, e d . by Stephen Strickland (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967), P P • 2-3- 22 4. Sudden withdrawal of funds. 5. Downgrading of teaching. ■6. The turning of scholars into administrators. 7. The plethora of logistical and fiscal problems generated by the flow of research funds from the outside.^3 Of the problems listed only the last can be considered of direct import to this study, and has prqbably the least written about it. Other problems not mentioned by Eurich but found throughout the literature are project grants v. institutional grants, basic v. applied research, and the whole question of geographical strengths based on the distribution of research funds by regions. DuBridge points up the need for additional cash if a consistent and logical research policy is to be followed. He sees a little research as a rosy path, But as major projects involving graduate students develop, time becomes an essential issue. Classroom schedules must be lightened, new standards adopted to define what constitutes a ''full teaching load," new faculty members employed. It is precisely at this Juncture that one begins to realize that outside sponsor funds do not pay all the cost. There will be an addition to the salary budget; there will be additional pressures on office and laboratory space, new demands on the library, and the new staff members will want research projects of their o w n ! ^ 13ibid., pp. 3-5lZ*Lee A. DuBridge, "Research and Academic Policy," Sponsored Research, e d . by Stephen Strickland (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967)* P* 13* 23 What DuBridge does not say, but what can be inferred is that a larger drain is put on the institution than just their share of the indirect costs. F ur n a s ,rspeaking of the needs of college presidents in coping with sponsored research, lists the need for expert cost accounting first. Cost accounting may appear to be foreign to the educator, but lack of good information may be fatal. For example, Frequently a research grant does not include an allocation for any portion of the salary of the dis­ tinguished professor who is to be the principal investigator, on the basis that he would be doing what he wanted to do anyway. That another professor instructor must be hired to take over half or more of his teaching duties is often ignored in the accounting of the total costs. This practice could well become a pattern of prospering into bankruptcy.15 He feels that the cost-sharing provision in federal grants might be the stimulus that will force the university to know what its costs are. For in the long run it is an important for a university to know its costs as it is industry. In a chapter devoted exclusively to cost-sharing, Woodrow and Hines point to some of the costs that the university carries in sponsored research. Named as examples are interest paid on new facilities required to 15c. C. Furnas, "Coping with Sponsored Research: A Special Word to Presidents," Sponsored Research, ed. by Stephen Strickland (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967), p. 38. 24 house expanded research programs, school publications, \ computer time, and many university paid Individuals who donate time to the project. Orlans has edited, Science Policy and the University which came out of a series of off-the-record meetings in Washington sponsored by the Brookings Institution.^7 While offering a more intimate look into the workings of the federal government, little was found that would contribute to this paper. In a critique of higher education, The American i University by Jacques Barzum, there are two chapters of interest.-*-® "Friends, Donors, Enemies" and "Poverty in the Midst of Plenty" point up many of the problems that come with funds from outside the university. There is little that is directly research oriented in the two chapters but the carryover between his points and those of this paper are based on similar approaches. He notes that all grants when accepted carry two implications. One, carry all or part of the overhead; and two, carry on the activity after the end of the grant. Indefinite future expenses seem always to get larger. ^ R a y m o n d J. Woodrow and Neil 0. Hines, "Cost Sharing in Government-Sponsored Research," Sponsored Research, e d . by Stephen Strickland (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967)^ H a r o l d Orlans, ed., s3-fcy (Washington, D.C.: The ifijacques Barzum, The York: Harper and Row, 1968) Science Policy and the UnlverBrookings Institution, 19^8) . American University (New . 25 The report of the National Science Foundation study of Michigan institutions is clear on the importance of the impact of sponsored monies.^9 Without question, however, the most significant issue that emerges is the developing concern of state government that Federal funds are encouraging acti­ vities and programs in individual institutions which do not coincide with their traditional (though not explicitly assigned) roles and which cause increasing demands upon the state . . . . There is an increasing tendency on the part of state officials to view Federal support as an alternative to state support, and they demand information which will make it possible for them to examine this p o s s i b i l i t y . 20 Through the report are points that substantiate those already reported from the literature. Among these are lighter loads for researchers,21 greater research activities among senior f a c u l t y 2 2 antj the strain of absorbing the university's share of the overhead. This report is the first to mention the switching of salaries from research funds to general f u n d s . 23 While noting that this can come about because of a change in activities, it is pointed out that it can result in saving funds from one year to the next. This is justified on the department level by saying the funds were gotten by our initiative, so we should use them as we see fit without any penalty 19Paul L. Dressel and Donald R. Come, Impact of Federal Support of Science on the Publicly Supported Universities and Four-Year Colleges in Michigan (National Science Foundation, Contract NSF-C-506, 1970;. 20lbid., pp. 132-33. 21lbid., p. 53. 22ibld., pp. 59-60. 23ibid., p. 105. 26 to our general funds. appropriate.2^ Arnold's point at this time is He says that at a certain point (undefined) departments get funds through no real effort on their part because of their reputation from past research. This is just a different way to say the rich are probably getting richer. The report then moves on to tell of the problems of central administration in determining what funds are used by the department and in what areas. Thus the central administration in relationship to the department is in about the same position as the state legislator to the university. In an editorial on Federal Funds in a recent Journal of Higher Education. Dressel welcomes the current cutback of federal research support as an opportunity to correct some of the problems brought on by such support.25 Of the problems listed, one involves the switching of all charges possible to general fund accounts to save research funds for future periods. Especially is this true at or near the close of the fiscal year. Other problems involve the lack of any real control over individuals or departments with outside support, and the push to graduate 2^Christian K. Arnold, "The Government and University Science: Purchase or Investment?" Science Policy, ed. by Harold Orlans (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1968). p. 91. 25paui L. Dressel, "Federal Funds," The Journal of Higher Education. XL (October, 1969), pp. 563-66. 27 education research projects at the expense of the undergraduate. While this review of the literature is not exhaustive, it does cover the major books of the past decade. It demonstrates the lack of material directly dealing with the subject. However, the various pieces that have been noted provide a sufficient base of support to the hypotheses of the dissertation. What the various authors have suggested now must be investigated empirically in a particular institution, Michigan State University. CHAPTER III ORGANIZATIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY Contained in this chapter is the description of the study from an organizational and methodological approach. The process for the selection of the sample of twenty departments, the types of data and the rationale for their collection, and the statistical approaches used to substantiate the hypotheses of the study will be set forth in the above order. Selection of the Sample Twenty academic departments of Michigan State University make up the sample of departments for this study. These were chosen on a selective basis by the author and not on a random basis from the hundred plus departments of the university for several reasons. 1. This study closely follows the NSP Impact Study which was concerned only with the "sciences" as defined by the National Science Foundation. 2. Because of the lack of outside funding to the non-science areas, a few departments from the humanities were desired. 28 29 i. (.'f\i*l,ain aroa:; (Husiness, Kduont 1ori, Homo Keonoinics, and professional oriented departments) were to be excluded. Taking into consideration the above points, why could not random sampling within strata be done? 1. The most obvious reason is that the five year span the study covers means that trend data are important. But in a growing university such as Michigan State, departments are continually being spun off, combined, moved between colleges, etc. This precludes inclusion of certain departments, of which the PhysicsAstronomy Department is a good example. In 1964 it was one department, now there are twoi however, the graduate program in Astronomy has not reached the stage where it can be studied apart from Physics. 2. Another major consideration was the belief that even within particular areas of science there is not the homogeneity necessary to randomly select the departments. An attempt was made to include departments varying in amounts of sponsored funding, student and faculty size, and a variety of teaching techniques. The following are the departments, grouped according to the National Science Foundation classification by fields: 30 Engineering: Chemical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Physical Science: Chemistry Geology Life Science - Agricultural: Life Science - Biological: Life Science - Medical^: Social Science: Humanities^: Animal Husbandry Horticulture Botany and Plant Pathology Zoology Pharmacology Physiology Economics Geography Political Science Sociology Psychology Art English History Music Philosophy The sample can be divided into ten departments that repre­ sent engineering, physical and the life sciences, and ten departments from social science and humanities. The first i/tfhile Pharmacology and Physiology are classified by NSP as biological, at Michigan State they have a strong Life Science - Medical orientation due to their relation­ ship to the College of Veterinary Medicine and also the College of Human Medicine. Michigan State, which lacked a senior Medical School during the time span of this study, did not have departments that would fit the standard Life Science - Medical classification (i.e., Neurology, Otolaryngology, or Radiology). 2 Psychology is classified separately from all other disciplines by NSF. However, because it is a part of the College of Social Science at Michigan State University, it will be considered as a social science in this study. ^There is no NSF classification for the Humanities. 31 group has generally been quite well supported by sponsored projects, the second group not so well, especially the humanities. Collection of Data The data used for this study have been collected from various administrative sources and university reports of Michigan State University, and generally for each of the five years of the study. Because of the variety of sources and the differing assumptions in these sources, it cannot be assumed that the data are entirely consistent. Despite this, the data are those that most logically should be used to study the hypotheses of this dissertation. The first set of data is the general fund expendi­ tures and budget for each department for the five years. The record of the expenditures is taken from the annual Financial Report of Michigan State University and shows total expended, and the four types of expenditures: salaries, labor, supplies and services, and equipment. The budget amounts are recorded in the same manner as the expenditures and are published in the annual Budget. For the purpose of this study, the expenditures are considered of greater importance for they show what actually happened. The percentage will be shown for each type of expenditure within the total for each year, and the amount of change from the first year (1964-65) will also be shown as a 32 percentage. This profile of the general fund for each department will be the basic data set for the comparisons of the study. Of equal importance is the amount of sponsored project funds expended during each year. The source of this inform­ ation is the Office of Research and Contract Administration and was taken from the computer runs of the transactions for each year. The last two years of the study (1967-68 and 1968-6 9 ) the runs were by the department receiving the grants; it is believed that these are very reliable. The totals expended were much more difficult to determine for the first three years of the study because the printout was by the account number of the projects in ascending order. Complicating this process is the assigning of the same account number to different grants in succeeding fiscal periods. By using a partially complete code book and tracing account names, which for the federal grants all have numbers included in the name, it is believed that almost 100 per cent of the expenditures for the departments of this study were located. The expendi­ tures for the sponsored projects are reported in a slightly different manner than are the general funds. The four types of expenditures are salary and wages, equipment, indirect costs or overhead, and other. It is quite apparent that the main difference is the inclusion of the indirect cost category. When developing the profile of 33 the expenditures of sponsored projects for each department, the amount of indirect cost will be excluded. It will be excluded because it has not been expended for the depart­ ment and thus might distort the relationship between sponsored project support and general fund monies. For the first three years of this study and for a number of years before that, the overhead from these grants was used as a special construction fund, and although this was a great assist to the University it is irrelevant to this study. However, now the overhead is required by the state to be included in the general fund, thus 10 per cent is returned to the Dean of the college that generated the money. There is no guarantee that these funds will return to the department that had the grant; thus this return is being ignored because of the inability to deter­ mine its actual use. The amount of overhead that is returned to the colleges was determined from the working papers of the Budget Office. The profile of the sponsored projects expenditures will follow the format of the general fund expenditures with percentage of change within each type of expenditure and percentage change of the total over the five year period. A third type of financial support that must be taken into consideration, but which is neither general fund nor 34 sponsored project money is that from the Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension programs. Six departments of this study receive funds from one source or the other or both. Animal Husbandry, Botany and Plant Pathology, Horticulture, and Sociology receive money from both programs. Physiology receives funds only from the Experiment Station, while the Extension program assists the Music Department. The amounts expended are reported in the annual Financial Report of the University. A second area of importance in collecting data is in determining the size of the faculty and the changes over five years. There are at least two sources that could be used to gather this type of information: the Salary Schedule put out by the Budget Office and the Faculty Course Listing compiled by the Office of Institutional Research. The Salary Schedule is used to count faculty for the Office of Institutional Research "Brown Book" that compiles trend data for the university. serious fault: of each year. It has one it is only accurate at or about July 1 The Faculty Course Listing Is made from the same source, faculty budget cards, but is much more accurate in terms of actual numbers for the school year. The fall term Faculty Course Listing for each year was chosen as the source document for the faculty data of this study. 35 For those faculty members with a rank of instructorprofessor ("A" faculty) and at least partially paid from the general funds of the department a headcount and full­ time equivalency (FTE) figure were developed. The same was developed for all other non-departmental general fund monies for those of the same ranks. The procedure was repeated for the "B" faculty (those with graduate assistantships, lecturers, and assistant instructors). To summarize, headcount and FTE figures were developed for the following four groups: 1. "A" faculty paid from departmental general funds 2. "B" faculty paid from departmental general funds 3. "A" faculty paid from non-departmental general funds, sponsored projects, or other sources k. "B" faculty paid from non-departmental general funds, sponsored projects, or other sources. The "A" faculty paid from departmental general funds were recorded on a rank basis. A count was kept of those faculty in Group 3 who were not counted in Group 1. These individuals, while having departmental rank, received none of their salary from the department general f u nd s. The change over time for the "A" faculty on general funds was recorded, both on a FTE basis and as a percentage. To study the instructional demand placed on the department the total student credit hours (SCH) taught each year was recorded as well as the majors in the V 36 department au recorded each fall term. These data are found in the aforementioned "Brown Book" and come originally from the Registrar's Office. For both types of data, SCH and majors, the number of undergraduates and graduates can be determined and the change between the two classifications traced. The change over time from 1964-65 was computed for each type of data. It is important to relate the total instructional load to the faculty involved in instruction. For this purpose the Faculty Course Listing was again used. Data to be collected are SCH per FTE professor and associate professor, sections of lectures and recitations by the same two ranks, total Instruction by all "B" faculty and instruction by professors and associate professors who receive no funds from the department. These data were collected for only the fall term for each year, because it was assumed this was as typical as any quarter, and if there was a bias, it was towards instruction. The emphasis on the data for professor and associate professor is again based on a desire to trace the impact of research on the general fund. While some assistant professors may do more research than do those of higher rank, the NSF Impact Study shows more research at the higher academic ranks. Thus there should be less instruction by such professors, showing a need for someone to take up the difference. 37 Data to support the first secondary hypothesis, that funds from sponsored projects are conserved by trans­ ferring charges to the general fund or that more is expended for the project than the grantor supplied, were gathered from the accounting records of the Bookkeeping Office of the university. For the last year of the study (1968-6 9 ) 20 per cent of the sponsored project accounts for the twenty departments were reviewed. This is an adequate sample to show the extent of the activities looked for. Data for the years preceding the last were not readily available. It has been assumed that they do not differ from the year examined. Data needed to support the secondary hypothesis pertaining to the movement of faculty positions between sponsored project funds and general funds were not available in any refined manner. It was initially thought that the Budget Office maintained such records, but this is not the case. To gather such data one would have to go through the file of each individual faculty member employed by this university during the past five years. work this represents made it impossible. The volume of As a secondary source, the Budget Office report on change-of-status action was analyzed for any possible useful data. Additional data were developed from combining the collected data already detailed above. For example, to stratify the departments as to their research orientation 38 The sponsored project money was divided by the general funds expended. Statistical Approaches This study involves trend data from twenty depart­ ments which were selected because of their variability. They are not representative of the total university from which they were taken, nor can it be assumed that they are free from the influence of any number of factors which could invalidate the final results. This causes difficulties in the design of the study, in the selection of statistics to be used, and of course in the confidence that can be placed in the results. But such are the problems faced in non-laboratory studies, especially those that attempt to asses the workings of a university. The point need not be elaborated on further, that the procedures used for much of the research in education and the behavioral sciences will not be usable here. The statistics that will be relied upon quite heavily are percentages that tell relative change between two points for a particular variable, and also allow for comparisons between departments that in absolute amounts are not comparable, but for amounts of change they are. In addition to changes they will be used to show how the parts relate to the whole, i.e., how much of the general fund is expended for salaries. The use 39 of percentages will enable one to understand much more clearly what has taken place than would Just the examination of the changes in absolute amounts in the basic data. Another statistic that will be of value is correlation. It allows for a much closer look at the relationship between two variables without requiring assumptions of the data which cannot be made. To calculate these, use will be made of the programs developed by the Agricultural Experiment Station and readily available on the CDC 3600 computer in the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. This is done on the BASTAT routine which calculates such basic statistics as means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and other statistics of the mean which are not important to this study. The statistic of concern is a simple correlation (Pearson product moment) of the following five variables: sponsored project funds expended, general funds expended, student credit hours, majors, and the FTE "A" faculty. They will be calculated for the total departments, for subgroups and for each department by Itself. The correla­ tions will be analyzed using a table developed by Guilford.^ ^J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), p. 145. • ■ 40 Less than .20 Slight, almost negligible relationship .20 - .40 Low Correlation; definite but small relationship .40 - .70 Moderate correlation; substantial relationship .70 - .90 High correlation; marked relationship •90 -1.00 Very high correlation; very dependable relationship These correlations were developed for a five year span when all the variables were changing. This leads to the question of how much correlation there is between two variables while holding the three remaining variables constant. To answer this question, the Least Squares routine from the same STAT series will be used to develop these partial correlations. The relationship between sponsored project funds and general funds expended, while holding student credit hours, majors, and number of FTE "A" faculty constant will be arrived at by third-order partial c o r r e l a t i o n s .5 This procedure is not possible for individual departments because the five observations and the five variables result in zero degrees of freedom which causes the program to have a denominator of zero. is a non-functioning position. 5lbid., pp. 316-18. This CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OP RESULTS The twenty departments selected for this study have, like the university itself, shown Increases on the measured variables used in this study. Sixteen expended more for sponsored project funds in 1968-69 than they did five years before; however, three of these departments had no project money in 1964-65* All departments received increases in general fund monies; however, only nine showed a greater percentage increase than that shown in the total general fund expenditures for instruction by the university over the time span. Growth in instructional output, measured in student credit hours, was experienced by seventeen departments, and increases in majors in eighteen. Faculty paid by general funds from the department increased in seventeen departments when measured In full-time equivalent faculty, and in nineteen on a headcount basis. As was mentioned In the first chapter, only by looking at the departments Individually can the impact of sponsored project funds be traced; what follows is a summary of the twenty departments viewed over five years. 41 42 Departmental Profiles Sciences and Engineering Chemistry.— This department throughout the period under study had the largest budget and the largest general fund expenditures of any of the twenty departments. It was also the largest In the university on both of thesemeasurements. Expenditures nearly doubled during the period from $711,431 to $1,372,769, a gain of 93-Q pe r cent. Because of the natture of instruction, the largest amount \ of expenditures for supplies and services was found here, between 20.1 per cent and 26.9 per cent of the total. As a result, the lowest percentage for salaries was in Chemistry, between 59*0 and 65.6 per cent. In student credit hours and majors the five years produced a period of rapid growth followed by some decline. The midyear, 1966-6 7 , was the high point for both variables, but student credit hours at the end of the period were 14.8 per cent higher than in 1964-65. They stayed almost constantly divided with 91 per cent being undergraduate hours and 9 per cent graduate. The total SCH for 1968-69 was 44,281, by far the largest amount of laboratory oriented instruction in the university. Total contact hours by the instructional staff would be considerably higher. The majors numbered 463 initially and were only two less at the end of the period. There was a decline in the number of undergraduate majors, and a shift of the mix of majors from about onethird graduates initially to a little over two-fifths at the end of the five years. The headcount of "A" faculty with some pay from the department general funds increased exactly 50 per cent from 22 to 33* The full-time equivalent number increased 49.3 per cent from 20.9 to 31*2. The increases in FTE "B" faculty were slightly greater, 61.3 pen cent (FTE of 64.8 in 1968-69) and 57.1 per cent (FTE of 30.3 In 1968-6 9 ) for those paid from general fund and non-general funds respectively. Faculty who received pay from non-depart- departmental sources almost exclusively received it for joint appointments to the Honors College, Lyman Briggs College, or other teaching or administrative functions. Chemistry during this time expended the largest amount of sponsored project funds of any of the twenty departments. For 1968-69 this amounted to $693,158, a gain of 104.1 per cent over the $338,650 of 1964-65* These funds equalled from one-third to one-half the general funds expended each year. Besides the salary money used for assistants and the funds for supplies for the research projects, these funds provided $516,314 of equipment to the department over five years, as compared to $329,857 provided by university general funds. The non-federal fund money was predominately from federal sources; in only 44 one year, 1967-68, did non-federal funds equal 10 per cent of the total. Chemistry provided one example where an Initial agreement at the time the grant was received committed the university to further and larger expenditures of general funds. By participating in the National Science Foundation’s Centers of Excellence program, the university agreed to continue the developments started through the grant. For 1968-69 more than $134,000 was expended from this grant, or 19.4 per cent of all outside funding during that year. Geology.— This department increased in all areas but none of the increases were large over the five years, the increase in sponsored funds being the largest at 59*4 per centr The general fund expenditures showed steady growth from $159,222 to $225,899, a gain of 41.9 per cent. The distribution of the general funds had about 89 per cent going for salaries, equipment received 5 per cent and the rest went for labor and equipment. Geology was one of the departments that did not reach the university gain in general funds expended for instruction of 71*5 per cent. There appeared to be a slight trend toward undergraduate instruction in the department. The gain in student credit hours was found largely in the undergraduate courses, while the undergraduate majors moved from slightlyless than half (46.2) to slightly more than half (52.3). 45 There were 132 majors in 1968- 6 9 , a gain of 24.5 per cent, while student credit hours taught were 8,074, up 54.8 per cent. The gain in "A" faculty for Geology (from 9 to 12 headcount and 7*9 to 9.9 PTE) came from filling positions at the rank of assistant professor and instructor. Again the Joint appointments to the Office of the Dean of Natural Science, Continuing Education, and Museum accounted for the non-departmental salary. The exception was 60.0 per cent of one salary from a Department of Interior grant. "B" faculty paid from general funds remained almost constant during the five years, while those paid from I other funds increased to 4.5 from 1.0 PTE. Sponsored project funds remained steady at about 50 per cent of general funds expended, except for 1966-67 when a large non-federal grant increased both total sponsored project funds and non-federal funds to their largest amounts of the five year span ($152,814 and $41,163) and equalled 75.1 per cent of the general fund money. Mechanical Engineering.— Development of a clear picture of Mechanical Engineering and the department to follow, Chemical Engineering, is difficult because of the organizational structure of the College of Engineering. Within the College is a Department of Engineering Research which coordinates almost all of the research of the College and receives almost all the grants for sponsored projects. It also receives from the university, general funds in 46 excess of either of the two departments under study. Faculty on major projects are assigned to the Division and receive their salary from it. Perhaps in part because of this, Mechanical Engineering made the least gains of any of the departments that showed gains. The general funds expended increased by 22.2 per cent, the lowest of any department in the study, and the amount of the gain, $54,082, was third lowest of the twenty departments. Student credit hours increased 300 or 5*4 per cent in five years, again the lowest for those depart­ ments with a gain. The gain was in the graduate courses as they more than doubled (351 to 799) and increased their share of the total from 6.3 to 13*7 per cent. The majors showed an increase of 28.1 per cent, 70 more undergraduates and 24 graduates; there was a greater increase of graduates, thus their current share of majors was 13*5 per cent. The "A" faculty has shown the greatest growth (34.9 per cent), with an increase of 3 in headcount (to 17) and 4.7 in FTE (to 14.5). The difference between headcount and FTE (the FTE paid by non-departmental funds) was completely accounted for by appointments to the Department of Engi­ neering Research. In addition there was one faculty member with appointment in the department who received all his salary from Continuing Education. "B" faculty paid from general funds stayed about the same. from other funds. There were none paid The sponsored project support expended 47 increased substantially in the last two years ($51,094 and $*12,293) as compared to $18,86*1 in 1965-66, the previous high. Since these grants were made in the main to Engi­ neering Research, the information they supplied did not allow for a breakdown between federal and non-federal sources. Chemical Engineering.— This was the smallest department In the study that was involved in undergraduate instruction. It was also the smallest of the departments in the College of Engineering. General fund expenditures increased 42.8 per cent (to $159*154), but the gain in dollars was the second smallest of the twenty. ($47*691) As a comparison, the department in 1968-69 expended in general funds less than half of what Chemistry expended for supplies and services alone. Student credit hours gained over fifty per cent (51.6) with both graduate and undergraduate retaining their same share of the total (17*6 and 82.4) but were still a small 2,250. Majors showed a gain of 40.5 per cent, but unlike SCH for which the gain was gradual over the five years, this all came between 1964-65 and 1965-6 6 . Since 1965-66 majors have changed only one, to 163; of these the graduate share was 12.9 p e r cent. The "A" faculty declined one in headcount and PTE to 7 and 6 .5 , with the .5 difference being paid by Engineering Research. The three "B" faculty had half-time appointments and were paid from general funds. The amount of sponsored project money was equally small, while the gain of 150.6 48 / per cent was impressive, the gain was from $12,219 to $30,626, an increase of only $18,407. 1966-67 was excep­ tional, for that year a National Science Foundation equipment grant of over $25,000 pushed the total expended to $47,594. Animal Husbandry.— This department and the two to follow, Horticulture and Botany and Plant Pathology, were the departments most closely tied to the Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension system. Large portions of their funding were from this source and many of the faculty were partially paid from these funds. The general funds showed one of the smallest gains over five years (25*6 per cent), while in dollar amounts, the gain ($46,246) was the smallest of the departments. The total for 1968-69 was $227,102. However, the Experiment Station funds were also increasing during these five years and at a faster rate (up 45*8 per cent). In 1968-69 they were larger than the total general fund expended for the first time ($238,402 v. $227,102). When the $111,092 from Extension was included, the general fund expenditures equalled only 36 per cent of total funds expended for the year by Animal Husbandry. There was a different pattern of disbursements in this department, as an unusually high portion (about 25 per cent) of the general fund was expended for labor. This was for help to care for the animals, which matched 49 with supplies and services of about 10 per cent, left the department with an amount for sialaries of 65 per cent, second only to Chemistry as the lowest proportion for salaries. The student credit hours suffered the largest degree of decline of any department, down 32.2 per cent. Most of the decline was in undergraduate, hours, which were down 1,376 to 2,629 but these remained 89 »1 per cent of the total 2,950. This was contrasted by the gain in under­ graduate majors from 68 to 92 or 84.4 per cent of the total of 109. The graduate majors started at 18 and ended at 17, a stable but small number. The "A" faculty showed an increase in headcount, up 2 to 13 but down slightly in FTE 6.8 to 6.3* The importance of the Experiment Station can be demonstrated by the extent it provides salary support to the faculty: only one faculty member received all his salary support from the general fund, the rest received from both sources. "B" faculty paid from general fund increased from 3.0 to 5*4 FTE and non-general fund from 1.5 to 2.8. Of the science and engineering oriented departments, Animal Husbandry expended the third smallest proportion of research to general funds expended of any of the departments, 24.1 per cent was the highest of the five years. (Both engineering departments had lower percentages in this measurement than Animal Husbandry.) It was the one science department that for each year expended more nonfederal monies than federal. 50 Horticulture.— This department showed some growth in all areas. Its general fund expenditures were close to the ' bottom in rate of growth (25-7 per cent) and the dollar amount was only $56,338 for the five years. Because of their greenhouses, their labor expenditures were close to 20 per cent of total expended, while salaries were near 70 per cent. The Experiment Station and Extension funds must also be considered. Here again, these funds grew faster than general funds (up 3^.8 per cent), but where Animal Husbandry got about one dollar of Experiment Station money for each general fund dollar, Horticulture received two Experiment Station dollars. Combining all funds again, the general funds expended w^re just over one dollar in every five (23-1 per cent for 1968-6 9 ). The gain in student credit hours (63*2 per cent) was felt almost equally in both undergraduate and graduate hours. The 7*91^ SCH in 1968-69 made Horticulture the largest department in the College of Agriculture in this respect. The majors were up 21.4 per cent with a small gain evident in the graduate students, though they were still less than half (46.5 per cent) of the total of 142. The "A" faculty was much like Animal Husbandry, almost all with partial or full support from Experiment Station and Extension funds. The PTE count for general funds rose from 8.9 to 10.1 while the headcount went from 19 to 21. There was a drop of 0.5 PTE of "B" faculty paid from general funds (to 2.0), but an 51 increase of 12.3 FTE to 22.0 (headcount = 36) of "B" faculty paid with non-general fund monies. Horticulture made rapid gains in the amount of sponsored project funds expended to general funds. The percentage rose from 33-2 to 84.0 during the five years. This was accomplished by reversing their mix of 63.4 per cent non-federal funds to one of 63*7 pe*1 cent federal funds, while total expended went from $72,806 to $231,312. Botan.v and Plant Pathology.--This department was an interesting case because of the contrasts presented. It almost appeared that the department had gone backwards. Its general funds were slow in increasing, 25-5 per cent was the next lowest in the twenty, though the totals made it a rather large department ($363*168 for 1968-69). Of this total, nearly 88 per cent was for salaries. The amount of Experiment Station funds nearly equalled the general funds (91.0 per cent) and they had been growing more rapidly (up 46.8 per cent). The general funds expended were a little more than a third of all funds (34.7 per cent). From the student credit hours taught there appeared a shift away from undergraduate education. The total SCH fell, 2,034 hours in five years to 6,780, but in undergraduate hours the decrease was 2,282 hours. This allowed the graduate hours to move from 14.1 per cent of the total to 22.0 per cent. In majors the emphasis on graduate education was even more apparent. Eighty-one of 52 the 99 majors were graduate students, and most of the 11.2 per cent gain in majors came there, as undergraduates gained only one to 18. The "A" faculty, while growing in headcount (3 to 27) lost 0.2 PTE to 16.5. "B" faculty paid from general funds declined from 12 headcount and 6.0 PTE to 8 headcount and 4 PTE. But those paid from other funds increased from 30 and 16.5 to 35 and 21.5. In "A" faculty, Botany had more faculty with academic appointment to their department, but receiving no salary from their general funds than any other department in the study. For 1968-69 it was seventeen. Besides appointments in the Experiment Station and Extension programs, there were at least five in the AEC Plant Laboratory. The rate of increase for sponsored project funds was 11^ 5. per cent This was the lowest gain of any of the research oriented science departments. Even this may be misleading as only in 1968-69 was sponsored project money larger than the base year of 1964-65. funds were federal. At that time 85 per cent of these The AEC Plant Laboratory may be the explanation for the lack of growth in the Botany department's research funding because of the closeness of research Interest between these two operational units. Zoology.— While not gaining in general fund monies as fast as the total university, the 55-1 per cent for Zoology was faster than any of the previously discussed departments, 53 except for Chemistry. to $362,711. Funds expended grew from $233*234 The measure of instructional activities showed a dramatic turn around for 1968-6 9 . Graduate student credit hours increased each year, from 1,169 to 1,911, up from 7.2 per cent of the total to 12.0 per cent. However, undergraduate hours were down some 3,900 at the end of 1967-68 from 1964-65, the total of all SCH was then at 12,964 down 20.2 per cent. In 1968-69 under­ graduate hours increased about 2,800; thus with the continued increase in graduate hours, the totals were down only 2.1 per cent for the five years. In majors the same undergraduate effect in 1968-69 was seen. There was an increase in undergraduate majors of 52, which coupled with the continued increase in graduate students gave a percentage increase in total of 9*7 percent to 350 majors. During this span the percentage of graduate majors changed from 17.6 per cent to 24.9 per cent. The "A" faculty increased from 12 FTE out of a headcount of 12 to 15 FTE out of 16. In addition there were 5 professors with academic appointments, but 100 per cent paid from the Museum, Fisheries and Wildlife, Biophysics and Dean of Natural Science Office. During 1968-69 four professors were 100 per cent on sponsored project grants. There was an increase in ,TB" faculty paid from general funds of 4.5 FTE to 11.0, while those paid from other sources declined from 5.1 to 3-7 FTE. The gain in sponsored 54 project monies was all from federal sources rising 121.8 per cent from $144,368 to $320,273* The dollar gain of $175*905 was the fourth largest in the twenty departments. Equipment purchased from such grants total $150,704 for five years, the third largest purchase of equipment among the twenty. Physiology.— This department was the recipient of major growth in general funds expended, as over five years they increased 130.8 per cent to $381,891. The actual dollar increase of $216,461 was the largest in the sciences, except for Chemistry. Physiology was also involved in Agricultural Experiment Station funding; this, i however, did not grow to the same extent as general funds. During the five years it ranged from $67*077 to $79,814, the smallest amount given to a department in this study from this source. Student credit hours grew by one-third, to 8,805, the largest instructional load in the College of Veterinary Medicine. hours, 29.6 per cent. They were increasingly graduate The majors were almost unchanged, up 2.0 per cent representing a gain of one. or 32.7 per cent were undergraduates. Of the 52, 17 The faculty grew, but not to the extent that the funding did. The full­ time equivalent faculty rose to 8.5 from 7*7, a gain of 10.4 per cent. to 4.6 Headcounts were up 3 to 14. Up 1.1 FTE were the "B" faculty paid from general funds, while those paid from other funds declined to 3 FTE, down 0.5* 55 In addition, the NIH Fellows over the five years declined from 10 to 5. Where Physiology^really grew was In sponsored project funds. In five years it grew from $135,612 to i $425,504, up 213.8 per cent. The $289,892 that they increased was second only to Chemistry, as was the $194,699 v in equipment purchased. As might be suspected with growth like this, 95 per cent of the fund in 1968-69 was from federal sources. Pharmacology.— The last of the science departments was also the smallest department in the entire study. has not kept it from some spectacular gains. This The growth in general funds has been very large, partly because the beginning base was so small. From $27,869 to $183,039 was not only a dollar gain of $155,170, but a percentage gain of 556.8 per cent, certainly the largest of the study. During this growth period a large, but decreasing share was expended on equipment. per cent of the total. The salaries approached 80 The instructional activities showed great gains but were still the smallest in the study. From 665 to 1,858 was a gain in SCH of 179*4 per cent, of which 97*8 per cent was at the graduate level. nine, all graduates. Majors totaled The "A" faculty doubled in headcount (2 to 4) and in FTE (1.5 to 3*6), a gain of 140.0 per cent. There were no "B" faculty paid with other funds and only a one-quarter time position from general funds. The change in sponsored project funds was from $417 expended In 56 1964-65 to $185,926 in 1968-69* an increase of some 445 times. Of the total from one-fourth to one-third has been non-federal, rather a large ratio for such a large amount of funding, except possibly for the strength of the pharmaceutical Industry in Michigan. Of the funds $121,997 was expended for equipment. Social Sciences Moving into the social sciences brings a different type of department into focus. Particularly one notices the much larger amounts of instruction taught, and generally a decrease in total dollars of sponsored project support. Sociology.— Sociology has, next to Pharmacology, received the largest gain in general funds expended over the five years, from $195,378 to $474,654, a gain of 142.9 per cent. At least 90.0 per cent was expended for salaries with the majority of the remainder for supplies and services. In addition, they received funds from both the Agricultural 1 Experiment Station and the Extension program. The Experiment Station funds increased from $75,657 to $95,501, while the Extension monies dropped from $20,713 to $371. The student credit hours rose sharply to 47,555, up 82.2 per cent. increasingly became undergraduate hours. majors. They The same held for In total up 15*3 per cent, but all in undergraduates; the graduates declined from 120 to 94, and from 49-6 per cent of the total to 33-7 per cent. The rate of increase in "A" 57 faculty was the largest of the twenty departments. From a headcount of 14 and a FTE of 7*3; the 1968-69 department had a headcount of 33 and a FTE of 21.1 per cent, a gain of 189.0 per cent. Joint appointments ,with the Experiment Station, other departments, and at least two men on partial salary from sponsored projects accounted for the remaining portion of faculty time. The "B" faculty paid from general funds gained 4.8 FTE to 13.8 FTE, while those paid from other funds showed a decrease of 7*8 FTE to 2.5* Even in sponsored project funds, Sociology achieved a major gain of 227*8 per cent. This was the highest of any of the social sciences or humanities. The funds increased from $25,097 to $82 ,258 . Political Science.— The biggest gain in this department has been in general funds, and this came about in the last two years under consideration. The total gain was 79*9 per cent, but 44.6 per cent came between 1966-67 and 1967-68 with a gain of $137,859* The department ended the period with $555,635 compared with $308,903 the first year. Student credit hours increased 37*8 per cent to 45,891, of which 94.2 per cent were undergraduate and increasing slightly. Majors showed an increase between 1964-65 and 1966-6 7 , but have declined since then; however, a small gain of 6.1 per cent was recorded over the five year period. All the increase and decrease was in under­ graduate students as graduate students stayed within one 58 of 95 during the four of the five years. The "A" faculty* as would be expected, Increased, up 28.4 per cent, In FTE's from 20.2 to 25.9. What was unusual was the movement of the top three academic ranks from 11, 4, 3 i'n 1964-65 to 6, 4, 17 five years later. "B" faculty also' increased, especially those paid with general funds, headcounts from 18 to 44, and FTE from 9*0 to 21.5. Those paid from other sources increased only 0.2 FTE to 2.0. The year 1964-65 was the top year in sponsored project funds, every year that followed was lower. There was enough of a recovery In 1968-69 to show over the five years a decrease of only 1.9 per cent, down $1,063- Political Science joins with Animal Husbandry as a department that always had the majority of its funds from non-federal sources. Geography.r-With the fifth largest percentage gain in general funds expended (123*7 )> Geography ended the period with $286,967 expended in 1968-6 9 . the five years was $158,673. The gain over The department grew rapidly in its volume of instruction taught. From 14,146 SCH to 20,979 SCH was a gain of 48.3 per cent. The mix stayed nearly constant, with about 92.0 per cent undergraduate. The outlook was much more graduate oriented from the number of majors enrolled. While the total growth of 69*1 per cent to 159 majors was occurring, the graduates grew from 50 to 83 to maintain 52.0 per cent of the total. The gain in FTE "A" faculty was second only to Sociology, up from 59 5*7 to 13.6 or 136.5 per cent. 7 to 18. The headcount went from "B" faculty paid from general funds increased 50 per cent by headcount, 14 to 21 and from 5-1 to 8.0 on an PTE basis. 0.5 PTE to 1.5. The non-general fund "B" faculty increased The "A" faculty had Joint appointments with a number of departments or institutes, i.e., the African Study Center, and Social Science Teaching Center. Sponsored project funds were a downhill proposition for Geography over these five years. 1 The base year was largest, thanks to a National Science Foundation grant of about $30,000. Prom a first year of $51,742 they dropped, but ended at $40,478, down 21.8 per cent. Predominantly, these were federal funds. Psychology.— This department was atypical of the other departments in social science involved in this study, first because of its size and secondly because of its extensive research activity. The growth of the general funds expended was the third largest of the twenty departments, 134.7 per cent. But the gain of over $583*000 was second only to Chemistry. In 1968-69 Psychology became the university's third million dollar department, expending $1,015*974. Only Chemistry and Mathematics expended more general funds. student credit hours, Psychology was the largest of the twenty departments with 88,127 for 1968— 69 up 40.3 per cent from the 62,808 five years earlier. Only In 60 . Mathematics was larger in the university. The portion of graduate hours stayed relatively constant near 9.4 per cent. Majors showed greater growth than SCH, up 53*8 per cent to 1,092. Undergraduates increased their share from 75-5 pe** cent to 79*1 per cent. 81.1 The "A" faculty increased per cent from an PTE of 21.3 to 38.7* The headcount of those with some departmental general fund pay rose from 26 to 49. Those "B" faculty paid from general funds almost doubled in PTE 21.3 to 38.7 and headcount 35 to 69* There was a small increase in FTE of those paid from other sources, 4.6 from 4.0. Of the seven "A" faculty paid totally from other sources, four were sponsored project money, and three to other departments. The growth in sponsored project'funds was third in dollar volume behind Chemistry and Physiology, up $243 *315. This gain, from $194,049 to $4 37*364 was 125.4 per cent. than 98 per cent of the total was federal funds. More One difference in the utilization of the funds was the much smaller percentage used for equipment (around 4.5 per cent) than for science areas with comparable large amounts of outside funds. This is perhaps explained by the nature of the discipline. The amount was, however, a not insigni­ ficant $77*601 over five years. Psychology was the only non-science department that consistently received 40 per cent or more sponsored project funds in relation to the general funds expended. Economics.— This department made substantial gains in all areas except "A" faculty size. The general funds grew to $567,120, a gain of 48.6 per cent from the $381,559 in 1964-65* Almost 97 per cent of these expenditures were for salaries. The 47,054 student credit hours for 1968-69 made the Department of Economics the largest in the College of Business. In growing from 33,154 to the present figure there was a gain of 41.9 per cent. Graduate hours were continually above 15*0 per cent of the total, and were practically constant. Majors showed a much larger gain up 73*2 per cent, from 220 to 381. While there was a gain in graduate students, the undergraduates doubled in number, thus increasing their share from 59*1 to 70.3 per cent. The "A" faculty made a gain of one in headcounts to 26, but only 0.5 in PTE to 22.9* The growth in "B" faculty paid from general funds was much greater, from 11 to 17 in FTE and 23 to 35 in headcount. Those paid from other sources declined from an PTE of 2 to 1.3. The amount of sponsored project funds showed a gain of 28.3 per cent, but this was again a case of the last year covering up the three middle years that had less funds than the base year. The mix between federal and non-federal varied from year to year, but Economics received considerable funds from non-federal sources. Particularly important were grants from the Ford Foundation. 62 Humanities ' In the five departments from the humanities sponsored project funds are virtually non-existent. Their gains in general funds have centered near the total university figure, less than the few favored science departments and most social science departments, but ahead of the gains made by most of the sciences and engineering departments. Art.— Art increased their general fund money 61.4 per cent over the five years, with the 1968-69 total of $579,694 the middle figure for the five humanities depart­ ments. Since these departments had large general fund budgets, the total gain $220,632 was large, even though the percentage of gain was less than for some of the smaller departments. Teaching measured by student credit hours grew 31.3 per cent bo 30,543* The division between undergraduates and graduates remained near 93 to 7 per cent. Th§ Increase in majors to 888 from 725 was from the growth of undergraduates and the decrease in graduates which were less than in 1964-65 (.69 to 61). The mix in majors was similar to those in student credit hours. The Art "A" faculty was almost entirely paid from departmental general funds. In 1968-69 it was 36.3 FTE out of a head­ count of 37 ; in 1964-65, 29*7 out of 30, for a gain of 22.2 per cent. A much larger increase was in "B" faculty paid from general funds; 10.1 FTE as opposed to 4.2 five years earlier. Headcounts were up from 12 to 26. One "B" faculty member paid from other sources was present In 1968-69. Turning to sponsored project funds, in 1964-65, $4,037 was expended. This dropped to $710 one year later, and the following year, 1966- 6 7 , amounted to only $253. was nothing. For the last two years there All the funds came from non-federal sources. M u s i c .— Having increased their general funds to approximately $728,040, a gain of 50.9 per cent, Music had the second largest budget in the College of Arts and Letters. The 1968-69 expenditures were reduced by $75,000, approximately the amount trans­ ferred into its accounts during that year to equip the Music Practice Building, but an amount that distorts the trend data. Music was the only humanities depart­ ment to receive funds from the Extension program. amount was $10,000 to $11,000 a year. The The gain in student credit hours (26.6 per cent) was among the lowest in the s t ud y. Graduate hours increased faster than undergraduate to change the proportion from 9.5 per cent to 11.8 per cent of the 25,599 total. Majors increased slightly faster, up 28.5 per cent and retained an 80-20 ratio between the undergraduates and graduates. The "A" faculty was almost entirely paid from general, f u nd s: 45 FTE out of 46. This was a gain 64 of 15.4 per cent from the 39 PTE of 40 In 1964-65. Continuing Education and the Extension program pro­ vided the salaries for 2.5 FTE additional faculty. While there were no "B" faculty with other funds, those on general funds increased from 6.5 PTE of 15 Individuals to 13.8 of 38. The department expended no sponsored project funds during 1964-65* with the amounts for the last four years varying between $6,982 and $1,373. All of the funds were federal, with the National Science Foundation and the Office of Educa­ tion the chief sources. Philosophy.— This was the smallest department in the humanities, but it had the largest percentage gain in general funds, faculty and majors of any of the five departments. The general funds expended nearly doubled (up 92.7 per cent) during the five years. The gain was $152,165 to $316,308. 95 per cent was used for salaries each year. Nearly Student credit hours increased 29.7 per cent from 14,506 to 18,812 with a slight increase in the graduate portion, which was 5.4 per cent of the total. The graduate students increased from 31 to 51 which raised their part of total majors to 44 per cent of the 116, up from 39.2 per cent. The "A" faculty grew over 50 per cent 65 v in both headcount (13 to 22) and PTE (12.4 to 19.2). Those with Joint appointments were all connected to a residential college: Morrill, Madison or Briggs. A small increase in "B" faculty FTE (6.0 from 5*5) paid from general funds was accompanied by a gain in headcount of 4 to 15. Those paid from other sources remained stable at 2 but increased the PTE to 1.5 from 1.0. For the first two years of the study, Philosophy had no expenditures from sponsored project funds. In 1966-67 they had $243. This rose to $4,129 the next year but decreased to $2,186 in 196869. All of the funds were from federal sources. English.— This was the largest of the humanities departments. It had the largest budget, third behind Chemistry and Psychology in this study, the second largest student credit hour production (after Psychology), and the largest number of majors. The general funds increased $327>392 to $774,133 which was the third largest total increase, while the percentage of gain (73.3) was second to Philosophy for this area. With about 2 per cent of the general fund used for supplies and services, the remainder went to salaries. The 51.3 per cent climb in student credit hours to 72,006 was present In both undergraduate and graduate hours . The undergraduate hours were 93.7 per cent of the total, graduate 6.3 per cent. English had more majors than any department in this study (1,265). There was a 1.5 per cent gain by the undergraduates in their share of the total which increased 34.7 per cent over the five years. The "A" faculty grew by 18.7 per cent to an FTE of 37.5 from 31.6. increased five to 40. The headcount There were seven with rank t but no funds from the department. , These included the Ombudsman, and individuals in Justin Morrill and the Honors College. The gain in FTE "B" faculty paid from general funds was from 13.6 to 24.3. was 49, up from 28. The headcount There was one half-time appoint­ ment with salary from other sources at the "B11 faculty level. English had two years with large expenditures of sponsored project funds. In 1965-66, $47,476 was expended and in 1966-67, $107,002. This was all federal money from the Office of Education. There was a sharp decline with the funds for 1968-69 totaling $4,559. This was the only department in the Humanities that had some sponsored project funds every year of the five years under study. History.— By most of the variables considered, History grew very little during the five years of the study. Their general funds increased 55-8 per cent from $340,605 to $530,494, the second lowest in humanities. 67 Of this total over 98 per cent, the highest of any department in this study, was spent for salaries, 1.8 per cent for supplies and services, and 0.1 per cent for equipment. The gain in student credit hours was modest, up 16.2 per cent, to 55*865- Graduate hours rose to 7-3 per cent of the total from 5-2 per cent. The decline in majors was both the largest in percentage (13-3) and total (109) of any department in the study. down 126. The decline was all in undergraduates, As a result their share dropped from 83.2 to 78.2 per cent of all majors. The 708 majors was still the fourth largest of the twenty. The "A1* faculty increased 22.2 per cent to 26.9 PTE from 22.0. There was a gain in headcount of 7 to 31. Those MB ” faculty paid from general funds went from 3^ to MO on headcount and 15.5 to 19.3 PTE. There were none paid from other sources at the "B” faculty level. Sponsored project funds, non-existent the first year, were about $12,000 for each year, except for 1967-68 when an Office of Education grant pushed the total to $28,370. Except for this grant, all funds were non-federal, and mainly from the Ford Foundation. 68 Analysis of Correlations In Support of the Primary hypothesis The preceding profiles help to present what has happened over five years in1 twenty selected departments of Michigan State University, but it is not possible to draw directly from' them the relationships which are essential to the support of the primary hypothesis. By taking the raw data and calculating the correlations between five variables, relationships do emerge. five variables are: The sponsored project funds expended, general funds expended, student credit hours, number of majors, and the PTE faculty count for "A" faculty. These correlations were developed for the total sample, different subsets of the sample, and finally for each department of the study. They will be explained in the same order. Of these five variables, our attention will be primarily focused on the relationship to the general fund by the other four. It is assumed that the general fund is influenced by, but cannot influence sponsored projects expended, student credit hours, and majors. There should be a rather high correlation between totals expended and PTE faculty members since salaries make up from 60 to 98 per cent of the total general funds expended. For this same reason sponsored project funds should have correlations of about equal size between general funds and faculty if they are highly correlated. 69 TABLE 1 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS OVER ALL DEPARTMENTS Correlations Over All Departments GP with SP •554 ( GF with SCH .704 GP with Maj .618 GF with Pac .766 The highest correlation is between general funds and faculty, and this is not unexpected with the diverse group. Next is student credit hours and this is also as It should be, for the general fund allocations are heavily instruction oriented. The size of the correlation for sponsored projects, while not extremely meaningful, is large enough to indicate that for departments with research interest it may be very important. The next set of correlations will be separately for the ten departments from the sciences and engineering and the ten departments from social science and humanities. The science correlations have changed quite drastically upward from the correlations for all departments except for general fund with major, which has increased a little. Again, faculty and student credit hours are more related to general fund money than sponsored projects, but it is much more important for this grouping than for the total. 70 TABLE 2 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR TEN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS, AND TEN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering 10 Social Science & Humanities GF with SP .810 .538 GF with SCH .9k9 .703 GF with Maj .701 .715 GF with Fac .906 .854 For the social sciences and humanities the correlations have not changed substantially from the total correlations, and sponsored projects has shown a slight decrease. This grouping appears to relate very closely to the total of all departments. What happens when research stratification takes place? It was assumed that a department that each year had sponsored project support equal to 40 per cent of its general funds expended would have a strong research program. following eight departments met the criteria: The Chemistry, Geology, Horticulture, Botany, Zoology, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Psychology. For 1968-69 those next in line would have been Animal Husbandry with 2k per cent and Chemical Engineering with 19 per cent. 71 TABLE 3 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR EIGHT RESEARCH ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS AND THE TWELVE REMAINING DEPARTMENTS 8 Research Oriented 12 Remaining GF with SP .859 -.055 GF with SCH .753 .734 GF with MaJ .702 .732 , GF with Fac .872 .915 Here for the first time is shown a larger correlation between the outside funds than the variables of Instruction. The contrast to the remaining departments is most notice­ able for almost no correlation is seen between the general funds and sponsored projects in their departments taken as a group, yet the instructional variables are about the same. It can be pointed out again that it is not the purpose to show that research has a greater impact on the general fund budget than does the educational program, but that as it Increases in size it becomes one of the dominant factors In influencing the general funds, a factor that some seem to ignore. By splitting the social sciences and humanities into separate groups of five each, additional correlations are developed that will be contrasted to those developed for the ten sciences and engineering. Since one department in the 72 social sciences was designated as research oriented, correlations were calculated for the four remaining departments without Psychology. The results are most interesting. TABLE 4 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR TEN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS, FIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, FOUR SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, AND FIVE HUMANITIES DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering GF with SP .810 GF with SCH 5 Social Sciences 4 Social Sciences 5 Humanities .816 .270 .222 .904 .862 •529 GF with Maj .701 .841 .621 .631 GF with Fac . .906 .949 .920 .878 The five social sciences move, when separated, towards the sciences and engineering, while the five humanities move in the opposite direction on both sponsored projects and student credit hours. When Psychology is removed from the social sciences, the remaining four departments move from being similar to the sciences in their correlations to being much more like the humanities. One other grouping was correlated, that of five growth departments, each of which increased for each variable over the five years. Their general funds were up 92 per cent cr higher and' the increase in faculty was 50 per cent or better. The departments were Geography, Philosophy, Pharmacology, Psychology, and Sociology. They are contrasted to the eight Research departments which also include Pharmacology and Psychology. TABLE 5 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR EIGHT RESEARCH DEPARTMENTS AND FIVE GROWTH DEPARTMENTS 8 Research 5 Growth .860 GF with SP .859 GF with SCH .753 .919 GF with Maj .702 .927 GF with Fac .872 .954 The correlations are higher for each variable in the growth departments. This can be accounted for by the weight of the two research departments and because cor­ relations are higher when all variables are increasing rapidly. Having looked at the various groupings, the cor­ relations from each department will be studied. 74 First will be the physical sciences, Chemistry and Geology. TABLE 6 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences and Engineering - Physical Sciences Chemistry „ Geology GF with SP .810 .961 .837 •745 GF with SCH .949 .954 .606 .940 GF with Maj .701 .935 .166 .936 GF with Fac .906 .990 .950 .888 What is noted here can be observed several times, that the two departments may complement each other so the correlations combined are higher than separately. For Chemistry the relationship of sponsored project money to the general fund is much greater than student credit hours. Majors show practically no correlation. Geology has a strong tie to the instructional program, though sponsored project support is related enough to give support to the hypothesis. It will be assumed that Chemistry substantiates the trend suggested by the hypothesis. Engineering Includes Chemical and Mechanical Engineering. TABLE 7 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering GF with SP „ . nos s Chemical Engineering Mechanical Engineering .810 .103 .566 .798 GF with SCH .949 .981 .969 .583 GF with Maj .701 .984 .743 .796 GF with Fac .906 .916 -.273 .664 Here the picture derived from the combined correla­ tions is much different than each department by itself. Mechanical Engineering, which would tend to support the primary hypothesis from the correlations, showed only a minimal Increase in its actual general fund expenditures. Why? Because of the level of instructional activity. In Mechanical Engineering and in some of the agricultural and science departments, the Instructional load for the professors Is so low that additions in outside support do not distract from the instructional activities of the professor. This can allow research time to increase without resulting in decreased instruction. Chemical 76 Engineering is so small it does not at the present allow for much interpretation. The agricultural departments of life science, Animal Husbandry and Horticulture, will be examined next. TABLE 8 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF LIFE SCIENCE - AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering Life Science Agriculture Animals Husbandry Horticulture GF with SP .810 .914 .599 .957 GF with SCH .949 .763 -.982 .954 GF with Maj .701 .941 .903 .971 GF with Fac .906 .734 -.760 .677 Animal Husbandry, while not having a high correlation between general fund and sponsored projects, does have a stronger correlation there than with student credit hours which were decreasing. Horticulture has each Independent variable at about the same strength, and would support the hypothesis. Both of these departments had minimal gains in general funds expended, 25*7 and 25*6 per cent, and both had very light teaching loads. In addition, both departments are heavily supported from the Experiment Station, which may act as a replacement for the anticipated rise In general funds expended. The second area of life science is biological and contains Botany and Zoology. TABLE 9 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF LIFE SCIENCE - BIOLOGICAL DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering Life Science Biological Botany Zoology GF with SP .810 .762 .479 .820 GF with SCH .9*9 -.377 -.821 -.181 GF with Maj .701 -.245 .595 .267 GF with Fac .906 •550 .261 .898 Both departments lost student credit hours over the five years, so this can be discounted as a factor in the rise of the general fund. Botany, while not having a high correlation between general fund and sponsored projects, does show that to be about as Important as any other factor. However, here again the low teaching requirements seem to have held the general fund down (up only 25*5 per cent). To back up this contention, the five departments with the lowest teaching loads have five of the six lowest gains in general funds expended. stantial Experiment Station funds. Botany also has sub­ Zoology with an .820 correlation between general fund and sponsored projects, while both student credit hours and majors appear unrelated, has been put with Chemistry as substantiating the hypothesis. Zoology had a 55-1 per cent gain in general funds and has a much larger teaching load than does Botany. The last of the science departments are life sciencemedical, Physiology and Pharmacology. TABLE 10 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF LIFE SCIENCE - MEDICAL DEPARTMENTS 10 Sciences & Engineering Life Science Medical n Physiology Pharmacology GF with SP .810 .980 .972 .982 GF with SCH .949 .853 .978 .855 GF with Maj .701 .781 .442 .848 GF with Fac .906 .862 .792 .877 Both departments, viewed individually or together, show the strong correlation of sponsored project money to the general funds expended. They will be Included as supporting the primary hypothesis of the study. 79 The social sciences appear as follows: TABLE 11 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 5 Social Sciences 4 Social Soci­ Sciences ology (-Psych.) Poli­ tical Science Geog­ raphy Psych­ ology ' Econo­ mics . GF with SP .816 .270 .138 .136 .057 .945 .127 .862 .872 .718 .946 .921 .830 .621 .677 -.058 .959 .954 .951 .920 .990 .820 .974 .954 .465 GF with SCH .904 GF with Maj .841 GF with Fac .949 Psychology dominates this group as illustrated by the first two columns, or when the five departments are compared individually. It is a research department where the primary hypothesis holds. The other departments, which have low levels of research, have low correlations and it would not be expected that the sponsored project funds were of the magnitude to directly influence the general funds expended, at least not to the degree that such could be readily sorted out. The humanities shown separately are below. TABLE 12 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS FOR COMPARISONS OF HUMANITIES DEPARTMENTS 5 Humanities Art Music Philosophy English History GF with SP .222 -.816 .228 .669 -.272 .658 GF with SCH .529 .977 .944 .864 .948 .761 GF with Maj .631 .923 .992 .981 .900 -.898 GF with Fac .878 .920 .953 .975 .861 .655 The degree of correlation in Philosophy and History between general funds and sponsored project support is slightly puzzling, but both expended their funds in the years at the end of the study (neither had funds in 1964-65) and in small but rather steady amounts. Of note is the lower correlation for the five together between general funds and student credit hours, when individually there are high correlations. It is probable that this results from the different methods of instruction in Art and Music as opposed to the more traditional lecture pattern of Fhilosophy, English and History. None of these departments could be assumed to support the primary hypothesis. The following departments support the hypothesis, that sponsored projects draw additional general fund monies to the department in excess of all cost sharing provisions: Chemistry Zoology Physiology Pharmacology Psychology Geology The following tend to support, but the size of the instructional program negates the effect: Mechanical Engineering Animal Husbandry Horticulture Botany and Plant Pathology The following do not: Chemical Engineering Sociology Political Science Geography Economics Art Music Philosophy English History To further support the hypothesis, a third-order partial correlation was computed for sponsored project funds with general funds, while holding constant student credit hours, majors, and FTE "A" faculty paid from general funds. The correlation is .762, up substantially from the .55^ shown in the simple correlation. This is a stronger indication that those departments with research funds have been better funded than they would have been without a research program, and only instructional 82 activities on which to base their budget request. The partial correlation of student credit hours with general funds expended with.306 as compared to the simple corre­ lation of .70M. This gives additional strength to the belief that outside funding is an important determinant of the general funds expended. Analysis of the Secondary Hypotheses 1. Sponsored projects have expenditures charged against general funds, both to prevent overruns and to prolong the life of the grant while using general funds that will be lost if not used. It was initially'assumed that there would be transfers of personnel salaries from the sponsored project accounts to general funds during the year to use the general funds first, and that some general fund money might be transferred to project accounts to cover overruns. While the results obtained from a sample of accounts will be detailed below, it is possible to state that an insignificant dollar volume of charges can be identified as moving in this manner. Such transfers when obvious are well controlled by the Research Contracts office. some charges for activities on sponsored projects are actually charged to general funds, (and If it is still our contention that they are), they are charged directly to general funds so that it is almost impossible to sort them out. 83 A twenty per cent sample of all the grants from the twenty departments were analyzed for 1968-69 from the account records kept In bookkeeping. There were 131 accounts, of which fourteen were overdrawn at the end of the fiscal year, the average was $581.8*1. This was balanced by twelve accounts that had no entries for the year, yet their balances were as high as $8,700.00. A few grants (five) were allowed to incur charges for a month or two before the funding was received. Six grants had a balance which was reduced to zero by, in two cases, returning the unused funds to the grantor, and in other cases transferring them to other grants. Seventeen grants which were overdrawn were brought to zero by trans­ fers of general funds, by transfers from other grants, by receiving funds from the grantor, and by reversing entries which were accounting errors. It was discovered that there are ''master'' or controlling grants made to Deans from which they parcel out funds to smaller grants held by the professors in the departments. This is the case for the National Institute of Health grants, and for Ford Foundation money. An additional item with NIH grants is that they are for one year only, with the amount of the next y ear’s award based on the present balance. This accelerates the transfers between grants as each year new account numbers are used. supported? Has this hypothesis been Not with data that clearly demonstrate the 84 t I point, nor is such likely to be forthcoming from central records. Only by observing what happens at the Initial designation of the expenditure can the needed data be obtained. To accomplish this would require cooperation which would be difficult to achieve for it would be con­ sidered against the best self-interest of those controlling the data. 2. Faculty positions move from sponsored projects to general fund monies. Of interest here is a two-fold effect, that the movement is both a long-run and a short-run proposition. In the long-run, professors hired for research positions are gradually moved to general fund positions insuring their continued existence at Michigan State. This can, In some instances, by-pass the central administration's control over positions, because a "good" man on campus is much harder to remove than it is to keep an unfilled position unfilled. Unfortunately, it is not possible to locate such information without going through each faculty member's file. This task assumed such complications that it was deleted because the amount of Information to be gained did not appear to be worth the effort. The short term movement is not to insure a permanent position, but to use the general fund salary monies before they expire at the end of the fiscal year. Ignored is the case of transfer because of a real change in duties, 85 which "of course" is the reason given for any short range change. Michigan State has made an effort to control this by examining in January all salary monies from unfilled academic positions. under the Provost. This is done by the Budget Office Each department is permitted to retain fifty per cent of the amount if they have specific plans for using it, the other half is redirected by the central administration. Thus the departments* funds to which individuals may be switched is cut at least by half in the middle of the year. While the Budget Office personnel acknowledges that transfers to take advantage of general funds are made, there is no way to determine how many or where they are. The transfer slips are filed in various locations, and then by individuals, making the task of getting this data as laborious as for the long-range changes. The only available record was a book listing all actions that passed through the Budget Office, but a simple count of changes by quarter was not meaningful. As with the first hypothesis, the data to support it are not available, even though various Individuals related to the problem agree with the hypothesis. 3. Faculty paid by general funds increase at * a greater rate than student credit hours or majors in a research oriented department. Based on the forty per cent sponsored project funds to general funds expended, the following eight departments 86 were research oriented. The following changes in faculty, SCH and majors were found: TABLE 13 PERCENTAGES OP CHANGE FOR THREE VARIABLES FOR EIGHT RESEARCH ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS Department Faculty SCH Majors Chemistry 49.3 14.8 -0.4 Support Geology 25.7 54 .8 24 .5 Partial Support Horticulture 13.1 63.2 21.4 Does not hold Botany -0.7 -23-1 11.2 Partial Support Zoology 25.3 - 2.1 9-7 Support Physiology 10.4 33.6 2.0 Partial Support 140.0 179-4 125 .0 Partial Support 81.1 40.3 53.8 Pharmacology Psychology Support The hypothesis can also be supported from those departments defined as growth departments. 1*0 (See Table • The Inclusion of Psychology and Pharmacology in the growth category gives stronger support from the growth departments than from the research oriented departments. The other departments that also support this hypothesis are History and Mechanical Engineering. Table 15). (See 87 TABLE 14 PERCENTAGES OP CHANGE FOR THREE VARIABLES FOR THREE GROWTH DEPARTMENTS Department Faculty SCH ' Majors Sociology 81.1 40.3 ,53.6 Support Geography 136.5 48.3 69 .1 Support 54.1 29.7 46.8 Support Philosophy •* ■ TABLE 15 PERCENTAGES OF CHANGE FOR THREE VARIABLES FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Department Faculty SCH Majors History 22.2 16 .2 -13.3 Support Mechanical Engineering 34.9 22.2 5.4 Support Since only one research department went totally against the hypothesis, it is accepted as a valid observation that faculty paid from general funds to increase at a faster rate than student credit hours or majors. However, other departments show the same development, especially if they are growing rapidly, or if they are growing slowly but trying to reduce a large teaching load as is the case with History. 4,. For senior faculty (Professor-Associate Professor) there has been a decrease In both number of sections taught and student credit hours produced. The data produce a very mixed picture; for the twenty departments, ten taught more student credit hours while ten declined. Of the six departments that supported the primary hypothesis, three gained in student credit hours and three declined. Of the eight research-oriented departments the same happened: four up and four down. Of the departments where there were increases in sections taught, which were only six of the twenty, two were frac­ tional increases which can be disregarded. Two, Chemical Engineering and Music, had accompanying rises in student credit hours per faculty. The remaining two were History and Economics which showed gains in sections because of the increase in televised lectures; however, it was not possible to sort these out. In actual sections per teacher it can be assumed that, except for two departments, there were no real increases and actual decreases in the majority. While the student credit hours analysis appears to be a draw, the average decrease in SCH per faculty was 144.7 in those departments with decreases, while the increase was 48.7 for those having increases. Clearly there tends to be less instruction per senior faculty on the average but definitive research would be required to establish the i hypothesis. Perhaps, also departmental policies and ingenuity in presenting their needs are the crucial factors. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Research monies and other projects that are funded from sources outside the department can affect the depart­ ment in a number of ways. Graduate students are hired to assist in research or to carry on other duties In order to lighten the work of the project director. Such funds may allow for the purchase of equipment which will remain in the department after the project has ended. The funds may allow the director an opportunity to under­ take a project that will: (1) result In something good for mankind, (2) keep him at the forefront of his dis­ cipline, or (3) bring additional insights into his Instructional efforts. The institution also acquires additional funds as "overhead" that can be used for needed and worthy causes. The Items listed above are just a few of the many effects that have been cited to demon­ strate that not only is research good in itself, but that it produces other benefits to the institution that can receive the research grants. Certainly higher education in the United States has benefited tremendously from the growth In outside funding over the past twenty-five years. 89 90 But is this the total picture? Are there detrimental aspects that, while not serious enough to merit the elimination of outside funded projects, at least require further study? The plight of undergraduate education and of the non-research oriented professor have often been mentioned, but of equal importance for the university is the effect that outside funded projects have on the general fund budget. If general fund money is drawn toward these projects, not only may severe imbalances occur, but the financial stability of the institution may be threatened when project funds are reduced and possibly even while the funds continue to flow. Universities assume that they are fully aware of the cost of outside projects, for they have developed formulas for indirect costs, and the amounts of released time for research are monitored in an attempt to keep them from getting out of line. But are additional faculty hired to keep the instructional loads from going up? Are costs charged to general funds to prolong the/grant funds while using all general funds and thus laying a base for bigger budgetary increases? Are salary expenditures Juggled between funds to maximize their usage, so that general funds are* expended for purposes other than those for which they were budgeted? Such practices at the department level are not necessarily bad, in fact they may be regarded as good 91 management on the part of the department. But, It Is not good management if there is no awareness of the scope of these activities and their dollar Implications; and, if the central administration is unable to consider the interaction of these funds in their decision process of budgeting general fund monies. The maximization of resources by all departments may not result in maximization for the total institution. For those departments which have little or no outside funding their greatest apparent loss may be the flexibility of action that access to more than one source of funds allows. There are added benefits over the support of research for the departments with outside funding. The effect of research on the capital expenditures budget has not even been mentioned; nor the psychological and morale implications to the faculty of the various depart­ ments. The impact of sponsored project funds on the general fund has been shown, but the total impact is far greater and more diverse than has yet been determined. The following summary suggests some of these undocumented impacts. Summary of Findings 1. The simple correlation of sponsored project funds with general funds expended was .55** for all departments. When contrasted to the correlation of .762 between these two variables using partial correlations that hold constant the effect of student credit hours, majors and PTE "A" faculty, there is support for the primary hypothesis, that research funds contribute to increased general fund budgets. 2. Sponsored project funds expended are correlated with general funds expended to a level of .7 or higher in eight departments. This is a marked relationship. Seven of these were research oriented departments. 3. There is a level of instruction which must be reached before the impact of sponsored projects on the general funds can be observed. A low level of instruction can absorb increased research activities without an increase in funding. 4. Departments that are experiencing rapid growth can exhibit many of the same changes that were hypothe­ sized for research oriented departments. 5. Growth in general funds can be divided into three groups: favored sciences and growth areas of the social sciences; the humanities and those social sciences not in the first group; and last, the sciences from agriculture and biology areas and the engineering depart­ ments. 6. The data needed to show the extent of general fund support expended by salaries paid for those who could have continued on sponsored project funds, and for the amounts of charges initially recorded against the general funds while being incurred for sponsored activities are simply not available because of the inadequacy of the records. 7. The social science departments, when Psychology is removed, closely resemble the humanities In their sponsored project funding as shown by the correlations calculated. 8. Faculty at the Professor-Associate Professor level are meeting less sections now than five years before, and producing less student credit hours. 9. The departments from the humanities were expending less outside support in 1968-69 than in 1964-65 » both in total dollars and as a percentage of general funds expended. Conclusions The extent of sponsored project funding for the twenty departments is impressive, and in all but a few, has been at least a respectable amount (at least ten per cent of general funds for all departments, except those from the humanities). The support is also large enough to show in several departments a high correlation with general fund money, thus supporting the primary hypothesis. Not only is there a high correlation, but It tended to be higher than the correlations between general funcln and instructional activities. The partial corre­ lations showed a significant relationship between sponsored project funds and general funds for the twenty departments when student credit hours, majors, and PTE "A" faculty were held constant. It has been shown that the relation­ ship hypothesized exists. This should be Justification for careful monitoring of the extent of outside funding within the general fund budgeting procedures. Recommendations for Future Research The easiest area for which to make recommendations is in the need for developing better access to and ordering of managerial data within the university. Certainly the university needs to know the number and from what depart­ ments individuals hired initially on sponsored project money have moved to general fund positions. Continuing data on the moving of salary sources at particular times of the year to take advantage of salary savings in the general funds should be recorded. While it can never be removed completely, the need to burden the general fund with sponsored project expenditures should be lessened. This study was designed to show that a relationship existed between sponsored project money and general funds expended. It has done that, even though It has not been possible tc show the extent of such In a dollar amount. But the Items mentioned in the preceding paragraph seem to the writer only symptoms of a much larger problem. Certainly the university budgetary practices are part of the problem, for the formulation of the general fund budget allows for practices which may not be in the best interest of the university as a whole. A total fund approach to academic budgeting is a vitally needed addition to this university. Of equal importance is the need to reconsider the funding of departments as it relates to their opportunities to manage their resources. There is a need to develop methods within fund accounting that do not force the department to spend money for no other reason than that there is a calendar date that dictates this. One simplistic step in this direction would be allowing the departments to carry over, with no penalty, a fixed percentage of their total budget, though it is recognized that present practices of the state forbid such a procedure. Moving towards the more vague, is the whole question of relating inputs from various funds to the outputs of the department, a very necessary operation if a true understanding of academic funding is to be accomplished. In additioni this study has focused only on the departments from traditional disciplines. What happens in the professional oriented departments, in the basic studies departments, or departments with closely linked institutions or centers that have parallel Interest and share a common faculty? The outlook for the Agricultural Experiment 96 Station and Extension funding and its impact in the academic affairs of connecting departments certainly merits additional research. Academic funding needs' much continued research before a clear understanding of the impact of various sources of support is known. With such knowledge, it is hoped a comprehensive budgeting procedure can be developed and implementd. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Barzum, Jacques. The"American University. Harper and Row, 1968. New York: Dressel, Paul ,L. "Federal Funds." The Journal of Higher Education, XL (October, 1969), 563-66. \ Dressel, Paul L., and Come, Donald R. Impact of Federal Support of Science on the Publicly Supported Universities and Four-Year Colleges in Michigan. National Science Foundation, Contract NSF-C-5 0 6 , 1970. Gilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Keenan, Boyd R., ed. Science and the University. York: Columbia University Press, 1 9 6 6 . New Kidd, Charles V. American Universities and Federal Research. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1959* Michigan State University. Budget, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-6 7 * 1967-6 8 , and 1960-6 9 . East Lansing: Michigan State University, June, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968. Michigan State University. Financial Report, 1964-65, 1965-6 6 , 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69. East Lansing: Michigan State University, November, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. Michigan State University. Accounting Ledgers for 1968-69. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station. STAT Series Descriptions No. 5 (Bastat) and No. 7 (LS). East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969 . Office of Institutional Research. Faculty Course Listing and Time Distribution Report, Fall Term, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. and 196fH East Lansing: Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, February, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1 9 6 9 . 98 99 Office of Institutional Research. Basic Statistics on Credit Hours, PTE Faculty. Tenure, Course Listings, Courses Taught, Budget, Expenditures, Majors, Degrees» Library, Gifts and Grants, Research Budget, Operating Revenue, New Plant Construction, Faculty Salaries. Student Loans, and On-Campus Housing by Colleges and by Departments for 1958-59 thru 1968- 6 9 . HBrown Book." East Lnasing: Office of Institutional Research* Michigan State University* Pall 1 9 6 9 . Orlans, Harold. The Effect of Federal Programs on Higher Education: ~A Study of 36 Universities and Colleges". Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1962. Orlans, Harold. Science Policy and the University. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1968. Research and Contract Administration. Research Grant & Contract Expenditures, 1964-65* 19&5-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1968-69. East Lansnng: Research and Contract Administration, Michigan State Uni­ versity, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. Rivlin, Alice M. The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education. Washington, D . C . : The Brookings Institution, 1961. Strickland, Stephen., ed. Sponsored Research in American Universities and Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967* "Total Federal Obligations to 100 Universities and Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, by Agency, Fiscal Year 1968." Higher Education and National Affairs, XIX (January 30T 1970), 7, Twarozynski, Thad V.; King, Herman L.; Levi, Lowell E . , and Wenner, Robert E. Conversations during preparation of the study. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969 and 1970. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DATA PROFILES OF TWENTY DEPARTMENTS 101 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF C HEMISTRY- 1964-65 1965-66 Budget 640,884 825,122 General Funds Expended 711,431 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1,155,531 1,239,024 1,320,877 966,812 1,184,700 1,-343,337 1,372,767 338,650 317,952 459,896 503,616 691,158 22 28 30 20.9 4 26.7 2 29.6 j A Faculty: 30 29.1 1 3 33 * 31.2 5 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF H e a d c o u n t - N o n GF F T E - N o n GF 81 40.2 29 19-3 114 124 1 29 61.3 55.3 30 31 20.5 17.3 ' 59-5 40 121 64.8 46 27.5 30.3 Fellows 5 SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 374.3 1.50 38,580 47,429 463 517 48,047 529 242.4 .84 265.2 1.15 310.7 1.11 320.9 1.33 46,429 506 44,281 461 102 Headcount FTE - General Fund 10011 f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 153,179 185,854 201,363 208,508 218,208 General Funds Expended 159,222 180,229 203,383 208,774 225,899 75,329 86,983 152,814 119,112 120,061 11 12 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 9 7.9 1 9 7. 9 11 9.8 9.0 9.9 1 1 2 2 19 7.0 19 18 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Prcfs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 18 2 8 1.0 3.5 15 5.3 9 3.8 165.3 149.6 219.0 5.3 2.22 1.50 2 .0 0 6.8 11 5-6 230.8 1.25 6.1 8 4.5 191.2 1.50 5,216 5,913 6,869 8,250 8,074 106 118 127 136 1 32 103 Headcount FTE - General Fund 1 0 0 % f r o m o t h e r source: DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 233,657 247,738 269,261 277,900 283,775 General Funds Expended 243,461 247,683 266,581 282,017 297,543 18,764 5,264 51,094 42,293 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A 388 Faculty: Headcount FTE - G e n e r a l Fund 1005& f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s 14 16 18 16 10.8 12 . 5 15-5 13-3 17 14 , 5 2 1 1 8 10 3 2 8 6 4.5 3.0 B Faculty: Headcount F T E - GF - GF SCH/FTE Prof ans Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student M aj ors Credit Hours 116.3 1.78 107.5 1.89 4.0 122.2 1.80 3.8 75-3 1.18 4.8 103.8 1.30 5,528 5,436 5,232 5,553 5,829 335 391 387 387 429 no i MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 110,109 124,253 140,253 150,469 158,250 General Funds Expended 111,463 126,245 139,028 150,910 159,154 12,219 17,577 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 26,128 47,594 30,626 A Faculty: 7- 5 9 8.5 9 8.3 9 8.5 7 6.5 3 1. 5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.3 65-3 40. 8 64.3 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Pros Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 1.16 1,484 116 .86 .83 1,840 162 2,107 174 56.0 1.29 2,239 168 100.6 1.57 2,250 163 105 8 Headcount FTE - General Fund DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 181,755 208,826 209,903 215,709 227,499 General Funds Expended 180,856 212,057 204,729 220.415 227,102 29,980 31,534 10,565 47,818 54,701 163,533 166,451 179,773 189,661 238,402 73,308 76,808 79,998 83,705 111,093 Sponsored Project Funds Expended Agricultural Experiment Station Extension . A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Fund 100J from other sources 11 6.8 5 11 6. 3 5 10 5.8 11 6.2 3 7 13 6. 3 4 B Faculty: Headc o u n t - GF F T E - GF Headcount - N o n GF FTE - N on GF SCH/FTE Prof an d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 9 3-0 3 1.5 273.0 .80 6 3. 0 11 5. 3 57.0 •50 9 4.5 7 3.3 13 5.8 2 .8 13 5.4 16.0 .50 143.0 .38 132.3 .45 4,352 3,254 3,376 86 98 98 ' 5 2.8 3,019 2,950 97 109 106 1964-65 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 217,203 228,198 246,658 256,897 274,993 General Funds Expended 218,993 229,627 246,743 257,383 275,331 72,806 111,780 153,721 144,808 231,312 *125,129 M l , 553 510,654 570,343 573,160 66,9*13 76,507 85,867 102,873 109,875 Sponsored Project Funds Expended Agricultural Experiment Station Extension A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Fund 100S from other sources 19 16 17 8 .4 15 8.Q 20 8.1 13 19 9.3 13 21 10.1 13 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - I.’on GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 0 2.5 6 2.8 Lt 5 2.5 6 4 2.0 29 3.0 34 36 9.7 11.3 16.3 20.5 22.6 115-5 •47 136.8 117.8 139.2 .67 132.6 •50 1.00 4,849 5,888 117 122 •50 7,140 126 6,898 7,914 138 142 O ■DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY AND PLANT PATHOLOGY 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 275,252 306,506 333,592 350,797 366,957 General Funds Expended 289,31^ 307,131 337,65** 3*18,162 363,168 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 257,9*16 216,626 235,11** 2*18,239 287,556 Agricultural Experiment Station 225,2*19 2 *1 3 , 7 6 8 260,562 27**,271 330,616 39,000 38,819 *12,687 12,239 66,501 Extension 108 196*1-6*1 A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Fund 100$ from other s o u r c e s 2*1 22 22 16. 7 1*1.7 19 15 - 5 16 2*1 16.8 16 21 13 10 1*1 27 16.5 17 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Maj ors 12 6.0 30 10.3 31 16.5 17.0 121.8 .63 8 ,81*1 89 1*11.5 .78 7,387 102 6.0 39 22.5 105.2 5.1 51 28.8 120.6 .60 .58 7,**57 111 7,539 111 8 *1.0 35 21 . 5 8H .3 .**5 6,780 99 t DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY 196*1-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 236,823 295,826 303,491 327,415 344,857 General Funds Expended 233,861 295,613 302,600 339,478 362,711 14*1,368 110,619 180,543 298,802 320,273 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 100? f r o m o t h e r sources 12 12.0 7 13 13-0 14 13-8 14 16 13.5 15.0 7 8 10 9 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 1*1 7-0 10 33 16.5 8 5.1 4.8 376.1 227.2 25 12.0 10 16,254 12,188 319 319 2.8 6.3 316.0 238.2 12,997 296 23 11.5 7 3 .7 268.2 .90 •90 .75 1.13 35 17.5 4 12,964 298 .85 15,915 350 109 Headcount FTE - General Fund DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 168,721 209,170 279,500 368,169 372,000 General Funds Expended 165*430 213,350 302,861 378,672 381,891 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 135,612 12*}, 9 5 2 339,690 408,076 425,504 6 8 ,6*12 67,077 70,915 79,814 77,944 Agricultural Experiment Station 110 1964-65 A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Funds 1 0 0 S from other sources 11 10 7.7 7.2 1 *} 13 8.4 3 15 8.7 3 14 11 10 8.5 4 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF Fellows SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 7 3.5 5 3-5 10 *1.8 7 3.5 10 176.1 1.00 6,591 51 11 5.7 11 6.0 4.7 10 4 .6 6 5.0 3.0 194.1 236.0 8 248.7 1.00 278.5 .89 7,233 8,535 55 53 .36 9,207 59 •33 8,805 52 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY » 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 35,870 67,601 132,000 176,580 182,000 General Funds Expended 27,869 48,027 139,951 194,464 183,039 417 316 97,512 169,226 185,926 2 2 1.5 1.5 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Funds 5 4.7 5 4 .7 4 3.6 1 1 1 B Faculty: Headcount GF FTE - GF H eadcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 1 •3 .5 .5 .5 3 1 .6 175.3 1. 0 0 665 203-3 1.00 1 :321 44.8 1.00 81.2 1.00 184.7 •50 1,291 1,666 1,858 4 4 9 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 190,919 229,829 306,343 399,547 483,562 General Funds Expended 195,378 225,782 311,181 408,551 474,645 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 25,097 96,826 30,894 31,943 82,258 Agricultural Experiment Station 75,657 93,321 87,620 85,940 95,501 Extension 20,713 21,639 13,737 6,213 371 A Faculty: Headcount FTE - General Funds 100t from other sources 14 7.3 8 15 8.3 6 23 12.3 3 28 15. 4 21 25 11.4 16 8.0 33 16.0 8 4. 0 545.9 .85 396.5 .88 3 33 21.1 1 B Faculty: Headc o u n t - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non FTE - Non GF GF SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 20 9.0 16 7.8 456.8 9.5 6 3.0 321.1 .60 .67 32 13.8 5 2.5 328.2 .76 26,107 36,326 45,266 46,608 47,555 242 196 208 242 279 112 1964-65 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 307,392 351,504 395,383 499,227 547,751 General Funds Expended 308,903 355,595 373,955 511,814 555,635 54,687 36,219 35,174 38,876 53,624 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: Headcount FT E - General Funds 1 0 0 # -from o t h e r s o u r c e s 30 22 20.2 2 22 19.6 1 19 16.8 1 33 29 . 6 1 25.9 1 18 24 37 18.0 10 4.8 34 44 16.3 10 5.0 21.5 4 2.0 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF F T E - Non GF 9.0 4 1.8 11.5 2 1.0 1 Fellows SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso'. P r o f s Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 423.2 1.60 514.5 1.40 541.4 1.67 278.3 1.09 575.3 1.50 33,293 42,760 41,975 41,809 45,891 510 591 617 561 541 * • DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY 1964-65 1966-67 1965-66 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 127,317 154,733 180,672 229,632 278,648 General Funds Expended 128,294 154,187 182,428 231,169 286,967 51,742 22,681 30,077 41,278 40,478 Sponsored Project Funds Expended Hea'dcount FTE - GeneralFunds 100$ from other sources 7 5-7 3 12 8.4 1 14 5.1 3 1.0 14 4.3 2 .5 13 9.2 17 12.3 2 18 13-6 1 18 15 6.3 5 1.8 21 8.0 3 1.5 3 B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF 6.8 2 .5 Fellows 1 SCH/FTE Prof an d Asso. P rofs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 538.1 1.67 386.9 .88 351.1 .78 426.8 .90 246.0 .75 14,146 17,298 17,248 19,981 20,979 94 120 125 150 159 trtt A Faculty: DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY • 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 425,399 507,839 702,840 942,788 993,497 General Funds Expended 432,840 518,383 722,311 897,802 1,015,974 Sponsored Project Funds Expended 194,049 195,608 384,854 459,263 437,364 A Faculty: 26 21.3 13 31 27.1 17 43 35.0 12 35 17.3 8 4.0 36 17-5 12 6.9 51 23.0 17 10.2 71 32-7 17 8.8 Fellows Majors 69 33-3 10 4.6 1 5 SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student 38.7 7 • B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF F T E - N on GF 49 51 41.0 6 Credit Hours 708.7 1.33 644.4 1.29 484.5 1.13 495.0 1.04 278.9 1.00 62,808 74,755 82,211 82,927 88,127 710 858 995 1,035 1,092 1 15 Headcount F TE - General Funds 1 0 0 ? .from o t h e r so ur ce s DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS * 196^1-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 370,312 415,493 485,496 517,794 576,308 General Funds Expended 381,559 419,006 483,720 522,382 567,120 67,729 48,206 50,532 28,565 86,915 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 25 22.4 5 25 23.0 7 26 24.0 7 22 30 14.5 11 28 26 25.8 4 22.9 4 24 11.8 35 17.0 2 B Faculty: Headcount - GF F TE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 23 11.0 4 2.0 524.8 1.53 10.3 9 4.3 676.3 1.83 5.3 596.7 2.24 15 7.5 602.8 2.21 1.3 593.8 2.16 33,154 42,906 47,898 47,594 47,054 220 245 316 402 381 116 Headcount FTE - General Fends lOOt from other sources DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ART 4 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 355,100 413,816 477,874 516,928 565,491 General Funds Expended 359,332 414,155 478,155 525,188 579,964 4,037 710 253 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 30 29-7 1 34 33.2 35 33.6 35 33.7 1 37 36 . 3 13 3.5 21 21 8.8 26 10.1 1 1.0 188.0 150.7 .5° B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non - GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 12 4.2 180.6 •50 193.0 .47 7-3 203.0 1.06 .59 23,268 24,917 25,732 28,221 30,543 725 813 813 828 888 117 Headcount FTE - General Funds lOOt from other sources DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSIC • 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 476,974 540,526 590,422 618,912 674,612 General Funds Expended 482,494 550,728 610,685 640,323 728,040 2,232 6,982 2,847 1,373 10,823 11,117 1,237 10,348 Sponsored Project Funds Expended Extension 10,466 A Faculty: Headcount FT E - General Funds 1 0 0 jC f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s 40 39.0 5 43 41.7 4 43 41.3 4 25 12.3 32 12.8 1 45 : 42.5 3 46 45.0 1 37 12.5 38 13.8 134.9 1.24 162.9 1.50 B Faculty: Headcount - GF F T E - GF H eadcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof a n d Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Majors Credit Hours 15 6.5 •5 120.9 1.13 104.6 .96 142.9 1.24 20,227 22,911 24,265 25,120 25,599 396 426 454 456 509 o DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY « 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 162,687 213,996 258,641 274,414 300,057 General Funds Expended 164,143 208,180 259,695 276,795 316,308 243 4,129 2,186 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 13 12.4 2 16 18 15.2 2 16.3 2 14 5.8 1 15 6.9 1 .5 .5 20 16.6 1 22 19*2 1 21 15 6 .0 2 B Faculty: H e a d c o u n t - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF F T E - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 11 5.5 2 1.0 251.2 2.40 180.7 .1.78 228.0 1.82 9-3 1.5 212.2 1.31 264.2 1.69 14,506 15,072 14,987 16,836 18,812 79 96 102 106 116 1 1 9 Headcount FTE - General Funds 1 0 0 jC f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH Budget General Funds Expended Sponsored Project Funds Expended 196*(-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 35,597 522,672 582,668 655,753 711,873 446,741 522,520 590,746 679,376 774,133 16,963 47,476 107,002 14,438 4,559 35 35 40 41 40 31.6 32.2 37.3 3 36.8 6 37 . 5 7 38 20.5 49 24.3 Headcount FTE - General Funds 100* from other sources 3 3 120 A Faculty: B Faculty: Headcount - GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 28 13.6 2 1.0 362.3 2.44 33 16.0 37 18.0 1 1 .5 .5 360.4 1.96 357.6 2.62 353.7 2.21 425.5 1.93 47,581 58,464 65,216 69,130 72,006 93 9 1,125 1,203 1,246 1,265 DATA PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 196*1-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 Budget 339,073 387,*157 *1*11,*104 488,211 533,794 General Funds Expended 3*10,605 *101,107 448,918 486,674 530,494 12,209 11,207 28,370 12,360 Sponsored Project Funds Expended A Faculty: 26 28 24.6 25 22 . 4 5 2*1.3 3 3 3 3*1 15.5 32 15-3 26 41 41 12.5 19.5 19.3 5**3.9 2.19 *153.2 2*1 22.0 31 26.9 3 B Faculty: Headcount GF FTE - GF Headcount - Non GF FTE - Non GF SCH/FTE Prof and Asso. Profs Lectures per Headcount Student Credit Hours Majors 1 1 .7 589.6 2.83 •5 *171.9 2.65 461.5 1.95 48,077 50,268 49,289 817 816 79 9 49,617 723 3.26 55,865 708 121 Headcount FTE - General Funds 100J{ from other sources APPENDIX B PERCENTAGE OP SPONSORED PROJECT FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PERCENTAGE OP SPONSORED PROJECT FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 1961*-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 47.6 32.9 38.8 37 . 5 50.3 Geology 47.3 48.3 75.1 57.1 53.1 .2 7.6 2.0 18.1 ’ 14.2 11.0 13 . 9 34.2 17.3 . 19 , 2 Animal Husbandry 16.6 14 . 9 5.2 21.7 '* 24.1 Horticulture 33. 2 48.7 62.3 56.3 84.0 89.2 70.5 69.6 71.3 79*2 Zoology 61.7 37.4 59.7 88 . 0 88.3 Physiology 82.0 58.6 112.2 107.8 1.5 .7 69.7 87.0 .101.6 12.8 42 . 9 9.9 7-8 17.3 17.7 10.2 9.4 5.6 9.7 Geography 40.3 14.7 16.5 17.9 14.1 Psychology 44.8 37.7 53-3 51.2 43.0 Economics 17.8 11.5 10.4 5.5 15.3 l.l .2 .1 .4 1.1 .4 .2 .1 1.5 .7 9.1 18.1 2.1 .6 3.0 2.5 5.8 2.3 Mechanical Chemical Engineering Engineering Botany and Plant Pharmacology Sociology Political Art Science Pathology Music Philosophy English History 3.8 . 111.4. 123 Chemistry ft” APPENDIX C PERCENTAGES OF CHANGE FOR FIVE VARIABLES FROM 1964-65 TO 1968-69 FOR TWENTY DEPARTMENTS 124 PERCENTAGES OF CHANGE FOR FIVE VARIABLES FROM 1964-65 TO 1963-69 FOR TWENTY DEPARTMENTS Sponsored Projects Funds General Funds Expended SCH Majors F T E "A" Faculty 93.0 14.8 -.4 49.3 59.4 41.9 54.8 24.5 25-7 125.41 22.2 5.4 28.8 34.9 150.6 42.S 51.6 40 . 5 -13.3 82.5 25.6 -32.2 26.7 -7-4 217.7 25*7 63.2 21.4 13 . 1 11.5 25.5 -23.1 11.2 -.7 Zoology 121.8 55.1 -2.1 9.7 25.3 Physiology 213.8 130.8 33.6 2.0 10.4 556.3 179.^ 125 .o 2 140.0 227-8 142.9 82.2 15.3 189.0 -1.9 79.9 37 . 8 6.1 28 . 4 Geography -21.8 123.7 48.3 69-1 136.5 Psychology 125.4 134.7 40.3 53.8 81.1 28.3 48.6 41.9 73 - 2 2.4 4 61.4 31.3 22.5 22.2 Music -38.51 66.4 26.6 28.5 15.4 Philosophy -47.13 92.7 29- 7 46.8 54.1 English -73.1 73-3 51.3 34 . 7 18.7 55.8 16.2 -13.3 22.2 Geology Mechanical Engineering Chemical Engineering Animal Husbandry Horticulture Botany and Plant Pathology Pharmacology 90.12 Sociology Political Science Economics Art History 1.21 IChange for last four years 2Change for last three years 3change for last two years 4n o funds e x p e n d e d last (1965-55 to (1966-67 (1967-68 two years. to 1968-69). 1968-69). to 1968-69). 125 104.1 Chemistry I APPENDIX D SIMPLE CORRELATIONS 126 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS * All Departments Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A” Faculty Ten Sciences and Engineering Departments Ten Social Sciences and Humanities Departments Five Social Sciences Departments Five Humanities Departments .554 .810 .538 .816 .222 .193 .017 .065 •7 5 2 .352 .689 .840 .561 .349 .205 .835 .742 .477 .140 .554 .704 .810 •5 3 8 .703 .715 .854 .816 .904 .841 .222 .949 .701 .906 .689 .703 .735 .618 .766 •7 0 9 .949 • .529 .631 .878 Student-Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds Majors FTE "A" Faculty .193 .704 .822 .720 .752 Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A" Faculty .017 .618 .822 .804 .352 .701 .748 .808 .349 .715 .735 .835 .841 .687 .848 .477 .631 .855 .481 FTE "A" Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors .065 .766 .720 .804 .709 .906 .886 .205 .854 •742 .140 .878 .808 .687 .949 .‘8 6 1 .848 .949 .748 .886 .381 .381 .840 .904 .898 .861 .898 .561 .529 .855 .219 .219 .481 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS • Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours MaJors F T E "A" F a c u l t y Eight Research Departments Twelve Remaining Departments Five Growth Departments .859 .585 .531 .738 -.055 -.104 -.245 .860 .764 .867 •7 5 2 .859 .753 .702 .860 .919 .927 .954 .216 Four Social Sciences Departments With Psychology Removed .270 .261 -.007 .862 General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Maj ors F T E !:A ; F a c u l t y .872 -.055 •7 3 4 •7 3 2 •9 1 5 Student Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds M aj ors FTE "Ar Faculty .585 .753 .980 .920 .216 .764 •734 .716 .579 •919 .956 .261 .862 .608 .900 •727 Majors with ! Sponsored Projects G e n e r a l Furids Student Credit Hours F T E "A" F a c u l t y •5 3 1 .702 .980 .910 -.104 •7 2 7 .867 .927 .956 .916 -.007 .621 .608 .680 -738 .872 .920 .910 -.245 .915 .579 .727 .752 .954 .900 .916 .862 .920 FTE "A" F a c u l t y w i t h Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors .732 .716 .270 .862 .621 .920 .727 .680 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS Two Physical Sciences Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A1* Faculty Student.Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds MaJors FTE "A" Faculty Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A" Faculty FTE "A” Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors TVo Life Sciences Agricultural Two Life Sciences Biological Two Life Sciences Medical .961 .103 .914 .980 -.016 .052 .762 .879 •8 5 5 .931 .926 -.200 .806 .943 .005 .874 .600 .713 .798 .103 .981 .984 .914 .762 .980 .916 .734 .961 •9 54 •9 3 5 .990 .879 •9 54 •9 9 7 .981 .855 .935 .997 .967 •9 4 3 .990 .981 .967 -.016 •7 6 3 .941 -.266 ••377 -.245 •5 5 0 .853 -.200 .806 .377 .945 .853 .983 •9 5 3 .981 .931 •7 6 3 .985 .893 .866 .908 -.782 .052 .926 -.266 .984 .941 -.245 .945 -.855 •9 8 5 .942 .005 .916 .893 .942 .866 .891 .781 .862 .713 .781 .983 •9 5 5 .874 .734 .600 •7 9 8 .550 .862 .908 -.782 .891 -.855 .953 •9 5 5 129 General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty "i'wo • Engineering SIMPLE CORRELATIONS • Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A" Faculty FTE "A" Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors Geology Mechanical Engineering Chemical Engineering .798 .630 .659 .271 .566 .678 .745 .940 .936 .888 •7 9 8 .566 .583 .796 .664 •9 6 9 .743 -.273 .642 .940 .835 .751 .971 .764 .630 •5 8 3 .422 .678 .606 --351 .166 •7 3 6 .936 .835 .310 .971 .765 .760 , . 950 .896 .888 .764 .837 .143 -.351 .760 .837 .606 .166 •9 5 0 .143 .751 .310 .745 .642 .736 .8y 6 •7 6 5 ^Positive correlation resulting from two negative amounts. -•137 .727 .061 .969 .872 -.050 •6 5 9 •7 9 6 .422 .730 .727 .743 .872 .271 .664 .061 -.137 .730 .303 -.273 -.050 .303 Animal Husbandry .599 -.448 .471 -.264 .599 -.982 •9 0 3 -.760 130 Student Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds MaJors FTE "A” Faculty Chemistry -.448 -.982 -.871 .830I .471 .903 -.871 -.477 -.264 -.760 .8301 -.477 . SIMPLE CORRELATIONS Horticulture Bot™l J Plant Pathology Zoology Physiology Pharmacology Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors F T E "A" F a c u l t y General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors F T E "A" F a c u l t y -^*79 -.150 .875 .632 -.373 .767 .957 -95^ .971 *677 .**79 -.821 .595 .261 *948 *954 -.150 -.821 .820 .257 .275 .869 .972 •9 5 8 .982 .847 .307 .908 .858 .795 .972 .978 .442 •792 .855 .848 .958 .978 .847.855 •5 2 3 .823 .801 .307 .442 .908 .453 .523 .470 .801 .606 .869 .858 .898 •7 9 2 .823 .470 .795 .877 .820 -.181 .267 .898 .982 .877 Student Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds Majors F T E "A" F a c u l t y .257 -.181 -.553 12731 .642 .875 .971 .873 -751 -.373 .595 -.553 -.238 .275 .632 .677 .438 .751 .767 .261 .273 -.238 -873 .438 .198 .561 Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A,: Faculty .267 .642 .848 FTE "A" Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors ^Positive correlation resulting from two negative amounts. .198 .453 .581 .606 131 *95f .948 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS Sociology Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty Student_ Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds Majors FTE "A1, Faculty Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A" Faculty FTE "A" Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors Geography Psychology .945 .871 .923 .965 Economics .138 .136 .156 -.341 ■•925 .057 ■•189 ■.144 .222 ■.088 .136 .718 -.058 .057 .946 ■945 .921 .127 .830 .820 .959 •974 .954 -954 •9 5 1 .465 .341 .718 .5-16 .303 -.189 •946 •9 9 7 .992 .871 .921 .993 .942 -.261 .<372 ■2 3 9 .841 .038 ••925 -.144 -.058 .959 .997 •9 9 8 .923 .954 •9 9 3 .973 -.130 .677 .239 .965 .954 .942 -.788 .9 7 3 .696 .038 .188 .138 .872 .677 .990 .156 .716 .188 .990 .841 .716 .516 ■.360 .222 .820 .303 ■.360 >.088 .974 •9 9 2 •9 9 8 .261 .130 .788 .830 .808 .624 .951 .808 .696 .465 .624 132 General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A,: Faculty Political Science SIMPLE CORRELATIONS Art Sponsored Projects with General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors FTE "A" Faculty Music Philosophy English History -.816 .228 ,669 -.272 .658 -.737 .^35 .698 -.890 .220 .615 -.645 -.895 .058 .553 -.007 .079 .159 -.816 .228 .944 •9 9 2 .669 . 864 -.272 .948 .658 .977 •9 2 3 .920 .981 .900 ■.898 •9 5 3 .975 .861 .655 -.737 .435 .698 .977 .944 .864 •.007 .948 .918 .910 .991 .903 .890 .849 .873 .138 .761 -.704 .912 .881 Majors with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours FTE "A" Faculty -.890 .923 .22,0 .918 .910 .997 •952 FTE rA" Faculty with Sponsored Projects General Funds Student Credit Hours Majors -.895 .920 .058 General Funds with Sponsored Projects Student Credit Hours Majors FTE 'TA': Faculty Student Credit Hours with Sponsored Projects General Funds Majors FTE "A" Faculty .903 •9 9 7 .992 •9 5 3 .890 .952 .615 ,981 .849 •992 .553 .975 .873 .992 .079 .900 .138 -.022 .761 ■.645 .898 .991 .883 >.704 >.404 .159 -. 022 .861 .912 .655 .883 -.404 .881