IN F O R M A T IO N T O U S E R S This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original docum ent. W hile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the qu ality is heavily dependent upon the qu ality of the original subm itted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you markings or patterns w hich may appear on this reproduction. understand 1 . T h e sign or "ta rg e t" fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th a t the copy may have m oved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. Y o u w ill find a good image o f th e page in the adjacent fram e. 3 . When a m ap, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the m aterial being photographed the photographer follow ed a d efin ite m ethod in "sectioning" the m aterial. I t is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4 . The m ajority o f users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a som ewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" m ay be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order D epartm ent, giving the catalog num ber, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5 . P LE A S E received. NOTE: Some pages m ay have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoob Road Ann Arbor. M ichigan 48106 I 74-13,943 NELSON, Glenn Lawrence, 1944THE FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION: SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN. WITH Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Economics, finance U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s , A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n © 1974 GLENN LAWRENCE NELSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION: WITH SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN By Glenn Lawrence Nelson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYDepartment of Agricultural Economics 1973 ABSTRACT THE FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION: WITH SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN byGlenn Lawrence Nelson Two interrelated questions lie at the core of the issues addressed in this thesis: (l) what is the probable magnitude and dis­ tribution of future costs implied by alternative higher education policies? and (2) how should higher education be financed? The com­ plexity of the issues is largely derived from the multitude of roleB which higher education is presumed to have, but'.it is compounded by an inadequate understanding of the relationships among the important physical variables. A review of the history of American higher education and of the roles recommended for colleges and universities by past and present influential spokesmen reveals important differences in many dimensions. However, disagreements related to the role of the higher education community as critics of society appear to be a central concern. Some argue that colleges and universities should facilitate the endeavors of external groups, others maintain that higher education should be insulated from outside pressures, a significant number of people support an active critical role for higher education, and a few believe that the higher education community should play a leading part in the overthrow of existing centers of power. The diversity in role orientation implies differences in organizational and financial links Glenn L. Nelson between higher education and the remainder of society. Those who expect higher education to assume a facilitating role tend to favor clearly defined, responsive linkages. Others abhor any such linkages, while still others favor a diverse set of relationshipe consistent with a perceived pluralism of roles. The statistical technique of multiple regression was used in two major analytic efforts. First, a study of aggregate undergraduate and graduate enrollments (analyzed separately) in Michigan in 1951—69 indicates phat changes were associated with variations in the collegeage population, number of people discharged from the Armed Services, income,, and unemployment. Projections based in part on the statisti­ cally estimated parameters and in part on supplementary policy assump­ tions yield strong evidence that the growth in undergraduate enroll­ ments will slow to a very small rate by the late 1 9 7 0 *s. Using the results of the above analysis plus more detailed data for 1965 /66 —17 0 /7 1 in a second application of multiple regression, the impacts of tuition and student aid variables on enrollments were investigated. Increases in tuition at the public four—year institu­ tions did appear to have a negative impact on enrollments; the evidence was inconclusive elsewhere. Two student aid programs administered by the State of Michigan seemed to be affecting enrollment patterns and possibly levels. There is very little evidence, however, that federal student aid programs had an impact on enrollments. The final modeling effort required before policy alternatives could be analyzed was the development of a framework which enables estimates of future financial requirements to be computed, assuming alternative public policies and enrollments. The estimate can be Glenn L. Nelson modified to reflect changes in the student—faculty ratio, faculty compensation, mix of institutions with respect to size, relative program emphasis, and many other factors. .... There are strong indications that the rate of increase in total financial requirements in the remainder of the 1 9 7 0 *s will be quite comparable to the rate of growth in the economy, as opposed to the 1 9 6 0 *8 when higher education consumed an ever increasing fraction of the gross national product. Students, as a whole, are likely to continue to bear the great majority (slightly over three-quarters) of the total costs— including opportunity costs— associated with their education. Adoption of a full—cost tuition and vouchers policy would lead to the average student in the public sector experiencing a much larger net charge while those in private institutions would have much lower net costs. Expansion of existing federal student aid programs with the addition of a ,fcost of education" grant directly to the institu­ tion would benefit private institutions and their students most, public two-year colleges and their students least, with public fouryear institutions and students in an intermediate position. Numerous other policy implications are derived with the aid of the discussion of proposed goals for higher education, the statistical analysis, and the financial requirements model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The aid of many other people played a crucial role in increasing both the scope and quality of this research. The necessity to be brief prevents me from mentioning all but a few to whom I feel the greatest debt. Much of the analysis was performed while I was employed by the Michigan Department of Education. The mix of freedom and advice pro­ vided by my supervisors, T. Harry McKinney and Robert Crowson, created a stimulating environment for productive research, Evan Wilner*s gui­ dance with regard to the literature on the history and philosophy of higher education was very helpful. Kathy Dunn Thies worked carefully and diligently on a wide variety of tasks ranging from data manipula­ tion to typing. It would have been very difficult to obtain the data on student financial aid without the assistance of Ronald J. Jurea, Director of Michigan Student Financial Assistance Services. Jane Mayne and Carol R. McKenzie in the United States Office of Education were also instru­ mental in this regard. My conversations with Truman Morrison, John F.A. Taylor, and H. Lynn Jondahl played an important part in the evolution of the thoughts presented in Chapters III and VII. John Ferris and Marvin Hayenga, members of the thesis committee, willingly gave a significant amount of their time and energy to inter­ changes which improved the thesis. ii The selection oftthe topic grew out of my experience as a Re­ search Associate on a Btudy directed by James Bonnen, The Study of the Role of the University in Public Affairs, The opportunity to work with Hr, Bonnen on the Study and later on this thesis was invaluable in both a professional and personal sense. The contribution of Lester V, Manderscheid, chairman of the thesis committee and faculty advisor throughout my doctoral program, is truly impossible to summarize in a few words. On topics ranging from set theory and econometrics to community events and from education philosophy to bureaucratic procedures, X always found him accessible and his responses thoughtful. Bebby Monroe's careful work is responsible for the pleasing ap­ pearance of the final manuscript. Finally, Cherry, my wife, shared in both the drudgery and joy of the thesis. Whether it was searching for enrollment data in a dusty records center, typing, editing, or grappling with a substantive issue, her help and encouragement added much to the quality of the research. iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Page List of Tables vi List of Figures ix Chapter I, II. III. Introduction 1 A Historical Perspective Laying A Foundation: 1636—1827 Contesting The Inevitable: 1828 — Pre—Civil War Entering The Mainstream: Civil War — Pre-World War II Serving The Nation: World War II—196 5 Seeking A Mission: Present 5 6 Financing For What? Adaptation To Existing Societal Goals Neutral To Existing Societal Goals Critical Of Existing Societal GoAla Rejection Of Existing Societal Go&ls U UJL1UXUOX Wii IV. V. The Aggregate Demand For Higher Education Review Of Selected Research Presentation Of The Model Discussion Of The Data Discussion Of The Statistical Results Derivation Of Enrollment Projections Summary Impact Of Student Financial Aid And Tuition On Enrollments Theoretical Framework Econometric Model Tuition And Student Aid Data Statistical Results Conclusions Iv 12 19 35 39 43 47 62 67 78 82 85 86 89 95 99 112 131 134 137 138 141 150 166 VI. VII. VIII. The Financial Requirements Of* Michigan Higher Education Conceptual Framework Base Financial Requirements Bata Financial Implications Of Alternative Financing Proposals Summary 176 178 181 205 227 Conclusions And Recommendations Goals, Values And General Principles A Working Plan Future Financial Implications Summary 250 231 240 247 Summary 266 263 Appendix A. Bata BaseFor The Aggregate Demand Model 273 B. Base Bata Used In Calculating The Enrollment Projections 287 C. Computing The Nondiscriminatory Enrollment Projections 290 B. State AndFederal Financial Assistance For Students In Michigan Institutions Of Higher Education By Program And Institution, 1965/66-70/71 292 E. A Procedure For Estimating The Foregone Earnings Of Students Bibliography 326 329 Historical References 329 Philosophy of Education References 332 Methodology and Statistical Studies 334 Data Sources 335 Other References 338 v LIST OP TABLES Page Text 1 Pall Headcount Enrollment in Michigan by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1951—7'! 96 2 Statistical Results of the Analysis of Aggregate Demand •'100 3 Present Policies Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1972—91 116 4 Uniform Stabilization Policy Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1972—91 119 5 Curtailed Graduate Enrollment Policy Projections by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1972-91 121 6 Pull-Time Minority Student Enrollment in Michigan as a Percent of Pull-Time Enrollment by Sector and Level, Pall 1970 124 7 Nondiscriminatory Policy Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1972—76 126 f*y o Equal Educational Opportunity Policy Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type of^Insti­ tution, 1 9 7 2 -8 1 1?0 9 State and Federal Student Financial Aid in Michigan by Type of Institution, 1965—66 through 1970-71 (thousands of actual dollars) 145 10 State and Federal Student Financial Aid in Michigan by Type of Institution, 1965-66 through 1970—71 (thousands of 1970—71 dollars) 146 11 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Rates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Public Four-Year Institutions, Assuming No Time Trend Effects 151 vi Page Text (oont'd) 12 13 14 15 16 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Hates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Public Four-Year Institutions, Assuming Selected Institu­ tions Maintain Internal Control of Their Growth 155 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Hates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Public Two-Year Institutions, Assuming No Time Trend Effects 159 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Hates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Private Institutions, Assuming No Time Trend Effects 162 Base Data Relating to the Total Financial Require­ ments of Michigan Higher Education by Type of Institution, 1969—70 Except Where Noted Otherwise 182 Student Credit Hours per Full-Time Equivalent Faculty by Program and Size of Institution in Michigan Public Two-Year Colleges, 1969—70, 1970—71 187 Student Credit Hours per Full-Time Equivalent Faculty by Program and Undergraduate—Graduate Composition of Institution in Michigan Public Four-Year Colleges, 1979-71 189 Mean Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Compensation by Program and Size of Institution in Michigan Public Two-Year Colleges, 1969-70, 1970-71 195 Mean Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Compensation by Program and Undergraduate— Graduate Composition of Institution in Michigan Public Four-Year Colleges, 1970-71 197 Deflator for Instructional Operating Expenditures for Colleges and Universities and Component Indexes, Selected Years, 1951—42 Through 196 7—68 201 Indexes Deflated by the Consumer Price Level for Instructional Operating Expenditures for Colleges and Universities, and Component Indexes, Selected Years 1951—52 through 1967—68 202 The Financial Implications for Michigan Higher Education of Alternative Financing Proposals (1 9 7 2 -7 3 dollars) 206 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Proposed Institutional Aid Per Student Credit Hour from Federal Sources, 1971—73* 1975—76, 1980-81 (1 9 7 2 dollars) vii 243 Page Text (cont'd) 24 25 The Financial Implications for Michigan Higher Education of Alternative Financing Proposals, Including the Author*s Recommendations (1972—73 dollars) 248 Detailed Financial Implications for Michigan Higher Education of the Recommended Policy (1972—73 dollars) 260 Appendix 26 27 28 Fall Headcount Enrollment in Michigan by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1951—71 274 Sum of Public and Private Enrollments in Michigan Primary and Secondary Schools By Grades For Selected Years, 1933-67 278 Michigan Population By Single Years of Age for Ages 0—5 Por Selected Years, 1930—56 282 29 Apparent Size of the Armed Forces, 1943—70 285 30 Discharges from the Armed Forces, Fiscal Years 1946-70 285 31 Selected Economic Indicators, 1951-69 286 32 Base Data Used in Calculating the Enrollment Projections < 287 33 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students through in Michigan Institutions of Higher Education 38 by Program and Institution, 1965-66 through 1970 -7 1 , respectively viii 292 through 320 LIST OF FIGURES Page Text 1 Illustration of the Aggregate Demand Model 2 Summary of Enrollment Implications of Alternative Policies: Total Enrollment in AllInstitutions 122 Illustration of the Forces Determining Institu­ tional Enrollments 137 Schematic Representation of the Financial Require­ ments Model for Each Sector 179 3 4 I ix 90 Chapter I Introduction The basic issues to be dealt with can be stated succinctly— how should higher education be financed, and what is the probable distribution and magnitude of future costs? The financial status of higher education is a cause for deep concern among many educators, public officials, students and citizens. "Crisis” has become the term most often used to describe the present state of affairs. Public and private commissions have struggled with the questions and offered suggestions, but no comprehensive philosophy or program has emerged which enjoys wide support as a sufficient basis for a long term solution. The complexity of the issues is largely derived from the:;mul­ titude of roles which higher education is presumed to have. Colleges and universities are expected to assist students in acquiring saleable skills, train students for good citizenship, perform research on a nearly endless variety of problems, extend their expertise to the general public, and criticize perceived injustices— to name but a few of the many tasks many people would assign to higher education. His­ torically, the system of finance has been closely tied to the paramount roles of the period. been clear. The direction of cause and effeot has not always In some cases institutions of higher education and society have consciously set forth goals and established corresponding finan­ cial arrangements, while in other cases a change in the source of funds has caused changes in higher education which were often unanti­ cipated, unwanted, or even both in the opinion of many. 1 Thus, it is 2 very important in a study such as this to consider the values and goalB related to higher education simultaneously with tlie financing arrange­ ments. One should support changes in the financing of higher education only if he is willing to support the implied changes in the role of higher education; similarly, if one wishes to change the role of higher education, he shouldcexplore changes in the method of finanoe consistent with the revised role. Another source of complexity and confusion in the discussion surrounding the finance of higher education is the inadequate under­ standing of the relationships among the important physical variables. There is a need to quantify the impact on enrollments of such factors as population, income, unemployment, tuition, and student aid. It would be useful to have a model of higher education which would allow one to determine the physical and monetary resources required, assu­ ming alternative public policies and enrollments. Performing a comprehensive analysis of the financing issue depends upon fulfilling three objectives, which were chosen as the focus of this research. 1) These three objectives aret Identify the relationships cutween the goals recommended for higher education and the alternative methods of finance, 2) Develop a model which specifies in quantitative terms the causal links among the physical variables of primary concern. 3) Evaluate several policy alternatives in order to assist those who are making public policy decisions and to demon­ strate the use of the frameworks developed under objectives l) and 2 ). The following chapters contain the results of the analysis. A capsule 3 description of each chapter is provided below. Chapter II contains a brief historical review of American higher education. Those who are familiar with this topic may wish merely to skim the chapter or begin their reading in Chapter III, Others will probably find the material useful, for it illustrates the interaction of institutional forms and societal values and helps us to understand current issues by establishing the context within which they arose, _A variety of roles, organized on the basis of the responsibility of the higher education community to actively criticize societal goals, are discussed in Chapter III, Accompanying each role is an explora^- tion of the type of financing most conducive to the successful enact­ ment of the desired goals. Chapters II and III are primarily designed to fulfill objective l) noted above. Chapters IV and V both present the results of investigations, using econometric techniques, into the factors causing student enroll­ ments to vary in Michigan. The impacts of population, discharges from the Ax'med Sexrvioea, ctiiu euoiiouxxu factors on aggregate undergra­ duate and graduate enrollment are estimated in Chapter XT, In the same chapter the model is used to derive enrollment projections which, with the aid of additional assumptions, are disaggregated into three sectors— public four-year, public two-year, and private. The econometric model in Chapter V, which is based in part on the results of the work in Chapter IV, is designed to yield estimates of the influence of tuition and student aid variables at the institutional and sectorial levels, respectively. 4 The first part of Chapter VI is devoted to developing a rather simple model of Michigan higher education which enables estimates of future financial requirements to be computed, assuming alternative public policies and enrollments* This model, in conjunction with those constructed in Chapters IV and V, satisfies objective 2). The remainder of Chapter VI contains an evaluation of several policy alternatives, i.e., meets objective 3 )» The conclusions and recommendations of the author are presented in Chapter VII. While not as essential to understanding the discus­ sion of higher education finance as the preceeding material, it is hoped that this chapter will represent a specific, constructive addi­ tion to the continuing debate. Chapter VIII is a brief summary of the major results of this research. Chapter II A Historical Perspective"1An examination of the historical record of American higher education is useful, for it illustrates the interaction of institu­ tional forms and societal values* Such a study also helps us to understand current issues by establishing the context within whioh they germinated and grew to importance. And finally, reflecting on the past often raises important questions concerning goals, values, and institutional forms which might otherwise be ignored in the parens of current crises. It is impossible, of course, to do more in one chapter than mention the outstanding events in higher education. Such severe condensation places a heavy burden on the author, for there is a constant danger that only materials which are consistent with one's own value screen will be included. The reader should also remember that ideas and institutions usually evolve slowly, rather than spring on the scene in final form; thus, the choice of the boundaries of the eras discussed below is somewhat arbitrary— and unimportant except as an organizational device. However, the choice of the theme and meaning of each era is not arbitrary and is properly the subject of vigorous ■\ The author acknowledges a special debt to John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition — Revised Edition (New York, N.Y., Harper & Row, 19€>8) and Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University (New York, N.Y., Vintage Books, 1962) for their scholarly histories and extensive bibliographies which were the starting point for this chapter. This does not, of course, imply that they bear any responsibility for the selection and organization of the materical presented here. 5 6 debate where differences of Interpretation appear. This chapter focuses on the history of American higher educa­ tion, for the developments in Michigan can only he understood in terms of a national context. Some special attempt has been made to include the Michigan experience, but in actuality a special effort is really not necessary— for Michigan has been in a position of leadership in so many instances that one cannot exclude it. But the beginning of the American college did occur early in the colonial period, long before Michigan was claimed by European settlers. Laying A Foundation: 1636—1827 On October 28, 1636, the Great and General Court of Massachu­ setts passed the legislative act which established Harvard College, 2 the first college to be founded in the English colonies. From the beginning, the institution was modeled as closely as possible on the English college of Cambridge, for the new college was to be the instrument which would transmit and preserve culture in a foreign and bar-baric land. The English model provided the residential pattern making the college a home for the students, the aristocratic nature of the collegiate experience, the emphasis on teaching rather than learning, and even the titles of the classes— freshman, sophmore, junior sophister and senior sophister. 3 These English patterns, and especially those associated with the concept of a residential college, 2 Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard 1636—1936 (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1936}, p. 5 . 3 W.H. Cowley, "European Influences Upon American Higher Educa­ tion," Educational Record. Vol. 20, April, 1939t PP« 168-9. 7 have come to be known as the ”collegiate way"— a philosophy of educa— tion emphasizing the development of the whole person rather than a narrow focus upon his intellect.^ Other models did exist in the Continental European universities which offered a clear alternative in the form of developing nonresidential graduate schools, as reflec— ted int.the portions of America dominated by the French and Spanish. 5 The Christian traditions were central to the culture of the colonists, and they looked to the early colleges for literate, collegetrained clergy. Religious control of the colleges, also inherited from England, was natural in these circumstances.^ Individual deno­ minations established Yale and Princeton in an attempt to help insure their own denominational survival, a pattern which would be repeated literally hundreds of times in the American experience. 7 However, church—related concerns were not the sole function of the colleges; Q these institutions were also expected to train other leaders of society. In either case the emphasis was on creating leaders of established society who would attempt to preserve it, not reconstruct it. ^"See Rudolph, op. cit.. pp. 86—109* -for his chapter on "The Collegiate Way." 5 Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. p. 5» Cowley, op. cit.. p. 168. ^Edwin Oviatt, The Beginnings of Yale 1701—1726 (New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 191o) a-nd Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, Princeton 1746—1896 (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1946)• 0 Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. p. 6. 8 The rigid curriculum imported from England was well-suited to the above role. Its core consisted of the classical languages and literatures, exactly what a minister must know to read the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and to study the work of later scholars in Greek and Latin. 9 Knowledge oonsisted of the truths discovered and preserved by ancient scholars; it was to be absorbed faithfully by each generation so that it might be passed on. In the eighteenth century pressure began to build for change in the classical curriculum as men like Newton developed a new concept of science and knowledge. Although the basic curriculum remained dominant and unchanged, by the of the 1 7 0 0 *s additions had been made in the form of some attention to mathematics, natural science, English language and literature, and modern foreign languages. 10 Thus, science, a force which would later cause almost unimaginable agony and upheaval, made a rather inauspicious arrival in higher education. Entrance requirements, reflecting the curriculum, consisted of demonstrating a knowledge of Latin and Greek early in the period and later were broadened to include such subjects as arithmetid and English. Preparatory training was usually available only through private tutofclng, often by a minister, although some good Latin gram­ mar schools did exist.^ 9 Morison, op. cit.. p. 3 . ^^Brubacher and Budy, op. cit.. p. 14. 11 Ibid.. pp. 11 - 1 3 . 9 The financial position of these early colleges was usually very precarious. The prinoipal expense was facility salaries. The effort to minimize salaries sometimes resulted in little more than a subsis­ tence wage being paid, certainly less than that of other professionals. To make matters worse, a faculty member usually received little or no increase in pay over the course of his career and had few opportu— nities to add to his income by means of outside endeavors. 12 The latter was as it should be in the opinion of many, who considered outside sources of funds to be a corrupting influence. Turning to the revenue side, student tuition fees were cm impor­ tant source of income, but these funds did not cover anywhere near the full cost of the education. 13 Out of necessity, but probably also by original design considering the English tradition of philanthropy, the colleges sought gifts from individuals and institutions. *1 A Gifts originating in England were substantial until the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. 15 Organized religion was another significant source of donations, as one would expect given the religious origin ^^ iiiv/ij u - r* 4.i,~ Ojl uiic gOnu^c£j« 1° n n i oxlxp * « a « xixuxviuuai. -i a * . f t* ______ moxc 12 Ibid.. p. 3 8 . 13 Beverly McAnear, "The Raising of Funds by the Colonial Col­ leges," Mississippi Valley Historical Review (title has since been changed to Journal of American HistoryT Vol. 39* March, 1952, p p . 591-2. 1^Rudolph, op. cit.. p. 178 and Jesse B. Sears, Philanthropy in the History of American Higher Education. Bureau of Education Bulletin 26 (Washington,^ B.C., Govern— ment Printing Office, 1922), pp. 22-32. 15 Sears, op. cit.. pp. 30-1- l6 Ibid.. p. 3 1 . 10 also important— 'the gift might come in terms of c o m or volunteer labor for a building project, but it was probably especially crucial as a concrete demonstration of the public support for higher education, 17 These early colleges also received public subsidies, despite the fact that policy formulation rested in private hands. Because of their own revenue problems, the colonies usually found it easier to give colleges permission to operate lotteries and to grant title to lands for resale rather than to appropriate funds. 18 Even more indi­ rect but also very important were the privileges granted to the colleges, such as exempting the faculty and students from military duty and also exempting the faculty, students, and propenrtyyfrom taxation. 19 However, the colonies, and later the states, also pro­ vided crucial support in the form of direct grants of funds; one observer noted that without this support Harvard, Yale, and Columbia could not have survived the colonial period. 20 Two events occurred during the end of this period which, along with the rise of science mentioned above, were of immense signifi— %*> ,V % W S M W W ---- w u wli A J* % «~L^ WAlOjT « 1" * 5 U > V V J- U X U i 4* A 4 J b U X U C C * D A ^ « • .Vs 4 a Is VtflU . W U 1 V s rS A4CMU* T a m AS V A A m U C U l i 17'Rudolph, op. cit.. pp. 182—3 aaod Frederick Rudolph, "Who Paid the Bills? An Inquiry into the Nature of Nineteenth-Century College Finance," Harvard Education Review. Vol. 31, Spring, 1961, pp. 146-7. 18 Rudolph, American College, pp. 185-6. 19 ^Frank W. Blaokmar, The History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States. Bureau of Education Circular of Information 1 (Washington, B.C., Government Printing Office, 1890), especially pp. 24 — 2 9 * 20„ Sears, op. cit.. pp. 25—26. 11 developing and because they foreshadowed new forces at work in society. One, of course, was the American Revolution. It signaled the arrival of democracy as an idea to be contended with-—the belief that all men were equal before the law and should be as free as possible to realize the full benefit of their own ability and effort. Esta­ blished authority based upon religion or ancestry became subject to doubt. Leaders began to think of education as the means by which individuals would be made capable of handling this heavy load— the responsibility for both their individual and national destiny. 21 The other event of major proportions wastthe Dartmouth College Case of 1819* A then unknown Dartmouth graduate, Daniel Webster, argued the position of the trustees of the College before the Supreme Court in Washington. The issue was basically one of deciding whether the state-granted charter of Dartmouth College gave the state the right to impose its will upon the institution. Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking for the Court, announced a decision in favor of the trustees. Thus, private institutions won their independence from legislative inle^-Xervuce, ail independence which would protect them from the excesses of democracy, but which it can be argued would also result in a loss of contact with much of society— as we shall see more fully in the next section. 22 21 Rudolph, American College, pp. 33—43. 22 Ibid.. pp. 207-213* 12 Contesting The Inevitable: 1828— Pre—Civil War By the end of the year 1828 it was clear that the bulk of American society was prepared to move enthusiastically into a new era where any man was the equal of any other and where the opportunity for economic advancement should be open to everyone. But it was equally apparent that the majority of the colleges were not prepared to em­ brace this new frame of reference. It could hardly have been more symbolic of this basic parting of the ways that Andrew Jackson's elec­ tion to the presidency and the Yale Report should occur in the same year, 1828. Jacksonian demooracy emphasized equality and the benefits of material success which could be obtained through healthy competition. The concern of men such as Jefferson for a careful and conscious cul­ tivation of those with special talents was largely forgotten— many appeared to reject even the possibility of the existence of such special talents. All privilege except that gained by individual effort was rejected, which sometimes led to a loss of public support for higher education— often to the benefit of common schools which were 25 considered more democratic. ^ The frontier and the growing manufac­ turing sector Beemed to offer material success to anyone with the courage and energy to grab it, and, not incidently from the stand­ point of the colleges, one's higher education had little or no rela­ tionship to one's economic success. 2 ?Ibid.. p. 2 1 2 . 15 It was In the above atmosphere, to which was added the growing pressure of the empirical sciences, that the President and Fellows of Yale College issued their influential "Report on a Course of Liberal Education."2^ The Yale Report defended nearly every aspect of the traditional college, from the classical curriculum to the residential style of student living. It argued that it would be a mistake for the colleges to cater to "a preparation for business;" on the contrary, the very fact of prosperity made the old curriculum even more crucial. Is it not desirable that (the newly prosperous) should be men of superior education, of large and liberal views, of those solid and elegant attainments, which will raise them to a higher distinction, than the mere possession of property; which will not allow them to hoard their treasures, or waste them in senseless extravagance; which will enable them to adorn society by their learning, to move in the more intel­ ligent circles with dignity, and to make such an application of their wealth, as will be most honorable to themselves, and most beneficial to their country?...Light and moderate learning is but poorly fitted to direct the energies of a nation, so widely extended, so intelligent, so powerful in resources,ogo rapidly advancing in population, strength, and opulence. This was to be the stanco of most of higher education throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. The educators were determined to preserve civilization on the frontier and in the new manufacturing centers just as they had in the newly settled colonies. The lack of sooietal support for this course became increasingly evident as time passed. Public bodies— unable to force their will upon the colleges because of the Dartmouth case, seeing that the Yale Report*s acceptance ruled out voluntary adjustment by the colleges, OA "Original Papers in Relation to a Course of Liberal Education," The American Journal of Science and Arts (title has since been changed to American Journaloof Science). Vol. 15. Ro. 2, 1829, PP* 297-351* 2 5Ibld.. pp. 323 -4 . 14 and swayed by their Jacksonian rejection of privilege——reduced legis— lative support for private higher education* 26 Many potential students saw the classical curriculum as irrelevant, and those who attended did 27 so partly under the inducement of very low tuitions. Interestingly, once on campus the students often formed literary societies which were much more open and intellectual than the classes they attended— even to the extent of possessing a library superior to that of the college! Reinforcing the viewpoint that these societies acted somewhat as a substitute for a stale curriculum is the fact that they began to decline in importance as the colleges broadened their offerings in the mid and late nineteenth century. 29 This was also the period in which fraternities grew to be an important factor; these organizations offered escape from the monotony of the classical curriculum and gave the opportunity to learn and cultivate the attitudes and skills which would lead to material success. ^ 0 Mot surprisingly in view of the colleges* financial problems, faculty salaries remained very low. 31 26'R'nt'bfm'hAY' fvnfl v "-"' . on- ref t - - n-' ^6- - 27 'Francis Wayland, Thoughts on the Present Collegiate System in the United States (Boston, Mass., Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, 1842) as reprinted by (New York, N.Y., A m o Press & The Mew York Times, 1969), PP. 14-17. 28 Rudolph, American College, pp. 138—146 and Henry L. Sheldon, Student Life and Customs (New York, N.Y., D. Appleton and Company, 1901), pp. 125-142. 29 Rudolph, American College, pp. 145—6. ^°Ibid.. pp. 144 -9 . ^Wayland, op. cit.. p. 14. 28 15 Despite the above difficulties, this period saw an unprecedented explosion in the number of all types of colleges, especially denomi­ national colleges. One study suggests that approximately seven hundred colleges opened and failed before the Civil War, a fatality 32 rate of about eighty percent. As this figure implies, most of these institutions were ill-planned in almost every respect— available students, faculty, buildings, endowment, location, and so on. Many factors were at work in this multiplication of colleges, but two of the most important were the Dartmouth College Case men­ tioned earlier and the spirit of Jacksonian democracy. The Dartmouth Case, along with the First Amendment principle of separation of Church and State, guaranteed denominational interests, once chartered, 33 the right to exist free of legislative interference. ' They were encouraged to found institutions by the Jacksonian enterprising spirit, 3ti­ The the home missionary movement, and denominational rivalries. zeal with which Yale and Princeton produced home missionaries for the West was an important factor in the widespread dominance of the Yale . 33 uepoi't up "co tne Civil War.'' Although some new public institutions were founded in response to the independence of the private institu­ tions and inter-state rivalry, the evidence is strong that the 32 Rudolph, American College, p. 47 and Donald G. Tewksbury, The Founding of American Colleges and Universities Before the Civil War. No. 543 in the Series of the Colum— bia University Teacher’s College Contributions to Education (New York, N.Y., Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932), pp. 25-28. 33Tewksbury, op. cit.. pp. 6 2-66. ^Rudolph, American College, pp. 52—58, 211. 55 Ibidt, p. 1 3 1 . 16 combination of denominational and Jacksonian interests delayed much of the development of state "universities by several decades, i.e., until after the Civil War.56 However, the traditional liberal arts college was the focus for a growing dissatisfaction which appeared and re-appeared in various ways throughout the period-foreshadowing what was to come. The ideas inherent in democracy, science, and the Enlightenment spread and would not be silenced; people both in andoout of the colleges were demanding that higher education be more widely available, more intel­ lectual, and more directed towards the easing of human misery. The reformers usually looked to the German university for at least part of their new model. Two of the most significant and revealing strug>- gles were those of Thomas Jefferson at the University of Virginia and Henry Philip Tappan at the University of Michigan. Thomas Jeffereson, from his position on the Board of Visitors, had instituted many reforms at William and Mary College in the eigh­ teenth century, but he was dissatisfied with the results and devoted his time to an entirely new institution, the University of Virginia, in the nineteenth century. 37' In 1818 he succeeded in the legislative effort required to obtain a charter, and in 1824 his plans were adopted by the Board of Visitors. 33 Jefferson* s vision was a public institution offering advanced training to mature students, a proposal 5Tewksbury, op. cit.. p. 1 5 1 . 37 Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 19-20, 99-100. 58Roy J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson. Vol. 16 of the Harvard Studies in Education (Cambridge, Mass., Hanvard University Press, 1931) as reprinted by (New York, N.Y., Russell & Russell, Inc., 1964), PP. 67 -8 7 . 17 which was revolutionary in all respects. Control of the University was to rest with a Board of Visitors appointed "by the governor and con­ firmed by the legislature, rather than in the handsoof any religious group. There were to be eight schools: ancient languages, modem languages, mathematics, natural philosophy, natural history, anatomy and medicine, moral philosophy, and law; each would offer advanced training and award its own diploma.4<^ The student would be free to choose which school he would enter and could proceed at his own de­ sired pace.4^ This remarkable innovation could not be sustained, however, in the face of such difficulties as a dearth of prepared students due to the poor system of seoondary education, the lack of equipment and libraries, and the difficulty of recruiting adequate faculty.4^ On the other hand, Jefferson*s ideas inspired many people, one of whom was Judge Augustus B. Woodward who in 1817 was the major backer behind legislation creating the "Catholepistemiad" or Univer­ sity of Michigania.4^ Probably nowhere else were the conflicts of this period more evident or more ulLverly fought tiiaii in 1-Iioliigan in the IG^o* a and early I860*s. Under the influence of Woodward, Michigan had adopted from the very beginning a policy favoring a centralized system of education-even going so far as to give the University of Michigan the 39Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 148—9. ^Philip Alexander Bruce, History of the University of Virginia 1, Vol. I (New York, N.Y., The Macmillan Co., 1920), pp. 322-7. 41Ibid.. pp. 326-7. 4^Brubaoher and Rudy, op. cit.. p. 152. 43Ibid,. p. 153. 10 exclusive right to confer degrees.44 This view was reinforced by a plan developed by Isaac E. Crary and John D. Pierce and adopted in 1837; it proposed a central state university with "Branches" which would provide secondary education and feed qualified students into the university.4"* These events were important factors in the decision of Henry Philip Tappan to accept the presidency of the University of Michigan in 1852, for he vae also a great admirer of the system of education developed in Germany,4^ Many of his ideas were similar to those of Jefferson; he broadened the course of studyf raised it to a more advanced level, and introduced electivesifor the students, 47 Tappan fought all sectarian influence and continued the battle to retain a monopoly on degree granting; the denominations, of course, fought him tooth and nail, trying to limit public support for the University and gain collegiate rights— -succeeding in the latter in 1855.48 Tappan^s actions antagonized many groups, as illustrated by the following newspaper quote, "Of all the imitations of English aris­ tocracy, German mysticism, Prussian imperiousness and Parisian nonsenailiea, he is altogether the moot un^Amoriconired, the most completely foreignized specimen of an abnormal Yankee we have ever seen."4^ 44Willis Dunbar, "Public Versus Private Control of Higher Educa­ tion in Michigan, 1817—1855," Mississippi Valley Historical Review (title has since been changed to Journal of American History), Vol. 22, December, 1955, PP* 589-591* 45Ibid.* pp, 391-2. ^Elizabeth M, Farrand, History of the University of Michigan (Ann Aitbor, Mich., Register Publishing House, 1885), PP* 94-5. 4^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 105—7* 48Ibjd.. pp. 155 -7. 4^Farrand, op. pit.. pp. 112-3. 19 In 1863 Tappan was forced out of office by a vote of the Board of Regents, but his influence as an architect of the American university would never be destroyed. 50 Towards the end of this period an important event occurred which foretold the degree to which society would create colleges and univer­ sities responsive to their needs, and once again Michigan was in the front ranks. The Michigan Agricultural College, the first such insti­ tution in the western United States, was established at East Lansing in 1855.51 Entering The Mainstream: Civil War— Pre—World War IX The United States underwent tremendous change in this period as did higher education, but now there was something new in their relationship. Before the Civil War, society had an impact on the col­ leges, but the impact of the colleges on society appeared small— even negligible. Pew enrolled 5 and those who did enjoyed little or no advantage over others as the nation expanded from ocean to ocean. iicTw old oijlciOu WOulu. uO louu In 9 in society would still affect higher education but now society would find itself increasingly dependent on the colleges and universities to perform orucial functions. Higher education was moving into the mainstream of the nation, never to return to the eddies it occupied in the first half of the nineteenth century. ^Ibid.. pp. 156—8 and Edwin McClellan, "The Educational Ideas of Henry Philip Tappan," Michigan History. Vol. 38, March, 1954, PP. 69-78* •^Madison Kuhn. Michigan States The First Hundred Years (East Lansing, Mich., 1955)* PP. 4-10. 20 While the Civil War was not the sole factor in bringing about a new orientation, it did appear to be a turning point* The trends toward industrialization and urbanization leapt forward under the influence of war-time factory and railroad growth* The nation was knit together by economic institutions, except for the war-ravaged South which was left isolated in many ways. And finally, the United States was truly a nation, the experiment of democracy had survived its most crucial test* The Morrill Acts which led to the creation of the land grant colleges were almost certainly the most important Federal initiatives in this period. Responding to a rising pressure for more popular colleges which would offer applied-soience or technical training in agriculture and the mechanic arts, Congressman Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont first introduced his bill in 1857* ^ His bill was vetoed by President Buchanan in 1859* "the same year in which The Origin of the Speoies by Chadrleo Darwin appeared— a coincidence with the same ring of irony as occurred in 1828 with the simultaneous issuance of If - 1!*_ f - X d JL C ? ft — A - ft — -t -- - j . r d J iU ~ ... v x , V> O r U i V M 53 U A 1 » TV*-I* X IU W -T .1 .1 A J.V-,4 » v Ix L W — X V n W 4AW forcesuof change were not stifled for long; in 1862 President Lincoln, who had succeeded Buchanan, signed the Morrill Act passed by a Congress from which the South had seceded* 5A Despite the importance we now ascribe to the Act, it aroused no great public interest; the New 52Ibid.* pp. 248-9* W.O. Thompson, "The Spirit of the Land-Grant Institutions,” Proceedings of the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities* 1931, P* 10^. 54Earle D. Ross, Democracy*s College; The Land—Grant Movement in the Formative Stags (Ames, Iowa, Iowa State College Press, 1942), pp. 60—5. 2T York Tribune did not mention it when summarizing the achievements of the Congress in that yeax. 55 The Morrill Act of 1862 was significant not only because of the purposes it supported but also because of the intervention strategy adopted by the federal government. The Act itself stated that each state would receive 20,000 acres for each senator and representative and that each territory would receive 60,000 acres. Ten per cent of the fund resulting from the s&Le of the land might be spent for a college site or experimental farm land, but neither the grant nor the income resulting from it could be used for constructing or maintaining buildings $ the remainder of the fund was to be invested where it would yield a return of not less than five per cent. 56 For the first time the federal government was interpreting its duties under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution to include the right to use federal grants to achieve certain specific objectives, in this case education of a certain type. Since the grant could not be used for buildings, the states had to provide "matching dollars" if they were to benefit r* x J L 'u u i .1.1. _ o x ic : a _ - j„ 57 t n , j.i_ jj u ii u Z' u i .1.1. _ ._ I .iic ia e _ I • . p x c tc tr x v e tf i. ii« x v e i. u c a u until they are now of tremendous scope and importance. i *i .. rt - i o x p c U iU tiU The conse­ quences of this approach were felt immediately, for former federal land grants had primarily supported general or humanistic studies but after 1862 they could only be used in applied—sciences or technical ~^lbid.. pp. 65-6, 56Ibid.. pp. 46-7. 57 •"Wilfred E. Binkley and Malcolm C. Moos, A Grammar of American Politics. Third Edition, Revised, (New York, N.Y., Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1958), PP. 81-2. 22 fields.^ The matching requirement,oof course, tended to shift the state's allocation of funds in the same direction. The early years of these land-grant colleges were fraught with problems. Qualified students were nearly nonexistent, many farmers would support only a vocational or trade school curriculum, and there was a scarcity of information to teach. 59 ^ One observer noted, "The first group of agricultural professors were somewhat like a brass 60 band trying to play without instruments." Prospects were improved markedly by the Hatch Experiment Station Act of 1887 which laid the financial and institutional foundations for developing a scientific subject matter and with the second Morrill Act of 1890 which provided for greatly increased federal support.^ The land—grant funds were used in a wide variety of institution­ al arrangements. Michigan, along with Iowa, Maryland and Pennsylvania, chose to augment the existing agricultural college. 62 The problem of finding qualified students was not unique to the land—grant colleges, for at the end of the Civil War a gap existed between the public elementary schools and the universities— filled only by public secondary education in a few Northeastern urban centers CO William Lowe Bryan, "Educational Policies of the United States Government," Educational Record. Vol. II, April, 1930, pp. 56—7. 59 Richard G. Axt, The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education (New York, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 4 7 - 5 0 . ^Thompson, op. cit.. p. 106. 61 A^t# o p * oit.. pp. 50-9* 62 Rudolph, American College, p. 253* 25 and by private academies* The traditional solution was to establish a preparatory program within the college which would take the unqua­ lified students at whatever level they came and raise their competency to that required for college—level instruction*^ The aspiring Univer­ sity of Michigan, however, initiated a much grander scheme in the poBt-war period. In 1871 the University, under the leadership of President Henry S. Frieze, began to certify the graduates of certain 65 publio schools as admissable at the collegiate level. ^ This, of course, was of tremendous significance: it encouraged the growth of secondary schools, it stimulated them to adopt programs of collegiate preparation with adequate standards, and it allowed the University to elevate its own standards. The procedure spread rapidly and by 1890 the leading Midwestern state universities depended almost entirely on the hig^i schools for their students. 66 As these uniquely American institutions— the land—grant colleges— were developing, an equally important effort to Import the ideals of Geryviii university scholarship was continuing. These ideals— some of which were mentioned in the diecuecion of Jeffercen and Tappan— centered on a concept of the university as a place where truth would be pursued through original scientific investigation by free agents. The profes­ sor was free to investigate any subject and communicate his findings 63 Rudolph, American College, p. 201. 64Ibid.. p. 282. 65Joseph Lindsey Henderson, Admission to College by Certificate. No. 50 in the Series of the Columbia University Teacher* s College Con­ tributions to Education, (New York, N.Y., Teaohers College, Columbia University, 1912), pp. 49-51. ^^Rudolph, American College, p. 284. 24, to others* The students were free to study anything and anywhere they wished, with the only formal requirement being the final degree examination* This spirit of free inquiry yielded rich scientific dividends for the state, an aspect which became more consciously eul67 tlvated as the nineteenth oentury unfolded. Although the influence of the German^universities was felt throughout the 1800* s, their ideals were not fully realized in America until Johns Hopkins University opened its doors in 1876 under the leadership of Daniel Colt Gilman* 68 The funds for this massive en­ deavor were donated from the fortune which Johns Hopkins accumulated through his interest in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad* 69 The insti­ tution thrived, and its graduates soon began to Influence all of American higher education in the development of advanced sbholarship and teaching. 70 There was, and still is, such a variety among American universi­ ties that it is impossible to describe a "typical" American university. However, two characteristics did develop in this period which were dis­ tinctly American and widely adopted to some degree by all institutions, but especially by those in the public sector* The first of these is the all-purpose curriculum typified by the "Cornell Plan," and the second is service to the community or the "Wisconsin Idea*"71 67'Brubacher and Rudy, on. cit,. p. 175—6. 6SRudolph, American College, p. 269* ^John C, French, A History of the University Founded by Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, Md., The Johns^ Hopkins Press, 194^), pp* 94—7* 70Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit*. p. 183* 71Ibid.. p. 161. 25 Even before the university was founded, Ezra Cornell knew that he wished to accomplish with his millions from the Western Union Tele­ graph Company, saying the words which would later appear on the univer­ would found an institution in which any person can find instruction in any study*" 72 In this he had the enthusiastic backing sity seal, "I of the able first president, Andrew Dickson White, who recalled the inequality between the classical and science curriculum in hie undengraduate days at Yale* 75 Although White was a strong supporter of vocational training throughout his career, he also believed education must develop the social nature of man so that democraoy might worksecuring rational, intelligent reforms wherever necessary; it is important to note that in 1 9 8 0 , forty years after his Inauguration, he was convinced that the problem had been reversed and that the pressing need was "not only to make men and women skillful in the va­ rious professions and avocations of life, but to cultivate and bring out the best in them as men and women. " 74 As the "Cornell Plan” was widely adopted, it tended to blur the and professional* Before the mid-1800*s college training was of a preprofessional nature designed to prepare the student for later pro­ fessional training in divinity, law, or medicine* After the Civil War 72Carl L. Becker, Cornell University: Founders and the Founding (Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1943)* pp." "(>c£-2, 8 8 . 7^Andrew Dickson White, Autobiography (New York, N.Y., The Cen­ tury Co., 1905)# P* 541# 74Walter P. Rogers, Andrew D. White and the Modem University (Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1942), pp. 210— 1 7 . 26 a wide variety of fields from "business to music could be studied— and at the undergraduate level. Rudolph argues that this was a sig- nifleant change in a fundamental sense: The old professionalism was characterized by a serious regard for the liberal studies and by the degree to which the central subject of every liberal study was man himself. The new professionalism, on the other hand, studied things, raised questions not so much about nan's ultimate role and his ulti­ mate responsibility as it did about whether this or that was a good way to go about achieving some immediate and limited object. There was, therefore, a difference, a real difference in kind between the old and the new professions, a difference that had once been clarified by the distinction between profession and vocation. As the twentieth century opened, many people were beginning to feel as White did, i.e., that the spirit of individualism and compe­ tition so prevalent in the nineteenth century must be balanced by a concern for the nature of society. They objected to the concentra­ tions of economic and political power which were appearing in businesses and cities as the country shifted in the direction of an urbanized, industrialized nation. Their attempts at reform, the Progressive movement, affected the entire nation, including higher* education— HCVilCiTC TrCi-w "the of* p«?i.cd SO ** where it gave rise to an educational philosophy, the "Wisconsin Idea." 76 ProgreBsivism was extremely important to the development of col­ leges and universities because it gave new life to the concept of higher education's contribution to the public portion of society, a conoept which had been widely accepted up to the nineteenth century but 75 '^Rudolph, American College, pp. 342—3^^Merle Curti and Vernon Carstensen, The University of Wisconsin; A History. 1848-1925. Vol. 2 (Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin Press, 1949), PP- 3-4* 27 overshadowed since then by an emphasis on the individual and his ma­ terial success. The Progressives were not opposed to the Ideals of democracy and material progress; on the contrary, they were among their strongest supporters. The cures for society were more democracy and more progress through healthier competition: voting rights were expanded, balloting procedures changed, trusts dissolved, and unethi­ cal behavior exposed and legislated against. The support and adoption of such reforms required both an informed populace and leadership, hence the need for extension work and the creation of expertise in government circles. Both of these represented opportunities for the universities to close the gap with society. Another indication of the Progressive spirit was the development of settlement houses in urban areas by concerned students, whose activities are often a useful baro— meter of the times. 77 The University of Wisconsin gave expression to all of the above ideaB and more. Industrial problems were attacked and often solved, such as in the case of the Babcock fat test which an enthusiastic observer credited with eavinv the cc™-opc^*c.tivc dai^y irduct^^r, ^hc Extension Division was sending faculty to outlying villages, conducting correspondence courses (enrolling 5 ,0 0 0 by 1 9 1 2 ), serving as a refer­ ence bureau for citizen inquiries, and organizing discussions of the major public questions.'79 Faculty were serving on the boards and 77'Caroline Williamson Montgomery, Bibliography of College. Social. University and Church Settlements (Chicago, 111., The Blakely Press, 1905). 79 Frederic C. Howe, Wisconsin; An Experiment in Democracy (New York, N.Y., Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1912), p. I7 5 . ^Charles McCarthy, The Wisconsin Idea (New York, N.Y., The MacMillan Company, 1912), pp. 131— 6 . 28 commissions of the state with the enthusiastic backing of both Governor La Follette and Charles R. Van Hise, president of the University; state administrators and professors met informally each week in a Saturday Lunch Club while the legislature was in session. QO This Progressive era, and particularly the Wisconsin experience, was the beginning of the use of the expertise of faculty in governmental af­ fairs, which has now become widespread at the national level. The involvement of faculty in societal conflict, plus the in­ creased emphasis on research, the rapid growth of knowledge and the expansion of institutions, led to their professionalization, i$e«, they tended to be Judged by their peers rather than their clients and to have a decisive voice as to who entered the faculty. 81 As original scholarship came to be emphasized, the Ph.D. became the admission ticket to the profession and the published article the means by which one insured his continuing membership. 82 Within the universities the faculty organized into departments centered on disciplines and broke into ranks in order to facilitate both increasingly specialized scho— xarsnxp ana vne aaminaatza'ciYe neeas ox a large insi;i^UT>ion. 8^ ' x>ovn - . . - _ _ ,, the emphasis upon publishing and the separation into disciplinary 80 Robert S. Maxwell, La Follette and the Rise of the Progressives in Wisconsin (Madison, Wis., State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 195~£)7 PP. 58-9. 81 See Christopher Jencks & David Riesman, The Academic Revolu­ tion (Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Rooks, 19&9) ^or a discussion of higher education which places great emphasis upon this point. DO Rudolph, American College, pp. 395—7* 402—7B5Ibid.. pp. 39 B-4 0 2 . 29 departments tended to replace local and institutional loyalties with a commitment to a national, and even international, body of scholars* The inevitable clash with vested interests, often represented by benefactors or trustees, which arose as faculty increasingly entered into public debate on policy issues gave rise to a heated discussion of academic freedom and tenure. The German model described earlier was an important factor in the controversy, but its applica­ tion was too narrow for many American professors. The German concep­ tion of academic freedom applied only within the academic community; in the wider society the German professor was expected to defer to the German state, as were all German citizens. 84 The American pro­ fessor claimed that he should be accorded the same right of free speech as all citizens and that he, in contrast to others, should not be subject to losing his position for doing so. 8*"5* With the formation of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915 the professors created an instrument which could both articulate and, as time would prove, ably defend their views. 86 Their 1915 statement oi' principles declared, in part, the responsibility of bite professor was primarily to society; the governing board and president may "appoint", but the termination of an appointment should result from a decision by peers. Furthermore, the function of creating an informed and critical public opinion would suffer from any restriction of ®^Riohard Hofstadter and Walter P. Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1955)* PP. 385-91. 65Ibld.. pp. 40 5 - 7 . er and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 318-21 50 academic freedom; the professor should be free to express his Ideas within the classroom, university and society, but he should do so responsibly— especially encouraging students to examine the opinions of others.87 There could ho longer be any doubt— the appearance of the AATTP signified the arrival of the professional academic man. Belated to the issue of the role of a faculty member has been the question of the corporate role of the university. The predominant opinion was, and still appears to be, that the university must remain neutral in political affairs so far as is possible. However, the issue is still a subject of debate, which we will return to in more detail in the next chapter, A phenomenal increase in enrollment took place over this period. In 1869-70 there were 52,000 students in higher education. The ratio of 1869-70 enrollment to the 18-21 age group was 1,7 per cent, (While this is a useful rule-of-thumb figure for purposes of comparison, it has strict limitations for all students are not members of this age group.) Forty years later, in 1909-10, enrollment was 355*000 students, 5-1 per cent cf the 18—21 egs group; the av^ra^e mcrease pcx* uecktuu was 76,000 students or .8 percentage points. However, by 1939-40 student enrollment was 1,494*000 or 1 5 .6 per cent; these three decades saw an average increase of 380,000 students or 3-5 percentage points 80 per decade. Young people were obviously responding to public attempts to make higher education more democratic and more relevant to a technical, 87Ibid.. p. 3 2 0 . 88U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Educational Statistics. 1970 (Washington, D,C«, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), Table 88, p, 6 7 . 31 scientific world——and nowhere did these ideals come to he more dearly expressed than in the junior or community colleges* The junior colleges played an important role in the expansion of higher education opportunities. The junior college was originally conceived as a splitting-off of the ”collegiate”llevel of instruction from the more advanced and specialized "university” curriculum, fol— 89 lowing the German distinction between the "gymnasium” and "University.” However, it soon became evident that it was a terminal institution for moat of its students, and the curriculum broadened from a liberal arts "transfer" program to include many specialized vocational—technical courses. 90 The drawing point of the junior colleges is evident in their growth; in 1 9 0 0 —01 6 colleges enrolled 100 students, less than .1 per cent of tot&l higher education enrollment; by 1921—22 207 colleges enrolled 16,031, almost 3 P©*r cent of total enrollment; and in 1939—40 610 colleges had an enrollment of 236,162, 16 per cent of total enrollment. 91 Thus, American society had spawned yet another viable institutional form of higher education— a college located close student of all ages, and offering a broad curriculum short of the baccalaureate degree. Two new developments were crucial to the financing of the rapid expansion of higher education in both scope and magnitude. First, a 89 ^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 258—61. 9°Ibid.. pp. 264-5. 91U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, op. cit.. p. $7 and Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., "Junior College Growth,” Junior College Journal. Vol. 31* February, 1961, pp. 353-4* 52 pattern of regular tax support developed for public institutions after the Civil War* The precedent was again set in Michigan; although state appropriations had been made earlier, in 1875 the legislature provided that the revenue from a statewide property tax of one-tventieth of a mill should regularly go to the University. 92 This prac­ tice gave the institution a more stable income which allowed for better planning, and it also resulted in greater flexibility with regard to the internal allocation of funds* 95 The leaders of private higher education quickly forgot their own past reliance on the public treasury and fought this trend, alleging that a laissez fduire policy was preferable and that governmental support was a corrupting influence. 94 The seoond major development was the accumulation of personal fortunes whioh resulted in large gifts to higher education. Some of the largest were $500,000 by Ezra Cornell, $1,000,000 by Cornelius Vanderbilt, $3*500,000 by Johns Hopkins, $20,000,000 by Leland Stan95 ford, and $30,000,000 from Rockefeller to the University of Chicago. ^^aichard Rees Price, The Financial Support of State Universities. Vol. 6 of the Harvard Studies in Education (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1924) as reprinted by (Hew York, N.Y,, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969^* p. 58 and The Financial Support of the University bf Michigan; Its Originuand Development. No. 8 of the Harvard Bulle— tins in Education (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1923), pp. 35-6. 93 t James B. Angell, Reminiscences (New York, N.Y., Longmans, Green, and Coi, 1912), pp. 243-4* ^Rudolph, American College, pp. 189—90* 278-9, Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. p. 160 and Charles K. Adams, "State Aid to Higher Education," in State Aid to Higher Education. Herbert 33. Adams, ed,, Vol. 18 of the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Soienoe (Balti­ more, Md., The Johns Hopkins Pmfcss, 1898), pp. 1-14. 95 ^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 273* 275. 33 Although the individual gifts were of course much smaller, the res­ ponse of alumni to fund—raising drives was no less important— especially in the private sector* With the coming of the twentieth century there arose a new style of giving, the philanthropic foundation. These foundations used their money and staff as a lever to modify existing institutions rather than create new ones, and a powerful lever it proved to he. Institutions were encouraged to raise their endowment funds hy $1 4 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 between 1902 and 1925 in order to obtain $60,000,000 from Hookefeller* s General Education Board." The Carnegie Foundation, through the eligibility standards for institutional participation in its pension plan, (1) raised the standards of admission to four years of high school or its equivalent, (2 ) established the minimum size of a college at sir to eight departments, in effect, by requiring a four-year curriculum manned by at least sir (eight in 1 9 2 1 ) full professors, (3 ) promoted the Ph.D. as a standard hy requiring it of all department heads, (4 ) weakened denominational colleges by excluding them, and (5 ) affectea many ottier equaxxy xuipox'bam; iuctu •97 xnexw moxo ukuij uujeo- •* 1 * • t ■t mi. — ^ ... , „ ._1 „ tions, such as that of President Jacob G. Sohurman of Cornell Univer­ sity: "The very ambition of such corporations to reform educational abuses is itself a source of danger. Men are not constituted educa— tional reformers by having a million dollars to spend," 98 96 ' Ernest Victor Hollis, Philanthropic Foundations and Higher Education (Hew York, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1958)f pp. 200-1, 9 7 Ibid.. pp. 127 -4 1 . "ibid.. p. 39. 34* The last decade of this period, the 1930’s, was one of severe economic depression. Xt was a time when all institutions and all of social philosophy, including matters related to higher education, were subjected to intense critical review. This, plus the growing disaffec­ tion of the humanists as the vocational and technical fields expanded, led to a vigorous debate which went to the roots of higher education. The leading spokesmen for the two philosophies were men well-qualified for such a serious and important confrontation; Robert M.~Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago,:>and John Dewey, pragmatic philosopher of Columbia University. A close examination of their opposing viewpoints is more appropriately a part of the next chapter, but a history would not be complete without mention of some of the highlights of this historic battle. The proper role of higher education, according to Hutchins, was not vocational but rather the cultivation of a liberal training which was unchanging over time. He saw the growing emphasis on * Current problemsolving as leading to a trivial, fragmented, ad hoc, empirical study; such matters were the proper realm of technical insti­ tutes, but the university must concentrate on its unique function of analyzing, and training others to analyze, in terms of a: long-range theoretical perspective. 99 ^ Dewey and his followers countered that theory was an instrument of inquiry which could be tested and advanced only by application to current problems. The role of the liberal arts was one of insuring that the technical subjects were applied in a humane direction; what constituted liberal education depended upon 99 ^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 297-301. 35 what forces, such as democracy, were at work. Although the debate was vigorous, the verdict was probably never in doubt— the people, through their elected bodies and with their own presence, had been choosing the path which led to vocational training and applied problem-solving for nearly one) hundred years* Before moving to the next section, let us briefly summarize the events of this complex era* To the college of English origin, which emphasized the training of the "total gentleman," had been added the German concept of scholarly inquiry. without change. But neither was transplanted The American college and university was more demo­ cratic and more dedicated to service. Never before had a nation set out to provide higher education for so many people in so broad a curriculum. Never before had a faculty become so involved in society1s current problems, both as researchers and as advisers. Serving The Nation: World War II — 1965 The underlying theme for this period can be summarized, in one 'word, "growth*" Growth ill enrollments, buildings, institutions, budgets, research monies, professionalization, and so on. All of the trends established in the last period seemed to be continuing at an accelerating rate— and the public seemed happy to make the required investment. In the immediate post-war period a commission appointed by President Truman returned with a report entitled Higher Education for American Democracy and this ringing challenge: "We may be sure our democracy will not survive unless American schools and colleges 100Ibid.. pp. 301-5. 36 are given the means for improvement and expansion.••America's strength at home and abroad in the years ahead will be determined in large measure by the quality and the effectiveness of the education it provides for its citizens.” 101 All levels of government responded, but the federal government's role became especially crucial. Enrollments, after falling in the war years, soared from 1,677,000 in 1 9 4 5 -4 6 to 2,659,000 in 1949-50 with the return of the veterans. 102 Following a short respite, enrollments again climbed as the post-war baby boom wave came of college age. By 1965 there 103 were 5,526,000 students enrolled in higher education. The same pattern held in Michigan; enrollment in oolleges and universities grew from 4 5 ,9 0 0 students in 1945 to 1 0 1 ,0 0 0 in 1949 to 2 6 8 ,0 0 0 in 19S5.104 World War II was also instrumental In the pattern of research Bupport, for It was the expertise of the university faculties which developed many major technical devices such as radar, the proximity fu&e, and the atomic bomb. The continuing Cold War led to a sustained 101 President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy. Vol. 1 (Washington, B.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947;, P. 103. 102 U.S. Bepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare, op. cit.. p. 67• 1 °5 U.S. Bepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Educational Statistics, Projections of Educational Statlatics to 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 (Washington. B.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. l W , Ttbfe' 13, P. 30. 104u.s. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education in the United States (Washington, B.C., U.S. Government Printing Office), 19 44 —4<3 and 1948—50 Michigan Bepartment of Education, A Report on Enrollments in Michigan Colleges and Universities (Lansing, Michigan, 1968). 37 support of research, especially in the natural sciences* In 1957 "the launching’of the Russian Sputnik gave a renewed impetus to federal support for higher education. The growing extent of the federal involvement is probably best shown by the changing sources of income of higher education. Before World War II, in 1939-40, the federal government contributed about $40 million (5 per cent) of the $ 7 2 0 million current fund income, $52 million of which was to land-grant institutions. Ten years later, in 1 9 4 9 -5 0 , the federal government's share of a total of $2.39 billion was $5 2 7 million (22 per cent) and in 1959-60 the corresponding figures were $5*81 billion and $1.04 billion (18 per cent). Finally, in 1965— 66 the federal government contributed $2.66 billion (21 per cent) of a total current fund income of $12.80 billion. Despite the magnitude and importance of its support, by 1 9 6 5 the federal government still had not formed any comprehensive plan for its funding of higher education. It was still operating many categorical programs, largely uneoordinated, to deal with specific needs— 'basically A-t-* W 1XU. - o U u i C first Morrill Act, JL,V* A J __ „ v ______ J*____ J* U U ilU i.e U tic U X X til' J L il •r * W ilt* The G.I. Bill was prompted by a concern for veterans, much of the contract research was motivated by the interest in national defense, the need for facilities gave rise to separate programs such as the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1965* seemingly for pages and pages. one could go on— While this unquestionably produced positive results, the practice was often criticized for its ooncentra^tion of support to a relatively small number of fields, faculty, and 105U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Digest. Table 126, p. 95- 38 institutions. After careful study one observer concluded, "The govern­ ment (and vaBter historical forces) has divided the liberal arts faculty into a contingent of relatively young scientists and social scientists with lighter teaching loadB, higher income, substantial research support, and other perquisites, and another contingent of older humanists, with heavier teaching loads, lower incomes, and little research support." The Higher Education Act of 1965 might be viewed as a culmina­ tion of such efforts. Although it recognized a broad federal respon­ sibility, both in the public and private sectors and at the undergra­ duate and graduate levels, there still did not exist a comprehensive underlying philosophy. The Act is summarized as follows by Brubaoher and Rudy: The omnibus act of 1965*•.authorized federal financing to enable colleges and universities to assist in the solution of community problems such as housing, public health, and poverty by way of research, university extension, or continuing edu­ cation programs. It established a program whereby federal funds would be appropriated to help institutions of higher education improve and expand their libraries. It made provi­ sion for federal assistance to help riise the quality of developing colleges ths-t "for finsmciel end other tmiobohb are struggling for survival and are isolated from the main currents of academic life." National Teaching Fellowships were established to encourage graduate students and junior faculty members to teach at such institutions. Four types of federal assistance were provided to academically qualified students in financial need, including Educational Opportunity Grants, an expanded program of low—interest insured loans, and increased college programs offering the opportunity for part-time employment. Fellowships were established for the university training of those who wished to..fighter or re-enter the field of elementary or secondary education. Finally, the legislation made available financial assistance for the ac­ quisition by colleges of laboratory equipment, audio-visual materials, and television equipment and materials for the ^Harold Orlans, The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Edu­ cation (Washington, B.C., The Brookings Institution^ 19(>2) , pp. 295—4. 39 improvement of undergraduate instruction. The federal govern­ ment, already the principal financier of America's programs of higher education, ha4, in 1965* turned a significant comer. It was now permanently committed to a continuing broad—based effort to maintain academic quality and encourage, where neces­ sary, collegiate improvement and expansion. Thus, by the mid—1960* s higher education was viewed as a service to the nation and enjoyed support coordinate with that role. Young people were flocking to the campuseB and paying increasing tuitions for the privilege. Foundations and businesses were funding a wide variety of projects in the firm belief that the expertise within the university offered the best hope for the solution of problems. Government bodies at all levels had comprehensive programs for the support of higher education. Problems existed, but they were primarily problems of providing for the needed growth— and with such widespread support, few questioned whether the nation and its citizens would be equal to the challenge. If one listened closely, however, he could hear the faint roar of the rapids downstream— for higher education was soon to learn that the mainstream was not always calm and well-charted. The buffeting which was to come would cause a complete re—examination of the chosen course, the vessel, and even the crew. Seeking A Mission: Present The recent turmoil surrounding higher education is all too fami­ liar to most of us and requires only a brief review. Somewhat ironi­ cally, the first cracks in the solid base of support for higher educa­ tion appeared among studentb— the very group reaping the most benefits ^°^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit.. pp. 241-2. 40 in the opinion of many people. At a time when the entire nationzwas becoming more sensitive to racial, economic and other injustices, the students were perhaps more caught up in the spirit of idealism than any other group. They discovered poverty along with John P. Kennedy and joined in the fight to eradicate it both at home and abroad. They marched, rode buses, and registered voters in the South in support of expanded political and economic power for blacks. And, with ever increasing intensity and resulting violence, they protested against a war in Southeast Asia which they viewed as an immoral expedition whose only results were death and destruction' for the Indochinese, consumption of federal resources urgently needed elsewhere, and exploitation of their own generation. Prom the viewpoint of many students, U.S. society required reform and renewal. But the colleges and universities, in the eyes of a significant number of students, were catering to the demands of the very elements most in need of reform. College administrators and trustees were seen ac willing, and even anxious, to prohibit coutrovers ial speakers from appearing if their presence might antagonize legislators or alumni. On most campuses, the students found that minority groups were as un­ derrepresented on the staff (except as custodians, of course) and in the student body as was true in other influential groups. The research program came to be viewed as primarily a tool of federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, whose goals were not shared. In sum, higher education was as badly in need of reform, if not more so, than the rest of society. To those who expressed skepticism concerning their description of the forces at work, the student critics could 41 point to a "book by one of the most respected university administrators, Clark Kerr, who wrote (in a much less critical vein), "The location of power has generally moved from inside to outside the original communi­ ty of masters and students. The nature of the multiversity makes it inevitable that this historical transfer will not be reversed in any 108 significant fashion#,#" and "The university and segments of industry are becoming more alike, •.The two worlds are merging physically and psychologically, "**^ The controversy over these issues and others soon spread from a limited number of students on a few campuses to many groups across the nation. Portions of the general public and their legislators supported reprisals against demonstrating students, administrators who were "responsible for a break—down in discipline," and even institutions in which disturbances occurred. ments of the oritics. Others were sympathetic to the argu­ But most citizens were probably unsure of who was right— suddenly feeling less certain about what was taking place in the colleges and universities and, more importantly, what Bhould be happening. At the same time as internal divisions became more apparent, many of the anxieties associated with international issues subsided-—adding to the uncertainties facing higher education. The United States space program landed the first man on the moon, the much touted "missile gap” proved to be an illusion, our economic growth rate overtook and even surpassed that of the SoviAt Union, the Cold War thawed significantly, ^^Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (New York, N.Y., Harper & Row, 1963)» P# 26. 1°9Ibid.. pp. 90 - 1 . 42 and the Soviet Union and China were obviously rivals rather than allies in many respects. That support for higher education which was rooted in the fear of external forces tended to decline or even disappear. As general public support for higher education wavered, the po­ tential fiscal resources also became tighter. Increased expenditures for the Indochina War and the Great Society programs put intense pressure on the federal budget, leaving little or no room for greater support of higher education. The difficulties were compounded when the economy entered a recession, but recovery from that recession did not eliminate the genuine fiscal crisis facing colleges and universi­ ties at a time when their credibility seemed to be sinking to the lowest level in decades. Thus, the hi^ier education community now finds itself the subject of both internal and external reexamination— partly to justify its funds but maybe even more to find and justify its proper role in society. In the next chapter we will examine and compare some of the major proposals being made in the course of the deliberations. Chapter XIX Financing For What? Controversies over matters of political philosophy, since they are controversies over fundamental beliefs, are excee­ dingly dangerous for any nation* They certainly ought not to happen too often, fdr they then make civilized political life very difficult to sustain. But they ought to— they inevitably will— rise occasionally. We seem to be living through such a moment now; and the first thing to do is consciously to face up to this critical fact and make it manifest in all its implications. We must go behind the smaller questions in order to contemplate the larger answers they tacitly demand.‘ In many respects the present financial crisis in higher education is a derivative of even more basic controversies in higher education and society. Until there is agreement on the purposes of higher edu­ cation, the propects for resolving the financial crisis are exceedingly poor; but agreement on the purposes of higher education is possible only within the context of a general consensus as to the appropriate goals and values for our society. Evidence abounds that the United States is experiencing a period of uncertain and conflicting goals. The traditional values associated with national security, national prestige, private consumption, and economic growth have been rejected by many— and questioned by many more. Billions are spent on war materials, subsidies to business, and luxury items while the environment deteriorates, cities decay, children hunger, and crime grows. The forces of change seem to press from all directions, and yet a large number viewcchange as a threat which must be resisted. If higher education——as a "prime instrument of national ^Irving Kristol, "From Priorities to Goals," The Public Interest. Summer 1971» P* 4« 43 44 purpose" or "a means to the achievement of the country* s ideals"— seems harried and confused, It Is at least partly due to a bewildered society* 2 If society is confused about what it expects from the colleges, the colleges are at least as confused over how to define current so­ cietal problems and their own responsibilities for achieving solutions. Proposals range from more basic research to political action, from greater attention to the intellectual elite to open admissions. Inter­ nally, the "community of scholars" has often broken into factions— students, faculty, administrators, and trustees each striving to gain or retain power over some part of the decision process. The importance of the above to the financing question is that the chosen means of finance will in large measure determine who will exert influence— thus determining the purpose of higher education and affec­ ting national policy. The historical record reviewed in the previous chapter contains many examples of such shifts in influence: the Morrill Act led to a great expansion in educational opportunity and vocational px-ogxams; huge fortunes enabled individuals to establish institntfoTie of their choosing; the Carnegie Foundation, through its pension plan, set admission standards; the G.I. Bill enabled a hugecwave of returning veterans to demand, and gain, higher education; federal grants changed the research emphasis within institutions and increased the power of 2 Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Mass., Har­ vard University PreBs, 19<>5), p* 87* Robert M. Hutchins, The University of Utopia (Chicago, 111., University of Chicago Press, 1953)» P* 100. 45 the faculty who received them, and so on.^ Of course, one must hasten to add that instituting a financing scheme consistent with a given set of goals and values does not guarantee their dominance* There are many other control mechanisms, such as the system of governance and the rules of tenure, which will influence the purpose of higher education. But most would agree that control of a significant portion of the budget is an important source of leverage. Thus, it is clear that the problem of financing higher education is in a fundamental sense a problem of conflicting values. The ques­ tion relevant to the policy process is not so much "how valuable is an education?" as "how is an education valuable?". The work of economists up to now has tended to concentrate on the former, resulting in esti­ mates of private and social money rates of return using the well-known maximizing and minimizing principles of economic theory.^" The approach followed here is much broader. It might be bust characterized as "political economy;? the emphasis is not on finding the most efficient means to achieve a given end (such as mix!mum money wealth) but on others have noted the connection between the control of financial support and the wielding of power. Among them are: Sir Eric Ashby, Any Person. Any Study (Hew York, N.Y., McGrawHill Book Company, 197i)* Robert M. Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America (Hew Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1936), especially pp. xi-xii in the preface to the 1962 printing. Christopher Jencks and David Risoman, The Academic Revolution (Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1 9 6 9 ). Kerr, op. oit. Edgar Litt, The Public Vocational University: Captive Knowledge and Public Power (Hew York, H.Y., Holt, Rinehart and WinBton, Inc., 19697.' TFor example, see the papers on "Cost—Benefit Analysis of Educa­ tional Expenditures" in M. Blaug, ed., Economics of Education 1 (Bal­ timore, Md., Penguin Books, Inc., 1 9 6 8 ). 46 comparing the characteristics of ends so that decision makers will he better informed as they make the hard goal choices* Let u b hope that if a change comparable to the Morrill Act occurs in the near future, we will this time have the foresight to recognize its significance* Many roles have been proposed for higher education* They differ in many respects, but disagreements related to the role of the higher education community as critics of society appear to be at the core of much of the conflict. Some would have colleges and universities pro­ vide the means for attaining goals set by the larger society, and any attempt by faculty and students to promote alternative goals is viewed as arrogant behavior undeserving of support. At the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that the institutions of higher education and the people associated with them have a responsibility to vigorously support drastic changes throughout society. Attention beganito focus on the potential role of higher educa­ tion as a critic of society quite recently, relative to the periods when other roles were articulated. xuV-A., umu As was observed in the historical iiiuci.w91-2. John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy. Higher Education in Transi­ tion (New York, N.Y,, Harper & Row, 1 9 6 8 ), p. 402. Jencks and Riesman, op. cit.. p. 12. Kerr, op. cit.. p. 121. Edward H. Levi, Point of View (Chicago, 111,, University of Chicago Press, 1 9 6 9 ), PP. 35— *>• 11 Ashby, op. cit.. pp. 31-2. Jencks and Riesman, op. cit.. pp. 282—5. 53 principle, although the priority placed on its achievement varies mar­ kedly from one setting to another* Some of the important milestones in our American heritage which bear witness to our commitment to th±3 ideal are the American Revolution, Jacksonian populist ideas, Emanci­ pation Proclamation, Morrill Acts, and G.I. Bills* A comprehensive program to provide more equal opportunity of education would involve several elements* With regard to the financial component, public subsidies should focus on the economically disadvan­ taged, Such aid should be tied to attendance in a college or univer­ sity only if higher education is viewed as at least partially a public good* In order to remove any financial disincentive which might other­ wise affect admission policies, institutions should receive supplemen­ tal grants to cover any additional costs they incur as a result of admitting educationally disadvantaged students rather than more typical students* Organizationally, institutions should be prepared to admit a more diverse group and to offer them a curriculum geared to their special needs* Higher education would increasingly be expected to provide levels of achievement ordinarily attained in other eettings. i*e*, admit students according to some measure of innate capability, rather than past performance, and offer them an appropriate curriculum. This, as evidenced by our discussion of the early colleges, especially the land—grant movement, is not as much a new issue as one of renewed relevance. A policy emphasizing the identification and cultivation of those with greater ability would ideally start from a broad base such as that outlined above, but other elements would increasingly become dominant as the students moved through the system. Screening devices 54 would be necessary to identify the more able. Once identified, they should be given the necessary financial incentive to continue their education. The number receiving such awards would decrease at each stage, leading to a hierarchy of groups and associated institutions based on ability. Finally, those allocating funds would recognize that it is appropriate to have different levels of funding for dif­ ferent institutions. Those students having different levels of intel­ lectual ability and/or different ambitions require different kinds of educational experiences which implies different costs. 12 Presumably, following the elitist argument, the best faculty and the best students will tend to gravitate to that institution with the most resources and this critical mass will give society its best hope for renewing and transforming itself. Recently, however, the function of screening the population haB come under intense criticism. One complaint is that this has led to an over-emphasis on certification by higher education which has, in turn, subverted the educational process. 15 It is alleged that a person’s college record, especially his degree status- has become an important criteria used by employers in their hiring decisions. This has the consequence of causing many people to associate (correctly— l2lbid.. pp. 9 - 1 7 American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), The Assembly on University Goals and Governance: A First Report (Cambridge, Mass., AAAS, 1971)* P. 29. Ralph A. Dungan, "Higher Education: The Effort to Adjust," Daedalus. Winter 1970* PP. 143-6. 15 •iAAAS, op, cit.. p. 14* Dungan, op. cit.. pp. 147 -9 . 55 the evidence would indicate) a higher income with possession of a college degree; this leads, of course, to attendance merely to make money (attain a degree), with little or no genuine intellectual moti­ vation.^ If there was a high level of confidence that those who attained degrees were in fact superior in some respect, this would not be a severe problem. The solution would be to weed out accurately and as quickly as possible those who were not capable or not motivated; such students would recognize they were not as well suited as others for such training and they could then search for their own area of comparative advantage. But Buch confidence is sorely lacking. Student goals assigned precedence A growing number of people, especially the young, have come to doubt the legitimacy of the present professionals and leaders and, in turn, the processes by which they are selected. 15 This is true not only in education but also in our political system, civil service* and businesses. The educational system, it is argued, does nothing but legitimize the continued holding of power by the sons and dau^iters of the powerful; the rhetoric and actions disguised under "equal oppor­ tunity" are merely means of making the disadvantaged feel their failure *1 A . 15 Ashby, op. cit.. p. 7» “Mill Conway, "Styles of Academic Culture," Daedalus. Winter 1970, pp. 4 5 - 6 . Edgar Z. Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent (New York, N.Y. , Dell Publishing Co., 1959)* p. 27. Stanley Hoffman, "Participation in Perspective?", Daedalus. Winter 1970, p. 1Q0. Ivan Illich, "Why We Must Abolish Schooling," The New York Review of Books. Jifly 2, 1970, pp. 9“15* 56 is due to their own lack of ability rather than to the system they must inhabit. 16 What is needed, they contend, is a higher education system which caters to the needs of students— rather than to those of a soci­ ety rife with injustice and inhumanity. Using results from the study of psychological development, es­ pecially among the young, several prominent critics of higher education have hypothesized that our individual, educational, and societal prob— lems revolve around the issue of individual self-identity. 17 Their line of reasoning proceeds as follows: A crucial stage in the develop­ ment of an individual is the period in which he defines his life style in relationship to both the people and objects in the surrounding environment; this time, which usually contains elements of conflict between the individual and society, is customarily referred to as 10 "adolescence,1* Xt is only after this period of critical evaluation of himself and others that he begins to act as the free moral agent which is prized in our Western tradition. He makes choices which, although affected by the environment, are designed to further the Ideals he holds in his mind; thus, he exhibits persciiility and maturity. Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent, p. 117* Ivan Illich, "Schooling: The Ritual of Progress," The Hew York Review of Books, December 3, 1970. Jencks and Riesman, op, cit,, p, 491• ^Erik H, Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York, N.Y., Norton, 1968), Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent. Kenneth Keniston, Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth (New York, N.Y., Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968), Harold Taylor, How To Change Colleges (New York, N.Y., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971)• Robert Paul Wolff, The Ideal of the University (Boston, Mass., Beacon Press, 1969)# 18Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent, pp. 19—38. 57 Such a person is thought to be worthy as an individual and an asset to society. Continuing to develop their case, they maintain that contemporary society is fast deserting the above model foroone that describes the mattuce, well-adjusted individual as one who does not resist change, conforms to the group mode, and— in general— accepts the environment. 19 One must be prepared to go to work at 8 a.m. and leave at 5 p»m. , repeat the same mechanical task every four minutes on an assembly line, change jobs several times in a life-time, make and break friendships every few years with a change in residence, not "make waves" but be a good "member of the team," refrain from "stapling, spindling, folding or otherwise mutilating" scores of times each year, and a million other big and little things. The fact that we are a society of mass— production, huge bureaucracies, mass—communication^ and other genera­ lized institutionalized means of impersonally handling human beings and their problems becomes the dominant fact in our lives. Rather than providing a counter-vailing force as those holding this position would, deem appropriate, higher education is viewed as aiding and abetting the move towards a bland society where adjustmentand conformity are values in themselves, i.e., performing the role outlined in the previous section with deadly efficiency. Although our concern centers on contemporary higher education, it may be worth noting that almost 500 years ago Erasmus, while at the University of Paris, "mentioned in a letter that, as he wanted to obtain the doctor* s degree, he tried to say nothing either graceful or witty." 20 Modem 19Ibid.. pp. 17, 24-9, 65, 200-12. 20 Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (New York, N.Y., Simon and Schuster, 1945}, P* 515* 58 critics describe the impact of colleges and universities in the follow­ ing manner. The emphasis is on teaching the student how to move into the world as it now exists with a minimum of anxiety for both himself and others. 21 The young person learns to defer to faculty authority in his selection of courses because they know "what the role requires to look upon education as 60 separate units of 3 credits each because of "administrative necessity;" to exhibit the proper decorum when addressing those in authority, which must, of course, be done "through channels;" and even to submit to regulations concerning where he lives, when he eats, and when he (increasingly only "she") must be in his room. In summary, the entering eager, potentially idealistic adoles­ cent emerges as one of thousands with a ready-made job—orientation and a ready-made psyche— a victim of, in Harold Taylor* s words, "institutions organized against the interests of those who attend," 22 The alternative system of higher education proposed by those whose views are described above would focuB on fulfilling the needs of students rather than serving the demands of corporate, governmental cviid other established powers. In the following pare.graphs their ideas for reform are presented, accompanied by a financing!proposal consis­ tent with their framework. Higher education should, if it Is to encourage the development of people with firm self-identities, offer the student an opportunity to explore, free from restrictive rules, the world and his relationship 21 Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America, pp. 26-7* Taylor, op, cit.. pp. 50-6. 22 Taylor, op. cit.. p. 35- 59 to it. Students should design their own programs with advice from others, including faculty; the present practices merely restrict the experience of the student, serve the interests of employers who desire a uniform output (not unlike produce buyers), and distort the relation­ ship between students and facility— which should be one of equals in a community of scholars. 25 Colleges and universities, as virtually the only means to socio-economic mobility, must acknowledge and reward a much.broader range of competencies; "society must recognize the claims to dignity and opportunity of all its constituent groups."^ Every student should have the opportunity to experience the creative arts as a way of expressing one's feelings concerning himself and life, instead of the usual view which leads people to expect only diversion 25 and decoration. Several current characteristics of higher education should be moderated or eliminated completely. The "manpower" approach is com­ pletely inappropriate: higher education is not a factory turning out "x-number of engineers" and "y—number of teachers" but a place where people can oome to know their own unique competencies and ideals. The dossier-building and certification functions are destructive to learn­ ing; not only do they put an emphasis on serving the current employment market and inhibit social mobility as discussed earlier; but they des­ troy the personal relationships between students and others which are 25 q Goodman, op. cit.. pp. 259-61, 312-6. Taylor, op. cit.. pp. 76 —8 4 . j Friedenberg, "The University Community...," p. 61. 25 Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent, p. 9 6 . Taylor, op. cit.. pp. 120—8. 60 important in both moral and intellectual growth. 26 Finally, the influ­ ence of* administrators must be decreased and kept at a minimum. The administrative tendency to preclude conflict, controversy, and confron­ tation in the interests of a bland consensus both within the institution and between the institution and society is exactly the disposition which must be resisted. 27 The key element in this approach to higher education is the free­ dom of students to choose and thus put pressure on the institution to respond to their desires rather than those of external power centers. The students* influence would be greatly enhanced if they, in addition to having free choices among courses and instructors, were the major source of financial support for the instructional program. This could be accomplished by a voucher system, i.e., all public funds for higher education would be distributed to students as an automatic feature of admission rather than, as is now customary, giving public grants to institutions. A wide range of institutions must be acceptable places for the use of the vouchers; efforts of established powers to restrict the choices cf students by limiting the character of qualifying insti­ tutions should be resisted. Those institutions, departments, and classes that were not responsive to students would soon be vacant. This approach should not be construed as a threat to non—teaching faculty hired for other purposes, such as the performance of research or public affairs functions. These other activities would continue to be appropriate when specifically authorized and funded. 26 Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent, pp. 102—5* 27 Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 109 — 11 . Goodman, op. cit.. pp. 172-4, 186—8, 192—5- What would 61 not be appropriate is hiring researchers who "go through the motions" in the classroom for required courses and receive instructional support tinder the guise of serving students; these faculty would find their classrooms vacant under this new procedure and the administrators would be under great pressure to support these people with non—instructional funds or drop them from the faculty. Thus, through greater freedom and budget leverage, the Btudents would find both faculty and adminis­ trators more responsive. The proponents of this student centered model would probably contend that continued public support, in the form of vouchers, is justified. In their view the development of a strong sense of self- identity, which is encouraged by the above system, is absolutely essen­ tial if our society is to maintain and increase its vitality in a manner consistent with our democratic heritage. Before leaving this section, it might be well to note that a substantial majority of students within a voucher, system might opt for a highly vocational program with little or no emphasis on obtaining a iiilij nuulu. uxiuuo o who emphasize ;the place of the liberal arts in a good educational ex­ perience. One can only speculate concerning their continued support of a "student oriented" model under such admittedly hypothetical condi­ tions, but some defections would not be surprising. Concluding comments: adaptation to existing societal goals Despite the range of views contained in this first section— from laissez faire economists to self-identity psychologists, there is a common theme running through their statements. Higher education 62 assumes a passive role of responding -fco the needs of individuals and other institutions5 it is essentially a means to be used to attain ends set by external forces. The important decisions concerning the goals of education are left to those with economic power, political power, or students— depending on the values of the particular writer. The colleges and universities are expected to facilitate the endeavors of others, not criticize them. The organizational and financial systems consistent with the above are designed with clear, responsive linkages between higher edu­ cation and those to be served. Any lack of responsiveness on the part of educational institutions is to be met by a cut-off in support so severe that the institutions must adjust quickly if they are to survive. Financially, l;this is best accomplished by giving control over funding decisions to those who are to be served. If the economic powers are to be served, then they should be the sources of funds; if students are to be served, then all funds should be channeled through them; and so on. Neutral To Existing Societal Goals Advocates of this role maintain that a detached pursuit of know­ ledge leads to the best formulation of problems and solutions. They believe that those who are committed to a position will, at best, be unconsciously biased,or,- at worst, deliberately deceptive, and that either represents inadequate service to mankind. The fullest flowering of this position was found in the German university, which, as was previously mentioned, greatly influenced Jefferson at the University 63 of Virginia, Tappan at the University of Michigan, and especially Gilman at Johns Hopkins University. The spokesmen for this position are well-known and eloquent; liberal use will be made of quotations from their works. Abraham Flexner who was one of the early students at Johns Hop­ kins, later wrote: The university professor has an entirely objective responsi­ bility— a responsibility to learning, to his subject, and not a psychological or parental responsibility for his students. X have not in mind the training of practical men, who faced with responsibility for action, will do?±he best they can. That is not the task of the university. (The faculty member) has, I repeat, no practical responsibi­ lity for the trouble he makes; it is his business and duty to preserve his independence and irresponsibility. But he must go on thinking; in that realm his responsibility is of the gravest. And, perhaps, in thefullness of time, the very license of his thought may, without intention or fore­ thought on his part, suggest inventions or profoundly influence solutions, as it haB done heretofore. For those who prefer a modem spokesman,let us turn to Edward H. Levi, president of the University of Chicago. Addressing those who urge _ — -f Olio _ CLLAJ.VtSJ.OJ.Ujr 4- ^ WU -f ^ JLJ.A UOilOiJ. - f4 - „ -L U £ 3 ^ V VicUia i *DVX V » r * . CXXU i. j-* J- * liu Today, with the growth of specialization and freedom, we ask of the individual scholar only that he formulate hiB views so that they may enter into some kind of marketplace for rational discussion......It is assumed the exchange of ideas will build upon the individual work of many persons, and we rely.,on this process to somehow achieve a kind of coherence. 28 Abraham Flexner, Universities; American. English. German (New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press, 1930)# p. 8. 29Ibid.. p. 11. 3°Ibid.■ p. 22. 31Levi, o p . cit.. p. 64* 64 It is important to note that the above principles outline a strategy 32 for dealing with inquiry, including that related to current problems. To describe this approach as unrelated to current issues is inaccurate, although most who subscribe to it would exclude the more applied fields of inquiry from the university.^ The supporters of this role stress the following principles with regard to the students. The education of students is not to be governed in any large part by their whims; such an approach would inevitably lead higher education into striving to adjust to the transitory needs of the public, rather than concentrating on long-range issues of substance. 34 Young people must be made aware of the basic premises of our culture and civilization; this requires intellectual effort in a prescribed course of studies. 33 Given this common base, the faculty and advanced students can then proceed to the specialization made necessary by the knowledge explosion and yet retain an ability to com­ municate; the communication among specialists which is a necessary part of the advancement of knowledge must be of a free, informal fashion rather than a forced type that destroys freedom and speciali­ zation.^ This approach will not only yield good scholars; it is also 32 Flexner, op. cit.. pp. 11-12. ^For example, see Levi, op. cit.. pp. 167-Q. ^^utchins, The Higher Learning in America, pp. 5—6. 35Flexner, op. cit.. p. 97* 36. Ibid.. pp. 97, 114-9. Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America, The emphasis upon specialists interacting union seems very close to what Johnson, op. cit.. ductive way to organize problem-solving research. distinction one of multi-disciplinary rather than teams. pp. 57-9* to form a productive describes as a pro­ Johnson terms the inter-disciplinary 65 a source of strength for a democratic society, whose health depends upon the understanding by its citizens of the moral, intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual values underlying their culture. 37 Industrialism and consumerism, such as that outlined in the pre­ vious section on Adaptation To Existing Societal Goals, are roundly condemned. Writing in his usual blunt way about these matters, Robert Hutchins states: Art and thought are the highest activities of man. They are the aims of life, and society should be organized to promote them first of all. It is a sign of a backward civilization when in a financial crisis the first thing a community thinks of is to close the art museums and reduce expenditures on education. A civilization without art and thought, or one that does not value them, is a pack rather than a civilization. and he quotes a contemporary (otherwise unidentified) who was pondering man*s attempts to master the world for his own use: Behold man the center of the world, a world all the parts of which are inhuman and press against him. ...In such a morality, not man nor human life as such, but agents exterior to man, material forces, instruments of human life, are subjected to reason. ••.This morality does not liberate man but on the contrary weakens him, dispossesses him, and makes him slave to all the atoms of the universe, and above all to his own misery and egoism. What remains of man? A consumer crowned . 4.1, y* 4-is11 ^ Q Financing this type of higher education is a more complex matter than that of the "adaptation" model for people are now being asked to finance what a small group feels the public needs, not necessarily what it 'wants. The first important point is that those supporting this 37Hutchins, The University of Utopia, p. 14. 38Ibid.. pp. 17-18. 39Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America, p. 100. 66 role also support vocational education and applied research in institu­ tions separate from true higher education, ^ Thus, the first logical move would he to select a very few universities most closely approxi­ mating the desired neutral model and humanely shift their vocational and applied work to other institutions# One step might he to phase out all research grants coming from private businesses and governmental action agencies (e#g#, HEW, USDA, and DOD hut not NSF or NIH); this would help to insure that most research was a result of faculty ini­ tiative, unbiased, and of basic (as opposed to applied) importance#^ These Belect universities would admit only those students who were committed to unbiased, detached study for its own sake. In theubest of all worlds, viewed from this position, the inde­ pendence of the institution would be buttressed by an endowment suffi­ ciently large to place the university*s income entirely within its control. The fortunes of Hopkins and Rockefeller were undoubtedly significant factors in the successful endeavors of Gilman at Johns Hopkins University and Harper at the University of Chicago, as compared to the earlier frustrations of Jefferson at the University of Virginia and Tappan at the University of Michigan. The appropriate strategy for those who must rely on external funding sources, which would pro­ bably include all cases to some extent, is to obtain funds from a wide 40 For example, see Flexner, op. cit.# p. 28. ^This may seem drastic (and it probably would tend to decrease the number of volunteers for "select" s t a t u s ! b u t the United Kingdom system of financing research comes quite close to approximating this scheme; see Ashby, op. cit.. pp. 85 -9 . Moreover, it was recently ad­ vanced as the preferred scheme for the United States by Philip C. Ritterbush, "Adaptive Response Within the Institutional System of Higher Education and Research," Daedalus. Summer 1970, pp. 649—51* 67 variety"Of sources so that no one source has controlling influence. The primary sources of general fund support are student fees, local and state government, private gifts, and endowment income. Most insti­ tutions would gain a greater degree of independence from their present sources of funds if the federal government would, as has "been proposed elsewhere, make direct institutional grants "based on enrollment; the possible exceptions are universities now receiving a major portion of their money from the federal government by virtue of research grants. Public support is completely appropriate, it is argued, for nothing could be more of a public good than guarding our culture and civiliza­ tion, cultivating perceptive and sensitive citizens, and searching for ways to improve the state of mankind. Finally, to those who suggest that the public will support only tangible results, Flexner would retort: The problem of America is not "Main Street;" there are Main Streets in all countries. The hopelessness of America lies in the inability and unwillingness of those occupying seats of intelligence to distinguish between genuine culture and superficial veneer, in the lowering of institutions which should exemplify intellectual distinctions to the level of the venders of patent medicines. So, too, there are Sauuills in all countries, not only in the United States; but "Babbittry" in the presidency of great universities is an exclusively— as it is a widespread— American p h e n o m e n o n . 42 Critical Of Existing Societal Goals Many people, disturbed by what they see in society and even more alarmed at the uses to which new knowledge is put, are unwilling to see higher education remain neutral or— worse yet— adapt itself to ^2Flexner, op. cit.. pp. 151-2. 68 prevailing notions. They maintain that those in the higher education community have a responsibility to assess the present culture and inform the citizenry of their judgement. Only in this way, it is ar­ gued, can society transcend its present state to attain a better one. Higher education must, in their view, maintain a careful balance be­ tween responding to the wishes of those served and simultaneously offering advice as to alternative goals and means. Stated differently, they see higher education’s role as serving the perceived needs of society through research, problem-solving, and teaching activities in such a way that those served emerge with a broader, more liberated view of mankind and his cultural possibilities. Before examining this position in more detail, it will be useful to distinguish between •'science" and "technology"--making a distinction which is not original but yet not universally a p p l i e d . T h e upheavals in society as a result of technologies developed in large part within universities have been instrumental in stimulating a reexamination of the relationship between higher education and society. Distinction of science and technology Science is inquiry conducted within rules of evidence which eli­ minate the variation due to-the values held by the investigator; these rules are not neutral themselves, i.e., the decision as to what evi­ dence is permitted as valid depends on one’s values. However, the 43^The usefulness of this distinction became evident from my rea­ ding of the following two books, and it is from these that I draw the defining concepts: Sir Eric Ashby, Technology and the Academics.(London, England, Macmillan.:and Company Ltd., 1958J, especially pp. 81—3* OECD, op. cit.. especially pp. 17, 49, 70-1, 69 world community of scholars has by—and—large come to accept a common set of rules of evidence which then neutralizes their judgements so long as no rule is violated.44 A more common, but less precise, way of describing science iB to refer to it as the production of new know­ ledge* Technology consists of applying the results of science to the affairs of man, i.e., the application of knowledge to human purposes. Thus, the problems of technology include, by definition, an element of human values— even if the technologist is utterly ignorant of any such implications. Science and technology are, of course, intimately rela­ ted; indeed, one of the pressing problems of society is how to institutionalize their relationship to attain a productive complementarity. 45 The importance of this distinction is stated well in the OECD report on Science. Growth and Society: It is essential to distinguish joint enterprises whose objec­ tives are purely scientific from those aimed at application. Once the enterprise is launched, the weight of political fac­ tors is obviously lighter in the first case than in the second; there is less dispute about the objective pursued and the results hoped for; whatever the differences in investment, the gain is always a common good, because knowledge is not diminished by being shared. Moreover, precisely because it is the extension of knowledge alone that is involved, the result can be evaluated only by the yardstick of scientific achievement, which is universal and does not touch national values or interests. The scientists, who alone can make this evaluation, belong to a single community with a common standard 44This rather difficult, but fundamental, point is discussed very well in John P.A. Taylor. The Masks of Society (New York, N.Y., Meredith Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 156—172 in the chapter on "Science and the Covenant of Inquiry." 45The experience of the agricultural sector in the United States may be one of the more successful efforts which will help to suggest guidelines. See James T. Bonnen, "Some Observations on the Organi­ zational Nature of a Great Technological Payoff," Journal of Farm Economics. December 1962, pp. 1279-94* —— — — —— 70 of values so far as their science is concerned... On the other hand, -when application becomes significant, the weight of politibal factors increases and scientists are no lon­ ger solely responsible for deciding on the orientation of the project and the value of the results* The balance of political and technical factors varies from one joint enterprise to ano­ ther, but both are always present* Prom the point of view of the management and execution of the research programmes, poli­ tical considerations become, in effect, multipliers of diffi­ culties. 46 Role of higher education With the above distinction in mind, we will now consider the appropriate role of higher education as defined by the people urging that it be more critical. In their research programs, the institutions of higher education have a responsibility to evaluate all costs and benefits of actual or proposed technologies, i.e., not merely economic aspects but the im­ plied social alterations, value adjustments, institutional changes, and so on,^^ Change almost inevitably has the result of rendering certain production processes, groups, and regions as obsolete or com­ paratively worse off; such implications should be included in the analysis.48 The results of such research would take the form of a delineation of the consequences of alternative policy choices, including both choices of ends and of means. 49 The purpose is not to usurp the decision-making function now residing in the political process but 4^0ECD, op. cit*. p. 49• 47Ibid.. pp. 15, 82. 48Ibid.. pp. 30, 98. 49Ibid.. pp. 63-5, 78. 71 to inform it so that choices are less arbitrary. 50 Technological change should not be an end in itself, but a means of attaining ends consciously chosen. 51 Thus, applied study is neither rejected as inap­ propriate or circumscribed completely by society*s current preferences. Turning to instruction, those holding this view argue that higher education should create in students an awareness of the full implica­ tions of their own framework of values and of their chosen technologi­ cal pursuits. The student should be made aware of inconsistencies within his personal values and those proposed by different philosophers as necessary for a truly human community; he should be confronted with a realization of the means required to attain his preferred end— and one could go on. 52 In his technological studies he should develop a habit of considering the full range of consequences flowing from his work— social, ethical, economic, environmental, andothers. Ashby writes, "A student who can weave his technologyinto thefabric of so­ ciety can claim to have a liberal education; a student who cannot weave his technology into the fabric of society cannot claim even to be a good technologist. "55 A liberal education does not consist of forcing students to sample a variety of courses; the students* exposure to the humanities and sciences must be related to his specialty. 54 5°Ibid.. pp. 6 5 , 8 8 . 51Ibid., pp. 5 9 , 77. CO Frederic Lilge, The Abuse of Learning (Hew York, N.Y., The Macmillan Company, 1948), pp. 138-45. 53Ashby, Technology and the Academics, p. 85. 54 Ibid.. pp. 77 -8 6 . 72 This same point was stressed by John Dewey, whom we encountered in the last chapter as a major participant in the turmoil of the 1 9 3 0 *s which saw the problem-solving, scientific emphasis replace the older, classical tradition. He wrote: Isolation of subject matter from a social context is the chief obstruction in current practice to securing a general training of mind. Literature, art, religion, when thus dis­ associated, are just as narrowing as the technical things which the professional upholders of general education stre­ nuously o p p o s e . 55 and Knowledge is humanistic in quality not because it is about human products in the past, but because of what it does in liberating human intelligence and human sympathy. Any sub­ ject matter which accomplishes this result is humane, and any subject matter which does not accomplish it is not even educational.5° Again, the suggested approach is not to exclude the vocational and professional areas of training,but, on the other hand, not to accept as adequate society's existing standards for what such training should include. Criticism of the adaptation model Although much of Dewey's energy was focused on persuading human­ ists, such as Robert Hutchins, that current problem-solving and techni­ cal studies should be included in education, he also emphasized that the resulting tendency towards making educational institutions mere adjuncts of existing economic and social organizations must be strongly resisted. Dewey warned of the "grave danger" that " any scheme for vocational 55John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New / York, N.Y., The Mac­ millan Company, 1948)* P P * 136—45* 56Ibid.. p. 230. 75 education which takes its point of departure from the industrial regime that now exists, is likely to assume and to perpetrate its divisions and weaknesses, and thus to become an instrument in accomplishing the feudal dogma of social predestination." 57 Many concerned observers feel that today*s colleges and univer­ sities have ignored Dewey* s warning and devoted themselves to merely searching for efficient meansoof attaining the ends determined by existing power centers in society, i.e., they have adapted to existing societal goals (a position supported by others, as we saw in the first section of this c h a p t e r ) . T h e s e people argue that we have allowed, some would say encouraged, our activities to be dictated by those with resources available for specific types of inquiry, which almost invari­ ably means: (1) those who control large amounts of private wealth, (2) those governmental agencies with strong political backing, or (3 ) a team composed of elements of both— for they are usually related. They see the system turn out a torrent of men and procedures designed to cope with the limits imposed by nature (questions of efficiency, of means) but only a trickle concerned with ends, the limits man imposes upon himself, 59 Bertrand Russell, in assessing the impact of science on philosophy and society, observed: ^Ibid.. p. 318. CQ For a sample see Ashby, op. cit.. pp. 74-5* Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 110—11. Robert S. Morison, "Some Aspects of Policy-Making in the Ameivican University," Daedalus. Summer 1970* PP* 609—10. Edward Joseph Shoben, Jr., "Cultural Criticism and the American College," Daedalus. Summer 1970, especially pp. 677 —8 2 . John F.A. Taylor, op. cit.. pp. 6—8 , 245—9* -^John F.A. Taylor, op. cit.. pp. 6—8. 74 The philosophies that have been inspired by scientific technique axe power philosophies, and tend to regard everything non—human as mere raw material. Ends are no longer considered; only the skillfulness of the process is valued. This.••is a form of mad­ ness. It is, in our day, the most dangerous form, and the one against which a sane philosophy should provide an antidote.^0 In a context focused more directly on education, another philosopher, John P.A. Taylor, wrote: The dilemma of twentieth—century man is at his core, not at his surface. His dilemma is philosophical: it concerns his funda­ mental commitments, not his incidental acts, the quality of the ends he pursues, not the efficiency of the means he commands in pursuing them.®"* and Taylor* s conclusion: We have lost in the modem world our capacity for regarding the destiny of mankind as a problem.” This situation did not arise overnight but developed over a long period, probably centuries. The growth of science was intimately involved in at least three important ways. First, the skepticism con­ cerning absolute truth quickly led to a doubting of all proposed ends and a concentration on means which has more gradually led to a reluc­ tance even to consider ends.^ Second, the explosion of knowledge en­ couraged specialization and organization along disciplinary lines, cutting the breadth of any one person’s knowledge and creating barriers between humanists, scientists, and technologists.^ Third, from the plausible contention that all scientific advance represents progress 60Russell, op. cit.. p. 494* ^John P.A. Taylor, op. cit.. p. 246. 62Ibid.. p. 248t 63 Morison, op. cit.. pp. 609—10. ^Ashby, Technology and the Academics, p. 38. Lilge, op. cit.. pp. 72 -4 * 75 and "good1*— in the sense that it increases man's understanding of him­ self, his environment and their relationship to each other, there has grown a feeling that all technological change represents prpgress and "good;" the latter is, as is obvious from the earlier discussion, com— 65 pletely erroneous and catastrophic in its implications* A reluctance by many scientists and humanists to accept technolo­ gical studies as legitimate has exacerbated the natural tendency to specialize as knowledge expands* The origins of this attitude may go back to the fact that in many early cultures the vocations were often filled by slaves, but regardless of whether one accepts this, the pre­ vious chapter demonstrated the hostility with which the early colleges greeted the new scientific and technological studies* 66 It would only be natural for the condescending nature of others in that period, and today, to cause the technologists to minimize their contact with the rest of the college or university and, all too often, develop their own inflated sense of importance* Budolph, as pointed out in the pre­ vious chapter, saw a significant change in higher education following the Civil War when higher education absorbed many new professions which concentrated on things rather than man* More recently, scientific and technological research has come to require such large outlays of fluids that those controlling the funds wield considerable leverage on the direction of research* In the period prior to World War II most investigators were content with a quiet study, a good library, and maybe a modest laboratory— with a few 65Lilge, on* cit** pp. 7 6 , 136. OECD, op. cit.* p. 45* ^Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit*. p. 305* 76 exceptions* In recent decades, however, the use of such tools as par­ ticle accelerators, intricate measuring devices, huge surveys, and the all—pervasive computer has “been deemed essential for further advances* The dominant practice in the United States, and this is very signifi­ cant, is and has been that decisions concerning the allocation of funds for technological research are left in the hands of action agencies with vested interests of their own and* quite often* well—identified private clientele* This is in sharp contrast to the allocation of funds for scientific research which tends to be administered by inde­ pendent agencies whose decision panels are dominated by members of the scientific community* Financial and organizational implications With the above as a framework, what can we say about a financing system which will promote the desired ends? First, although society certainly has the right to determine the total amount of funds to be allocated to scientific and humanistic research and possibly should delineate general areas of emphasis, the bulk of the allocative deci­ sions should be the responsibility of the scientific and scholarly community, for they are the best judges of what areas are ripe for breakthroughs and what projects are well-designed. This research is of potential benefit to all of society, and thus it is appropriate that the federal government should fund it. Second, funding for technological research should come from both an independent agency, let us call it the Foundation for the Appraisal of Societal Change (FASC), and from groups with decision-making 67 Morrison, op. cit* * pp. 628— 30. 77 responsibilities. 68 The FASC would be responsible for funding projects which would analyze the costs and benefits of actual and proposed tech­ nologies as outlined earlier. The decision-making boards of the FASC should include a mix of scientists, humanists, technologists, and political representatives——for all can contribute to the assessment of what technologies most need to be assessed. It would be a mistake to eliminate all funding from bodies other than the FASC for it is through these contacts that higher education is kept conscious of pressing problems and decision-making groups are kept abreast of the most recent scientific research. What is crucial, and now lacking, is a proper balance (undefined by anyone to the best of my knowledge) between FASC funds and other sources more closely tied to vested interests. Finally, since the education of students provides them with both saleable skills and some knowledge of the broad non—market implications of events, the cost^should be shared by the student and society as a whole. The latter knowledge, such as an awareness of the impacts of pollution or an appreciation of the trauma experienced by people left behind when economic progress is recorded, can rarely be translated into hi^ier incomes by those who acquire it. Yet it is upon such under­ standing that the humanity and justice of society rests— and thus soci­ ety must take measures to encourage it, according to this viewpoint. This assumes, of course, that the students* educational experience does create awareness— which is presently true only to a very limited extent. The creation of the FASC would be of assistance since research money in an area is followed by faculty research, graduate research, ^8OECD, on. cit.. pp. 61, 66, 69, 102 presents a similar proposal. 78 graduate education, and undergraduate education— probably roughly in that order* 69 But more help is needed. Seminars are needed where students from various specialties focus on the same problem area; in­ struction is needed on the history of technologies and the relationship 70 Without such measures, the between technology and social change.1 justification for public support dissolves in a flood of courses focu­ sing on purely private concerns, i.e., increasing the employability of the students. Rejection Of Existing Societal Goals At the opposite end of the continuum^from those who see the role of higher education purely as a facilitator of the goals of others are people who believe that higher education should be instrumental in overthrowing existing institutions. They maintain that colleges and universities as corporate institutions, as well as the people associa^ted with them, should take action to solve the problems of individuals and society. Most argue that it is impossible for institutions of higher education to remain neutral, leaving the only real choice to be one of whom shall be served——the establishment or a couhter—culture• When identifying pressing problems warranting such action, they usually speak of the disadvantaged, the poor, the exploited (politically and economically), the non—white, the hungry, and the war—ravaged— both in this nation and others. 69 For example, see Jencks and Riesman, op. cit. 70Ashby, Technology and the Academics, pp. 86—7 makes a set of specific suggestions for courses. 79 Higher education as it now functions, they contend, serves the existing’centers of power to the detriment of the powerless. 71 Along with others discussed in previous sections, they see it as preparing young people for job roles as they exist in society, emphasising confor­ mity, certifying the young of the powerful but excluding others, and performing research for vested interests. Their feelings are summarized well by Edgar Z. Friedenberg: The American University system, like hr. Frankenstein and Dr. Paustus, is in trouble not because it has failed, but because it has succeeded; and succeeded in undertakings to which it would not have committed itself had it not relin­ quished moral responsibility in favor of empirical mastery in the first place. If this is too harsh an indictment, it is so for one reason only: that it attributes too much autonomy to the university. University faculty, especially, are inclined to be taken in by their own traditional, but increa­ singly deceptive pretense that they run the place. In fact, universities are run as America is run: indirectly, by a power structure that depends on the ambitions of the faculty and the lust of its individual members to be close to sources of power to induce it to organize itself so as to do what is expected of it. Power within the university aligns itself to power outside of it.72 It is argued that part of the reason for the above is a futile attempt by institutions to remain neutral when this is impossible, for reasons such as the following. An institution hires people, displaces people when it expands, invests its assets, and interacts with society in many other ways merely by virtue of existing. 73 But furthermore, 71Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 16—18. Goodman, op. cit.. p. 210. Litt, op. cit.. Harold Taylor, op. cit.. pp. 2-372 Friedenberg, "The University Community...," pp. 73—4* 73 '^Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 37—9• H. Lynn Jondahl, Unrest on the Campus (New York, N.Y., Friend­ ship Press, Inc., 1970), pp. 59-61. 80 the very purposes of higher education— education, problem-solving, re­ search— imply possession of a great deal of influence and power as to the direction of society in a culture heavily dependent on educated people and new knowledge; the choices of who to admit, what to teach, and what research to pursue have an immense impact which cannot be construed as n e u t r a l . G i v e n the above power plus the fact that many other centers of power recognize higher education* s importance and strive to direct it to their own means, a stated policy of neutrality only lessens higher education*s sense of identity and increases the probability that other powerful institutions will be successful in using it for their own purposes. 75 An attitude that disturbs those who hold this view is that action biases thought, an attitude found in its most extreme form in the "neutralist" case but also held elsewhere. The revolutionists main­ tain that action and thought are, and should be, intimately related— and that the educational process should reflect this. Learning and working often take place simultaneously and are often complementary; ■PI W rr* r» U £ m M I V X w> r— U W M V A W 1 A W kJ r»Vi m i l ll * W ^ V n U W T V W A A n W A A W W ■»« t W V*-L 4 »^«* 4* « UJf V U V i A “" gage in work related to their area of study while in college, and more faculty should be drawn from the group of practicing professionals in 76 the community. Similarly, those who hope to solve our pressing social problems must often become intimately involved in the problem 74Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 69—71, 139-46. Jondahl, op. cit.. pp. 76 — 7 . 75Jondahl, op. cit.. pp. 77— 76 Birenbaum, op. cit.. pp. 52, 86, 177-80. Goodman, op. cit.. pp. 300-6. 81 area before the necessary understanding will evolve.77 Another point at which the connection between thought and action becomes crucial is the definition of a problem; the diagnosis 11links knowledge to practice, 78 binds thought to action." In summary, the habit of thinking must often be linked to action if it is to be insightful, and action must be linked to thinking if it is to be effective. An institution which does not encourage its members to act in controversial problem areas may thus be abdicating any responsibility for their solution* It is difficult to conceive of a financing scheme which will lead to broad support for institutions which openly advocate political posi­ tions, especially positions sympathetic to the economically and poli­ tically powerless. However, some suggestions can be made which, even if they do result in a drastic decrease in the scope of public support for higher education, might create institutions more responsive to the needs of the disadvantaged. The first step would be to eliminate all funding from vested interests with no sympathetic concern for the disadvantaged; this might mean all funds from businesses and govemmen'GcLX clC U.LOI1 # J.O t/iia o u iiu uuucxibb liu. J . u w n C v o ux w positive, and most subscribing to the "revolutionist" purpose find the students' attitudes much more promising than those held by faculty and administrators, the voucher scheme outlined in the previous section should be instituted. As mentioned earlier, however, the flexibility embodied in a voucher scheme can be effectively neutralized by res­ trictions on where the vouchers can be redeemed; it seems unlikely that 77Birenbaum, op. cit.. p. 86. 78Ibid*. pp. 125 -6 . 82 public bodies will extend eligibility to students enrolled in revolu­ tionary institutions* Finally, that money which the political process does allocate for study of the problems of the disadvantaged could be given to the disadvantaged with the stipulation that they use it to contract for the services of an accredited college or university; this would help to insure that colleges and universities would be genuinely responsive fe&nce the disadvantaged could spend their funds elsewhere* Under the present system, where the researcher usually receives the grant, a community often finds itself being examined and analyzed in a framework wholly or largely developed by the researcher in total isolation from the community* Conclusion The chosen manner of solving the present financial crisis in hifgier education will reveal a great deal about our view of society, hi^aer education, and ourselves. ticism? Does society need more or less cri­ What is the responsibility of the faculty? education le?.*! 01? follow cultural chonge? greater material success? their own curriculum? Should higher Is the primary goal of Are students responsible enough to choose Whom should higher education respond to? Are human beings best regarded as unique individuals with freedom and dig^ nity or as components of a complex social organization whose health depends upontthe careful replacement of aging parts? The desired solution will vary with the surrounding circumstances, even given a cettain framework of values* For example, if one accepts the argument that faculties will tend to be even more conservative in the next two decades because of growing unionism and few additions of 83 young' people (the reasons for a low rate of growth will become clear in later chapters), then one may be inclined to increase the ability of non—faculty groups to exert pressures for change as compared to the 1950's and 1960's* Thus, it is to be expected that the financing scheme should change over time in such a way as to always offer an incentive to move from the existing to the desired pattern of behavior. Although society will wield a great deal of influence in the de­ termination of higher education*s role, those in the higher education community could be very persuasive if they would agree among themselves. This does not imply that all individuals and institutions perform the same function— only that they recognize as legitimate a set of purposes which they and others have a responsibility to pursue. If the internal political processes of higher education do not yield such an under­ standing, external political bodies are likely to dictate a solution based on their own perceptions and needs. The struggle over the financing question has created, and will likely continue to create, unusual alliances. Radicals, self-identity psychologists, and lalssens fairs economists join in supporting the principle of voucher systems— the economists often seeing these as the first step towards elimination of all subsidies to the prosperous. The defenders of the Ivory tower, the faculty using their appointment as a base for consulting and grantsmanship, and administrators who are jealous of their authority agree that student influence should not be broadened. There is a great danger that the financial crisis in higher edu­ cation will lead to solutions based on short-run expediency rather than an effort to harmonize the financing system and the goals of 84 society* The importance of the latter approachhhas "been demonstrated in this chapter through a study of the inter-relationships between various educational philosophies and financing systems* The two must he arrived at jointly if higher education is to serve the difficult tasks which society demands of it* Up to now nothing has been said concerning the resources required to implement the roles outlined above* In the following chapters the specific case of Michigan higher education will be examined in order to explore the rconomic costs associated with the various alternatives* A final decision on the best means to finance higher education must await such a comparison, for the additional benefits flowing from a preferred philosophical orientation may be more than off-set by the added costs. Chapter XV The Aggregate Demand For Higher Education With this chapter, we begin dealing with the second objective presented in the introduction: develop a model which specifies in quantitative terms the causal links between the physical variables of primary concern. The observations concerning values, institutional forms, and compatible financing systems which were presented in Chap­ ters II and III will be set aside for the moment. Only after an examination of the modeling effort will we be in a position to combine the philosophical material with the necessary quantitative data in an evaluation of policy alternatives, which will be done in Chapters VI and VII. The demand for higher education is a crucial element in almost all phases of higher education planning. The number of faculty, class­ rooms, and administrators required is closely related to the size of the student body. Over the last two decades enrollment has expanded at an unprecedented pace, made possible only by an equally impressive commitment of financial resources— both public and private. It would be impossible to analyze the future financial requirements of higher education without first giving careful attention to expected enroll­ ments. An econometric model is presented in this chapter which funishes estimates of the impacts of the size of the college—age population, discharges from the Armed Services, income, and unemployment on each of statewide undergraduate and graduate enrollments. The model Is used to derive enrollment projections which, with the aid of additional 85 86 assumptions, are disaggregated into three sectors— public four-year, public two-year, and private. The material in the chapter is organized into six sections: 1) review of selected research, 2) presentation of the model, 5) discussion of the data, 4) discussion of the statistical results, 5) derivation of enrollment projections, and 6) summary of results. Looking ahead to the application of the analysis in this chapter, it will form part of the basis for a statistical model in Chapter V designed to yield estimates of the!influence of tuition and student aid variables at the institutional and sectorial levels, respectively. The enrollment projections will be a primary input into the analysis of the future financial requirements based on alternative policies, to be presented in Chapters VI and VII. Review Of Selected Research Because of their importance to planning, enrollment models and projections have been constructed by many individuals and organizations. forecast enrollments. Rather than attempt a comprehensive review of this area, the following section contains a brief review of two as­ pects. First, some examples of a procedure typically used to project enrollments are examined. Second, the major pieces of research which have attempted to identify the factors causing variations in enrollment are reviewed. The procedure used by the United States Office of Education to derive enrollment projections is representative of most attempts, especially among' public agencies. 1 The ratio of enrollments to an age group considered to be most typical among college students, usually 18—21 in the case of undergraduates, is computed for several recent years. The trend in this rate is then assumed to continue at an unal­ tered pace; this assumption, in combination with a projection of the population in the age group, is the basis for enrollment forecasts, i.e., the forecasts are the product of the assumed rate of enrollment times the projected population. In addition to the Office of Education, the widely available work of Ronald B, Thompson sponsored by the Amer­ ican Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers uses such a framework, as did the Michigan Department of Education until 1970—71. 2 The advantages of this approach are its simplicity of computation, ease of explanation to -policy makers, and minimal data requirements. However, the procedure ignores many of the factors causing the rate of enrollment to vary and thus results in an impre­ cise forecast in many cases. Recent research has shed important light on the variables rela— + UCrU. 1 1^1 U « W * IT* Vi AAW nT*-J J c ' 1*- * 1 r\ T * W W t a W-*.W M a AY1 S. »v * A*A — if the long-term rate of increase in tuition is maintained so that excess supplyuexists— colleges are perceived to contain excess capacity; in addition, it is unlikely that there will be many constituent ;complaints growing out of the use of non—price rationing because of excess demand. All three of these factors tend to cause a slow-down in the public*s tendency to increase the supply of higher education. On the other hand, if the advance of demand exceeds that of supply— causing their intersection to tend towards the upper edge of the band (period t+2 ^ 4. t * ril ^ I* t I y \ | n v m W A A W n*, w W n W A 4 * 1 ? rt ^ 1 rtt rt W V U i J , W U Uwk. W T 4 1 to XJ W a h h W S A A . • « tuition charges rise at an increased rate, college facilities are crowded, and constituent complaints increase due to non-price ration­ ing and higher tuition. These forces create pressures for an increased provision of higher education. Thus, so long as the philosophy of political representatives with respect to tuition charges and consti­ tuent pressures does not change radically, the long-term expansion path can be regarded as a relatively stable function. In other words, we can be confident that sufficient facilities are provided to insure that tuition charges do not exceed certain levels while, on the other 92 hand, facilities axe not expanded so rapidly that they can "be fully utilized only if tuition rates drop to unprecedented levels. The modeling, and forecasting, problem can now be stated as one of estimating the shift in the short-term (annual, in this case) demand function along the stable long-run expansion path. The validity of the forecasts will, of course, depend heavily on the degree to which decision makers maintain stable values in the future with respect to higher education. If such stability exists, then accurate estimates of shifts in short-term demand provide a firm basis for the provision of needed short-term supply, i.e., a supply which insures that the intersection of the short-term supply and demand curves will be along the long-term expansion path. However, if a major change (i.e., a large shift which is inconsistent with past trends) occurs in the level of tuition charges or the amount of student aid awards, these projections would lose much of their value as a tool for policy stu­ dies. What remains to be done is a specification of the variables which cause the demand for higher education to shift and for which iXdrOd. c k L C n d.v cU,±c t . U X t : • Higher education represents both an investment and a consumption good from the viewpoint of most individuals. The exact mix varies from one to another and is the subject of some debate. Although the implications of these two factors differ in many respects, for our purposes the two suggest similar variables are likely to be important; no attempt will be made to isolate separate investment and consumption effects. As direct costs or opportunity costs rise, higher education becomes less attractive either as an investment or a consumption good. Higher levels of income should tend to increase enrollments as a 95 consumption good and may also have a positive effect on education in­ vestment decisions due to significant imperfections in the capital market in providing funds for investment in people, measure is essential in either approach. A population The investment approach places a great deal of emphasis upon the added future monetary and non-monetary benefits due to higher education; measuring or predicting these is difficult or impossible, of course, A consumption model might include a "keeping up with the Joneses" variable such as the educational attainment of those in the relevant environment. The following variables were chosen as empirical measures of demand shifters. The population in the age group constituting the bulk of the college population in the future, assuming that most col­ lege students enter college in the fall following their graduation from high schools, was assumed to have a major impact on demand, A demographic measure consisting of the discharges from the Armed Ser­ vices was also included because of its marked effect on enrollments; most of these individuals are young people who are eligible for bene­ fits under the provisions of the "(l.X. Bill" if they become studentsIncome and unemployment variables were considered because of their relevance to a person* s ability to pay for higher education and to his opportunity cost,. The income variable probably serves as a proxy for many other variables relevant to higher education such as the increasing technological nature of society and the consequent need for a greater number of highly trained people. As mentioned earlier, data on tuition and student financial aid were not available for this analysis. Since both play a role——aid as a demand shifter and tuition as an indication of society*s location 94 on the demand curve, it is important to examine the impact of their omission on the results. 7 The estimated parameters for the included variables will be unbiased if the omitted explanatory variables are uncorrelated with the included variables. In this case we might ex­ pect that the tuition and aid variables would be positively correlated with the population and income variables but not correlated with the discharges and unemployment variables. Since the expected sign of the tuition coefficient is negative, the estimated coefficients of the population and income variables will be biased negatively due to this omission. But since the expected sign of the student aid variable is positive, the omission of the aid variable causes a positive bias in the estimated coefficients of the population and income variables. Thus, the net impact of the omitted variables on the estimated coef­ ficients of the population and income variables is indeterminate, but is at least partially offsetting. Finally, the timing of the planning and budget cycle was crucial to the structure of the model since it was to be used for decision— inching purposes. In the case of state support for higher education the examination of institutional requests begins in the fall of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year of the request. For example, in fall 1 9 7 2 , the institutional requests for the 1973—74 fiscal year were reviewed. Thus, planning for the ensuing year must be done with­ out knowing the results of decisions made concerning the present year. Reflecting this, the equations which will be used to forecast enroll­ ments in time t and beyond assume knowledge of data pertaining to t—2 ^See Jan Kmenta, Elements of Econometrics (New York, N.Y,, The Macmillan Co., 1971)? PP* 392—5? for a general discussion of this issue. 95 but not to t—1■ Undergraduate and graduate enrollments were analyzed separately on a statewide basis. The equations which compose the model axe lis­ ted in detail in Table 2 where the regression results are displayed. Before discussing these results, the nature of the underlying data will be examined in the next section. Discussion Of The Data Obtaining the necessary data was a difficult and time—consuming task. Needless to say, the quality of the results are directly depen­ dent on the quality of the data. What follows is a very brief des­ cription of the nature of the data; all data used are listed in Appen­ dix A accompanied by a detailed listing of the sources and a comment by the author as to their characteristics. The period of analysis includes headcount enrollments in Michi­ gan higher education in fall term, 1951—69* A beginning date of 1951 avoids essentially all of the post—World War XI enrollment bulge, but the period does include a variety of rates of oopulstion Services discharges, and economic growth. growth- Arm^d Such variation is desirable because it enables a better test to be made of whether the specified variables and functional form accurately describe the behavior of the system, i.e., the researcher finds it easier to see if his assumptions are credible. The enrollment series for higher education, presented in Table 1, was constructed from a variety of sources. All figures pertaining to the I960*s appear to be very reliable, as do those for the public fouryear institutions in the 1950*s. The least reliable data are those 96 Table 1 Fall Headcount Enrollment in Michigan by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1951-71 Public Four-Year Undergxad Year 54,395 54,834 Grad­ uate Total 14,311 6 8 ,7 0 6 1 4 ,6 6 1 69,495 71,558 77,536 Public TwoYear 4,900 6,854 1951 1952 1953 1954 61,439 14,958 16,097 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 68,642 75,046 78,165 78,447 78,789 17,239 19,687 i 21,473 23,525 24,274 1 0 1 ,9 7 2 1 0 3 ,0 6 3 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 80,653 83,290 89,374 97,023 107,528 27,005 28,792 30,560 107,658 112,082 119,834 3 2 ,0 9 0 1 2 9 ,1 1 2 35,586 143,114 31,619 34,356 38,001 46,123 1965 1966 1967 1 2 2 ,6 3 2 1 3 2 ,6 7 7 1 4 1 ,2 0 3 1968 1969 149,841 158,639 39,680 43,810 46,505 48,578 49,684 162,312 176,487 187,708 198,419 208,323 58,216 69,496 79,698 95,065 115,299 1970^ 1971-2/ 164,525 16Q-ORO 53,277 R1 .0RR 217,802 -m16R " 125,552 1R2-ORQ 5 6 ,6 0 0 8 ,1 0 2 9,739 8 5 ,8 8 1 13,652 94,733 99,638 1 6 ,1 7 6 19,837 22,784 24,592 2 7 ,2 2 9 Not available at the time the statistical analysis was done. Sources: See appendix Table 26, 97 Table 1 (cont'd) Year Undergrad Private_______ Grad­ Total uate 15,904 16,250 16,556 17,870 96,735 99,305 103,024 113,048 19,150 21,503 23,402 25,776 26,624 128,301 140,952 150,403 157,548 161,768 29,338 39,700 40,611 43,472 141,947 150,093 160,066 172,039 193,348 33,824 35,686 39,361 171,285 181,979 193,890 207,725 232,709 4,130 4,402 4,482 , 4,480=^ 4,477 47,896 49,462 50,461 50,777 50,759 224,614 247,233 266,880 291,203 320,220 43,810 48,212 50,987 53,058 54,161 268,424 295,445 317,867 344,261 374,381 4,487 4,889 52,348 52,928 337,939 349,178 57,764 55,974 395,703 405,152 1,593 1,589 1,598 1,773 23,129 22,956 23,364 25,773 80,831 83,055 1,911 1,816 28,768 30,043 30,928 32,792 34,113 109,151 119,449 36,398 1951 1952 1953 1954 21,536 21,367 21,766 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 26,857 28,227 28,999 30,541 31,765 1 ,9 2 9 2 ,2 5 1 2 ,3 5 0 1960 1961 34,065 35,184 36,436 37,015 39,697 2,333 3,094 3,264 3,596 3,775 1969 43,766 45,060 45,979 46,297 46,282 1970 ^ 1 9 7 1 “/ 47,861 48,039 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 2 4 ,0 0 0 All Institutions Grad­ Under­ Total uate grad 3 8 ,2 7 8 8 6 ,4 6 8 95,178 1 2 7 ,0 0 1 131,772 135,144 3 1 ,8 8 6 a/ Estimate b/ Not available at the time the statistical analysis was done. Sources: See appendix Table 26. 98 for private colleges in 1951 — 5 9 * but these too are probably reasonably accurate. Some of the necessary population data are based on primary and secondary school enrollment by grade by year (see appendix Table 2j) while the remainder are based on census figures by single years of age (see appendix Table 28). The former have two major advantages: they are available for all required years, except for a portion of the private school enrollments, and they do not include school drop-outs in the base from which college enrollments are calculated. Adjusting the series for the missing private sector data was very important be­ cause of the recent decline in the percentage of students in the pri­ vate sector* If the percentage in private schools had been constant and was expected to remain constant, public school enrollment would have exactly the same predictive powers as total enrollment in a regres­ sion model. However, in present circumstances a model including only public school enrollments would contain a misleading upward trend attributable to a transfer of students from the private to the public Since data on the population by single years of age are availa­ ble only for census years, it was necessary to do a great deal of interpolating using the number of live births. This procedure yields a set of figures which are rough approximations, but Bince they enter only into the calculation of long-term projections which are them­ selves rough estimates, this difficulty 1b not crucial. A more disturbing characteristic of the data is the lack of con­ sistency between the school enrollment and population statistics. though exhibiting the same pattern of year-to-year variation, the Al­ 99 enrollment figures exceed the population in the age group normally associated with the grade. For example, the 1940 census indicates there were 78*286 six year-olds while enrollment figures show there were 93*978 students in the first grade; in I960 the respective figures were 181,638 and 195*300. To the degree that the census figures or the enrollment figures err in a consistent fashion, the predictive power of the regression model is not affected. However, a fluctuating or changing pattern of coverage might have significant effects. The data on discharges from the Armed Services were obtained from unpublished records of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to doubt their accuracy,} the series is oonsistent with the published figures on the size of the Armed Services. The economic variables, Michigan real personal income (total and per capita) and U.S. unemployment, are the standard indicators widely published and used. Discussion Of The Statistical Results The equations and c^'tim.od parameters are drsplayeu m Tauxe The numbers to the left of each equation indicate the number of years into the future the equations are designed to forecast. For example, if in fall 19 73 one were to want a forecast for fall 1980, he would use equation 7 and- set the subscript "t" equal to 1980, Xt is inter­ esting, and may be useful, to note that one should be able to obtain a reasonable forecast by using any equation with a number greater than or equal to the interval between the present and the year of the de­ sired forecast. Choosing a number, and equation, greater than the interval would probably not yield the best estimate, however, for the Table 2 S ta tis tic a l E.esults of the Analysis of Aggregate Demand Undergraduate regressions: V V AA j 1 U V V V 1/ I* y u AA = -126,240 + 8,2480. + 36S(E(11) + H (12)). „ + 6780, , + 43.087 * (12,474) (1,728) (76) * '2 (6 3 )t_2 (7 .7 1 )Pt ** 1 4Bt- ■srw W V Hit J iTV TC T ** \L U Hit H2 =.9983 s =3409 d =1.52 = -139,988 + 8,0260 + 276(H(10) + H(11) + H (12)). , + 593Ut , + 49.737„ (15,388) (2 ,1 2 8 )* (79) 5 (103) 5 ( 8. 72) pt ** ** ** ** 1 = -177,995 + 9,0090. + 50£(H(9) + H (10)) , + 521(H(11 * (22,215) (2,723) (116) M (133) ** ** ** ** + H(12)) + 51.487 t_4 (16.01 )pt ** 0. = -199,861 + 8,7940. + 471(H(8) + H (9 ))+ _ + 531(h (10 (22,487) ( 2, 927) (116) 7 (124) ■iHt ** + H(11)) 1 5 ** + 5 7 .6 4 7 ( I6 .8 3 ) pt ** + H(10)) , + 57-847 W ( I6 .6 9 )pt ** ** = -235,621 + 10,6920. + 5C3(H(6) + H (7 )). - + 550(H(8 (20,754) (3 ,0 9 4 )* (128) * " 7 (134) *-* R2 =.9917 s =7547 d =1.42 ** ** 0. = -216,923 + 9,213D+ + 473(H(7) + H (8 )). , + 547 (H(9 (21,012) (2,917) (121) (126) R2 -.9975 s =4104 d =1.48 + R2 =.9903 S =8145 d =1.31 R2 =.9905 S =8082 d =1.04 + 58.107 * 7 (17.43) t R2 =.9897 S =8393 d =0.98 o + 45*917 (16.77) t R2 =.9915 S =7609 d =1.01 e ( 9))+_7 ** 0. = -238,374 + 12,9940t + 548(H(5) + H (6 )). . + 607( h( 7 (18,774) (2,896) * (114) t_ ® (121) + H (8 )) See last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols. ^ o o Table 2 (contfd) -V-VA n v v a y y T a 0* + -231,455 + ]4,397D 11 ( 17, 676) ( 2, 703) -V-V- u A a v a + 574(H(4) + H (5 ))* , + 685(h (6) + H (7 ))* „ + 31.137„ (1C4) t 9 (112) t_9 (1 6 .5 0 )pt u v A A -VX-V* V 1/ A a 0 = -221,892 + 13,9388. + 567(H(3) + h (4 ))* 1n + 731(H(5) + h (6) ) * + 23.447„ 11 (18,543) (2,725) (1C4) t_1° (114) t_1° (17-44) t y V A 10 V V - 14 u_U a a v v v v A A ' AA v \t AA V-V -V y y y A A A a a a u v v _v_v v v VV V V y_V A A A A A A "flA ** TJ, = -241,533 + 13.401D (16,441) (2,599) +605(p(3) + P(4) + P (5 ))* * * + 4 0 0 0 ( 1 ) * - * + 56.537„ (94) * 15 ( 216) W 5 ( 16. 22) pt ** R2 =.9924 s =7190 d =1.37 a a 0* = -244,024 + 9,3568* + 594(P(4) + P (5 ))* u + 455(H(1) + H (2 )) - + 58.857* (18,977) (2 ,7 7 3 )* (125) * " H (113) * -14 (15*77) * 0 * = -250,897 + 11,2838 * ( 19, 240) ( 2, 896) R2 =.9929 s =6976 d =1.36 A = - 225,091 + 8 , 3798* + ,704P(5)* * , + 493(H(1) + H(2) + H (3 ))* + 46.317„ ( 18, 611) ( 2, 567) ( 223) 5 ( 81) t_13 ( 15. 82) t ** 15 VV R2 =.9922 S =7304 d =1.20 ** R2 =.9911 S =7820 d =1.42 ** + 739(P(2) + P (5 ))t + 529 (p (4 ) + P ( 5 ) ) + 1fi + 39.231 (95) t-1 6 (1Q3) * " 16 0 4 .9 4 ) Pt See last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols. R2 =.9914 S =7678 d =1.38 R2 =.9935 s =6651 d =1.27 101 0 t 13 V V R2 =.9928 s =7040 d =1.21 V-V A n 0* = -208,963 + 8,5938* + 602(H(1) + H (2)) + 585(H(3) + H (4 ))* „ + 29*507 * (18,965) (2 ,5 1 7 )* ( 102) t-1 2 ( 104) t_12 ( 16* 73) t X y A A 12 v V /I A 0* = - 215,219 + 11,3718* + 562(h(2) + H (3 ))4._11 + 672(H(4) + H (5 ))t + 27*977 * (19,637) (2,772) (107) * 11 (115) t_11 (1 7.76 ) t A A 11 V V A A R =.9929 s =6952 a =1.06 Table 2 (cont'd) * K * * * * * = -231,932 + 13.523D (17,235) ( 2, 618) * * * * * * ** + 747(P(1) + P ( 2 ) L 17 + 526(P(3) + p (4 ))+ 17 + 36.841 ( 97) t_17 ( 106) t_17 ( I 5. 25)pt * * ** ft = -223,099 + 15,559^* + 765(P(o) + p (1 )) , 8 + 518( p (2 ) + P (5 ))t 18 + 34.17* t (18,135) (2 ,6 4 8 ) (101) * 18 (108) t_1e ( 15. 66)pp *31 ** ** ** ftt = -215,754 + 15,384Bt + 785(P(0) . + ^ O ) * . , ) + 512(?(1) + P (2 ))t + 31.78T. (17,856) (2 ,5 9 8 )* (101) t-1B * - 19 (106) t-1 9 (15.59) t * * * * * nt - -210,750 + 13,160D * (17,666) (2,545) -V-Vn « 6 uv AA = -211,766 + 13,155? * (17,799) ( 2, 567) * + 785(P(0) + P(0) (99) 11 18 * 19 V \f A A R2 :-9934 S . 6698 d =1,23 H2 S d : -9933 =6773 = 1.21 B2 -*9935 s =6664 d = 1.21 ** + 515(P(0 (105) + P(1) t " + 50,861^ 2 0 (l5 -4 5 )pt R2 =*9937 S =6579 d =1.16 uu THf + 7 8 4 ( P ( 0 ) .1e + P (0 )t , , ) + 518(p(0) + ( 100) W 8 * 19 ( 107) * 20 last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols. p (0)t ,+ 31.37*bE2 =*9936 t_ 21 ' (!5 .5 5 )pts =6633 =1.18 Table 2 (cont*d) Graduate regressions: ** 1 ** G. = -24,787 - 2 7 .6U. 0 + 62S.5G, 0 + 1861Y„ + 1422E, * (7,391) ( 4 8 . 7 r 2 (3 3 3 .8 )t “2 (532)Mt (456)* ** 2 ** G = -43,195 + 2 7 .1U. 11 (7,364) (3 1.6 ) Y y 3 S. t * * * * * * H2 =.9973 s =714 d =2.12 ** * ** G = -31,473 + 106.3(2(10) + 3(11) + H(12)\ 7 + 1725Ym * (3,059) (4 4 .1 ) ^ (548f t ** 7 * R2 =.9867 S =1548 d =1.45 * G+ = - 31,723 - 77.3(0(11) + 0(12))+ , + 114. 40+ , + 2893Ym + 1409E+ * ( 6, 707) ( 30. 1) * '6 (4 5 .2 ) ( 445f t (567 )* ** 6 * + 2389E. (6 56 )* -36,218 - 183.9H(12). . + 136.50+ „ + 2939YM + 1774B+ (4,081) (3 7 .6 ) * -5 (2 8.9 ) (265) t (345)* ** 5 \* \i G * ** = -34,074 + 93.8(H (9) + H(10) + 1 (11))+ + 1867Y( 3, 002) ( 36. 8 ) M ( 465f t E2 =.9947 s =969 d =1.60 ** + 1258E, (395)* R2 =.9819 S =1945 d =0.96 ** + 1354E+ (389) * See last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols. R2 =.9825 S =1914 d =1.02 103 5 = * _2 R =.9880 S =1509 d =1.50 + 3049YM + 2466E. (439) t (605)* = -42,261 + 31. 8U. . + 3009Y,, (7:845) ( 3 8 . 5 ) ^ ( 471f t ** R =.9918 S =1333 d =1.21 ** u v ** 4 ** (contM ) ■V-UftA v -V A A ** ** + 1956Ym + 1462E. (374)* (3 7 5 )"t ** * 5 . = -40,151 + 82.6(1 (5,808) (2 8 .5 ) ** 10 3 = -42,104 + 7 9 .5 0 (4 ,4 5 2 ) (2 8 .7 ) ** G. = * + 2101Ym + 1613E, ( 354) t ( 388)* ** 12 + 21797m + 1760E. (321)Kt (414 )* ** ** ** ** + 21931L + 1835E. (344) t (444 )* ** 6t = -42,5! ** 14 ** + 2205Y,, + 1784E, (533) t ( 431) * ** 13 *# ** + 2289Ym + 1727E, ( 323) t (434)* ** G. 4= - 42,294 +68.5(H(2) + H(3) + H (4 )), + 2341Ym + 1660E+ (5,128) (2 9 .8 ) W 5 (315) t (430) R2 =.9839 S =1835 d =1.07 R2 =.9834 s =1863 d =1.01 R2 =•9826 s =1907 d = 1.01 R2 =.9824 s =1918 d =0.97 R2 =.9819 s =1947 d =1.00 R2 =.9814 S =1970 d =0.99 See last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols, 104 11 * ** H2 =.9841 s =1823 d =1.05 Table 2 (contfd) ** 7i~ 15 G. = * * ** A -43,106 + 68.5(H (1) (5,285) (2 8.8) ** ” ” + H(2) + H (3)) + * 16 X-X- 16 G, * R =.9818 S =1953 d =1.03 2357$, + 1625E ( 300)Mt (420)X * * * * p = -46,834 - 13.4P(5)+ 17 + 120.4(H(1) + H (2 )). , 7 + 2417$, (6,017) (75.7) t_17 (5 7.2 ) M 7 ( 253)Mt + G. * = -48,240 + 52.7(P (4) (6,327) (5 9 .8 ) « + 158.7H (l)t _18 (8 9 .2 ) t_18 « + 2468$, (2 3 3 n + « G. = -45,501 + 63.1(p (5) + P(4) + P (5 ))t _1q + 2555$. + 1983$. * (6,420) (2 8.0) (2 3 4 H (505)X ** 19 p (5 ))t 1s * 18 p G. * * ** ** 1857E, ( 446) R =.9838 s =1907 d =0.84 p R =.9812 S =1981 d =0.91 p = -45,447 + 63.8(P(2) + P(3) + P (4 ))t _20 + 2555$j + 1980E (6,404) (2 8 .4 ) (2 3 4 H (505)X R =.9812 S =1982 d =0.91 = -45,136 + 64.3(P(1) + P(2) + P (3 ))t 21 + 2546T + 1995$ (6,513) (2 8 .8 ) * 21 ( 239) t (510) R =.9812 s =1985 d =0.91 p 20 G. t See last page of table for definitions of variables and other symbols. 105 18 * + R =.9835 s =1923 d =0.99 * * * * 17 1666E. (425) t 106 Table 2 (contfd) List of Symbols with Their Definitions a/ The numbers to the left of each equation indicate the number of years into the future the equations are designed to forecast. For example, if in fall 1973 one were to want a forecast for fall 1980, he would use equation 7 and set the subscript "t" equal to 1980. t: Year, 1951-69 for purposes of estimation. Uj.: Michigan undergraduate enrollment in year t, in actual head— count figures (see appendix Table 26). A U^.: An estimate of Michigan undergraduate enrollment in year t obtained by the use of a regression equation, in actual head­ count figures. G^: Michigan graduate enrollment in year t, in actual headcount figures (see appendix Table 26), A G^: An estimate of Michigan graduate enrollment in year t obtained by the use of a regression equation, in actual headcount figures. D.: Sum of total discharges from the U.S. Armed Services in fiscal years t, t-1 , t- 2 and t-3 , in millions of persons (see appendix Table 3 0 ). H(A) :Michigan enrollment in grade A in year t, in thousands of count students (see appendix Table 2 7 ). P(B).: Michigan population of age B in year t, inthousands (see appendix Table 28); Y ^t head­ ofpeople : Real per capita income of Michigan residents in year t, in dollars (see appendix Table 31). Y^ : Total Michigan real personal income in year t, in billions of t dollars (see appendix Table 31 )• E^.; TJ.S. unemployment rate in year t, in percentage terms (see appendix Table 3*0• *: The parameter below this is significantly different from aero at the 95^ confidence level. The parameter below this is significantly different from zero at the 99^ confidence level. ( ): The number within the parenthesis is the standard error of the estimated parameter which appears immediately above the paren­ thesis. 107 Table 2 (cont*d) 2 R i Coefficient of determination. S: Standard error of estimate, d: Durbin Watson statistic. 108 forecaster would "be ignoring known information about the relevant population cohort. Returning to the example, note that using equation 7 in 19 73 "to forecast undergraduate enrollments in I960 requires know­ ledge of the number of students in the fifth through eighth grades in 1972. Use of equation 10 in 1973 for a 1980 forecast requires know­ ledge of the second through fifth grades in 1969. and thus ignores three years of information concerning those people most likely to attend college in I960. 2 The coefficient of determination, R , is consistently very high» and the standard error of estimate, S, is quite Bmall relative to the magnitude of enrollments; both of these results are encouraging in a model to be used in forecasting. As is to be expected in an enroll­ ment analysis, there is strong evidence of positive autocorrelation among the disturbances; however, it is not so extreme as to place major Q doubts on the utility of the model. The estimated parameters have the expected signs and tend to be very significant in a statistical sense and of reasonable size. 4-V^ u ni. u * ^ 4-V ,^ wuw w u u u l -f < ^^ ^^ 11,^ -t- eixuw c*uuu u A A 4 - uu ^ 4 In 7 1« ^ percent of those discharged from the Armed Services are likely to en­ roll in Michigan higher education. The parameters associated with the Q The Durbin Watson statistic, d, is used to test for the presence of autocorrelated disturbances, i.e., the degree to which a random disturbance in one period affects the observation in the ensui n g period. An enrollment series is very vulnerable in this respect; for example, if for some unexplained reason 5»000 students enter college in year t, we would expect to have an unexplained component in years t+1, t+2 and t+3 because it would take this long for a typical student to receive a degree. The greater the difference between two and d, the greater is the probability of autocorrelated disturbances— which is a violation of the assumptions underlying the regression technique. In this case we can reject the assumption of no autocorrelation with 95 percent assurance of being correct when d is about . 9 0 or less. 109 population variables range from about #50 in the near term to about .60 for 10—20 year projections which is consistent with the percentage of students now going on to higher education. In the equations for 10—20 year forecasts the parameter corresponding to lower division students is greater than that corresponding to upper division students; this is to be expected since many students leave college after a period of less than four years, so upper division students represent a smaller proportion of the population cohort than do lower division students. It is not surprising that this pattern is not apparent in the nearterm equations since high school drop-outs would tend to weaken it or 9 even reverse It. The income variable is very important in a statistical and a decision-making sense; the results demonstrate the importance of finan­ cial factors in affecting how many people enter higher education. Choosing between the per capita income and total Michigan income mea­ sures was an interesting problem. Each yielded models which performed nearly identically on an overall statistical basis, but the set df U X U iiO K* W * ■«, A A , L A if*, X i i O U i V C ulation variables relative to the income variable. W y w b l i t i ’ The hypothesized 9 ■^Eventual college enrollees as a percentage of their pre-college grade will tend to be greater for the higher grades because of high school drop—outs— all other things being equal. For example, assume there are 1000 students in the ninth grade of which 800 enroll as twelfth graders and 500 attend college. The college enrollees as a percentage of ninth and twelfth graders would be 5 0 .0 and 62.5* res­ pectively. Of course, the college drop-out phenomenon described in the text means all other things are not equal, and hence we have the high school and college drop-out phenomena working in opposite direc­ tions with respect to the relative size of the two population varia­ bles. 110 reason for the difference is in-migration. In-migration prior to 1950 hut within the period of analysis would tend to inflate the parameters associated with the population variables in both models in equal fash­ ion, e.g., if the number of eighth graders in 1945 is used to explain college enrollment in 1952 and there was substantial in-migration during the intervening years, it would appear that a higher proportion of the original eighth. graders were enrolled than had actually occurred. In the case of In-migration taking place after 1950 the above effect will again be present, but there is an additional factor. The in—migration will tend to raise total Michigan income but have an indeterminate effect on per capita income. Thus, in the model containing Michigan income the effects on in-migration will be present in both the para­ meters associated with the population variables and in the parameters of the income variable. However, the In-migration effect in the model containing per capita income will be concentrated entirely in the parameters of the population variables. Since it appears that future periods of economic prosperity are not likely to result in the scale ■ v i w4 4 * i — .1 liT i ■ > M 4» ■ % V *4 4 existed over the last two decades, the model containing per capita Income was selected— to have done otherwise would have been to impli­ citly assume in-migration in future periods of prosperity. A somewhat disturbing feature of the results of the undergraduate regressions is the relatively high value of the coefficient of income in equations 12—14* The unique feature of these three equations iB that they each contain a mix of enrollment and population variables. Evidently the lack of consistency of these two series (see the discus­ sion of the data in the previous section) is sufficient to cause 111 problems; the existence of errors in the population—related variables would be expected to depress the magnitude of these coefficients and raise those associated with highly-correl&ted variables, such as income. When the model is UBed for forecasting, it will be important to exa­ mine the results from equations 12—14 with a healthy skepticism, pos­ sibly also using subsequent equations to forecast the relevant periods so that a more "typical" result can be computed. The results of the graduate enrollment regressions appear to demonstrate that economic considerations are of greater importance relative to population variables than is true in the case of under­ graduate enrollments. The decision to use total Michigan income rather than per capita income was based on a general review of the relative statistical properties of the resulting models. Although the in-mi— gration effect mentioned above undoubtedly also exists in the case of graduate enrollments, this effect appears to be overwhelmed by more influential factors, such as the possibility that the need for research has grown at a rate more comparable to the growth of the total Michigan economy than that of per capita growth. The positive sign and significance of the unemployment variable indicate that when people are having difficulty finding jobs, more graduating college seniors enter graduate school——an example of a response to a declining opportunity cost. The U.S. unemployment vari­ able is more significant than the Michigan unemployment rate when equations similar in all other respects are compared; indicating that college graduates tend to respond to a national, rather than a state, labor market. When the unemployment variable was inserted into the undergraduate model, its coefficient was of the expected sign 112 (positive) but too small to be statistically significant. Discharges from the Armed Services were included in trials of thehgraduate enroll­ ment model, but were omitted from the final version due to a lack of significance and mixed signs. Similarly, attempts to disaggregate the population-related variables to correspond to different levels of instruction, as was done in the final version of the undergraduate model, did not improve the statistical properties of the model or yield a consistent pattern of coefficients. Derivation Of Enrollment Projections^ It should be emphasized that the value of an enrollment model is not that it removes all uncertainty as to what enrollments will be in the future, for this is dependent on public and private decisions be­ tween now and that future date. Rather, its value lies in its power to assist those who make the decisions which will in large measure determine future enrollments. Xt helps us to gain greater insight into the possible outcomes of different policy alternatives. The implications in terms of enrollments of five important dimen­ sions of higher education policy will be explored in this section. Many others are of potential interest, but these five should be suffi­ cient to demonstrate the broad range of possible outcomes. 10 As A similar set of enrollment projections based on this analytic model appeared in Financial Requirements of Public Baccalaureate Insti­ tutions and Public Community Colleges. Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan, 1971» The availability of new data on economic vari­ ables, armed forces discharges, school enrollment, and population jus­ tified— almost required— a revision. Rote that the basic equations forming the foundation of the model were not revised. 113 mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, additional assumptions will he added to those implicit in the above statistical model in order to disaggregate the enrollments into three sectors— public fouryear, public two-year, and private. The five alternative policies, which are each described in detail in the following pages are: (1) present policies, (2) uniform stabilization policy, (3>)=curtailed graduate enrollment policy, (4) nondiscriminatory policy, and (5) equal educational opportunity policy. Present policies The following assumptions are the basis for the projections of state-wide enrollments at the undergraduate and graduate levels. 11 Armed Services Discharges: Discharges from the Armed Services will continue to decline from a peak of 1.12 million men in 19 70 until the peace-time level of 0.4 million discharges is reached in 1976. This latter figure is assumed to prevail throughout the remainder of the period. Income and Population: Michigan real personal income will increase 5 percent from 1971 "to 1 9 7 2 , 5»3 percent from 1972—1973t end 4 . 8 percent annually thereafter. Per capita income is forecast based on the assumption that the increase from 1971 to 19 72 will be 4*9 percent, 4*3 percent from iQ72 +c t0 7 7 ^ 5*6 pcirccii't difference between the two series implies a one percent annual rate of increase in population. Unemployment: The unemployment rate in the United States will decline slightly to 5 . 6 percent in 1972. The decline will continue so that in 19 7 5 end beyond a near full em­ ployment rate of 4»1 percent will exist. Once these assumptions have been made and the necessary enrollment and population data collected, calculating the projections is simply a matter of using the relationships discussed in the previous section— or, to be more specific, of substituting the data into the regression 11 The detailed data assumed and the rationale for their choice are presented in Appendix B. 114 equations. In order to remove unrealistic year-to-year variations while preserving the trends the estimates were graphed and ’’smoothed" by visual inspection. This smoothing process was unambiguous except for two possible exceptions. First, those projections using lagged undergraduate enrollment appear to be indicating a higher level of future enrollments than those using primary and secondary enrollment. After examining the pattern of estimated coefficients (Table 2), the author judged that the lagged variables were weighted too heavily relative to the high school enrollment variables. This result causes the equations with the lagged variables to understate changes in trends, and so the projections derived from these equations were dis­ counted somewhats- Second, the undergraduate forecasts for years 1982—84 which include both primary grade enrollments and population by age groupings as explanatory variables are inconsistent with the pre­ ceding and succeeding years. This problem was anticipated (see the comments in the sections on data and statistical results and Appendix A), and these results were largely ignored. enrollments by type of institution. Private Institutions: Undergraduate enrollment in the private insitutions will increase by 1590 students each year except in 1 9 7 7 -7 8 when total Michigan undergraduate enrollment sta­ bilizes. Graduate enrollment will grow by 160 students each year. 12 Performing a time trend regression on total private enrollment from 1951 though 19&9 yields U = 19*291 + I753(t-1950) R2 = -985 where pt U : total private enrollment in year t, in headcount students pt t: year. 115 Public Institutions: In future years 25 percent of the under­ graduates will be upper division students (Juniors o£ seniors). The percentage of lower division students (freshmen or sophmores) enrolled In the community college system is assumed to increase at a decreasing rate from 58*5 percent in 19 71 to 70.0 percent In 1983*^ After 1983 the percentage is assumed to stabilize at 70*0 percent. The above assumptions imply that the public two-year colleges will contain 49*1 percent of the undergraduatesoBnrolled in public higher education by 1977 and 52.5 percent by 1983f as compared with 43*9 in 1 9 7 2 . The projections are presented in Table 5* The outstanding fea­ ture of the undergraduate projections is the relatively stable level of enrollments In the 1976—88 period; if it were not for the influence of x*ising incomes, the absolute decline from 1978 to the early 1980*s would be much greater. Undergraduate enrollment in the public two- year institutions grows very slowly from 1976 to 1988 despite the fact that these colleges are assumed to increase their percentage of lower division enrollees. The public four—year colleges experience a decline in undergraduate students from 1976 to 1983 followed by several years of stable enrollments. If a public policy appropriate to a period of stable undergraduate enrollments has not been articulated and supported h*gr 4 * a 1 w u w ^^^ WW — « ■ *A j- w .1 -1 4 4i » 4% ^ A . V.* u jr t-. a — ,-t 4_ _ _ 1 t r iiw ilix u . — X 7 / U ' b | ck — — — — competition for undergraduates could develop among insitutions. The growth rate of four—year institutions will depend heavily on future trends in graduate eduo&tion, which are very difficult to anticipate. Many uncertainties are besetting today's graduate schools This would indicate that a "normal growth in this sector is 1753 stu­ dents per year. In recent years about 8.8 percent of enrollment has consisted of graduate students. 13 ^Specifically, the percentage is assumed to increase from 58.5 percent in 1971 to 61,5 in 1973 in two stepfenof 1,5* from 61.5 in 1973 to 68.5 In 1980 in seven steps of 1.0, and from 6 8 .5 in 1980 to 70*0 in 1985 in three steps of 0.5* Table 3 Present P o licies Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type o f In s titu tio n , 1972-91* (thousands) Public Four-Year A ll In s titu tio n s P rivate_________ Year UnderGrad Grad­ uate Total Public Two-Year 1972 1973 1974 172 175 178 60 67 72 232 242 250 140 150 157 50 51 53 5 5 5 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 181 183 182 179 175 76 81 85 89 94 257 264 267 268 269 165 172 176 179 179 54 56 58 58 58 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 170 168 167 166 166 99 104 108 113 119 269 272 275 279 285 179 181 182 183 185 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 166 166 167 168 172 125 132 141 148 155 291 298 308 316 327 1990 1991 180 191 162 170 342 361 UnderGrad Grad­ uate TJnderGrad Grad­ uate^ Total 55 56 58 362 376 388 65 77Vc 77 427 448 465 6 6 6 6 6 60 62 64 64 64 400 411 416 416 412 82 87 91 95 100 482 498 507 511 512 58 58 58 58 583 6 6 7 7 7 64 64 65 65 65 407 407 407 407 407 105 110 115 120 126 512 517 522 527 533 185 184184 186 191 58 58 58 58 59 7 7 7 8 8 65 65 65 66 67 407 408 409 412 422 132 139 148 156 163 539 547 557 568 585 200 211 61 62 8 8 69 70 441 464 170 178 611 642 Total * See text for the assumptions used in calculating these projections* and their degree recipients. These are sure to he exacerbated if undergraduate enrollments stabilize, thus decreasing the need for new college instructors. The model would lead one to believe that all will be well for those with advanced degrees if the economy is healthy. However, one is well advised to regard all projections of graduate enrollment with skepticism. A lower forecast will be presented in the third alternative to be explored, curtailed graduate enrollment policy. Uniform stabilization policy The above set of projections revealed that if the public twoyear colleges continue to increase their percentage of lower division students there is likely to be a drop in undergraduate enrollments in the public four-year institutions of about 1 7 *0 0 0 students from 1976 to 1985* L©t us now examine a policy which is designed to avoid a large drop in undergraduate enrollments in either public sector. Sta­ ted more positively, the intent is to stabilize undergraduate enroll­ ments in a uniform fashion with respect to the public two-year and public four—year sectors, rather than experience increases in the for­ mer which are approximately offset by decreases in the latter. All assumptions axe identical to those stated in the case of the present policies projections except for the following change. Public Institutions: In future years 25 percent of the under­ graduates will be upper division students. The percentage of lower division students enrolled in the community college system is assumed to increase at a decreasing rate from 56*3 percent in 1971 to 60.0 percent in 1976.14 After 1976 the percentage is assumed to stabilize at 60.0 percent. The above assumptions imply that by 1976 the public two-year colleges will contain 45*0 percent of the undergraduates enrolled in public higher education, as compared with 43*9 In 1 9 7 2 . 1A ^Specifically, the percentage is assumed to be 59*0* 59*4* 118 Note that it has been assumed the above change has no effect on the total number of students receiving higher education. This is certainly unrealistic to some degreef for a number of the students who attend a two-year college would not or could not attend a four-year institution. The magnitude of this lack of substitutability is unclear; it undoub­ tedly varies with the social setting and the relative size of the community college sector. What is being varied in this case is the nature of the system of higher education, i.e., the kind of institution within which the students receive their education. Exploring the many alternatives of this sort is an important part of the planning func­ tion. Comparing the present policies projections with the uniform sta­ bilization policy projections (Tables 3 and 4* respectively), in the latter case undergraduate enrollment in the public four-year institu­ tions reaches a higher peak in the late 1 9 7 0 *s and declines much less. Whereas the public two-year colleges exhibited slow but continuous growth in the case of the present policies assumptions, the second set w* h .w i.W V M kJ — k * -11 A «T■»— k J M w O X X -T ‘ i---1 m o U ili. S J M J .1 U W 4 J L* f£ » XXUUl | k j Kf U 1non followed by over five years of stable enrollment. Curtailed graduate enrollment policy As was mentioned earlier, graduate education is in a very unset­ tled state which makes all forecasts subject to a great deal of doubt. The key test of the continued validity of the econometric model pre­ sented earlier will come when the economy rebounds* If the hiring of those with graduate degrees increases and research and development 59*7* 59*9 and 60.0 in years 1972 though 1 9 7 6 , respectively, 119 Table 4 Uniform Stabilization Policy Enrollment Projections "by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1972—91* (thousands) Public Pour—Year ________ Grad­ Total uate Publ: Two—Y Year Undergrad 1972 1973 1974 174 180 185 60 1975 76 81 85 89 94 267 1977 1978 1979 191 195 197 197 195 1980 192 1901 192 291 296 300 317 324 334 343 355 159 163 371 391 171 181 1976 67 72 1982 192 1983 1984 192 192 99 104 108 113 119 1985 192 125 1986 192 193 195 132 141 1987 1988 1989 20 0 1990 1991 209 221 148 155 162 170 234 247 257 276 282 286 289 305 311 138 145 150 155 160 161 161 159 157 157 157 157 157 157 158 158 *See text for the assumptions used in calculating these projections. See Table 3 for the enrollment figures for "private" and "all insti­ tutions." 120 outlays (especially federal) resume their growth, the present policies projection may be realized. However, the feeling that graduate enroll­ ments will nbt and should not grow as fast in the future as in the past is so widespread that it seems appropriate to examine a more conservative forecast. This will allow us to examine systematically the consequence of alternative levels of graduate education. The new assumption is that the absolute increase in graduate enrollment in future years will be equal to the average increase in the past, 2326 students per year. 15 With this single exoeption, all other assumptions are identical to those stated in the case of the present policies projections. The results are presented in Table 5 and compared graphically with the present policies forecasts in Figure 2. The downward shift is of significant size and of particular impor­ tance in the public four-year sector since these institutions contain the overwhelming majority of the graduate students. Graduate enroll­ ment in this sector is decreased by 7000 students in 1972 (12 percent), 1 7 ,0 0 0 students in 1975 (22 peatcent), and 28,000 students in I960 (2ts percent) relative to the present policies projections. Although undergraduate enrollment exceeds graduate enrollment in the public four-year sector, the above declines would also represent a significant 15Performing a time trend regression on total graduate enrollment from 1951 through 1971 yields Gt « 8561 + 2326(t-1950) G^: R2 = .9735 where graduate enrollment in year t, in headcount students t: year Table 5 C urtailed Graduate Enrollment Policy Projections by Student Level and Type o f In s titu tio n , 1972-91* (thousands) Year Public Four-Year GradUnde^T o tal Grad uate Public Two-Year UnderGrad P rivate_________ Grad­ uate T o tal A ll In s titu tio n s Grad­ UnderGrad uate T o tal 5 5 5 55 56 58 362 576 388 58 61 63 420 157 50 51 53 54 56 58 58 58 6 6 6 6 6 60 62 64 64 64 400 411416 416 412 65 68 70 72 75 465 245 244 165 172 176 179 179 71 73 75 77 79 241 241 242 243 245 179 181 182 183 183 58 58 58 58 58 6 6 7 7 7 64 64 65 65 65 407 407 407 407 407 77 79 8284 86 484 486 489 491 493 166 166 167 168 172 82 84 86 88 90 248 250 253 256 262 183 184 184 186 191 58 58 58 58 59 7 7 7 8 8 65 65 65 66 67 407 408 409 412 422 89 91 93 96 98 496 499 502 508 520 180 191 92 272 285 200 211 61 62 8 8 69 70 441 464 100: 102 541 566 1972 1975 1974 172 175 178 53 56 58 225 231 236 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 181 183 182 240 245 246 179 175 59 62 64 66 69 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 170 168 167 166 166 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 94 140 150 *See te x t fo r the assumptions used jn c a lc u la tin g these projection s. 437 451 479 486 488 487 Figure 2 Summary of Enrollment Im plications o f A lte rn a tiv e P o lic ie s : T o tal Enrollment in A ll In s titu tio n s — 6404 c ,1 & 2 / 600j Headcount I''" v ‘ 520. 48Q 122 11113:011116111:, Thousands 560. 44a 40a 36a 1 & 2. 3. 4. 5. 32Ci Present and uniform s ta b iliz a tio n p o lic ie s C u rtailed graduate enrollment p o licy Nondiscriminatory p o licy Equal educational opportunity p o licy 28Q. 24a 20Q 160 75 62 5 Ss 5 75 72 74 Year J6 ie So Si 84 86 88 90 92 123 decline in the sector*a total enrollment— 3» 7 and 10 percent, respec­ tively. Nondiscriminatory policy A basic premise of our democratic society is that no one should be discriminated against because of his racial—ethnic background. How­ ever, we are painfully aware that a child's chances of success in this society are much greater if his skin color happens to be white* Part of this unjustified differential treatment is a result of publicly provided services failing to reach all citizens in equal quantity and quality. Higher education is no exception. The United States Census of Population for 1970 indicated that slightly less than 13 percent of the population group which is now, or will soon be, entering the college age level in Michigan were nonwhite. ^ The most recent data on minority enrollment in Michigan higher education were collected for fall, 1970 in the Civil Rights Compliance Report of Institutions of Higher Education. 17 Although the best we have, these data are Incomplete and imprecise in many respects; (1) coverage was limited to full-time students but some institutions may have ignored such a distinction, (2) methods for obtaining the information varied considerably among the institutions, (3) non-response rates were high in institutions dependent upon voluntary designations, and (4 ) foreign students may have been erroneously Included. A summary ^^U.S. Bureau of the Census, CensuB of Population: 1970* General Population Characteristics. Pinal Report PC(1)—B24 Michigan, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C., 1971* Table 19, p. 6 5 . 17 Michigan Bepartment of Education, "A Summary of Racial—Ethnic Enrollments in Michigan Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1970,” Planning Bivision, Bureau of Higher Education, Lansing, Michigan (undated). 124 of the survey results is presented in Table 6. Table 6 Full-Time Minority Student Enrollment in Michigan as a Percent of Full-Time Enrollment by Sector and Level, Fall 197° Type of Institution Undergraduate Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private All Institutions 6.6 10.6 7.1 7.6 Graduate Total 9.6 n.a. 5.6 9.5 7.0 10.6 7.0 7.8 n.a.: not applicable Source: Michigan Department of Education, nA Summary of Racial—Ethnic Enrollments in Michigan Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1970," Planning Division, Bureau of Higher Education, Lansing, Michigan (undated). See text for important quali­ fications associated with these data. The set of nondiscriminatory enrollment projections is based on attaining at least a 12.8 percent minority enrollment in each sector of Michigan higher education by 1976 without displacing any person who would normally enroll. A reasonable plan for implementing this alternative would be to admit as close to 12.8 percent minority students ast.possible in 1972 and to admit 12.8 percent or more in 1-975 and be­ yond; the normal turnover of students would insure that the institu­ tions would reflect the composition of the entering classes after about four years, assuming no difference in the drop-out rate among the dif­ ferent racial—ethnic groups. The following assumptions were made in order to derive specific figures despite the lack of detailed data; the present policies projections were used as the base data. The percentages of minority students implicit in the present policies projections are those shownin Table 6.IQ 18 A survey similar to that described for fall, 1970, was also 125 First—time students are 20, 40 and 27 percent of the under­ graduate student bodies in the public four-year, public twoyear, and private sectors, respectively# Upper division students in the private sector are 35 percent of the undergraduate student body. The percentages of rHnmHty students admitted in 1972 will be 9#7 among undergraduates and 11 #2 among graduates in public four-year institutions, 11.7 in public two-year institutions, and 9*9 among undergraduates and 9.2 among graduates in private institutions. In 1975 and beyond entering student groups will contain 12*8 percent minority students. Students who transfer into a system will reflect the same percentage of minority students as the level they enter. The nondiscriminatory enrollment projections are listed in Table 7 and graphed in Figure 2, 19 Relative to present policies projections, the required increase is not extremely large* On a statewide basis, total enrollment must rise by an additional 1 7 *0 0 0 Btudents by 1974 and 24,000 students by 1976* Putting this another way, compared to a projected statewide annual growth rate of 4.2 percent from 1971 "to 1976 under the present policies assumptions, there is now a need for a 5-2 percent annual rate of increase— certainly not an intimidating change, especially in view of the more rapid growth of the I960's. Giic: must Le extremely cau.*iwUS in comparisons m c n g typos oz institu­ tions not only because of data limitations but also because the indi­ cated changes in enrollment may be a poor indicator of where maximum conducted in fall, 1 9 6 8 . The data are:;so rough that comparisons are dangerous. The important point to be made here is that there is no indication of a clear upward trend in the percentage of minority stu­ dents enrolled. The percentage in 1 9 6 8 was the same in the private sector (7 .0 ), higher in the public two-year sector (11.2), and lower In the public four-year sector (5-2). 19 For a detailed explanation of the computing of these projec­ tions, see Appendix C. Table 7 Nondiscriminatory P olicy Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type o f In s titu tio n , 1972-76* (thousands) Year 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Public Four—Year TJnderGradT o tal Grad uate Public Two-Year 60 68 74 78 84 141 153 161 169 176 173 180 186 192 196 234 247 260 271 280 P rivate__________ UnderGradGrad uate T o ta l 50 52 56 57 60 5 5 6 6 6 56 58 61 63 66 _______A ll In s titu tio n s UnderGradGrad uate T o tal 364 385 403 419 432 The sums o f the components may d if f e r from the to ta ls due to rounding *See te x t and Appendix C fo r the assumptions used in c a lc u la tin g these p rojection s. 65 73 79 84 90 430 458 482 503 522 127 efforts must focus. If the public fouivyear and private institutions increase their minority enrollment by attracting members of minority groups who would otherwise have attended public two-year institutions, the brunt of the effort to increase the number of minority students in higher education will fall on the public two-year system as it strives to maintain and increase its service to minority communities (the data cited in footnote 18 are consistent with such a hypothesis). Thus, if this alternative were to be implemented, it would not be safe to as­ sume that the public four-year sector would have the most difficult adjustment requiring the most attention and resources. The problem of attaining a 12,8 percent minority enrollment is not so much one of inundating our present system of higher education with a flood of new studentB——for such would not be the case, but of bringing about a major transformation of attitudes and programs within education. In a 1971 survey of all public and private high schools in Michigan, of which 96.1 percent responded, the Department of Education found that only about 8.6 percent of the 1971 high school graduates were members of a minority group. 20 The survey also found that about 49 percent of white and 46 percent of nonwhite graduates planned to enroll in an institution of higher education. The importance of these figures is that if minority groups are to be 12.8 percent of the stu­ dents in higher education but only 8.6 percent of the high school gra­ duates and if 50 percent of the white graduates continue on to higher education, then 68 percent of the high school graduates who are members of minority groups must continue on to higher education if colleges ^^Michigan Department of Education, "Survey of Post—Secondary Educational Plans of Michigan High School Graduates," Student Financial Assistance Services, D&naing, Michigan, September, 1971. 128 recruit only from the pool of high school graduates. be highly unlikely. 21 This appears to Thus, the policy of attaining a percentage of minority students in higher education equal to the percentage in the population is a realistic planning possibility only if high schools improve their retention rate and/or colleges improve their ability to handle students with a low academic rank in their graduating class and even those without a high school diploma. Equal educational opportunity policy The opportunity to receive higher education depends not only on one*s racial-ethnic background, but also upon many other socio-economic factors such as income and home environment. It is not clear how many potential college students cannot attend because of such factors, but the study by Berls cited earlier provides a clue. He found that about 70 perceht of the high school graduates in the top socio-economic quartile tent to college; only 3*2 percent of this quartile failed to complete high school. 22 Using this information, a final projection is computed which assumes: By 1931 all socioeconomic groups attend colleges at the same rate. This rate will be such that undergraduate enrollment 21 Robert H. Berls, in "Higher Education Opportunity and Achiev— ment in the United States," The Eco^nm-ton and Financing of Higher Edu­ cation in the United States (Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States), U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 9 , estimates that the ceiling on the percentage going to college is about 70 percent. This estimate is a result of considering how many students would attend college "if high school graduates from all socioeconomic categories went to college in the same proportion as high school graduates of the same ability level, but in the top socioeconomic quartile." 22Ibid.. p. 146. 129 will "be equal to JO percent of the population in the 18 through 21 age group; this percentage was approximately 51 in 1971 and. will increase hy 1.9 percentage points each year up to a maximum of JO in 1981. Although the assumption deals with total undergraduate enrollment ra­ ther than just first-time students as did Berls, the JO percent figure is still realistic. The fact that many college students do not complete four years of higher education would tend to make a lower figure more reasonable, but the existence of many undergraduate students outside of the 18 through 21 age group argues for a higher figure; this analy­ sis assumes that these two effects negate each other in the future as they now appear to do. Attaining Buch a goal would require a determined effort by all sectors, but an especially heavy reliance is likely to rest on the community college sector. It will be assumed that undergraduate enroll­ ment in the private sector grows throughout the period and that the percentage of lower division students enrolled in the community colleges increases at a more rapid pace than was the case in the other projec­ tions, i.e.: Undergraduate enrollment in the private institutions will increase by 1598 students each year. The percentage of lower division students in the public sector enrolled in the community college system is assumed to increase from 58.5 percent in 1971 to 74-5 percent in 1981.23 All other assumptions will remain identical to those used in deriving the present policies projections. The projections are presented in Table 8 and Figure 2. 23 Specifically, the percentage is assumed to increase from 58.5 percent in 1971 "to 62.5 percent in 1973 in two steps of 2.0 and from 62.5 in 1973 to 74.5 in 1981 in eight steps of 1*5. Table 8 Equal Educational Opportunity P olicy Enrollment Projections by Student Level and Type of In s titu tio n , 1972-81* (thousands) Public Four-Year Grad- P rivate Grad- All Institutions UnderGraduate Grad Total Year UnderGrad uate Total Two-Year Grad uate 1972 1973 1974 180 187 195 60 67 72 240 254 267 149 165 180 50 51 53 5 5 5 55 56 58 379 403 428 65 72 77 475 505 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 205 207 210 212 209 76 81 85 89 94 279 288 295 301 303 196 209 223 234 242 54 56 58 59 61 6 6 6 6 6 60 62 64 65 67 453 472 491 505 512 82 87 91 95 100: 535 559 582 600 612 1980 1981 207 202 99 104 306 306 250 257 62 64 6 6 68 70 519 523 105 110 624 633 Public Under- Total AAA 111 *See te x t fo r the assumptions used in c a lc u la tin g these pro jectio n s. The population groups serving as the basis fo r these projections are from U.S. Bureau o f the Census, Census o f Population: 1970* General Population C h a ra c te ris tic s . P in al Heport PC(1)-B24 Michigan, U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffic e , Washington, B .C ., 1971, Table 19, p. 65; the 1970 age group 15-18 is the base fo r 1972, 14-17 fo r 1973* and so on up to 6-9 fo r 1981, 131 The forecasts using the equal educational opportunity assumptions are considerably greater than those derived from an extension of pre­ sent policies. Total enrollment in all institutions is greater by 27,000 students in 1 9 7 3 * 53*000 students in 1975 and 116,000 students in 1981* A comparison of the nondiscriminatory undergraduate enroll­ ment projections with the equal educational opportunity set is also useful because the latter is a generalization of the former, i.e., the latter assumes complete elimination of discrimination at the undergra­ duate level based upon socioeconomic criteria while the former is concerned with elimination of discrimination based only upon racialethhic considerations. As one would expect, the equal educational opportunity projections exceed the nondiscriminatory projections; in this case the differences in undergraduate enrollment for all institu­ tions are 18,000 students in 1973 s»d 34*000 students in 1975* Thus, although providing equal access for all racial-ethnic groups is a major task, the provision of equal educational opportunities for all groups regardless of their socioeconomic status is a problem of even Summary The process of building a quantitative model which can be used to analyze the implications of alternative higher education policies was begun in this chapter. Linkages were identified between enroll­ ments and underlying causal factors. Understanding these relationships is important for many purposes, one of which is to improve our capabi­ lity to forecast enrollments. 152 The statistical analysis used data on statewide undergraduate and graduate enrollments for the 1951—69 period. The independent, or ex­ planatory, variables which were found to exert a significant influence on enrollments are the college—age population, number of discharges from the Armed Services, personal income, and the unemployment rate. Increases (decreases) in each of these factors tend to be associated with increases (decreases) in enrollment. The effect of tuition charges is not made explicit in this model; the implicit assumption is that there will not be any drastic changes in attitudes and policies concerning tuition. In the next chapter the results of this analysis and additional, more detailed data for a shorter time period will be used to examine the impact of tuition and student aid variables on enrollments. The model was used to develop enrollment projections, disaggre­ gated by type of institution with the aid of additional assumptions. An examination of five different policies revealed a broad range of possible enrollments. A continuation of present policies is likely to result in s, declining rate of growth in undergraduate enrollment until the mid-1970,s, followed by approximately ten years of stable enroll­ ment. As a result, a policy of continuing to increase the percentage of lower^-division students attending public two-year colleges,would probably result in decreases in undergraduate enrollment in four-year institutions. Attempts to avoid such decreases in four—year institu­ tions would soon halt the growth of two-year colleges, which proceeded at a phenomenal rate in the I960*s. Graduate students will make up a larger share of total enrollments as the number of undergraduates tends to stabilize, but so many uncertainties are besetting graduate sohools 133 and research programs that the forecasts based on this simple model are subject to a great deal of doubt. Two policy alternatives were studied whose goals were to increase equality of access to higher education. In the first case, admitting minority students in a ratio equal to their representation in the popu­ lation did not involve extremely large numbers— the problem appears to be primarily one of insuring that appropriate programs are available for the academically disadvantaged rather than one of expanding higher education considerably to handle a hige influx of students. Elimina­ ting all biases associated with socio-economic background, however, is a much larger task requiring a major commitment of additional resources. Such a policy, if successful, would require annual increases in enroll­ ment of approximately the same magnitude as occurred in the 1960*8 when the bulk of the post-war baby boom generation came of college—age. Chapter V Impact Of Student Financial Aid And Tuition On Enrollments Student financial aid and tuition are policy variables whose im­ pact is of great concern to all associated with higher education. In- creasesiin student aid are advocated as a means of attaining greater equality of access to higher education, but many wonder if such claims are justified. The latter fear that much of the aid is granted to students who would have attended college, and even a specific college, regardless of the aid received. Another question centers on the impact of different types of aid, i.e., grants, loans, or work-study plans. Tuition is of concern because it is the most visible policy variable related to the financial barriers to higher education. Student aid and tuition are often considered simultaneously in the policy process in the hope that students who would otherwise be discouraged from at­ tending college by increased tuition rates can be given sufficient additional student aid to offset the added tuition burden. Despite this high level of interest, almost no analytical work has been addressed to ascertaining the effect of changes in aid programs and tuitionleaving decision makers with no alternative but that of making crude estimates based on their own and their associates* impressions. There are two important exceptions to the above characterization of the Btate; of our research. The first is a series of three papers which derive estimates of the aggregate United States demand for higher education in the post—World War I period.^ 1 Robert cation in the Vol. 5 7 , June Harvey Two of these include a Campbell and Barry N. Siegel, "The Demand for Higher Edu­ United States, 1919—1964#” American Economic Review. 1967, pp. 482-494. Galper and Robert M. Dunn, Jr., "A Short-Run Demand 134 135 tuition variable; none of the three models contain any consideration of student financial aid. The degree of aggregation and the quality of the older data place severe limitations on the use of the results. These authors have, however, developed conceptual frameworks that will aid our analysis, and they demonstrated that national trends in enroll­ ment are affected by variables such as tuition levels and Armed Foroes manpower policies. The distinguishing feature of the other analytic approach is the use of cross-section samples to ascertain those variables which influence the probability of a high school graduate enrolling in college. 2 To the author*s knowledge, only the work of Radner and Miller considers tuition disaggregated to the level of type of institution within a state; the remaining two papers cited here use state averages for their tuition data. Only one of these studies, that of Hoenack and Feldman, Function for Higher Education in the United States," Journal of Politi­ cal Economy. Vol. 77# Sept.-Oct. 1969# PP* 765—777* Joseph E. Hight, "The Supply of Higher Education in the U.S.: The Public and Private Institutions Compared," Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings, Detroit, Michigan, Decem­ ber 28-30, 1970. p See A.J. Corazzini# D. Dugan, and H.G. Grabowski, "Determinants and Distributional Aspects of Enrollment in U.S. Higher Education," Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings, Detroit, Michigan, December 28—30, 1970# and. later published in Journal of Human Resources. Vol. VII# No. 1, Wihter 1972, pp. 39-59* Stephen A, Hoenack and Paul Feldman, "Private Demand for Higher Education in the United States," Research Paper P-649# Institute for Defense Analysis, Arlington, Virginia, 1969* This paper is essentially reprinted, except for the omission of detailed technical appendix ma­ terial, '.in The Economics and Financing of Higher Education in the United States, a Compendium of Papers submitted to the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Prin­ ting Office, 1969), PP* 375-95* H. Radner and L.S. Miller, "Demand and Supply in U.S. Higher Education: A Progress Report," American Economic Review. Vol. 60, May 1-970# PP* 326—34. 136 includes a student financial aid variable, total funds granted in a state (as best as could be determined) divided by the seventeen-yearold population of the state. However, one can determine this only by residing the technical appendix material; Hoenack and Feldman do not discuss this aspect in their text and omit it entirely from the more widely available version of their work published by the Joint Economic Committee. Thus, it is very difficult to understand the results with regard to student aid or feel any confidence in them; an examination of the regression results reveals a mix of signs and a wide variation in the t statistic associated with the estimated parameters. The analysis to be presented in this chapter differs in important respects from those cited above. cial aid awardstare included. Both tuition rates and student finan­ The.parameters estimated for the tuition variables are unique to the institution, the relevant decision-making unit; the parameters of the financial aid variables are unique to the program and theytype of institution, reflecting the level at which most state and federal decisions are made. Another important property of the model 1b that the data required for its estimation are, for most states, publicly available— although usually in an unpublished form. The following discussion of this investigation of the impact of tuition charges and student financial aid on enrollments in Michigan higher education is divided into five sections: 1) theoretical frame­ work, 2) econometric model, 3 ) tuition and student aid data, 4 ) statis­ tical results, and 5 ) conclusions. 137 Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework is an extension of the demand—orien­ tated statewide model (see Chapter IV) to individual institutions. Referring to Figure 3, an institution wholly subject to the demand for its form of higher education would experience a growth of TJj. t+1 t+1 Enrollment Figure 3 Illustration of the Forces Determining Institutional Enrollments in enrollment (u) from time t to t+1 and a rise of (x). — T^ In tuition These movements are the net result of an increase in demand of wy and a shift in the supply of xz. Those same factors which determine aggregate demand——real income, population changes and discharges from the Armed Services— are undoubtedly significant factors at the institu­ tional level. In addition, financial aid funds shift demand in a fashion analogous to that of income, i.e., increased aid awards increase the ability of potential students to fund their education. The negative slope of the demand function reflects the usual expectation that as tuition increases fewer students will seek entrance into college. The lack of slope (perfect elasticity) of the supply function implies that 138 institutions do not vary the tuition changed charged within each year as a result of enrollments; the model from one year to another* does allow for changes in tuition This conceptualization of the supply, which appears to "be a good representation of reality, has important implica­ tions for the econometric model to be outlined in the next section. Some institutions appear to be relatively free of external demand factors in the sense that their desired enrollment is less than the demand for spaces at prevailing tuition rates, resulting in potential students who meet all basic qualifications being turned away. These colleges may exhibit a growth pattern quite unrelated to demand factors. To the extent that institutional policy with respect to growth remains constant over time, such an institution will grow at a regular pace (which may be zero). Econometric Model The model may be specified as in,i.t + dn,i,Tn,i,t , , + c nS n,i,t , , + f—G -, . , 3 3 *i*t rm jl, V* W ju V T. ^ °n n,i,t * “n"n,i,t ' n"n,i,t ‘ “n,i,t where n t= 1 ,2 ,3 , to denbte the type of institution, i.e., public fouryear, public two-year, or private , , , 12 if n s 1 19 if n = 2 26 if n = 3 to denote the specific institution t — 1 ,«..«., 6 to denote the year of the observation,(1 9 6 5 /6 6 — 1970/71; ^n,i,t = °13aeTVeci undergraduate enrollment at institution i of type n in year t, actual fall headcount students A = estimated statewide demand for higher education in year t as revealed by the model developed in chapter XV, thousands of 139 fall headcount undergraduate students T , , = real tuition rate at institution i of type n in year t, dollars n, i,u S . , = State Scholarship funds, in real terms, awarded to students n,lf at institution:i of type n in year t, thousands of dollars G ^ = Tuition Grant funds, in real terms, awarded to private insti— tution;:i in year t, thousands of dollars E . . = Educational Opportunity Grant funds, in real terms, awarded n*1* to institution i of type n in year t, thousands of dollars W , , = College Work—Study funds, in real terms, awarded to institu— n* * tion i of type n in year t, thousands of dollars L . , n* * = National Defense Student Loan funds, in real terms, awarded to institution i of type n in year t, thousands of dollars The deflator used to convert current monetary values to real terms is the Consumer Price Index, which is not ideal hut adequate for these pur­ poses. A model consisting of a single demand equation is sufficient since supply is perfectly elastic. 3 The role of the tuition and student financial aid variables is obvious from the presentation of the theorectical model. The statewide A demand pressure is represented in the form of rather than individual factors in order to preserve degrees of freedom. At a later date when more observations have become available it would be interesting to in­ clude real income, population changes, and discharges from the Armed Services as separate variables and thus discover how institutions res­ pond differently to these pressures, e.g., the different implications for the private sector of an increase in statewide demand as a result of increased per capita young people. 3 income versus that due to increased numbers of Inclusion of the individual demand factors rather than E. Malinvaud discusses this question in some detail in Statis­ tical Methods of Econometrics (Chicago: hand McNally & Co., 1^66), PP* 497—511. He notes on page 510 that "the fitting of quantity to price is particularly well suited to the study of the demand for public ser­ vices." 140 TJ would also be preferable from a purely statistical viewpoint for, as u pointed out in Chapter XV, the estimated parameters of the population and income variables are subject to an indeterminate bias. However, the possible influence of such a bias is probably relatively unimpor­ tant when compared to the larger problem of using a single time series to represent demand pressure across a wide variety of types and loca­ tions of institutions* A An estimate of statewide demand, Uj_, derived from the model pre­ sented in Chapter IV is used rather than actual statewide enrollment, TJ^., since the former is a purer representative of the aggregate demand factors included in the model in Chapter IV than the latter. For exam­ ple, if statewide enrollments grew by an unusual amount in one year due to an influx of student aid funds, an equation containing A and aid variables would tend to indicate (correctly) that inoreases in aid were responsible. But an equation containing Uj_ and aid variables would erroneously attribute a portion of the increase due to increased aid to increased statewide demand. In other words, itself reflects variations in tuition and student aid while such variations are reflec— A ted in TJj. only to the extent of the indeterminate bias noted above and explained more fully in Chapter IV. A Technically, Uj. is an essentially exogenous variable since it is a linear combination of exogenous varia­ bles but is endogenous and, therefore, use of would result in an identification problem. The inclusion of a time trend (t) is an attempt to discover the influence of stable institutional goals with respect to growth, which are expected to be the prime causal factor in those institutions re­ ferred to earlier as relatively free of external demand restraints. The 141 subscripts of the coefficients imply that the model assumes a unique parameter for each Institution with regard to its intercept term, responsiveness to statewide demand, internal growth policy and tuition charges; but the effects of the financial aid programs willbbe evalu­ ated by type of institution* Summarizing the interpretation of the coefficients, en, f^, gn, hn and kn refleot the!increase In enrollment in each sector associated with an increase in student aid funds in the respective programs, all other things being equal. d The coefficient of the tuition variable, , is expected to have a negative sign, and it indicates the de— crease in enrollment in each institution associated with an increase in tuition charges, all other things being equal. Similarly, bn,i. reveals the increase in enrollment in each institution associated with an increase in statewide demand, ceteris paribus. Finally, cn,i. represents the increase in enrollments in each institution which is due to internal plans which can be maintained despite variations in other factors. Tuition And Student Aid Bata The period covered by this analysis contains six years, 1965-66 through 1970-71. Since this span of time is a subset of that used in estimating the enrollment parameters in Chapter XV, all of the data series used in that work are adequate for use in this subsequent ana­ lysis.^ In this case, however, the enrollment figures for individual institutions as well as for aggregatesbby type of institution are ^The data relative to 1970-71 became available after the work in Chapter IV was completed but before this analysis was done. 142 used. A section in the previous chapter analogous to this one dis­ cusses in some detail the nature of the data used in that model. Thus, in the following the emphasis will he placed on the two additional types of data needed, namely, tuition charges and student financial aid awards. The tuition data were obtained from unpublished records kept by the Division of Student Financial Aids, Bureau of Higher Education, Michigan Department of Education. 5 Both tuition and other fees are included so as to avoid most problems of differing definitions of student charges. The primary purpose governing the collection of these data is the need to arrive at an estimate of student expenses for each institution participating in state—sponsored programs, which included many— but not all— private colleges and universities. The figures appear to be very reliable, based on a few spot cheeks with alternative sources, such as college catalogs and the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEJGIS), when these were readily available. Data on student financial aid awarded by the State of Michigan were also obtained from unpublished records of the Division of Student Financial Aids, Bureau of Higher Education, Michigan Department of Education. These grants, and also the federal grants to be discussed next, are listed by program, institution, and year in Appendix D. The State of Michigan awards fundB directly to Michigan students at­ tending colleges or universities in Michigan through two programs, "Competitive Scholarships" and "Tuition Grants." The scholarships are awarded on the basis of a State Competitive Scholarship Exaibination, ^Fhese data are av&ilable upon request. 143 high school record, and. demonstrated financial need; they may be used in either public or private Michigan colleges* Although student appli­ cants must also take the State Competitive Shholarship Examination, tuition grants are awarded on the basis of financial need and enroll­ ment at a private Michigan college* In both the scholarship and grant programs the maximum award is limited to the cost of tuition and fees o£ to $800 per year, whichever is lesser* The data used in this study are identified with respect to institution, i*e*, the sum of the scho­ larships and the sum of the grant b spent at each institution in each year are the baBic units of observation* A third state program, the "Guaranteed Loan Program," involves almost no state funds and is not considered in the model; the state* s financial stake is limited to reimbursing banks for defaults by students on approved loans, which occurs very infrequently. Federal finan6ial aid data are taken from "notifications to mem­ bers of Congress" with regard to approved institutional grants; these source documents were obtained from the Division of Student Financial Aid, United States Office of Education. Several grants were often awarded during the course of the academic year which made it necessary to do a great deal of aggregating. Note that these data represent awards rather than expenditures, which was not true of the staterelated data; awards will be greater than expenditures when an insti­ tution does not use the entire award, and thus must remit the unspent balance. Expenditure data are recorded, of course, but not in a man­ ner that makes them available to researchers at a reasonable cost. Three federal student financial aid programs are included in the analysis. Each is well-known and will be given only a brief review* 144 The ’'College Work—Study (CWS) Program" provides funds to colleges to hire students who demonstrate financial need* The "National Defense Student Loan (NDSL) Program" supplies institutions with money which is loaned to studentb at a low interest rate, three percent, that is not chafged until after the student completes his education; repayments, extending over a maximum of ten years, go to the college or university, where they are lent again just as in the case of the original federal grant. The large element of subsidy to the student implies that the size of the loan fund in constant—value dollars would quickly shrink in the absence of new infusions from the federal government. Finally, the "Educational Opportunity Grants (EOG) Program" consists of scho­ larships awarded to students who demonstrate exceptional financial need, defined as cases where parents cannot be expected to provide $600 or more toward the students* expenses; the only academic require­ ment is enrollment in a postseoondary institution. As is the case of CWS and NDSL, EOG funds are given to the colleges which in turn pro­ vide the grants to students. All of the federal programs require a small amount of matching institutional funds to be allocated, to the program; the data used in this analysis include only the federal com­ ponent. ^ A few summary statistics of student aid are presented in Tables 9 and 10 in order to illustrate the trends with respect to some of the more important dimensions. The actual dollar awards are presented ^Those interested in more detail concerning student financial aid programs are referred to Financing a College Education: A Guide for Counselors, an annual publication available for a small charge from the College Entrance Examination Board, Publications Order Office, Box 592, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Table 9 State and Federal Student Financial Aid in Michigan by Type of In s titu tio n , 1965-66 through 1970—71 (thousands of actual d o lla rs ) 1965-66 Fed(jral T o tal State 1966-67 Federal To tal 6,682 914 2,135 9,730 1,977 137 2,219 4,333 10,686 1,124 ::2,586 14,396 12,665 1,261 4,805 18,729 State 1967-68 Federal Total 3,457 262 3,976 7,695 13,779 1,459 3,275 18,513 17,236 1,722 7,250 26,208 To tal 20,945 3,647 11,887 36,478 Type of In s titu tio n State Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private A ll In s titu tio n s 1.115 90 797 2,002 5, 566 824 1.537 7,727 Type o f In s titu tio n State 1968-69 Federal T o tal State 1969-70 Federal T o tal State 1970-71 Federal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate A ll In s titu tio n s 4,163 202 5,173 9,538 13,662 2,212 3,684 19,958 18,025 2,414 9,057 29,496 5,041 194 6,877 12,112 13,641 2,776 4,071 20,488 18,683 2,970 10,948 32,600 4,919 293 7,008 12,220 16,026 3,354 4,879 24,259 Totals may not equal the sum of conjonents due to rounding. Source: Summary data obtained from Appendix D. Table 10 State and Federal Student Financial Aid in Michigan by Type of Institution, 1965—66 through 1970-71 (thousands of 1970-71 d o lla rs ) Type of In s titu tio n State 1965—66 Federal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private A ll In s titu tio n s 1,590 110 990 2,500 6,950 1,030 1,670 9,640 Type of In s titu tio n State Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private A ll In s titu tio n s 4,660 230 5,790 10,680 To tal State 1966-67_______ Federal To tal State 1967-68 Federal Total 8,340 1,140 2,660 12,140 2,390 160 2,680 5,230 12,910 1,360 3,120 17,390 15,290 1,520 5,800 22,610 4,050 310 4,660 9,020 16,150 1,710 3,840 21,700 20,200 2,020 8,500 30,720 1S68—69 Federal To tal State 1969-70 Federal To tal State 1970-71 Federal To tal 15,520 2,480 4,550 22,350 20,180 2,700 10,140 35,030 5,320 200 7,250 12,780 14,390 2,930 4,290 21,610 19,710 5,130 11,550 54,390 4,920 290 7,010 12,226 16,030 3,350 4,880 24,260 20,950 3,650 11,890 36,480 Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Derived from Table 9 by use of the Consumer Price Index, 147 in Table 9 while in Table 10 the figures are adjusted for changes in the price level; the following comments pertain to the adjusted series. The trends are quite surprising— at least to one who has had only a casual association with these programs. Financial aid awards grew much faster than undergraduate enrollments from 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 to 1 9 6 7 — 6 8 . (All subsequent references to enrollments are based on undergraduate enrollments, the primary target group for the aid programs being dis­ cussed.) Since 1967—16 8 aid funds have increased at a much slower pace, usually less than the rate of increase in enrollments. State funds have increased nearly five—fold while federal funds have grown at about half this rate, resulting in an increase in the state share of aid from about one-fifth in 1 9 6 5 —66 to approximately one—third in 1970—71The trends in awards by type of institution also reveal inter­ esting contrasts. Students in private institutions have experienced a 30 percent increase in their share of student aid, from 22 percent in 1 9 6 5 -6 6 to 55 percent in 1 9 7 0 —7 1 * despite the fact that the share of enrollment they represent has dropped by 5 0 percent, from 20 percent in 1 9 6 5 -6 6 to 14 percent in 1970=71- Although tha stats tuition grant program, targeted specifically on the private sector, has played an important role in this tren£, the private institutions and students have increased their share of both state and federal student aid. This, of course, implies a great increase in the average aid per un­ dergraduate student— from about $60 in 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 to $260 in 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 On the other hand, the public two-year sector has steadily increased its share of students, from 26 percent to 37 percent over this period^ but in 1970-71 it was recovering from a drop in its share of aid funds to the point where it was again receiving approximately the same share 148 as in 1965—66, about 10 percent. These institutions, often billed as "open door colleges" and described as embodying out best hopes for attaining equal educational opportunity, were awarding an average of only $29 in aid per enrolled student in 1970—71* Finally, in the pub­ lic four-year sector the shares of both student aid funds and under­ graduate enrollment declined at a modest rate over this period. Zn 1970-71 these institutions enrolled 49 percent of the students, who received 57 percent of the aid; the result was $ 1 2 7 in aid per enrolled student. The interested reader will find many more fascinating aspects of student financial aid programs in the detailed material in Appendix D. For example, in 1970-71 two Michigan institutions each received more student aid funds than the sum total for all public two-year in­ stitutions. Such relationships are not well-known and need examination if future aid programs are to be designed and administered so as to reach the desired target group. Student aid from institutional sources is nbt included, in this analysis. This is sr* important emission since those funds arc cftan of considerable size; a comprehensive study of student financial aid would have to include considerations of this aspect. Such an approach was not possible in this research because the necessary data were not available— at least not without a much greater expenditure of time, effort, and resources than was devoted to the project. However, since this work is focused primarily on public policy as reflected in state and federal decisions, the omission of the institutional 7 The HEGZS data were rejected as much too inaccurate following spot checks and consultations. 149 decision—making' area is not a crucial matter. The purpose of this chapter is to ascertain what impact governmental decisions with regard to student financial aid have had in the recent past. After omitting the institutions for which a complete set of sir years of data was not available, the available sample contained 97 colleges and universities— 12 public four-year, 19 public two-year, and 26 private institutions. Most of the omissions were due to the college not existing in 1965—66 (in the case of public two-year col^c leges) or missing tuition data (in the case of private institutions). General Motors Institute, a part of the General Motors Corporation, was omitted because its enrollment and tuition charges are essentially tools of management policy rather than the result of market—like forces; this unique case accounts for approximately six percent of the students in the private sector. The institutions included in the analysis enrolled 97 percent of Michigan undergraduates in fall 1965$ by sector the figures were 100 percent in the public four-year, 100 percent in the public two-year, and 85 percent in the private sector. By fall 1970 the total coverage had dropped to 9° percent— 100 percent In the public four-year, 80 percent in the public two-year, and 81 percent in the private sector. The percentage of student financial aid included In the sample Is higher— 95 percent in 1970—71» Thus, ensuing conclusions are based on analysis of a recent six—year period for which data covering at least 90 percent of undergraduate 0 Lake Superior State College was combined with Michigan Techno­ logical University, reducing the number of public four-year institu­ tions from fourteen to thirteen. Lake Superior State College was ori­ ginally a branch of Michigan Techno7.ogical University, and It proved toriber imposbifble to allocate the student aid awards given early in the period used In this analysis. 150 enrollments and 95 percent of state and federal aid funds were availa­ ble in suitable form. Statistical Hesults Coefficients were estimated independently for each of the three sectors of Michigan higher education, i.e., public four-year, public two-year, and private institutions. The first computations of the com­ plete model were characterized by an obvious interaction between the statewide demand and time trend coefficients— the larger one was, the smaller the other tended to be. the other positive. In most cases one was negative and This was not unexpected. Xt merely confirmed earlier expectations that the data were too limited to distinguish the separate impacts of such highly correlated phenomena. Subsequent regressions described in more detail below included assumptions that some of the coefficients specified in the econometric model are zero. The next step in the analysis assumed all institutions were sub­ ject to "market” forces and the ability to act independently of these influences was negligible. Under these conditions the coefficients of the time trend variables would be zero, so they can be omitted from the model. The results of these computations for the public four- year, public two-year, and private institutions are presented in Tables 11, 15 and 14, respectively. Public four—year sector Turning first to the public four-year sector (Table 11), we find the estimates to be quite consistent with our prior expectations. All but one of the institutions show a positive response to increases in 151 Table 11 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Hates, and Financial Aid Programa on Enrollment in Public Four-Year Institutions, Assuming No Time Trend ^Effects; R2 = #9997 Impact of Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment^ (individual variables measured in thousands of 1 9 7 0 —7 1 dollars) State Soholarsbip s 2.778** (0.734) Educ. Opportunity Grants 0 .0 7 2 (0.413) Nat*l Defense Student Loans -0.475 (0.456) College Work—Study 0.106 (0 .612) Impact of Statewide Demand and Tuition Rates, plus Intercept Term, for Each Institution Institution 1. Con. Mich. U. Statewide Demand (thousands) 4 5 .1 6 1 ** (4.485) 2. East. Mich. TJ. 7 2 .9 3 1 ** (5.903) Tuition Rate (1970-71 dollars) -11.748** (4.167) -6.943 (12.779) Intercept 2693** (1238) -4795 (3614) 3. Ferris S.C. 25.134** (3.667) 4.318 (9.956) -895 (3056) 4. Gr. Val. S.C. 19.355** (3.686) -4.218 (5.811) -1763 (1996) 5. Mich. State TJ. _Q✓ (4.435) on (1 8 3 8 ) 6. Mich. Tech. U. (4.759) -0.792 (4.053) 1854 (1193) 1ft;141* (10.907) 1 2 .7 0 4 ** W W 7. No. Mich. TJ. 1 5 .0 9 0 ** (4 .0 6 8 ) -1.018 (4 .3 2 9 ) 2627* (1362) 8. Oakland TJ. 2 9 .8 6 6 ** -1.840 (4 .5 9 1 ) -3612** (1076) 1 .1 3 6 (0 .8 6 4 ) -4 4 1 9 ** (1194) 5*548 (5.120) 10,753** 0385) (11.664) 9. Sag. Val. C. 10. TJ. of Mich. 16.802** (3.448) -2.087 (11.173) 152 Table 11 (oont,d) Institution Statewide Demand (thousands) Tuition Rate (1970—71 dollars) Intercept 11. WayneeState U, 35.953** (4.994) -3.310 (3.916) 14,069** 12. West. Mich. TJ. 31. 646* * 6.739 (5.303) 4766** (1 7 1 2 ) (4.263) (1102 ) The figures within parenthesis below the estimated parameters are the standard errors of the estimates. ^indicates the parameter Is significantly different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. **indlcates the parameter Is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level, a/ These variables are assumed to have a uniform effect on all insti­ tutions; see the section, "Econometric Model." 155 the statewide demand for higher education} the exception, to which we shall return. Is not statistically significant. Rising tuition rates are associated with a decline in enrollment, holding other factors constant, in eight out of twelve cases— -and again the exceptions are not statistically significant. The financial aid program which has a statistically significant coefficient, State Scholarships, has a posi­ tive impact on enrollments. Several factors were considered in a closer examination of the four Institutions whose estimated response to increases in tuition was positive. First, the discrepancy from the expected pattern of coefficients ranges from most to least severe in the order of the University of Michigan, Saginaw Valley College, Western Michigan Uni­ versity, and Ferris State College. Second, the results of the first regression (which included the time trend variable for each institu­ tion) showed that in the case of the first three of these four insti­ tutions the statewide demand coefficient was negative, the time trend coefficient positive, and tuition coefficient positive. Thus, only the time trend variable was having the expected impact. The Ferris State College enrollment revealed a positive response to all three variables. Third, there exists a general consensus that the University of Michigan exercises a great deal of internal control oVer the size of its student body since the number of well qualified applicants regularly exceeds those admitted. There is some feeling that in recent years Western Michigan has increasingly found itself in a similar po­ sition. Saginaw Valley and Ferris State enrollments, on the other hand, are not widely regarded as relatively insulated from the fluc­ tuations in tuition or the demand for higher education. Finally, 154 Saginaw Valley changed from a private to a public institution during the period covered. Although, the recruiting drop in tuition could be regarded as a fine opportunity to discover the impact of tuition changes, one could also argue that such a drastic structural change could not be explained by a simple demand model. After considering the above evidence, a third regression was computed in which the enrollments of the University of Michigan, Sagi­ naw Valley College, and Western Michigan University were made a func­ tion of only time. All other institutions, including Ferris State College, were left exactly as before. Xt seemed clear that the Uni­ versity of Michigan enjoyed a great deal of control over its enrollment under a wide variety of tuition and external demand conditions. The case of Saginaw Valley also seemed clears— it had undergone a massive institutional change far beyond the explanatory capability of this simple model. Western Michigan was a more complex case, but on the basis of the combination of statistical and other supporting evidence it was regarded as exercising internal control over its enrollment growth. In the other borderline case, Ferris State, the evidence was much weaker and was rejected as inadequate. The results are presented in Table 12. Comparing the estimated parameters in Tables 11 and 12 reveals several interesting developments. As expected, the time trend variables do such an excellent job of explaining the enrollments previously a function of statewide demand, tuition, and financial aid variables that R 2 has not fallen. Also encouraging because of its consistency with the theoretical basis of the model is the rise in the estimated value of three of the four financial aid parameters. Those universities 155 Table 12 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Bates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Public Four-Year Institutions, Assuming Selected Institutions Maintain Internal Control of Their Growth; R2 = .9997 Impact of Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment^-^ (individual variables measured in thousands of 1 9 7 0 —7 1 dollars) State Scholarships 3.608** (0.741) Educ• Opportunity Grants Nat *1 Defense Student Loans -0.216 (0.485) College Work—Study 0 .4 0 0 0.838 (0.829) (0.592) Impact of Statewide Demand and Tuition Rates, plus Time Trend and Intercept Terms, for Each Institution Institution Tuition Rate Time Statewide Demand (thousands) (.1970—71 dollars) Trend Intercept 1 . Cen. Mich. TJ* 43.034** (3.839) - 1 2 .1 5 3 ** (3 .5 3 2 ) n.a. 2479** (1 0 9 0 ) 2. East. Mich. TJ. 7 4 .8 6 5 ** -16.135 £12.296) n.a. -2696 (5381) 6.653 (8.523) n.a. -1 9 0 2 (3.100) 4. Gr. Val. S.C. 16.951** (3.269) -4.362 (4.910) n.a. 5. Mich. State TJ. 18.760* (9.474) -18.187** (5.384) n.a. 30,169** 6. Mich. Tech. TJ. 13.880** (4-182) -1.979 (3.454) n. a. 1617 (1 0 5 0 ) ll No. Mich. TJ. 15.568** (3.496) -1.951 (3.698) n.a. 23 6 6 * (1174) a. Oakland TJ. 26.831** (9.908) -0.726 (3.915) n.a. - (5.497) 3. Ferris S.C. 2 4 .576** 9. Sag. Val. C. 10,► TJ* of Mich. n*a. (2654) -1336 (16 96 ) (1606 ) 4020 * * (970) n.a. 340.89** (55.69) -403* (217) n.a. 718.29** (55.69) 19.919** (217) 156 Table 12 (cont'd) Institution 11. Wayne State U. 12. West. Mich. U. Statewide Demand Tuition Bate Time (thousands) (1970—71 dollars) Trend Intercept 34*885** (4*247) -6.605 (3 *9 2 2 ) n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 4 ,4 7 2 ** (982) 919.89**13*626** (55*69) (217) The figures within parenthesis below the estimated parameters are the standard errors of the estimates. n.a. indicates nnot applicable," i.e., the parameter was assumed to be zero. * indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. ** indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. a/ These variables are assumed to have a uniform effect on all insti­ tutions; see the section, "Econometric Model." b/ Excludes Saginaw Valley College, the University of Michigan, and Western Michigan University. 157 following their own institutional goals with regard to growth, such as the University of Michigan and Western Michigan, would not he expected to respond in terms of total enrollment to an inorease in financial aid funds* Rather, well-to-do potential students would he "humped out" by economically disadvantaged students as aid funds increased* Since this model is limited to measuring impacts on total enrollment, inclu­ ding such institutions biases the estimates downward if one is inheres— ted in more "typical" institutions* 9 Finally, although most of the statewide demand parameters remaining in the model did not change a great deal, there was a marked tendency for the tuition rate parameters to decrease (to have larger negative values) and thus become more sig>— nificant. A detailed discussion of the conclusions will he developed after considering the statistical results for the public two-year and private sectors* At this juncture it is sufficient to note that total enroll­ ments in at least two cases do cot appear to be primarily a function of statewide demand for higher education and tuition, but that in most cases these two factors appear important* Those students receiving State Scholarships and attending public four-year colleges and univer— sitites appear to represent additions to enrollment rather than students who would have attended these colleges without this aid* 9 The federal Attempts to estimate the number of potential students "bumped! out" of selective institutions by economically disadvantaged students were not successful* The method of estimation was to inolude an inde­ pendent variable defined as the sum of the aid funds going to the se­ lective universities; this assumes that as more aid funds are received by selective institutions, the displaced well-to-do students will attend elsewhere so total enrollment in the system will increase* 158 aid funds, which go to -the college and then -bo the students, do not appear to have increased enrollments above what they would otherwise have been* Public two-year sector The estimates for the public two-year colleges, displayed in Table 13* are largely consistent with prior expectations* Only two of the nineteen coefficients of statewide demand are negative, and neither of these is statistically significant* Five (26 percent) of the tui­ tion parameters appear with an unexpected positive sign, one of which is statistically significant* The significant exception, Henry Ford Community College, appears to be the result of an unusual set of forces* During the six year period under examination, and especially in the latter years, other colleges in the Detroit metropolitan area grew to offer increased competition to Henry Ford, whose enrollment growth slowed and then reversed. In an apparent effort to diminish the impact of the increased competition on its enrollment, Henry Ford reduced its tuition in real dollars over the entire period and even in current dollars from 1969—70 to 1970—71- There are limits to such a policy, however, and data for fall 1971 (not available at the time the statis­ tical estimates were computed) show tuition rising by 63 percent and enrollment continuing to fall* One suspects that an up-date of the estimates would find the tuition coefficient of Henry Ford much smaller* There is, however, less of a tendency in this sector than in the public four-year group for the estimated coefficients to be statistically significant, despite their conforming to the expected pattern with re­ gard to sign* 159 Table 13 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Bates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Public Two-Year Institutions, Assuming Bo Time Trend Effects; = *9956 Impact of Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment^ (individual variables measured in thousands of 1 9 7 0 —7 1 dollars) State Scholarships Educ* Opportunity Grants 1.458 (10.410) -7*788 (6.237) Nat*l Defense Student Loans 16.638** (2*944) College Work—Study 4.206 (3.148) Impact of Statewide Demand and Tuition Hates, plus Intercept Term, for Each Institution Institution 1. Alpena CC Statewide Demand (thousands) Tuition Bate (1970-71 dollars) Intercept 2.281 (8.293) -3.365 (10.629) (1407) -4.719 (12.154) 13*661 (16.767) -1939 (1774) -3527 (4243) 521 2. Bay de Noc CC 5* Delta Col, 26.326** (6.136) 0.283 (11.649) 4. Genesee CC 2 1 .6 9 9 ** 1 3 .7 6 0 (7-267) (9.497) -3820** (1847) 5* Gogebic CC 5.010 (6 .0 7 2 ) -I.9 I5 (5-983) -226 (1431) 6. Gr* Rapids JC 15.255* (7-686) - 1 1 .3 0 1 (9.122) 3529* (2045) 7. H. Ford CC 42.882** (11.551) 70.444** (24.488) 8. High. Park Col. 12.460** (5.895) -19.928* (10.263) 3157 (2430) 9* Jackson CC 15.845** (6.285) -5.579 (3.840) -43 (1140) -1.065 (12.784) 1053 (3054) 10. Kellogg CC 6.758 (6.682) -46*827 (8530) 160 Table 13 (coat'd) Institution Statewide Demand (thousands) Tuition Rate (1 9 7 0 —71 dollars) Intercept 11. Lake Mich. Col* —4 .Q2 6 (5.850) -14.284 (12.207) 7336 (4424) 12* Lansing CC 42.488** (8.295) -10.853 (12.736) -3462 (2093) 13* Mao* Co* CC 8 9 .6 1 0 ** 14* Muskegon CC 13* N* Cen* Mich* Col* 16. NV. Mich. Col. 17. Oakland CC 18. St. Cl. Co. CC (8.105) (7.895) 1 0 .3 1 0 ** (4.890) -4.880 (6.453) 2053 (1889) 2.816 (3.899) 0.062 (6 .5 1 6 ) (2450) 7 .0 0 0 (5 .2 0 2 ) - 2 .1 1 0 (7.423) 216 (2749) 1 3 7 .0 0 7 ** (1 2 .2 2 4 ) -3.659 (4.041) 0 .6 9 4 -1.472 (5.068) 2602* (1459) -5.803 (14.723) -1243 (5246) (4.555) 19* Schoolcraft Col. - 1 2 ,7 6 8 ** (1435) 25.287** (4.529) -3 1 2 -29,925** (2730) The figures within parenthesis below the estimated parameters are the standard errors of the estimates* * indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level* ** indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level* a/ These variables are assumed to have a uniform effect on all insti­ tutions; see the section, "Econometric Model." 161 As in -the case of the public four—year institutions, only one of the student financial aid programs has a statistically significant impact on total enrollments. But in this instance it is the NDSL pro­ gram rather than the State Scholarship program. There is also some indication that the CWS program is having the desired effect, but the evidence is weak. The negative sign of the BOS parameter is of some concern since the estimate does exceed its standard error and this program also had a negative impact in the public four-year sector. (See Table 12.) Little statistical or other evidence exists which would lead one to believe that any of these colleges operates sufficiently inde­ pendent of demand and tuition factors to warrant the use of a time trend variable to describe their growth. In fact, they are quite proud of their reputation as "open door" institutions which stand ready to meet the needs of the community so far as their resources permit. Thus, no follow-up regressions were computed similar to those described for the public four—year colleges. - The last set of results in Table 14, pertaining to the private sector, is the least satisfying in terms of yielding estimates consis­ tent with the theoretical framework. Only eight colleges (51 percent) show the expected positive reaction to increases in the statewide de­ mand for higher education, and only fourteen (54rperoeut) of the tui­ tion parameters have the expected negative sign. In addition, all demand and tuition coefficients which are statistically significant have the "wrong" sign; of course since only 9 of the 52 Estimates are significant some, and maybe most, of these instances are best regarded 162 Table 14 Estimated Impact of Statewide Demand, Tuition Rates, and Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment in Private Institutions, Assuming No Time Trend Effectsj R2 *= #9987 Impact of Financial Aid Programs on Enrollment^ (individual variables measured in thousands of 1970—71 dollars) State State Educ. Opportunity Nat'l Defense College Scholarships Tuition Grants Grants Student Loans Work—Study -0.375 (0.514) 1.660** (0.246) -0.909 (0.642) -0.157 (0 .5 2 2 ) 1.188 (0.724) Impact of Statewide Demand and Tuition Rates, plus Intercept Term, for Each Institution Institution 1. Adrian C. Statewide Demand (thousands!) 6 .5 6 7 Tuition Rate (1970-71 dollars) Intercept (5*499) -1.431 (1.098) 1670** (270) 2. Albion C. 1*637 (2.145) -0.322 (0.517) 1750** (497) 3. Alma C. -2.074 (2.750) 0.834 (1.015) 345 (893) 4. Andrews U. —7*551 (7*384) 1.462 (1.985) 1607** (662) 5* Aquinas C. -0.856 (2.195) -0.546 (0.450) 2153** (283) 6. Calvin C. 3*916 (6 .6 4 8 ) -2.166 (1.503) 4356** (422) 7* Detr. C. of Bus. -2.260* (1.143) 0.613 (0.582) 1164** (448) 8. Detr.Inst, of Tech. —14.806** (1*336) 0.671 (0.494) 5078 ** (339) 3-131 (3*897) -0.549 (1.767) 42 (536) 0.009 (4*207) -0 .0 1 9 (0.595) 1165** (305) 9. Or. Rap. Bapt. 10. Hillsdale C. 165 Table 14 (cont'd) Institution 11, Hope C. Statewide Demand (thousands) Tuition Hate 61970-71 dollars) 0 .2 0 0 Intercept 0.164 (2 .7 8 0 ) (0.494) 1491** (305) 12, Kalamazoo C, -1.535 (1.954) 0.109 (0 .9 1 0 ) 1399 (9 6 8 ) 15. Law.Inat. of Tech, -9.044** (2.236) 7 .8 9 1 ** (1.748) 391 (862) 14, Madonna C, -0.977 (1.394) -0.006 (1.018) 773 (512) 15. Marygrove C. - 6 .9 6 6 ** (1-196) 0.140 (0.411) 2620** (442) 16. Meroy C. - 6 .4 2 7 ** (2.510) 3.550** (1.166) -939 (660) 17. Men,—Palm. Inst. 0.462 (1.091) -0.071 (0.380) -3 (246) 18. Mich. Chr. J.C. -0.872 (0.930) -0 . 2 1 5 (0.587) 659 (585) 19- Nazareth C, -0.269 (1.733) -0.565 (0.684) 1065** (384) 20, North. Inst. 0.307 (1.229) 0.346 (0.414) 441 (376) 21. Olivet C. -0.013 (5.119) -O .1 2 7 (1.155) (387) 22, Owosso G. -0.033 (2.011) -0.341 (0.584) 498** (237) 25. Siena Hts, C. -6.330** (2.526) 1.402 (0.875) 1383** (2 4 0 ) 2 4 . Spr. Arbor C. -0.622 (3.060) -0.016 (0.826) 7 3 2 ** (332) 25 . Suomi C. -1.548 (3 .5 0 0 ) -0.094 (0 .7 1 2 ) 793** (268) - 1 5 .19 3 ** (4.120) 0.335 (0.528) 10,042** (709) 26, U. of Detr, 8 7 2 ** 164 Table 14 (cont*d) The figures within parenthesis below the estimated parameters are the standard errors of the estimates* * indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level* ** indicates the parameter is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level* a/ These variables are assumed to have a uniform effect on all insti­ tutions! see the section, "Econometric Model*" 165 as the products of random variation. Part of the explanation for the ahove results is found in the nature of the data. In many cases enrollment has been quite stable while statewide demand and tuition have shifted, resulting1 in a signi­ ficant intercept term and insignificant coefficients of demand and tuition variables. One suspects that the underlying relationship is not so much one of an independence of enrollment with respect to demand and tuition, but rather one of experienced administrators under finan­ cial pressure raising tuition at the maximum rate consistent with maintaining enrollments. Even when enrollment did vary substantially, the fact that demand and tuition were 6ften both rising in roughly similar patterns causes difficulties in attempts to estimate their separate impacts. However, it is possible that enrollments in many private institutions are not affected by changes in tuition or state­ wide demand due to things suobaas the high incomes of the parents of potential students or a special appeal based on religion or alumni identification. Additional observations from future time periods, when it is expected that statewide demand will grow at a slower rate while cost pressures continue to press tuition rates higher, should be especially valuable in identifying and quantifying causal relation­ ships within the private sector. There is a danger, of course, in dismissing all "unexpected" co­ efficients as statistical perturbations. As the demand for higher edu­ cation in general grows, the demand for the programs, sometimes rather unique, offered by some of the private institutions may fall. The results in Table 14 would Indicate that such may be the case for insti­ tutes of technology and Catholic-affiliated institutions such as 166 Aquinas, Madonna e Marygrove, Mercy, Nazareth, and Siena Heights Colleges and the University of Detroit* Tuition and enrollment might rise si­ multaneously because of some influence such as a new program, but the author does not know of any such change at either the Lawrence Insti­ tute of Technology or Mercy College which would explain their coeffi­ cients* The State Tuition Grant program has a larger impact on private college enrollments than any other aid program, as one would expect given its design* Its estimated impact was essentially identical, 1*681 as compared to 1*660, when the model included a time trend vari­ able for each institution* Thus, the program's significance is not likely to be an artifact of the model's specification* Two of the remaining programs have coefficients which exceed their standard errors in absolute magnitude— CWS with a positive impact and EOG with a nega^tive influence* We will now turn to a more detailed discussion of the conclusions which can be drawn from these statistical results* Conclusions Aggregate demand and tuition It seems quite clear that enrollments in public institutions have tended to rise as statewide demand for higher education has grown and to fall as tuition charges have increased* The net effect, of course, has been one of large gains in enrollment, but this should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that the burden of tuition has ap­ parently discouraged some potential studentb * The impact of tuition appears to vary a great deal, as one would expect given the varying 167 size and character of the colleges. A highly selective institution, such as the University of Michigan, can maintain desired growth despite increases in student charges, while other large universities, such as Central Mihhigan, Eastern Michigan and Michigan State, apparently lost ahout twelve to eighteen students for each one dollar rise in tuition.^ Putting this another way, the $ 6 5 increase in tuition (in 1970 dollars) at Central over this six year period discouraged approximately 760 students, the $51 at Eastern about 820 students, and the $224 at Michi­ gan State about 4000 students. It is important to note, however, that this model is limited to identifying the impact on total enrollment in a particular institution. Thus, students discouraged from attending a given institution might attend another college-—one cannot add the tuition coefficients to obtain a valid estimate of the effect of a uniform increase in tuition across a set of institutions. The public two-year colleges exhibit a similar range of variation. As noted earlier, the demand and tuition coefficients estimated for the public two-year sector are slightly less likely to be statisti­ cally significant than those calculated for the public four-year sec­ tor. Several possible reasons can be postulated. Statewide demand may be the appropriate demand factor for four-year colleges not domi­ nated by commuting students, but only a crude proxy for the demand relevant to a two-year college drawing almost exclusively from the local community. After identifying the trends in population and income in each community containing a public two-year college, one could then ^This may partly reflect institutions to lower admission i.e., they could have increased tuition by admitting applicants an unwillingness on the part of these standards below some given thresholds, their enrollments despite increases in below normal standards but chose not to. 168 adjust the demand factor to better reflect the local demand. Another factor, closely related to the first, may be that the mobile student attracted to four—year Institutions is much more likely to respond to small variations in tuition— i.e., attend Eastern rather than Michigan State if the latter raises its tuition more— than is the two-year college's community student— whose essential choice is one of attending the local college or not attending any college. Finally, if the com­ munity college sector contains many students whose first preference is attendance at a four-year institution but find themselves unable to qualify for or afford admission to such a college, then enrollment In public two-year colleges would be largely a function of the policy variables set in the four-year colleges— none of which are included here. The more sophisticated modelB which would allow such hypotheses to be testfcddwere not formulated intthis study, largely because of the limited data but also because of time and resource constraints. For the reasons outlined in the previous section of this ohapter, it is difficult to say anything based on this analysis about the impact of statewide demand and tuition on enrollments in private institutions. Intuitively, one suspects that the slow growth in enrollments while tuition rates soared was possible only because demand also grew rapidly. However, the limited nature of the data now available does not allow either confirmation or rejection of such a hypothesis. Michigan student aid programs The evidence does seem sufficient to warrant a firm conclusion that the Tuition Grant program designed to stimulate enrollments in private colleges is performing as planned. Based on the estimate 169 derived here, one student who would not otherwise have done so has been stimulated to attend a private college for each $600 awarddd in the Tuition Grant program. If this is correct , the $5 million awarded in 1 9 7 0 -7 1 were responsible for increasing private college enrollments by about 8300 students over what would have been the case if all other factors were constant while Tuition Grant awards were reduced to zero. In 1970-71 the state appropriated $330 million in operating funds to public institutions containing 343 thousand students, a ratio of about $ 9 6 0 per student— indicating that the Tuition Grant program is not prohibitively expensive and may even save the Btate a small amount of money. The comparison is very crude, of course, ignoring such factors as physical pla&t costs in the public sector, on the one hand, and the mix of graduate and undergraduate students contained in the public figure, on the other hand. The other state—sponsored program, State Scholarships, also ap­ pears to have been effective but in a very uneven fashion. Host of the funds, 67 percent in 1 9 7 0 -7 1 * were spent by students attending public four-year institutions. Using the estimate in Table 12. it would appear that the average public four-year college has gained one additional student for each $230 in Scholarship funds awarded to its Btudents; for the seotor as a whole, the result indicates that about 18,000 students enrolled in 1970—71 due to the Scholarship program. Since students attending public two-year colleges receive only a minis­ cule proportion ( 4 percent in 1 9 7 0 — 7 1 ) of these awards, it is not sur­ prising that the program does not have a significant impact on enroll­ ments in these institutions. The remainder of the funds go to students in private colleges; the model did not detect any tendency for these 170 students to be additions beyond the numbers who would have attended in the absence of the program* In summary, the State Scholarship program which is designed to impact high achieving, needy students almost in­ variably benefits students in four-year institutions; in the case of those students attending public institutions there is strong evidence that they would not have enrolled in the absence of the award. The students receiving State Scholarships apparently have a personal pre­ ference for four—year programs and institutions which they can make operative once they receive the sholarship. If such a preference is widespread, a shift from institutional funding to individual vouchers would have a major impact on the relative importance of two-year and four-year institutions. Federal student aid programs Eircept for a single exception in one sector, there is little evidence that federal student aid is resulting in enrollments above what they would otherwise be. One of the major differences, mentioned earlier, between federal and state aid programs is that the former rely on colleges to identify recipients while the latter award funds directly to the target group. Thus, these results imply that financial aid officers in the colleges are primarily making awards to students who would remain in attendance without benefit of such aid. The exception is the NDSL program in the public two-year colleges; in both the re­ gression reported in Table 13 and the original run of the complete model (containing time trend variables) the program is estimated to have had a strong impact. If the indicated leverage of one additional student per $63 is correct (it seems high), the $719*000 in NDSL funds 171 distributed in I9 7 O—71 by public two-year colleges were responsible for adding about 11,000 students to the enrollment in this sector. There is some indication that the CWS program is having a positive impact on enrollments in the public two—year and private colleges, but the evidence is statistically weak (significant at the 0 * 1 9 and 0.11 levels, respectively). Remembering the preference for four—year institutions that seemed to be revealed by the State Scholarship pro­ gram, it may be meaningful that the programs associated with an in­ crease in enrollments in public two^rear colleges are those tied to the college. In other words, it is possible that the only student aid programs which can be expected to cause large increases in enrollments in community colleges are programs which give fundB to the colleges which then distribute grants to their students; programs which award grants directly to students would impact four—year colleges, assuming that the students prefer such institutions and that the grants enable students to realize their first preference. One cannot disregard the tendency for the EOG program to have an estimated negative impact on total college enrollment. The stat let ieal significance of the negative parameters for the three sectors, 0.66, 0.22 and 0.16, are not strong; one is tempted to dismiss them as the products of random chance, which might well be the case. However, if each is regarded as an independent estimate, the probability that such results would be obtained when EOG funds had no effect would be about 9*02, the product of the three estimates (the resulting probability would be even smaller if one assumed the "true” effect of EOG funds is positive). It does not seem unwarranted to speculate as to the circum­ stances which would give rise to a negative result. 172 Since the model is limited to a measure of impact in terms of total enrollment, a negative result might be a consequence of actions of either those directly involved in the EOG program or of potential students only indirectly affected by EOG funds* We would expect a zero coefficient if EOG money was being awarded to students who would otherwise have attended the college* A negative value would result if the students attracted by EOG funds repelled other students in even greater numbers; the fact that minority students are disproportionately represented among the economically disadvantaged and the current con­ troversy surrounding integration of primary and secondary schools lend credence to this possibility. A different, but similar, phenomenon would be one in which the "neax^-poor" perceive those institutions with the most EOG funds as giving all of their aid money to the "poor”— so the "near-poor" attend other institutions where they expect to have a better chance of receiving aid. Another possibility is that if colleges look upon the economically disadvantaged student as less desirable than others, those institutions experiencing the most difficulty in achieving their desired enrollment may be the ones most likely to expend their allotted EOG funds and to seek more* Lastly, if the cost per student with EOG aid exceeds the cost per non—poor student because of the additional services required, an institution with a fixed budget from non—student sources would tend to admit fewer students as the mix shifted in favor of those receiving EOG funds— all other things being equal* Finally, since these results pertaining to federal student aid programs are inconsistent with the stated aim of these programs (to give access to higher education to people who could not otherwise 173 enroll) and thus have major policy implications, it is important to explore in more detail the possible weaknesses of* this analytic frame­ work. The key question is, "Could federal student aid funds be in­ creasing enrollment of poor students in such a way that this analysis would not detect the increase?" The reader will recall that this issue arose earlier in the context of the public four—year institutions. The conclusion was that in two institutions, the University of Michigan and Western Michigan University, there were good reasons for believing that nonpoor potential students would be "bumped out" by economically disadvantaged students due to an enrollment ceiling. Assuming that some of the nonpoor enroll elsewhere, enrollment in higher education would increase but not be detected by this model (see footnote 9 fdr an explanation of an attempt at detection which failed). Is it possi­ ble that such a phenomenon is widespread? As mentioned previously, bumping is not likely to have been com­ mon in either the public two-year colleges or the private institutions. The commitment of the public two-year sector to provide a place for all who can pay the required tuition, from private or student aid funds, appears sufficiently strong that bumping is rate. In addition, the state appropriation to these colleges is based on an enrollment formu­ la bo additional students automatically attract more funds, i.e., the per student appropriation does not decrease if the institution* s enroll­ ment exceeds the level estimated by the state. In the case of the private Bector, most colleges were concerned that their rapidly rising tuition levels would make it impossible for them to maintain their enrollments or grow at a slow pace; it seems improbable that many col­ leges were refusing admission to well-to-do, academically qualified 174 applicants. Thus, the author feels quite confident that little or no bumping was taking1place in the public two-year and private sectors 9 with the possible exception of a few private colleges, and that the estimated parameters for the federal student aid programs are not -under—estimates due to such a phenomenon. The case of the public four-year colleges (other than the Uni­ versity of Michigan and Western Michigan University) may be more com­ plex. The demand for higher education was growing very fast over the period analyzed, as were most of these institutions. The state legis­ lature appropriated a given amount of fluids to each college based on an expected enrollment, creating a situation where the colleges con­ ceivably felt no incentive to enroll additional students after they had met the state’s "expectation." However, the non—zero coefficients estimated for the statewide demand and tuition variables indicate that if rationing was occurring, it must have been carried out by indivi­ duals very cognizant of the natural forces at work. Adding up the above facts on the public four-year colleges, we can state the following propositions. If enrollment ceilings were set higher in years when statewide demand was increasing faster (ceteris paribus), if tuitions were raised more in years when enrollment ceilings were increased less (ceteris paribus), if needy students receiving federal aid were admitted in such a manner that their admission did not push total enrollment over the ceiling, and if admissions of aca­ demically qualified students without aid were not permitted once the ceiling had been reached ( and it must have been reached, in general), then the pattern of estimated coefficients presented in this chapter would appear and bumping would be occurring, i.e., enrollment in higher 175 education would be Increasing due to increases In student aid but this model would not detect it* Each must Judge for himself the probability of the above, at least until a "model of bumping" is hypothesized which is empirically testable* The author’s Judgement is that while the above is plausible, es­ pecially if limited to a few cases, the simpler hypothesis that most of these institutions were responding to market forces in the manner outlined in the theoretical model is a more probable explanation* This implies9 of course, that the conclusion that federal student aid did not have a significant impact on enrollment is substantially correct, although admitting the possibility of some downward bias due to bumping* Chapter VT The Financial Requirement a Of Michigan Higher Education This chapter has two major objectives, the first of which is to complete the;rjnodellng effort required for an evaluation of the impli­ cations of alternative financing proposals for Michigan higher educa­ tion, Reviewing briefly, the development of this model began in Chapter XV with an analysis of some of the major factors influencing the level of enrollments, such as the size of the college—age popula­ tion and economic conditions. Based largely on this analysis, the level of enrollments was forecast by sector assuming several different policies, Bp to that point (the end of Chapter IV) two very important policy variables, tuition and student aid, had not entered into the analysis in explicit fashion, primarily due to the lack of data for a sufficient number of years. This omission was remedied in Chapter V by means of an econometric model using more detailed (institutional) data available for a shorter period than was the case in Chapter XV, The results provided strong evidence that increases in tuition have a major impact on enrollment decisions in the public four-year sector and a lesser impact in the public two-year sector, but an inconclusive effect in private institutions. The Michigan student aid programs seemed to be influencing the enrollment decisions of the recipients, but federal programs showed little or no tendency to do so. Thus, the research contained in Chapters IV and V provides a firm basiB fox evaluating the impacts of alternative policies on enrollments. The final element needed to complete the model is a system of linkages between student enrollments, the financial requirements of 176 177 higher education, and the incidence of the costs. A conceptual frame­ work is presented in the first section of this chapter, and the second section contains a quantitative description of existing relationships which will serve as a base for susequent extrapolations and modifies** tions of policy. The second major objective of this chapter is to evaluate six alternative financing proposals. Extensive use is made of the model described above, of course, but the choice of the alternatives also reflects the differences in philosophy discussed in Chapter XII* The six alternatives, to be taken up in the third section, are: a continu­ ation of present patterns of support assuming 1) a rather conservative forecast of enrollments which provides a benchmark for the ensuing alternatives, 2) a larger forecast of enrollments consistent with the trends of the I9601a, 3) an increased student—faculty ratio, and 4) a decrease in the rate of increase in faculty salaries; and also 5) a vouchers policy which implies full-cost tuition and 6) a policy of increased federal aid in a pattern consistent to a great extent with existing grants. Although in some cases rather detailed data will be presented as back-up material for the figures used and as an aid to readers who wish to explore alternatives of their own choosing, It must be empha­ sized that the relationships presented here are not adequate for use in the appropriations process. This model is a useful tool for ex­ ploring basic policy questions and may provide a base of ideas from which a more detailed analysis might proceed, but the actual allocation of funds should be based upon a framework which is more cognizant of institutional differences with respect to student body, faculty, 178 community, and programs* Conceptual Framework The financial requirements model contains several sequential stepb, illustrated in Figure 4» Before discussing the detail, however, some general comments are !appropriate. The model developed and used in this study is quite simple in most respects. Capital fund require­ ments, i.e., monies needed for the construction and furnishing of fa­ cilities, are entirely excluded from consideration. Of the remaining (operating) funds recorded by universities and oolleges the auxiliary fund is also omitted. This portion of the budget, consisting primarily of food and housing services supplied by the college, is usually man** aged so as to be self—liquidating and is thus of little concern in most state and federal policy deliberations. The analysis focuses on 1) the general fund, those dollars necessary for maintaining the in­ structional program of the institution (often including some allowance for the time which faculty spend in complementary activities, such as research and college governance); 2) the restricted fund, primarily grants and contracts from a variety of sources which require rather specific activities and outputs as a condition of their receipt; and 3) student aid funds, which may or may not pass through the restricted fund of colleges on their way from state and federal treasuries to studentb . The instructional component will be dealt with in the grea­ test detail. For example, student—faculty ratios and faculty salaries will be explicit, but the number of other personnel and the quantity of physical supplies such as coal or paper will not; be identified. The set of priorities outlined above reflects the degree to which Dependent Variables Major Controlled (Policy) Variables 4— Student Exogenous Factors a id (C h ,V .)|* {Aggregate demand factors(Ch.XV) Headcount Enrollment ■^Tuition & feea(Ch.V)} SCH per Btudent, i . e . , re la tiv e importance o f fu ll-tim e and p a rttim e students ! Student C redit Hour (SCH) Production SCH per PTE fa c u lty , ) i . e . , stu d en t-facu ity r a t io / {Proportionate increase Full-tfim e Equivalent (FPE) Faculty A ll Non-Faculty Inputs A Faculty compensation}- ■{Price index Expenditures fo r Faculty Compensation Society1s f e lt need fo r R & Expenditures fo r NonFaculty Inputs d }, Research & Development Expenditures:____ Fin ancial Requirements fo r In s tru c tio n Financing policy(C h.*s I I & I I l ) [ Student Gross T u itio n & Fees Governmental Costs: Local State Federal Costs Home by Others Figure 4 Schematic Representation o f the Fin ancial Requirements Model fo r Each Sector 1Q0 elements are the subject of discussion and dispute in the policy pro­ cess* Most of the components of the model outlined in Figure 4 will be discussed in some detail in the next section, but a quick overview is probably useful before examining the data. The first dependent variable, headcount enrollment, is computed on the basis of the work done in Chapters IV and V. The next step is to convert the heteroge­ neous variable "students," into a more standardized measure, "student credit hours (SCH)," commonly used in higher education administration. Having done this, one can then determine the number of faculty neededbased on the important policy variable, the student—faculty ratio— also the need for other inputs. and After a decision is made on the next policy variable, faculty compensation, total expenditures for faculty compensation can be computed. Following the addition of expenditures for non—faculty inputs and for research and development programs, the total costs are allocated to participants on the basis of the assumed financing policy. These policies have their origins in the history and goals discussed in Chapters II and III. Finally, the portion of t the costs borne by students is reflected in tuition charges, and one must be careful to add student aid costs to the direct educational costs supported by governmental units. It may be surprising to some readers that we still have not touched upon the largest cost item, despite the fact that all variables usually considered in the policy process have been noted. entry is the value of the students* time. The omitted If the studentb were not in school, most could presumably be employed at jobs which would yield earnings well—above what they earn as students; the difference is their 181 opportunity cost, which will "be estimated in this analysis. As will soon beoome evident, it is a major item whose almost total omission from policy discussions is completely unwarranted. We will now turn to a brief consideration of the data which forms the foundation from which alternative financial requirements for the future will be calculated. The order of presentation will follow that of the overview, which is also that of Figure 4 reading from top to bottom. Ease Financial Requirements Data The development of even the rather simple statistical descrip­ tion of Michigan higher education which follows was a tedious, timeconsuming task— despite the fact that the author enjoyed access to data associated with a position in state government and the assistance of willing, competent state employees. Even recognizing the qualifi­ cations stated earlier in this chapter in relation to the model, it would appear that this framework is in many respects an improvement over that used in many analyses of higher education budgets. Quite clearly there is a tremendous need for better information systems on the inputs and outputs of higher education. Most of the more important base data relating to the financial requirements of Michigan higher education are summarized in Table 15The commitment of resources is indeed large; about $1710 million in instruction and $140 million in research and development, yielding a total of $1850 million in 19 6 9 —70. A substantial majority of these costs, $1240 million, is associated with the public four-year sector. Table 15 Base Bata R elating to the T o ta l Fin ancial Requirements of Michigan Higher Education by Type o f In s titu tio n , 1969“ 70 Except Where Noted Otherwise T o tal 1 / Gash Outlay Students T o tal 1 / Cash Outlay 2 / Gross T u itio n & Fees Governmental: T o tal 4/ Local State Federal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year 1097.8 388.7 358.6 807.2 98.1 116.8 287.1 23.1 26.1 262.9 249.3 13.6 68.4 19.7 42.7 6.0 27.7 3.1 — Other 94.6 P rivate A ll In s titu tio n s 255.8 75.0 1712.2 222.6 41.8 52.7 1316.9 163.0 195.6 11.3 342.6 _ 4.1 7.2 19.7 296.1 26.8 21.9 52.7 558.3 Research & Development Funds (m il. 0) 139.3 — 11/ — 11/ 139.3 A ll Funds: Cash Outlay (m il. $) 6 / 528.0 94.6 75.0 697.6 20.8 11.9 35.8 21.1 3.3 1.4 7.4 3.5 550 610 n .a . n .a . Ave. T u itio n per Student C redit Hour(SCH) (# ) jJ Ave. Student Aid per SCH ($ ) 8 / Ave. SCH per Full-Tim e Equivalent(FTE) Faculty %j Table 15 (cont*d) Publio Four-Year Ave, K?E Faculty Compensation (1970-71 $) 10/ 15,600 Public Two-Year 12,900 Private n ,a . All Institutions n .a , n .a . indicates "not availab le" jj 2/ Includes the opportunity cost to students as w e ll as actual cash outlays. Students cash o u tlay is defined as gross tu itio n and fees minus a l l student aid funds from s tate and fe d e ra l sources. 3 / Receipts o f tu itio n and fees as recorded by the in s titu tio n s in th e ir fin a n c ia l rep o rts. jj Includes grants to both in s titu tio n s and students, $/ Includes the overhead portion wiiich is u su ally placed in the "general fund" portion o f fin a n c ia l rep o rts. 6 / In s tru c tio n a l plus researoh and development cash outlay costs; note th a t a u x ilia ry funds, A ic h include such things as food service and dorm itory costs, are not included. ]J Gross tu itio n and fees divided ty to ta l studentc re d it hours(SCH). 8 / T o tal studentaid funds from state andfe d e ra lsources divided by to ta l student c re d it hours (SCH). %f See Tables 16and 17 fo r more d e ta il, 10/ See Tables 18 and 19 fo r more d e ta il. 11 / These fig ures are probably p o s itiv e but extremely small re la tiv e to the research and development funds awarded to th e c p u ilio foui.vyear in s titu tio n s . The fig u res are assumed to be zero throughout the analysis which fo llo w s. Sources! Audited fin a n c ia l reportB fo r 1969-70. In s titu tio n a l Budget Requests fo r F is c a l Year 1971-72, Bureau o f the Budget, State o f Michigan. Higher Education General Inform ation Survey data. Student a id data is from ippendix D» 184 Note that the portion of the funds represented by cash outlays, which receives nearly all the attention, iB approximately $ 7 0 0 million, only about 30 percent of the total cost to society. Tuition charges and student aid awards The pattern of average tuition per student credit hour (SCH) is consistent with prior expectations— the public two-year colleges axe charging the least while the private colleges have the highest fees with the public four—year institutions falling between the other two. But note that the distribution of student aid funds tends to reduce these differences. Whereas the "before student aid" tuition per SCH at public two-year colleges is $9 less than that charged by public four-year institutions and $ 2 4 less than the tuition of private col­ leges, the differences drop to $7 end $18, respectively, when student aid awards are considered. Similarly, private institutions charge tuitions which exceed those in the public foui>-year sector by $ 1 5 per SCH, but the differential decreases to $11 when student aid is taken Into account. Obviously, comparisons of student charges which ignore the ability of the institution and its students to attract outside financial aid may lead to incorrect conclusions with respect to student costs. It is important to remember that the above figures are averages and not actual charges or awards. An institution may, and often does, choose to charge certain groups, such as graduate students and out-ofstate students, more than others and to concentrate the available student aid among the lower—income students. 185 Student credit hours per headcount student The SCH is often a useful standard of comparison across institu­ tions, as is evident in our discussion of tuition rates and student aid. We will continue to use it in several different contexts, so it is important that we explore the link between headcount enrollment and the production of SCH. A full-time undergraduate student is usually- assumed to enroll for 51 (semester) SCH in a two— semester academic year and a graduate student for 24 SCH. Dividing the total number of SCH by the appropriate one of the above factors yields a quantity defined as "full-time equivalent** (FTE) enrollment. Headcount enroll­ ment will usually exceed ETE enrollment due to the presence of parttime students, but the reverse does occur in some institutions where nearly all of the students are full-time and heavy coursework loads are common. Records for 1969—70 in Michigan higher education reveal a varied pattern of enrollment. ^ The part-time student is an important factor in public community colleges, where only 1900 SCH were produced per 100 students enrolled in the fall term. Attrition following the fall term, of course, is partly responsible for the difference between 1 9 0 0 SCH and the 5100 SCH defined as a full-time load for one academic year. In the public four-year sector the comparable figure for undergraduates was 2960 and for graduates 1880 SCH. It is clear that there are fewer part-time students at the undergraduate level in public four—year ^All SCH figures are semester credit hours; quarter credit hours were multiplied by .6 6 6 6 6 7 to convert them to a semester basis. The SCH figures are from Institutional Budget Requests for Fiscal Tear 1971—72, Bureau of the Budget, State of Michigan. The headcount fig­ ures are from the Higher Education General Information Survey(HBGIS) for Fall 1 9 6 9 , Higher Education Planning and Coordination Services, State of Michigan. 186 institutions. The small difference between the observed figure of 2960 SCH and 3100 could easily be explained by attrition following the fall term, i.e., the typical undergraduate student is probably carry­ ing a full-time load of 15—16 credit hours per term. available on SCH produced in private institutions. No data were Since these insti­ tutions resemble those in the public four-year sector more than those in the public two-year sector, it will be assumed that the average undergraduate enrolls for 30 SCH and the average graduate for 19 SCH. Student—faculty ratios The ratios of SCH to ETE faculty reported in Table 15 are summary figures which will be used as benchmarks in subsequent analysis. Xn this narrow sense, the two figures (550 SCH per ETE faculty in the public four-year institutions and 610 in the public two-year sector) provide an adequate base for all of the analysis in Chapters VI and VII. However, there is a great deal of variation in student—faculty ratios among institutions and programs. More detailed data are pre­ sented in Tables 1$ and 17 which have important policy implications if particular programs or types of institutions are expected to expand or contract at a disproportionate rate. Turning first to the public two-year colleges, the four program areas delineated in Table 16 are specified by the Michigan Bureau of the Budget, and it seems reasonable to assume that their definition is quite consistent in all of the institutions. The smallest size category contains 10 colleges which produce about 8 percent of the SCH, the middle category contains 15 institutions producing approximately 46 percent of the SCH, and the largest size category involves 4 Table 16 Student Credit Hours per Full-Time Equivalent Faculty by Program and Size of Institution in Michigan Public Two-Year Colleges, 1969-70, 1970-71 Size of Institution (Student Credit Hours) liberal Arts Programs Business Voc-Tech — — — Health All Credit Courses — — — . 0-29,999 1969-70 565 ( 66) 425 (106) 419 (141) 302 (139) 495 (30) 1970-71 552 (8 1 ) 421 ( 175) 423 ( 120) 362 ( 125) 491 ( 24) 602 613 514 388 577 ( 66) (163) (215) (155) (55) 605 (78) 617 (132) 530 (145) 322 (162) 574 (54) 1969-70 776 (1 4 ) 747 (5 6 ) 685 ( 92) 257 (7 5 ) 72 6 (56) 1970-71 787 795 644 430 734 (-) (-) (143) (252) (6 3 ) 30,000-164,999 1969-70 1970-71 165,000 and Over Table 16 (cont'd) Size o f In s titu tio n (Student C redit Hours) L ib e ra l Arts Pro grama Business Voc-Tech Health A ll C redit Coursef A ll In s titu tio n s 1969-70 644 (9 6) 636 (165) 567 ( 191) 346 ( 150) 610 ( 94) 1970-71 659 (108) 651 (168) 562 552 (186) 612 (102) (159) The fig u res w ith in parentheses are the standard deviations associated w ith the mean fig u re immediately above them. The standard deviations are computed from in s titu tio n a l averages, not from data fo r in d iv i­ dual fa c u lty . Source: In s titu tio n a l Budget Requests fo r F is c a l Year 1971-72, Bureau o f the Budget, State o f Michigan. Table 17 Student C redit Hours per Full-Tim e Equivalent Faculty by Program and Undergraduate-Graduate Composition o f In s titu tio n in Michigan Public Four-Year Colleges, 1970-71 Programs A rts & Sciences Education Business Engineering Percentage o f Graduate Students in the In s titu tio n (Headcount) 0 -12.4 25.0 and Over 12.5-24.9 663 ( 70) 658 564 ( 137) 698 ( 134) 393 ( 54) 607 (36) 631 ( 47) 830 (107) 581 (79) 602 (102) 677 742 (147) 710 (125) 298 (3 6) 331 (56) 201 (81) 201 209 (one in s titu tio n ) 414 (129) 402 (128) 415 (one in s titu tio n ) 282 (59) 314 (80) 497 (61) 550 (84) (25) (6 2) 340 (one in s titu tio n ) Human Medicine Other Graduate & F irs t P rof. Other A ll C redit Courses 456 ( 59) 589 ( 60) A ll In s t it i 637 (42) (8 1) The figures w ith in parentheses are the standard deviations associated w ith the mean fig u re immediately above them. The standard deviations are computed from in s titu tio n a l averages, not from data fo r in d iv i­ dual faculty# 190 Table 17 (cont*d) Source: Institutional Budget Bequests for Fiscal Year 1971—72# Bureau of the Budget 9 State of Michigan. 191 colleges producing about 46 percent of the SCH. Despite the aggregate nature of the data, several conclusions about the student—faculty ratio in public two-year colleges seem war­ ranted. Larger institutions tend to exhibit larger student—faculty ratios, but the magnitude of the difference varies a great deal among programs. Considering all credit courses, large institutions produce about 49 percent more SCH per PTE faculty than the small institutions. At least part of the reason for the relatively constant student-faculty ratio in the health programs probably lies in the control which the health professions exert over the instruction of prospective profes­ sionals. Focusing on programs for a moment, the averages for all in­ stitutions indicate that an FEE faculty member in liberal arts or business is likely to produce about 14 percent more SCH than his coun­ terpart in health, but the difference varies a great deal by size of institution. E±cept in small institutions, the production of SCH per FEE faculty in the liberal arts is essentially identical to that in the business program. Shifting to the public four-year sector and Table 17* one would ordinarily assume that the addition of an undergraduate—graduate dis­ tinction would imply that the analysis of student-faculty ratios must now contain three dimensions in order to be consistent with the pre­ vious discussion. The three dimensions would recognize differences in programs, size, and undergraduate—graduate mix. However, in the case of Michigan the size of the student body in public four-year institu­ tions is so highly correlated with undergraduate—graduate mix that it is impossible to ascertain their separate effects without a much more detailed and sophisticated analysis than is developed in this 192 chapter* 2 The dimensions which will be used in the presentation of the data are percentage of graduate students and program categories; the reader should recall, however, that the former grouping could also be regarded as essentially a size classification* 5 The figures in Table 17 must be interpreted even more cautiously than those presented for the public two-year institutions* In this case the 1969—70 data were so incomplete as to be useless, leaving 2 If one groups the institutions, using fall 1970 headcount enrollment figures, into three size groupings of 0—14,999* 1 5 ,0 0 0 — 2 9 ,9 9 9 , and 3 0 ,0 0 0 and over by total enrollment and then repeats the grouping using a criteria of 0—12*4, 1 2 *5— 2 4 *9 , and 2 5 * 0 and over per­ cent graduate students, he obtains identical groups with a single ex­ ception* The exception is Oakland University which is in the 0—14,999 size class, but in the 1 2 *5 — 2 4 * 9 percent graduate student category; this unique case is probably partly explained by noting that until very recently Oakland University was a branch campus of Michigan State Uni— verpitjr, an institution falling in the largest size class and the greatest percentage of graduate students category* 3 There are many possible reasons for the linkage between size and graduate study* One is that the difference between undergraduate and graduate tuition is not large enough to reflect the actual differ­ ences in costs; one way the necessary resources for a graduate program can be obtained is by attaining sufficient size in the undergraduate program to attain economies of scale so that revenues per undergraduate comparable to those of 6ther institutions will yield a surplus* Simi­ larly, if state appropriations are made without a realistic differential for undergraduate and graduate students, realizing economies of scale in the undergraduate program is a conceivable method of freeing re­ sources for the more expensive graduate program* Another possible cause for the observed relationship is that the presence of graduate students creates, nearly by definition, a pool of relatively inexpen­ sive potential instructors of undergraduates. A large undergraduate student body is therefore complementary to a large number of graduate students— the undergraduates reoeive instruction, the graduates earn enough to support themselves, and the institution lowers per student costs in the undergraduate program* One more reason, which does not exhaust the possibilities, is that graduate education is specialized education which requires a specialized faculty (even within depart­ ments)* Such a faculty can be attained over time only with increases in the Bize of the faculty which can be justified only by increases in the number of students* 193 only one set of observations. Another difficulty is that the public four-year institutions submit their budget requests to the State of Michigan using colleges, as defined by each institution, as the most detailed breakdown. There is a great deal of variation in the size and composition of the college—units; the author has attempted to be careful and consistent in the necessary decisions leading to the pro­ grams presented in Table 17, but many problems remain, most of which are insurmountable given the present data base. Finally, note that the percent of graduate students refers to the composition of the entire institution, not to each program. Remembering the problems Just noted and observing that large standard deviations are associated with the student-faculty ratios, only a few generalizations seem warranted. The business curriculum consistently shows a high student-faculty ratio; engineering, medicine, and the graduate and first professional programs isolated as a group are characterized by a low ratio. There is no clear tendency for the student-faculty ratio to rise or fall when size and percentage of graduate students increase simultaneously. A hypothesis that increa­ sing the percentage of graduate students in the arts and sciences, education, or business has less of a tendency to decrease the over-all student-faculty ratio than does an increase in some other program would be consistent with this data, but not necessarily true. No data on SCH and FTE faculty in the private sector exist which are comparable to those available for public institutions. 194 Faculty compensation The situation with respect to faculty compensation Is much like that of student—faoulty ratios* The two summary figures In Table 15 can be appreciated only in the context of the more detailed data in Tables 18 and 19, whose format is analogous to that In Tables 16 and 17* The compensation figures do Include fringe benefits. Even a quick glance at the standard deviations of the figures for the public two-year sector in Table 18 should provide sufficient evidence to indicate that differences in faculty compensation must be analyzed with extreme caution, i.e., in most cases the differences could easily be explained merely by random variation in the data rather than by underlying causal relationships. However, there does appear to be a consistent tendency for the institutions in the smallest grou­ ping to have a lower rate of compensation and for vocational—technical faculty to receive a higher—than—average compensation while healthrelated faculty receive a 1ower~than—average compensation. One of the problems associated with using institutional averages is vividly illustrated in Table 18 in the "165,000 and Over" class of institutions. Note that the mean compensation appears to have fallen in both the liberal arts and vocational—technical programs from 1 9 *>9 70 to 1970—71* A check of the components showed that the drop occurred in one college, Macomb, where both the liberal arts and vocationaltechnical faculties expanded a great deal, 20 and 43 percent, respec­ tively. Although one cannot be sure without more detailed data, the apparent reason::for the decrease in average compensation is that a great many new people were added at salaries lower than the 1969—70 average— which is not unusual since most colleges reward experienced Table 18 Mean Full-Tim e Equivalent Faculty Compensation by Program and Size of In s titu tio n in Michigan Public TwoYear Colleges, 1969-70, 1970-71 Size o f In s titu tio n (Student C redit Hours) L ib e ra l Arts Programs Business Voc^Pech Health A ll Credit Courses 0-29,999 1969-70 10,860 (1 ,940) 9,140 ( 1, 840) 10,200 (1 ,5 8 0 ) 8,710 (640) 10,350 ( 1, 690) 1970-71 11,090 (1 ,190) 10,590 ( 1, 430) 11,450 (1,860) 9,540 (980) 10,950 ( 1, 200) 1969-70 12,170 (1,180) 12,560 (2,080) 14,040 (3 ,7 3 0 ) 11,670 (1,390) 12,400 (1 ,3 6 0 ) 1970-71 13,030 (1,380) 13,100 (1,510) 14,810 (2 ,880) 12,610 (1,400) 13,260 (1,420) 1969-70 13,090 (530) 11,110 (2 ,4 5 0 ) 14,350 ( 2, 520) 11,890 (2 ,4 4 0 ) 13,020 (260) 1970-71 12,880 12,940 ( 2, 290) 13,130 (560) 13,590 (3 ,230) 12,960 (460) 30,000-164,999 165,000 and Over (990) Table 18 (cont*d) Size o f In s titu tio n (Student C redit Hours) L ib e rtil A rts Programs Business Voc-Tech Health A ll C redit Courses A ll In s titu tio n s 1969-70 12,430 (v r > o ) 11,590 ( 2, 460) 13,650 ( 3, 250)= 11J290 (2 ,0 5 0 ) 12,450 (1 ,3 4 0 ) 1970-71 12,7E)0 12,740 ( 1, 970) 13,720 (2,480) 12,370 (2,280) 12,900 (1,350) ( 1, 350) The fig u res w ith in parentheses are the standard deviations associated w ith the mean fig u re immediately above them. The standard deviations are computed from in s titu tio n a l averages, not from data fo r in d iv i­ dual fa c u lty . Source: In s titu tio n a l Budget Requests fo r F is c a l Year 1971-72, Bureau of the Budget, State o f Michigan. Table 19 Mean Pull-Time Equivalent Faculty Compensation by Program and Bndergraduate-Graduate Composition of Institution in Michigan Public Fou:>-Year Colleges, 1970-71 Programs Arts & Sciences Percentage of Graduate Students in the Institution (Headcount} 0-12.4 25.0 and Over 12,5-24.9 12,810 ( 1. 970) 14,550 Education All Institutions ( 510) 15,710 (1,680) 14,940 ( 1. 740) 12,740 ( 670) 14,660 ( 210) 15,200 (1 ,2 2 0 ) 14,750 (1,080) Business 13,020 (2 ,6 9 0 ) 15,270 (650) 18,340 (2 ,6 4 0 ) 15,970 ( 3, 090) Engineering 14,020 (2 ,5 8 0 ) 16,400 18,310 (610) 16,750 (2 ,6 0 0 ) 21,100 (820) 21,100 (820) 19,960 (4 ,0 8 0 ) 19,470 (4 ,2 0 0 ) (one institution) Human Medicine Other Graduate & First Prof. - 14,510 (one institution) Other 13,210 (1,870) 15,180 ( 130) 15,990= (1 ,7 4 0 ) 15,700 (1,720) All Credit Courses 13,220 (1 ,9 8 0 ) 14,660 (220) 16,760 (1 ,410) 15,640 (1,900) The figures within parentheses are the standard deviations associated with the mean figure immediately above them# The standard deviations are computed from institutional averages, not from data for indivi­ dual faculty. 196 Table 19 (cont *d) Source: Institutional Budget Requests for Fiscal Year 1 9 7 1 - 7 2 , Bureau of the Budget, State of Michigan. 199 instructors with higher salaries. Those faculty members who ta-ught at Macomb College in both 1969—70 and 1970—71 almost certainly enjoyed an increase in compensation. A very clear pattern emerges in the case of faculty compensation in the public four-year institutions, presented in Table 19. Those institutions which contain a greater percentage of graduate students (or, alternatively, have a larger student body) tend to provide a higher level of faculty compensation; this is true in every program identified. The faculty in those graduate and first professional pro­ grams isolated in this presentation receive the highest mean compensa­ tion. Arts and sciences and education faculty tend to receive the lowest compensation, regardless of the composition of the student body. The clear implication, of course, is that those faculty responsible for graduate instruction tend to be paid more than those engaged total­ ly or primarily in undergraduate instruction; the data, however, are not sufficiently detailed to unequivocably confirm this hypothesis. Data on faculty compensation in the private sector are not avai­ lable, as was the case for SCH and FTE faculty figures. The procedure used to estimate faculty costs in this case (outlined at a later point) is very similar to that used to approximate nonfaculty expenses in each sector, to which we now turn. Nonfaculty inputs and expenditures The nonfaculty component of expenditures in the general fund budget will be estimated in the following manner. First, it is assumed that increases in the physical amount of nonfaculty resources required will be directly proportional to the increases in number of student 200 credit hours produced. For example, the requirement for administrators, maintenance personnel, secretaries, paper, computer time, and so on will increase "by ten percent if the number of student credit hours produced goes up by ten percent. Second, the price of these nonfacui­ ty goods and services will increase relative to the general price le­ vel at a rate consistent with recent trends. The price index used is a modification of one developed and presented by June O'Neill in Resource Use in Higher Education.^- O'Neill has combined various in­ dexes which seem to be reasonable proxies for the resources used in higher education. The result, as she makes explicit in her presenta­ tion, is a very rough index whose potential biases are both negative and positive, with no clear indication of what the net bias might be. For our purposes of obtaining an approximate estimate of future finan­ cial requirements the index appears to be adequate, although its limi­ tations should be kept in mind as the results are interpreted. indexes developed by O'Neill are presented in Table 20. The The figures in Table 21 are a modification of the indexes in Table 20, having been deflated by the consumer price index so as to yield an index of real costs for these inputs. The data presented in Table 21 indicate that in the sixteen-year period from 1 9 5 1 —52 to 1 9 6 7 —6 8 the prices, in constant-^value dollars, of all inputs increased at an annual rate of 2 . 5 5 percent per year and nonfaculty unit costs rose 1.52 percent per year. Thus, nonfaculty components have been a smaller factor than faculty inputs in the rise in the real unit costs of higher education. 4 June O'Neill, Resource Use in Higher Education: Trends in Out­ puts and Inputs. 1950-to 1967 (Berkeley. Cal.: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971), Table B-1, p. 81. Table 20 Academic Year S alaries Nonfiiculty Components Supplies & Services 1951-52 74.5 88.9 81.8 77.5 80.0 1955-54 81.9 90.6 CD CT\ « D e fla to r fo r In s tru c tio n a l Operating Expenditures fo r Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s and Component Indexes, Selected Years, 1951-52 Through 1967-68 (1957-59 = 100) • K \ CO 85.2 1955-56 89.2 95.9 92.6 87.2 90.5 1957-58 97.5 99.7 98.6 97.4 98.1 1959-60 106.6 100.8 105.6 108.9 105.9 1961-62 114.8 102.2 108.4 121.0 115.8 1965-64 125.2 101.8 112.5 155.9 121.6 1965—66 155.4 105.1 119.0 151.8 155.1 1966-67 140.6 107.6 125.8 161.7 140.1 1967-68 150.0 109.9 129.6 175.5 148.5 Aggregate Faculty S alaries O verall Index Source: June O 'N e ill, Resource Use in Higher Education: Trends in Outputs and Inputs. 1950 to 1967 (B erkeley, C a l.: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971), Table B -1, p. 81. Table 21 Indexes D eflated by the Consumer Price Level fo r In s tru c tio n a l Operating Expenditures fo r Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , and Component Indexes, Selected Years 1951-52 Through 1967-68 (1957-59 = 100) Academic Year S alaries Nonfacuity Components Supplies & Services Aggregate Faculty S alaries O verall Index 1951-52 82*4= 98.2 90.4 85.6= 88.4 1953-54 87.9 97.2 92.6 89.7 91.4 1955-56 95.6 102,8 99.2 93.5 96.8 1957-58 99.5 101.7 100.6 99.4 100.1 1959-60 105*0 99.3 102.1 107.3 104.3 1961-62 110*2 98.1 104.0 116.1 109.2 1963-64 115.5 95.4 105.2 125.5 114.0 1965-66 121.4 95.6 108.3 138.1 121.1 1966-67 124.3 95.1 109.5 143.0 123.9 1967-68 129.0 94.5 111.4 149.2 127.7 Source: The fig ures in Table 20 vers d eflated by the consumer p rice index in order to obtain the fig ures in Table 21. 203 An examination of Institutional budget requests, audited financial reports, and Higher Education General Information Survey forms yielded the following estimates of the total general fund, faculty, and non­ faculty components for each sector (millions): public four—year, $400.3* $157*2 and $243*1* public two-year, $94*6, $44*3 and $49*3* private, $75» $32 and $43* Turning to the matter of faculty compensation in the private sector, future requirements for faculty compensation will be based on two varying assumptions: 1) changes in student enrollment will be ac— compih±ed 179 184 197 221 190 213 260 A ll Funds: T o tal (m il Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 803 605 109 89 909 670 1051 768 165 118 1218 888 188 142 937 696 139 102 1101 808 1298 941 215 142 Headcount Enrollment: T o tal (1000's) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 374 208 115 51 420 227 138 ;55 465 250 484 263 157 64 427 232 140 55 482 137 102 155 60 175 118 257 165 60 512 269 179 64 207 B estricted Fund: T o tal (m il $ )*^ Table 22 (cont*d) Increase Student-Faculty Ratio by 5 Percent 80-81 72-75 75-76 Full-Cost Tuition By 2$ ( in place o f 3. 5#) 80-81 75-76 72-73 & Vouchers 72-73 75-76 80-81 2207 710 2558 836 2885 976 2212 715 2550 828 2844 955 2317 763 2717 904 3102 1054 1703 206 248 437 27 378 32 o7 1966 244 291 2194 285 342 600 1964 242 289 509 32 440 37 77 2180 271 328 577 35 497 45 87 1804 250 691 446 2113 300 819 525 2396 348 953 612 45 91 1705 208 250 440 27 381 32 67 24 24 14 41 25 25 15 44 29 29 16 50 24 24 14 42 25 25 15 44 Stud* Aid per SCH: T o ta l ( $ ) ^ Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 4,1 3,9 1,7 8„5 4 .2 4 .0 4 .8 4.6 2*0 10*3 4.1 3.9 1.7 8.5 General Fund: T o ta l (m il $ ) - / Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 710 486 836 94 571 156 109 976 667 178 131 H estr. Fund: T o ta l (m il 184 197 221 T u itio n per SCH: T o tal ( $ ) ^ Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate r;o 514 32 445 37 78 1.7 8.7 37 518 — — 413 33 67 48 Q 28 28 16 47 64 77 47 42 68 82 4 .2 4 .0 1.7 8.7 4 .8 4 .6 2.0 10.3 41 41 45 36 43 47 37 48 50 51 40 715 490 130 95 828 565 154 109 935 640 169 126 763 527 139 97 904 607 172 125 1054 670 202 182 184 197 221 184 197 221 « 37 79 51 47 45 567 45 94 76 92 57 55 208 In s tru c tio n a l Costs (m il $) Tota U/ Cash Outlay S tudents./ T o ta l-/ 9( Cash O utlay-' Gross T u itio n & Fees Governmental^/ Local State Federal Other Faculty Salaries Increase l’able 22 (cont*d) Increase Student-Faculty Ratio by 5 Percent 72-73 75-7^ 80-81 A ll Fundsi T o tal (m il S )-' Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 894 4 660 M e a t, E n ro ll*: T o tal (1000* b) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate Faculty Salaries Increase Full-Cost Tuition By 2$ (in olace o f 3*5%) 72-73 75-7^ 80-81 & Touchers 72-73 75-76 80-81 1197 874 184 139 899 664 134 101 1025 751 159 115 1156 847 175 134 947 701 143 103 1101 793 177 131 1275 877 208 190 420 227 138 55 465 250 155 60 484 263 157 64 420 227 138 55 465 250 155 60 484 263 157 64 438 237 145 56 494 260 167 67 525 264 174 87 209 134 100 1033-: 757 161 115 Table 22 (cont'd) Increased Federal Aid In Existing Pattern 72-75 75-76 80-81 2222 725 2576 854 2906 997 1677 180 245 478 27 575 78 67 1864 142 272 2055 126 511 777 55 486 256 25 25 ■14 59 24 24 14 59 26 27 16 41 Stud. Aid.per SCH: Total ($)^ Public Four-Year Public Tvo-Year Private 6.1 7.5 2.8 11 11 15 5.9 18 16 18 8.2 24 General Fund: Total (mil Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private 725 496 155 96 854 582 160 112 997 681 182 201 270 556 Instructional Costs (mil $) Total-" Cash Outlay Students., / Total-" Cash Outlay Gross Tuition & Fees Governmental^/ Local State Federal Other Tuition per SCH: Total ($)^ Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private Hestr, Fund: Total (mil %$ 655 52 424 177 79 94 154 N> O Table 22 (cont*d) Increased Federal Aid In E xistin g Pattern 80-81 72-73 75-76 A ll Ponds: T o tal (m il $ ) - / Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 926 684 136 106 1124 822 168 134 1333 971 194 168 Hdcnt. E n ro ll#: T o ta l (1000*s) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 420 227 158 55 465 250 155 60 484 263 157 64 N> 212 Table 22 (cont'd) ^Includes the opportunity cost to students as well as actual cash outlays# ^Gash outlay is defined as gross tuition and fees minus all student aid funds from state and federal sources. ■“^Includes grants to both institutions and students. ^Gross tuition and fees divided by total student credit hours. -^Total student aid funds from state and federal sources divided by total student credit hours. •^Does not include the overhead portion of research and development funds, which is usually placed in this fund. 7/Includes the overhead portion which is usually placed in the "general fund" portion of financial reports. In accordance with usual prac­ tice, federal student financial aid funds administered by the colleges are included as part of restricted funds; since a portion of these funds are used by students to pay tuition, the addition of the general and restricted fund figures involves an element of double-counting. Q/ —'General plus restricted funds; note that auxiliary funds, which in­ clude such things as food service and dormitory costs, are not in­ cluded. 213 to neutralize the impact of inflation. Before examining the projec­ tions in some detail, let us first briefly examine some of the items in the table for their meaning and significance. Most are largely or completely self-explanatory, but a few probably warrant special com­ ment. Understanding the distinction between the different concepts of student costs lies at the core of this analysis. The item "gross tui­ tion & fees" is the familiar entry denoting the amount which students must pay to the college in order to participate in the instructional program. Many students, of course, receive financial aid originating from state and federal sources; reflecting this, "cash outlay" is de­ fined as gross tuition and fees minus all Btudent aid funds from state and federal sources. However, the cash outlay costs of attending col­ lege are not the only costs borne by students— they forego substantial earnings, as pointed out earlier in this chapter. The "total" costs of students include this opportunity cost as well as actual cash out­ lays, Uote that none of these cost concepts includes the living, i.e., room and board, expenses of students. In this analysis we are concen­ trating on the change in the level and incidence of costs as a result of shifts in public policy. Since people must sustain themselves re­ gardless of their status, living expenses are not a cost of higher education. This, of course, in no way negates the argument that living costs should be a factor in the determination of aid to low—income students. Understanding the above distinctions is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowing the significance of the measures. The leverage of students (and/or their parents, in many cases) on the 214 institution is best represented, by gross tuition and fees; one might expect that when this Item is a larger proportion of an institution’s budget that such a college must be more conscious of catering to the perceived needs of students and their parents, or risk severe financial pressure as a result of defections. Cash outlay costB reveal the ad­ ditional cash expenses which students must cover from their private sources as a result of their decision to attend college. Although both of the above concepts are often used, relative to the general fund, as measures of the students' share of costs, neither is appropriate. In assessing the incidence of costs of higher education it is impor­ tant that the measures be based on the total costs of students, i.e., opportunity costs should be included. The remaining dimensions in Table 22 and their implications are self-evident, or will become so as the financing alternatives are dis­ cussed. Policy assumptions The first set of projections, entitled "current (financing) patterns— curtailed graduate enrollments," is an extension of current policies in conjunction with the lower of the two projections of gra­ duate enrollment derived in Chapter XV. At the undergraduate level the students are distributed in accord with the "uniform stabilization" policy (see Chapter IV), so that public four—year and public two-year institutions each experience relatively stable undergraduate enroll­ ments in the 1976—88 period. Each source of instructional funds con­ tributes the same percentage to the cash outlays instructional budget in each sector as it did in the base period, with the exception of 215 student aid awards which grow 4 percent per year -* a rate comparable to the potential growth in the real gross national product (GNP). Funds for research and development increase at a rate of only 2 percent per year, a pace actually faster than recent growth but consistent with the sluggish expansion assumed for graduate enrollments. Other key pblipy factors are no change in student—faculty ratios, a 3*5 percent annual increase in faculty compensation, a 1 * 3 2 percent annual increase in the unit cost of non—faculty Inputs, and a continuation of the pre­ sent differential rate of aid awards per undergraduate student in each of the three sectors. In summary, this first projection is an exten­ sion of present policies in conjunction with a rather conservative forecast of enrollments. In the second set of projections, "current (financial) patterns-present enrollment trends," nearly all policy parameters are identical to those in the first set, but these policies are applied to a larger enrollment base, the present policies projections presented in Chapter IV. The only policy change is an Increase from 2 to 4 percent in the annual rate of increase in funds for research and development, which is probably a necessary condition if graduate enrollments are to grow at the planned pace. Thus, this set of projections is also designed to illustrate the future impacts of a continuation of present policies but with a less conservative forecast of enrollments than was used in the first set. Two of the remaining four alternatives in Table 22 also depict rather minor policy changes from the framework outlined under"”cunrent patterns—-curtailed graduate enrollment s." The two are designated as "increase student—faculty ratio by 5 percent" and "faculty salaries 216 increase by 2 percent (in place of 3» 5 percent);" they entail exactly what their titles imply. the first projection. All other factors are identical to those in Although simple in conception, these two varia­ bles are always central in any discussion of possible economies in the educational process. The "full—cost tuition & vouchers" pplicy is a much more drama­ tic Bhift away from present practices and consequently requires more changes in the basic model, which we continue to represent by the "current patterns— curtailed graduate enrollment" program. The fol­ lowing framework is based on the recommendations contained in the final report of the Wisconsin Governor*s Commission on Education; thus, the plan is well beyond the "pipe—dream" phase, despite its more radical bent. ^ The essence of the voucher policy is quite simple. Instead of giving funds to public colleges and universities, the state awards the funds directly to students admitted to any institution of higher edu­ cation, giving priority to students from low—income families. In o r ­ der to continue to pay for instructional inputs in the absence of a statft subsidyj public institutions will find it ncccccury tc m i c e their tuition charges. In this specific case total grants to students from state sources will equal the stun of the state and local appropri­ ations to institutions and also the state student aid grants in the basic model, i.e., $413, $488 and $ 5 6 7 million in 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 9 7 5 - 7 6 and 1980—81, respectively. A flat grant of $500 per FFE student is awarded to all undergraduates in 1 9 7 2 —73 (increased to $ 5 3 5 in 1 9 7 5 —76 and $600 in 1980—81). The Wisconsin commission recommends that ^Governor* s Commission on Education, A Forward Looks Final Re— ££rt, State of Wisconsin, November 1970, pp. 41—51, D1—D3* 217 professional and graduate students from Wisconsin be awarded grants covering the full oost of their education (including a maintenance, or living, allowance) inttheir second and third years of post—bacca— 7 laureate study. ' The twin factors of residency and year of study, plus the neaa>— if not complete-^impossibility of isolating graduate student costs from the other teaching and research endeavors, make it extremely difficult to ascertain the impact of this recommendation. Based on estimates that the relative SCH—ETE faculty ratio for -under­ graduates is 1 . 5 that of graduate students while graduate level faculty receive compensation 1 . 5 times that of undergraduate teachers, it is reasoned that the average graduate SGH is 2.25 times as costly as its undergraduate counterpart; including a maintenance allowance of $ 1 7 5 0 * the full-cost grant is calculated to be $ 5 4 1 0 , $ 5 5 3 0 and $ 5 4 7 0 in 1972-73* 1975—76 and 1980-81, respectively. Finally, it is assumed that one—third of the graduate students will be eligible for the grants. The state funds which remain after the flat grants have been allocated to both undergraduate and graduate students would be avai­ lable for supplemental grants to low—income students. In this parti­ cular case the remaining amounts would be $166, $ 1 8 9 and $ 2 0 4 million in 1972—73* 1975—76 and 1980—81. The assumption as to which students receive aid is crucial to the analysis of the impact of vouchers on the different sectors of higher education. Students in two-year col­ leges presently tend to come from low—income families relative to other students, and it appears that these colleges would continue to ^Ibid., p. 4 9 . 0 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Open—Boor Collegesr Policies for Community Colleges (N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970)* especially p. 5 . 218 be cheapbr than public four"—year institutions and more accessible than private colleges after the initiation of vouchers. For these reasons, in the analysis of this policy option it is assumed that the average aid per SCH (or FTE student) in the public two-year sector is twice the supplementary aid per SCH in the public four—year and private in­ stitutions. Finally, the combination of full—cost tuition and vouchers will undoubtedly affect student enrollment. Fewer upper-income young people are likely to attend because of higher tuition charges (see Chapter V) while more lower—income youth would be encouraged to enroll because of greater student aid awards; the net effect is impossible to foretell. The Wisconsin Commission estimated that undergraduate enrollments would exceed present trend levels by percent, which is what will g be used here. The other modifications in the "current patterns— cur­ tailed graduate enrollment" enrollments are 1) a faster irate of under­ graduate growth, 6 percent per year, in the private sector and 2) under­ graduate enrollments in the public sector are divided between two-year and four—year institutions on the basis of the present policies pro­ jection (thishchange places a heavier emphasis on the two-year insti­ tutions— see Chapter IV). The reasons for these changes will become clear when we examine the shifts in student costs which will take place. The last set of projections, "increased federal add in existing pattern," represents a policy of increased federal aid to students along lines of existing programs but with an additional "cost of 9 Governor’s Commission on Education, op. cit.. p. D2. 219 education" institutional grant awarded to institutions in direct pro­ portion to the aid received by students. As before, the base from which we begin is the first projection, "current patterns— curtailed graduate enrollment." The commitment of the federal government grows over time, being 1 0 , 20 and 25 percent ('$7 3 * $171 and $249 million) of the general fund budget in 1972 — 7 3 * 1 9 75 —76 and 1980 — 8 1 , respective­ ly (in addition to other minor outlays)} two—thirds of the funds are awarded to students while the remaining one—third is given directly to institutions for general instructional purposes. These proportions are items which would be negotiated in the political process; the Car­ negie Commission on Higher Education recommended a formula which showed institutional aid of 28 percent in 1970 - 7 1 * 38 percent in 1976 — 7 7 * and 42 percent by 1 9 7 9 — 8 0 . ^ The non—federal aid components of the general fund budget retain the same relative importance which now exists* e.g., the ratio of total tuition receipts to state appropriations remains the same. We will now compare the implications of the above policies for 4 TT>y^>y | nr>4* v- ^ 'wi.W JC* '!■ ■ ^ ww V a rr? *4*$* W " 4 a V * 4 V 4 r»Vi (• — V .* AM M M . Q W M J. Policy implications The results, displayed in Table 2 2 , clearly indicate that there will be a continued expansion of the financial requirements of higher education under a wide variety of policies. This is true regardless of whether a measure of total costs or of cash — tending to be less if faculty compensation rises at a slower rate in the future but greater in the public four-year sector if graduate student enrollments were to resume a more rapid rate of growth. The relative levels of tuition in the three sectors would be expected to remain quite constant in the 1 9 7 0 *s if present policies were extended. Tuition charges in the public sector would jump to over three times their present level under a policy of "full—Cost tuition and vouchers." A full-time student without aid in 1975—76 would be paying tuition of about $806 per year under present policies or $254-2 per year under the "full—Cost tuition" policy in the public four-year sec­ tor; in the public two-year sector the analogous figures are $ 4 6 5 and $1581 per year. Since the private institutions do not receive any state appropriations under present policies, the shift to a "full—cost tuition" policy has little impact on their tuition charges; the small increase is due to the assumption that enrollment in the private sec­ tor would grow more rapidly due to higher costs in the public sector. Tuition charges in both the public four-year and public two-year sec­ tors would rise above those in the private sector, thus moving the latter frera a position of being most expensive to one of being least expensive. Such a change would obviously have tremendous implications for where students would choose to "cash in" their vouchers. Much of the higher cost in the public four-year sector is a result of the greater emphasis on graduate education. One might expect that public four—year institutions would charge undergraduates a tuition rate 224 comparable to that in the other two sectors and. raise graduate tuition enough to cover the cost of the programs— probably most would fall be­ tween $100 and $200 per SCH but medicine and others would undoubtedly be higher. It would appear that the first year of graduate or profes­ sional school work in which a student would receive no state aid would represent a considerable financial barrier. Since present federal student aid programs have a relatively greater impact on students enrolled in-private and public four—year institutions, and the "cost of education" grant to the institution is proportional to the student aid awards, the "increased federal aid in existing pattern!!"policy has little impact on tuitions in the public two-year colleges. Comparing this policy option with the usual base, "current patterns— curtailed graduate enrollment," we find that private institutions benefit the most; the federal institutional grants enable them to hold their tuition charges to the 1969—70 level, or about $9 per SCH less than the base projection in 1980—81. Tuition in the public fou3>-year institutions is $2 per SCH less than the base in the late 1970* s, and that in the public two-year colleges is $1 per SCH less in the same period. Tuition charges, as was observed earlier in an examination of the base data, can ber misleading when comparisons are made in the ab­ sence of student aid funds. Historically, the pattern of student aid grants has tended to narrow the actual differences in costs between the three sectors. The four projections presenting variations of pre­ sent policy continue to exhibit this pattern. As the growth rate of enrollments slows, It Is anticipated that the average student aid per SCH will rise, but hardly enough to cause any noticeable changes in 225 higher education (about $1 per SCH from 1 9 6 9 —70 to 1980—81). In 1980— 81 with present policies the tuition charges in the public two-year sector will be about $12 less than those in the public four-year sector and $35 less than the private sector; when student aid grants are sub­ tracted from tuition charges, the respective differences fell to about $9 and $25* If the federal government was to increase aid as outlined in the last projection, the "after student aid" differences would fall to $1 per SCH between public four-year and public two-year institutions and $9 per SCH between public two-year and private colleges* Quite obviously, the present federal student aid programs are providing re­ latively more assistance to students entering institutions with higher tuition charges and expanding them would further compress the actual differences faced by students. Once,again, the policy of "full—cost tuition and vouchers" is in a class all by itself. Reviewing briefly, all undergraduates would receive a flat grant of about $ 5 5 0 per year, and all second and third year post-baccalaureate students receive a ■flat grant of about $ 5 5 0 0 each year. The remaining state funds are awarded as supplemental grants to low—income undergraduate students, who make up a larger pro­ portion of the student body in the public two-year colleges than else­ where. The resulting distribution of aid funds is not too surprising, given the above. The award per SCH is greatest in the public two-year colleges due to the presence of low—income students, but the public four-year sector is close behind in aid per SCH due to the large grants to graduate students. The private sector drops from first in aid per SCH under present policies to last under the voucher policy, but the absolute amount of aid per SCH jumps substantially— by a factor of 4* 226 Combining -the tuition and student aid factors and using 1980—61 as an example, present policies imply that tuition charges mlmis student aid awards on a per SCH basis will be $24, $15 and $40 in the public four—year, public two-year and private sectors respectively, The com­ parable figures for the "full—cost tuition and vouchers" policy, $4 2 , $6 and $15, reflect a dramatic shift. A combination of a very large tuition increase accompanied by an even larger input of student aid re­ sults in the average public two year student still paying the least per SCH from his own funds for his college education, and less than half what he would expect to pay given a continuation of present policies. In the case of students enrolled in private institutions, their tuition would rise very little while the average student would receive much more aid— giving a net cost of about 4 0 percent the expected net cost assu­ ming present policies continued. Since the total input of public money is equal in both policies, it is not difficult to guess what happens to per SCH net costs in the public four—year sector— they skyrocket to nearly twice their previous level. This means the average full-time student in the public four—year sector would have a net tuition (minus aid) charge approximately seven times that of students in the public two-year colleges and three times that of thoBe in the private sector. Such a development would result in a contraction of the public fouryear colleges, or at least a drastic reorganization— and probably a combination of both. It is well to remind ourselves once again that when we speak of the "average student," we are dealing with the atypical case. Most students will either get no supplementary aid and pay the full tuition or will get an amount of aid which will more than cover their tuition costs. Nevertheless, these tuition and aid 227 figures do illustrate the constraints within which students and insti­ tutions will make their decisions. The remaining financial figures in Table 22 show the impact of the alternative policies on higher education budgets as measured by the traditional general and restricted fund measures. While providing a useful comparison for some purposes, especially that of showing the relative size of the three sectors, little would be gained by a detailed discussion of these funds which has not been brought out earlier. Same remark applies to the enrollment data. The One item which may warrant special notice is that increasing the rate of growth in research and development funds by 2 percentage point s, from 2 to 4 percent per year, results in an additional $16 million and $39 million in 1975—76 and 1980—81, respectively, being made Available for such purposes in Mich­ igan higher education. Summary The financial requirements model developed and used in this chap­ ter focuses on the instructional and research components of higher education. Student costs are commonly measured in at least four dif­ ferent ways— gross tuition and fees, tuition and fees net of student aid, total education costs including opportunity costs, and total costs including living costs. Understanding the importance and relevance of each is central to the financing question. The significance of oppor­ tunity costs, 60 percent of total instructional costs in 1969—70* is not commonly recognized; including these makes it clear that students bear most of the cost of their educationiin both the private and pub­ lic sectors and that reducing the time which students devote to higher 228 education is potentially a very important means to reduce costs. In addition to the rather detailed discussion of student costs, the pre­ sentation of background data gives special emphasis to patterns of variation in student—faculty ratios and faculty compensation. The future impacts of six alternative policies are examined in the main body of the chapter. There are strong indications that the rate of increase in total financial requirements in the remainder of the 1 9 7 0 *s will be quite comparable to the rate of growth in the eco­ nomy, as opposed to the I960* s when higher education consumed an ever increasing fraction of the GNP. An examination of two of the most common approaches to cost—cutting yields estimates that 1) increasing the student—faculty ratio by 5 percent would reduce cash outlay costs of instruction by 2.1 percent and 2) a deorease of 1*5 percentage points (from 5*5 to 2.0 percent) in the annual growth of faculty com­ pensation would reduce cash outlay costs of instruction by 3 and 6 percent in 1975-76 and 1980—81, respectively. Students, as a whole, are likely to continue to bear the great majority (slightly over three-quarters) of the costs associated with their education, although rather massive amounts of student raid would reduce this slightly. If present policies are continued, tuition charges will rise at a moderate but persistent rate of about 2—3 per­ cent per year. Adoption of a full—cost tuition and vouchers policy would raise tuition levels by more than a factor of three in the pub­ lic sector. Considering the vouchers as well as the tuition charges, the average student in the public sector is likely to experience a much larger net charge while those in private institutions would have much lower net costs; although still having the lowest net cost in 229 terms of tuition minus the value of the toucher for the average student9 those in public two-year colleges gain less than those in the private sector. Expansion;:of existing federal student aid programs with the addition of a "coBt of education'1 grant directly to the institution would benefit private institutions and their students mos$, public two-year colleges and students least , with public four-year institu­ tions and students in an intermediate position. Increasing the growth rate of research and development funds by 2 percentage points (assuming 4 rather than 2 percent per year, both of which are higher than recent rates) yields an extra #16 million in 1975—76 and $59 million in 1980—81 for these purposes. Chapter VIX Conclusions and Recommendations Up to this point the author has deliberately tried to minimize the influence of his values on the analysis. The original choice of the problem and the dimensions to emphasize imply a set of values, of course, in the sense that problem identification depends on an original determination of "what ought to be" before one can say "what is" is not "what ought to be." By and large, however, the problem of the financing of higher education and the facets of the question examined in this study have been debated by many people; this framework reflects the mix of values held by others in society at least as much as the values of the author. The intent in previous chapters has been to out­ line the historical development of the values and institutions In U.S. higher education, the views of those holding different positions, and the links between such factors as population trends, economic growth, tuition charges, enrollment, faculty compensation, and total financial requirements. The reader should now be in a better position to choose a policy consistent with his personal and state and national goals. What follows is the author*s statement of his own position, with recommendations for the future direction of policy. While not as es­ sential to understanding the discussion of higgler education finance as the proceeding material, it is hoped that this chapter will repre­ sent a specific, constructive addition to the continuing debate. The comprehensive proposal represents an attempt to develop a system of financial support which will extend the opportunity for a college edu­ cation to more citizens while strengthening the critical role of those 250 231 in our institutions of higher education. In the first section on "goals, values and general principles" the underlying beliefs upon which this recommendation is grounded are made explicit, using the tenns and framework of the material in Chap­ ter III on alternative philosophies of higher education. Specific policy recommendations are presented in the second section, labeled "a working plan." The third section on "future financial implications" 1b devoted to developing projections similar to those in Chapter VT, based on both a conservative and expansive set of enrollment assump­ tions. Finally, a brief !!summary" recounts the highlights. Coals, Values And General Principles A viable philosophy of higher education must deal with and, I would argue, reflect the very real tension which exists between educa­ tion* s role as a service to the prevailing culture and as a stimulus to change. Solutions which go to either extreme are dangerous, even deadly, for both higher education and society. A society which does not provide for its own mechanism of self—criticism and adjustment will soon find itself stagnant and doomed to live with existing evils— ■until its citizens in some manner revolt in hopes of creating something better. But a college or university which takes partisan stands in the political arena will soon find itself losing the very intellectual legitimacy upon which its moral role originally depended and will eventually lose its public support. Thus the tension is inevitable. One can only hope that it will be creative and understood as such, i.e., the individuals and institutions which have a vested interest in the status quo cannot be expected to be happy about criticisms of their 2J2 role or new technologies which destroy their comparative advantage, but they can be expected to take the route or refutation through dia­ logue or research rather than through the destruction of higher educa­ tion— if they recognize higher education has a creative role which it acts out for the benefit of all mankind. Research program Moving to a more specific level, the system of Bupport for scien­ tific and humanistic research which we now have and which is outlined in Chapter III appears to be appropriate. Reviewing briefly, this en­ tails a determination by society of the total funds to be allocated to scientific research, but the scientific community has the major respon­ sibility for making allocative decisions. The present system of funding all technological research through vested—interest groups, however, is akin to Russian roulette and is at the root of many of the problems of higher education and society. It would be foolish to ignore the comments of those critics who point to numerous examples of technological research being done in universities without adequate attention to their effects outside of the end sought by the funding agency, e.g., agriculturalists develop: machinery and chemical products which lower private costs of production but largely ignore the public and private problems associated with the displaced labor, engineers perform large amounts of research on how to improve automobile transportation but little on mass transit, and economists study how to increase GMP oblivious to the detrimental effects of economic expansion. An agency such as the Foundation for the Appraisal of Societal Change (FASC) outlined in Chapter III is needed; one might say It 233 allows society a peek into the chamber before a decision is made as to pulling the technological trigger* As mentioned earlier, the FASC would fund projects designed to evaluate the implications of both existing and proposed innovations, thus providing a counter-weight to research directed at ends defined by existing vested interests* The decision—making boards of the FASC should include a mix of scientists, humanists, technologists, and political representatives— for all can contribute to the assessment of what changes most need to be appraised* The FASC would receive direct governmental appropriations in a manner analogous to the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and so on. In view of the present interest in dis­ covering the environmental and social impacts of new developments, there may be no need to take special measures to insure that the FASC is adequately funded. However, if it seemed an appropriate method of demonstrating the concern that our technological research program main­ tain a better balance in the future, the enabling legislation could contain a clause expressing the intent of our lawmakers that FASC funds should be equal to or greater than some percentage of the research and development funds administered by action agencies* In addition to the direct impact it has through the sponsoring of projects, the existence of the FASC might encourage other agencies and researchers to investigate more fully the ramifications of their research with their own funds, for few investigators like it to be shown by others that they ignored many of the most important implica­ tions in their original work. It is also likely that if faculty were working on FASC—funded projects, they would be more conscious of the broad implications of technology and more inclined to include these in 234 the curriculum. The influence of the FASC should not be one of consistently pro­ viding evidence for maintaining the status quo. The benefits of new developments and the problems inherent in existing practices should receive as much attention as the risks associated with change and the advantages of present arrangements. The important point is that the FASC be organized with the purpose of encouraging a more objective appraisal of changes than is likely to be forthcoming from vested in­ terests, no matter what position they occupy in a liberal—conservative spectrum. Although encouraging, the present efforts of the NSF and the Congress with respect to technology assessment do not preclude the value of an agency such as the FASC. The NSF has been rather isolated from political concerns, which is an asset in view of the major role it plays in funding basic, scientific research but which is a liability if analysis is to be relevant to policy. In addition, the NSF work has tended to over—emphasize impacts on the physical environment rela­ tive to social concerns- The newly authorised Office of Technology Assessment, which will be responsible to the Congress, is likely to devote most of its energies to the investigation of problems with mediate political impact.^ im­ The formation of the Office appears to be a response to Congressional concerns that members of Congress need their own assessment, independent of that of the executive branch, on such matters as the supersonic transport, anti—ballistic—missile ^U.S. Congress, "Technology Assessment Act of 1972," Public Law 92-484, 92nd Congress, H.E. 10243, October 13, 1972. 235 system, and Alaskan oil pipeline# 2 Such an Office will undoubtedly be useful to the Congress, but an agency less dominated by political re­ presentatives and immediate problems is needed to serve the longer-run interests of society# Another idea whose value is worth at least a trial is that of giving to disadvantaged groups grants specifically for hiring the re­ search services of an institution of higher education# There is little doubt that the disadvantaged have not received service comparable to the powerful; researchers who have gone into poor communities under the guise of wanting to "help" and who have then done nothing more than interview people, often about personal matters, and then write a jour­ nal article or thesis have left a legacy of resentment and disillusion­ ment# If leaders in these communities were able to bargain with col*«* leges and universities from a position not unlike that of federal agen­ cies and private corporations, they would probably find themselves lis­ tened to more closely— and hopefully both they and the researchers would gain new insights# This is not a proposal to finance all of our research dealing with the disadvantaged in the above fashion, merely ?. suggestion that we explore in several trials a relationship whose pa­ ternal and exploitive tendencies run counter to our past experience. Instructional program The instructional program should be financed from a variety of sources as is presently the case, both because a good instructional program produces a public good as well as a private good and because of the freedom it gives to the institution. 2 The federal government See "Technology Assessment (Cont#)," Scientific American# May, 1972, p. 48. 236 should award grants based on enrollment to all recognized institutions of higher education; this would be consistent with both of the above principles. These grants should reflect the different costs at the different levels of instruction and in different programs. The above grants might be used to reduce support from other sources rather than to increase the quality of higher education by increasing the resources per student. Some will object to this and urge the adoption of a pro­ vision penalizing any institution, and thus state, not maintaining its own contribution; this argument should be rejected. A student should not be penalized by receiving less federal support merely be­ cause his state of origin gives higher education a lower priority re­ lative to other states. Following the recommended approach would leave the primary burden for recognizing and rewarding quality where it now lies— with federal programs in the case of most research and with state and local governments and individuals in the case of instruction. Not only should the faculty be free of the need to cater to ves­ ted interests, but so also should be the students. The present role of higher education in screening and certifying people for rather spe­ cific vocational and professional roles does appear destructive to a spirit of free, intellectual inquiry. In addition, there is little doubt that many faculty and administrators pay less heed to teaching responsibilities than to research interests. One change which appears appropriate is that of giving students increased opportunities to pass courses and blocks of courses by exam for a fee which recognizes the institutional savings in direct instructional costs. Another step with positive potential is freeing students from a specified curriculum except for a core In their major field of interest. Care must be taken 237 to insure that the freedom is not abused by overzealous departments and colleges which feel their students need a great many of their own course offerings, e.g., regulations limiting the credits required for a major field——or even stronger acts— might be needed. Measures such as those just mentioned would allow a jstudent grea­ ter freedom to follow his own interests and enable students to avoid poor instructors— either by not enrolling in their courses in any fash­ ion o* by taking them on an exam-only basis. Yet the institution would not be solely subject to students' desires for much of their funding would come from other sources, and departments and colleges would retain the right to require a given level of competence in a specialty. 3 The primary component which is sacrificed is that of re­ quiring students to sample a wide variety of courses in order to acquire a "liberal education." Although supportive of students who enroll with such a goal, the author is reluctant to force it upon others. The arguments of Ashby and Dewey (cited in Chapter III) that any sub­ ject is liberating, or humanizing, to the extent that it widens the student*6 knowledge of how his own interests and actions impact others in society are persuasive. The author believes that every effort should be made to insure that part of the competence required by de­ partments and colleges includes a knowledge of the broad impacts of technology as outlined in the "critical of existing societal goals" ^If an institution would decide that it should increase its flexibility to adapt to changing student desires, there are many things it could do, such as require that vacated positions revert to a common pool to be reallocated by the central administration, reduce the pro­ portion of tenured to non—tenured faculty, and give sabbaticals on a preferential basis to those who use them as vehicles for shifts in their areas of Emphasis. 238 section of Chapter IIXj and he also feels that such an effort will often create an urge within students to gain additional background in the arts and humanities* However, without such internal motivation, albeit originally stimulated by external sources in a rather conscious fashion in many cases, students are unlikely to learn much of lasting value. Serious consideration should be given to implementation of a pass-fail system in which only those courses passed would be entered on the student's transcripts* The transcript, which would also carry information as to any degree granted, would be the sole piece of infor­ mation given to outside agencies by the institution— -and this only at the student's request* The student would be free, of course, to re­ quest letters of recommendation from faculty as from others. These steps would eliminate the fine gradations used by many employers, thus forcing them to develop other measures* Much of the burden of certi­ fying people as qualified for specific roles might shift from indivi­ dual colleges and universities to other institutions, and fewer stu­ dents would attend merely to gain certification. On the other hand* considerable significance would still be attached to which institution a student attended, i.e., the initial entrance criteria would continue to play an important role in sifting and certification. -Another pos­ sible outcome is that employers would shift their attention from gra­ dations in achievement (grade point averages) to differences in the time required to achieve certification. The problems of how to identi­ fy expertise and who should discharge this function are complex, and solutions are likely to consist of uneasy compromises. 239 Regardless of whether the specific measures noted above are en­ acted, two related concerns deserve strong support in the author's opi­ nion. First, there should be a program of direct grants to financially disadvantaged students in order to eliminate differential financial barriers to higher education in so far as this is possible. Second, institutional diversity should be encouraged so students and others can find an environment suitable to their own interests,aabil±ties,cand ambitions. This implies that there will, and should, be differences among institutions as to sources of funds and levels of funding per student, faculty member, or any other input measure. Concluding comment Deciding upon a consistent set of goals and values is not an easy task, and conceptualizing an institutional framework to sustain and encourage those goals may be even more difficult. This is espe­ cially true if one views higher education as having multiple roles, including an obligation to criticize society and yet be of service to many of society's felt needs. The thoughts in this section are the result of the author?s grappling with these issues; others will support different goals and even alternative means for attaining identical goals. The truly important point is that we reason carefully and be as expli­ cit, as possible about our underlying beliefs. Only in this way will we be able to understand and debate the full:implications of specific financing proposals, such as the one to which we now turn. 240 A Working Plan A significant change, and expansion, in the federal role lies at the heart of this proposal* One component is a system of federal aid to all institutions designed to provide for approximately 25 percent of cash outlay instructional costs by 1980-81* This institutional aid is to be based on a formula recognizaing the number, level, and field of student credit hours (SCH) produced— but not including any other factors such as the type of institution or the cost of tuition. For the first time the nation would recognize in accomprehensive fashion the national benefits of higher education; the federal presence, how­ ever, would be neutral as to types of institutions and sufficiently limited so as to ibake federal domination of higher education unlikely* Baising the federal contribution above 25 percent would increase the influence of national interests relative to state, local, and private concerns, while lowering it would have the opposite effect* The figure of 25 percent reflects the author* s judgment that such a commitment would enhance the independence of most public institutions from state sources but not in any way eliminate the state influence, especially in the public four-year colleges; it also provides significant fiscal relief to the private sector while leaving private sources in a clearly dominant role* (These points will become clearer at a later point.) Another facet of the federal involvement is a complete revamping of the student aid program— shifting from grants to institutions for aid purposes to variable grants to students based on a formula, in­ cluding factors such as family income in recent years, family assets, and the number of other children and their ages* Students should be 241 made aware of -the program late in their junior year and throughout their senior year in high school; state departments of education, with their existing connections to secondary schools, would thus be a logical choice for the unit to publicize and administer the aid program. Since their aid could easily be determined by applying the formula, students in high school would have full knowledge of the federal aid they would receive if and when they attended college and could plan accordingly— as could college officials who might wish to offer supplements from institutional funds. This program would almost certainly do more to extend equal educational opportunity than the present mix described and analyzed in Chapter V. Finally, the federal government should also provide the necessary guarantees so that all students would have access to loans. No subsidy would be involved, merely a facilitating function to compensate for the unique properties of human capital. A repayment schedule based on a proportion of the students* future incomes might be a useful but not necessary alternative. The above provisions are the major policy changes embodied in this proposal. Xn the following paragraphs specific parameters will be added to flesh out this skeleton. As was the practice in Chapter VI, the "current (financial) patterns— curtailed graduate enrollment" po­ licy assumptions will serve as a base; everything not specifically men­ tioned below is identical to the base conditions. Largely because of the student aid program but also for purposes of analyzing the sensi­ tivity of other program parameters to enrollment changes, the proposed policy will be examined assuming two alternative conditions: a rela­ tively small student aid program and increase in enrollment, and a 242 larger student aid program with a substantial increment in total en­ rollment. The detailed policy assumptions will be dealt with in the following order: (1) federal institutional aid, (2) non-federal insti­ tutional aid, and (3) student aid. Federal institutional aid Deriving an appropriate formula for federal institutional aid presents many difficulties. Different levels and programs of instruc­ tion have different costs, which it would seen appropriate to reflect in the formula. On the other hand, a college or university education is probably best regarded as a Joint product arising from many inter­ related processes which makeB the allocation of costs meaningless and arbitrary. Xn addition, as mare dimensions are included in the for­ mula, the regulatory problems become more severe; institutions have an incentive to classify their students in the higher—paying categories, and some agency must review existing practices to insure that all are being treated equitably* The compromise adopted here is to recognize three levels of instruction— lower division, upper division, and post­ baccalaureate— but no program distinctions; a few of the latter might well be included in the actual program. A comparison of the cost:-data for different levels and types of institutions in Chapter VI led to a choice of an upper division and post—baccalaureate SCH being 1•75 and 2,9 times as costly to produce as a lower division SCH, Using the base data indicated above and the goal of providing 25 percent of cash outlay instructional costs by 1 9 B0—01 (with interim targets of about 10 and 20 percent in 1972—73 and 1 9 7 5 —7 6 , respectively), the aid for­ mula presented in Table 23 was derived. 243 Table 23 Proposed Institutional Aid Per Student Credit Hour from Federal Sources, 1972-73, 1975-76, 1980-81 (1972 dollars) Level of Student Credit Hour Undergraduat e Lower Division Upper Division Year 6.25 $10.94 $1 8 .1 2 1975-76 1 2 .5 0 2 1 .8 8 36.25 1980-81 1 5 .6 0 2 7 .3 0 45.24 1972-73 $ PostBaccalaureate Non-federal institutional aid After determining the amount of institutional aid from federal sources, the next step is to choose policy parameters for the tradi­ tional sources of funds which are consistent with the change in federal policy. In the public sector it is recommended that state officials choose the following targets with regard to tuition: In the public four-year sector gross tuition and fees should continue to account for 30 percent of general fund receipts, but In the public two-year sector an effort should be made to reduce gross tuition and fees from the pxesent 26 percent to about 25 percent ox the general fund budget in order to lower the costs to students of attending community colleges. Local governments should be encouraged to continue to provide 20 per­ cent of the general fund requirements of the public two-year colleges, so as to preserve their influence on the program of these institutions ideally, these local funds should be raised in such a way that equal tax effort would result in equal revenue per person, i.e., the state would play an equalizing role by subsidizing the tax yield in poor districts and/or absorbing a portion of the receipts in the richer districts. For a discussion of such a policy, see John E. Coons, William H. Clune III and Stephen D. Sugarman, Private Wealth and Public Education (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1970). 244 We will assume "that the non—student and nongovernmental funds will continue to account for only a small percentage of the general fund "bud­ gets in the public sector, 5 percent in the case of four-year institu­ tions and 3 percent in two-year colleges. Finally, the residual need remaining in the public institutions after all of the above sources are considered should continue to be met by the state government——much as it is now# We would expect this need to be about 40 percent and 25 percent of the general fund budgets of the public four-year and public two-year sectors, respectively, by 1980-81, a considerable drop from current patterns (see Table 15 in Chapter Vl). Institutions in the private sector would receive funds based on the formula in Table 23, but they would receive no other general fund appropriations from public sources. In this case we first assume that other non-tuition sources will fall as a percentage of general fund receipts from about 29 percent in 1969—70 '**° 20 percent in 1980—81# This appears to be a conservative estimate of the funds available from these sources. Student tuition and fees are the logical choice for the residual category. The expectation, under the proposed policy, would be that these student charges would decline as a percentage of general fund receipts from 70 percent in 19 69—70 "to 50—55 percent in 1980-81, reflecting the net impact of increased federal aid and a re­ lative decline in "other" sources# Student aid We now come to the student aid grants and the two variations men­ tioned earlier. In both cases student aid from state sources will to­ tal the same as in the base, current patterns——curtailed graduate 245 Anmil merit), and will be awarded in the same pattern. The difference is limited to federal student aid policies and the assciated enrollment projections. In the first case federal student aid is assumed to be $41* $63 and $100 million in 1972—73* 1 9 7 5 -7 6 and 1980—81, respectively, as com­ pared to $26 million in 1970-71 (all figures in 1972-73 dollars). In a fashion similar, but not identical, to that of assigning the supple­ mental grants in the case of vouchers (see Chapter VI), we assume that the most needy students will tend to continue to enroll in public twoyear colleges and the least needy in private institutions. As a result, average aid per SCH in the public two-year and four—year institutions is projected to be 1.Q and 1.4 times, respectively, that of average aid per SCH in the private sector. The public four-year colleges re­ tain more of their attractiveness to low—income students under this policy as compared to vouchers because their tuition costs do not rise so much, as we shall see later. Enrollment Is assumed identical to that In the base projection^ which may be an underestimate in view of the aid funds being targeted more effectively on the needy. In the second case the implications of an expanded student aid program accompanied by a large increase in enrollments are explored, Federal student aid is placed at $61, $113 and $200 million in 1972-73* 1975-76 and 198 O—81, respectively. The distribution among sectors is assumed to follow the same proportions as outlined in the above para­ graph. Undergraduate enrollment exceeds the present policies projec­ tion by an amount equal to one—half the difference between the present policies and equal educational opportunity policy projections (see Chapter IV). The relatively lower tuition costs in the private sector 246 due to the federal Institutional aid program cause undergraduate enroll­ ments to grow at an estimated 5 percent per year; the remainder of the undergraduate students are allocated within the public sector using the parameters outlined for the equal educational opportunity policy in Chapter IV* Graduate enrollment is projected to increase at the rate of the present policies projection rather than the "curtailed" rate used in the base; as in Chapter VI, internal consistency is pre­ served by adopting a policy of a more rapid growth in research and de­ velopment funds, i*e., 4 percent per year in place of 2 percent per year. Concluding comments In summaryt the working plan consists of a federal formula for institutional aid which recognizes the different costs associated with different levels of instruction and a federal student aid program tar­ geted directly on students from low—income families. Other traditional sources of funds behave much as they do now, with most of the financial relief flowing from increased federal involvement accruing to the state in the public sector and to students in the private sector. Since enrollment projections are often imprecise even when done with care, the proposed policy is examined under conditions of both a conservative and a liberal forecast of enrollments, which allows us to determine what parameters and burdens are particularly sensitive to changes in enrollment. in detail. In the next section these and other matters are presented 247 Future Financial Implications The results of applying the financial requirements model to the proposed policy are displayed in Tahle 24, accompanied by the results for the other policies examined in Chapter VI in order to facilitate comparisons. More detailed data pertaining to the proposal and its impact on each sector are presented in Table 25 of this chapter; com­ parable details for the 1 9 6 9 -7 0 base period are shown in Table 15 in Chapter VI. Note that all figures are in terms of 1972-73 dollars, as was the case in Chapter VI. TJsing constant value dollars facilitates comparisons over time, but actual expenditures and growth rates in the future must, of course, be greater by a factor sufficient to neutralize the impact of inflation. In the following examination of these data and their implications we will first consider the absolute magnitude of the required resources, then look at the student aid program, and lastly, explore the distribution of costs. Magnitude of the required resources The increase in total instructional costs in the C5.se of the conservative enrollment projection ("curtailed enrollment" in Table 2 4 ) iB identical to that of the first, or base, projection since the enroll­ ments and other cost parameters are identical. Assuming the liberal, or more expansive, enrollment projection raises total costB considered tly, #506 million in 1980—81 (of which 8132 million is an increase in cash outlay costs). But it is important to note that even in this most extreme case, the rate of increase in financial requirements in the second half of the 1970*s is comparable to that of real GNP, i.e., about 4 percent per year. This is encouraging for it indicates that Table 24 The Fin an cial Im plications fo r Michigan Higher Education o f A lte rn a tiv e Financing Proposals, Including the Author*s Recommendations (1972-73 d o lla rs ) Current P atternsCurrent P a ttem sBase C u rtailed Grad. E n ro ll, Present E n ro ll. Trends (1969-70) 72-73 75-76 80-81 72-73 75-76 80-81 Ave. T u itio n per Student C red it Hour( SCH) :T o ta l($ )^ / Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate Ave* Student Aid per SCH: T o tal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate General Fund: T o ta l (m il Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate $$ ($ft 1913 624 2222 725 2576 854 2906 2262 997 1471 182 218 383 22 331 30 59 1709 212 254 446 28 385 35 67 1972 250 297 525 33 455 37 79 23.6 23.2 13.3 40.0 25 24 14 43 3.9 3-7 1.6 8.3 624 434 106 84 747 2651 888 3014 1038 2200 291 348 612 38 529 45 94 1733 218 260 460 28 399 33 69 2023 260 507 547 35 474 38 81 2278 302 359 640 43 551 46 96 26 26 15 45 29 29 17 50 25 25 14 43 26 27 15 45 30 30 17 50 4.1 3.9 1.7 8 .5 4.2 4 .0 1.7 8.7 4.8 4 .6 2..0 10.3 4 .0 3.8 1.7 8.6 4.1 3>9 1.7 8.9 4 .7 4*4 2.1 10.8 725 496 133 96 854 582 160 112 997 681 182 134 747 516 135 96 888 606 170 112 1038 696 208 134 248 In s tru c tio n a l Costs by Source (m il $) T o ta l!/ Cash Outlay Students*/ Total-1' 2/ Cash O utlay-' Gross T u itio n & Fees Governmental^/ Local State Federal Other Table 24 (cont'd) Current Patterns- Current Patterns- C u rtailed Grad. E n ro ll. Present E n ro ll. Trends Base (1969-70) 80-81 72-73 75-76 80-81 75-76 72-73 R estricted Fund: T o tal (m il $$ 179 184 197 221 190 213 260 A ll Funds: T o tal (m il Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 803 605 109 89 909 670 137 102 1051 768 165 118 1218 888 188 142 937 696 139 102 1101 808 175 118 1298 941 215 142 Headcount Enrollment: T o tal (1000's) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 374 208 115 51 420 227 138 55 465 250 155 60 484 263 157 64 427 232 140 55 482 257 165 60 512 269 179 64 I Table 24 (cont'd) Increase Student-Faculty Ratio by 5 Percent Faculty Salaries Increase 2y 2$ (in place of 3.5$) Full-Cost Tuition & Touchers 75-76 80-81 72-73 75-7*> 80-81 72-73 75-76 80-81 2207 710 2558 836 2885 976 2212 715 2550 828 2844 935 2317 763 2717 904 3102 1054 1703 206 248 437 27 378 32 67 1966 244 291 514 32 445 37 78 2194 285 342 600 37 518 45 91 1705 208 250 440 27 381 32 67 1964 242 289 509 32 440 37 77 2180 271 328 577 35 497 45 87 1804 250 691 446 2113 300 819 525 2396 348 953 612 — — — 413 33 67 488 37 79 567 45 94 24 24 14 41 25 25 15 44 29 29 16 50 24 24 14 42 25 25 15 44 28 28 16 47 64 77 47 42 68 82 51 47 76 92 57 55 Stud, Aid per SCH: Total Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private 4.1 3.9 1.7 3.5 4.2 4 .0 1.7 8.7 4 .8 4.6 2.0 10.3 4.1 3.9 1.7 8.5 4.2 4 .0 1.7 8.7 4.8 4.6 2.0 10.3 41 41 45 36 43 43 47 37 48 50 51 40 General Fund: Total (mil *)£/ Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private 710 486 130 94 836 571 156 109 976 667 178 131 715 490 130 95 828 565 154 109 935 640 169 126 763 527 139 97 904 607 172 125 1054 670 202 182 Restr. Fund: Total (mil ,) 2/ ■I84 197 221 184= 197 221 184 197 221 Tuition per SCH: Total Public Four-Year Public Two-Year Private 250 72-73 Instructional Costs (mil $) Total!/ Cash Outlay Students1 1 Total-^ p/ Cash Outlay-' Gross Tuition & Pees Governmental!/ Local State Federal Other Table 24 (cont'd) Increase Student-Faculty Batio by 5 Percent 72-73 75-76 80-81 A ll Funds: To tal (m il $ ) - / Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 894 66o 134 100 1033 757 161 115 1197 874 184 Hdcnt. E n ro ll,: T o tal (1000's) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 420 465 227 250 158 55 155 60 484 263 157 139 64 Faculty S alaries Increase ■ 2?5 (in'place of 3*5$) 72-73 75-76 80-81 134 101 1025 751 159 115 1156 847 175 134 420 465 227 138 55 250 484 263 157 64 899 664 155 60 Full-C ost T u itio n & Touchers 72-73 75-76 80-81 947 1101 1275 701 795 877 143 177 208 103 131 190 438 237 145 56 494 260 167 67 525 264 174 87 Table 24 (cont*d) T u itio n per SCH: T o tal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate Recommended Policy Curtailed Enrollment Expanded Enrollment 72-73 75-76 80-81 72-73 75-76 80-81 2222 2576 854 2906 2222 997 725 1677 180 243 478 27 373 78 67 1864 2035 1,26 311 777 35 486 1684 256 127 94 58 23 23 14 39 24 24 14 39 26 23 24 14 36 24 24 5.3 4.5 5.6 7.8 725 142 272 633 32 424 177 ’79 27 16 41 Stud. Aid per SCH: T o tal Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 6.1 11 7.5 13 5.9 18 General Fund: T o tal (m il Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 725 496 135 96 854 582 160 112 997 681 182 134 R estr. Fund: T o tal (m il 201 270 336 2.8 11 16 18 8.2 2576 854 2906 2300 997 759 1915 193 2107 1719 272 2781 928 3312 1129 198 178 2021 168 317 732 36 344 352 67 253 297 2327 144 363 522 692 909 28 338 156 59 37 49 349 511 76 27 29 15 37 24 25 14 36 24 27 14 33 6.9 5.9 7.8 9.1 10.1 8.6 12.1 7.0 6.0 8.1 10.5 8.9 13.1 22 12.3 9.2 11.8 17 725 496 133 96 854 759 524 139 96 928 622 1129 582 160 112 997 681 182 134 187 246 119 169 156 165 182 162 182 222 187 242 480 27 326 597 32 311 254 64 26 14 35 320 335 68 27 30 15 37 16 13 714 252 In s tru c tio n a l Costs (m il $) T o ta l!/ Cash Outlay Students.. / To tal-^ 2/ Cash O utlay-' Gross T u itio n & Fees Governmental^/ Local State Federal Other Increased Federal Aid In Existing Pattern 75-76 80-81 72-73 Table 24 (cont*d) Increased Federal Aid In E xistin g P attern Recommended Policy C u rtailed Enrollment Expanded Enrollment 72-73 75-76 80-81 72-73 A ll Funds: To tal (m il %)^ Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 926 684 156 106 1124 822 168 134 1333 971 194 168 851 652 133 96 1019 747 160 112 1179 921 865 Hdcnt. E n ro ll.: T o tal (lOOO's) Public Four-Year Public Two-Year P rivate 420 227 138 55 465 484 265 157 64 420 465 250 155 60 250 72-73 75-76 80-81 1351 936 182 134 686 139 96 1110 804 187 119 484 265 157 64 435 235 145 55 508 263 181 64 568 275 212 81 246 169 253 155 60 227 138 55 75-76 80-81 254 Table 24 (cont*d) 1j Includes the opportunity cost to students as well as actual cash outlays. 2j Cash outlay Is defined as gross tuition and fees minus all student aid funds from state and federal sources. 3/ Includes grants to both Institutions and students. 4/ Gross tuition and fees divided by total student credit hours. JjJ Total student aid funds from state and federal sources divided by total student credit hours. 6/ Does not include the overhead portion of research and development funds, which is usually placed in this fund, jJ Includes the overhead portion which is usually placed in the "general fund" portion of financial reports. In accordance with usual practice, federal student financial aid funds administered by the colleges are included as part of restricted funds; since a portion of these funds are used by students to pay tuition, the addition of the general and restricted fund figures Involves an element of double—counting. 8/ General plus restricted funds; note that auxiliary funds, which include such things as food service and dormitory costs, are not included. 255 the opportunity for higher education can be extended to an increasing proportion of the next generation without a major re—ordering of socie­ ty* s priorities, as was necessary in the 1 9 6 0 *s when the "baby boom" generation became of college age. As noted in Chapter VI, the Blow­ down in the rate of increase will be especially significant if faculty compensation ceases to rise at the pace of the I960* s. Both of the projections for the proposed policy are based on a continuation of the 1960 's trend, and may be generous in terms of faculty rewards. In addition to total costs, we are also interested in the absolute level of support from the various contributors. Comparing the base period of 1969—70 with the proposed policy in Table 24, every source except state government expands its commitment. State outlays remain at approximately the same level throughout the 1 9 7 0 *s, with some ten­ dency for a slight decline in the first part of the decade followed by a slow rise. This is in marked contrast to the other alternatives, which imply a continued growth in state costs. Thus, federal inter­ vention along the recommended lines would give major fiscal relief to the 5t?.tes The costs to the federal treasury are somewhat dependent on the degree of expansion in enrollments due to the revamped and expanded student aid program. Based on the assumptions of this analysis, rea­ sonable estimates of federal outlays In Michigan are $125—155 million in the initial year (1972—75 in this case) and $350—510 million by 1960 -8 1 ; these are about $100 million and $300—450 million more than would be allocated for instructional ends with a continuation of pre­ sent policies. 256 Local government obligations would expand in the future much as they have in the recent past* These units would share in the increased costs resulting from expanded enrollments, but their responsibility would be in line with their present relative commitment. Students and the federal and state governments would also be providing support for increases in the size of the community college system. Student costs, as measured by tuition levels (aid will -be consi­ dered in a moment), exhibit trends different from those of the other policy alternatives. In the public four-year sector tuition charges increase at a rate identical to that anticipated with a continuation of present policies. The charges do not vary with the level of enroll­ ment since public appropriations alter in response to enrollment changes; the slight increase in tuition in the public four-year sector which occurs in response to the "expanded enrollment" assumption is a result of an increase in the proportion of graduate students, whose education is more costly than that of undergraduates. Student charges in the public two-year colleges are essentially stable under the pro­ posed policy, while they would continue to increase under present poli­ cies. But the greatest amount of relief is found in the private sector. The recommended policy would enable private institutions to decrease immediately -tuition slightly from present levels and to continue a slow downward trend into the mid—1 9 7 0 *s, after which student charges would resume their upward climb. Note, however, that although the de­ crease is of significant size It still leaves the private sector as the most expensive source of higher education; this would be especially true if graduate students in the public four—year sector pay a higher tuition than undergraduates, so that the average figures In Table 24 257 axe an overstatement of undergraduate charges. In summary, tuition charges under the proposed policy would increase in the public fouxyear sector, remain stable in the public two-year colleges, and fall slightly in the private sector. Although the public two-year colleges would continue to be the least expensive and private colleges the most expensive, the costs of both would decline relative to those of public four—year institutions. These conclusions are strictly true only for those students not receiving student aid, the topic to which we now turn. Student aid program Both the level and the distribution of the aid are important con­ siderations. The decision as to level is easy to understand and its implications are clear. Either of the two variations of the proposed policy represent a significantly larger commitment to student aid than would be expected from an extrapolation of current policies. On the other hand, neither even approaches the scale of the grants tinder a voucher scheme where essentially all public funds for instruction are funneled through students. The distribution of student aid funds is a more subtle question and one which is not understood by many. As was mentioned earlier and is clearly shown in Table 24* present practices tend to direct the aid towards students in private colleges to the greatest degree, to those in public four-year colleges to a somewhat lesser degree, and to community college students least of all— despite the tendency for low—income students to be in attendance in the reverse order. The recommended policy would match federal aid much more closely with needy students, resulting in a much improved position for 258 the low—income community college student. If one subtracts the aid figures from the tuition charges, the result shows that the student aid program does not change the ranking of the sectors with regard to stu­ dent costs, private colleges being most expensive and public two-year least expensive. Finally, it is well to remind ourselves that the state student aid programs would continue to operate as they do now, giving preference to a combination of academic ability and financial need through the state scholarship program and to students in the private sector throu^i the tuition grant program (see Chapter V). Distribution of costs Students continue, on the average, to pay the bulk of instruc­ tional costs, although the expanded federal student aid program tends to reduce this percentage a few points from its present mid—70fs range. This slight decrease seems appropriate, for the low—income students re­ ceiving the aid are not, and should not be, expected to pay as high a percentage of their costs as more well-to-do students. is once again misleading, of course. The average The higher income students with no aid would probably be bearing close to 80 percent of the total costs of their education, while the percentage would fall as the students' available resources fell and the size of their aid increased. This proposal leaves the higher-income student in much the same position as he currently occupies, and offers significant help to those from dis­ advantaged backgrounds. Implicit in this proposal and current policies is an assumption that the well-to-do student is the major beneficiary of his education and he should bear most of the costs (over threefourths), but that significant public good is also derived from 259 increasing the level of education which should be encouraged by public funds— especially in the case of lowen-income citizens* The belief that greater public benefit accrues from the education of lower-income people is based on a variety of assumptions, each of which is accepted by some and rejected by others* Examples of such underlying assumptions are: 1) the marginal utility of income is greater for low—income than high-income people, so transfers result in a benefit to the former which exceeds the cost to the latter; 2) higher income people are distressed by the relative poverty of others, so a transfer yields a benefit to both parties; 3) education is a human right, just as is legal justice, and the state has a responsibility to see that such rights are furnished to those who could not otherwise afford them* Students do not financially dominate the institutions of higher education within the framework of this proposal, as they do in the con­ text of a voucher scheme* As a percentage of cash outlay costs for instruction, their contribution in the form of tuition and fees is about 32 percent— certainly enoughsto enable appreciable leverage but not miffioieni to drown out other voices; A mejor theme running throughout this fctudy is the importance of the pattern of financial support of higher education, with the author preferring pluralism ra­ ther than domination by any one influence. The proposed policy reflects this concern; Table 25 contains a more detailed examination of the re­ commended policy* The first thing to note is that the distribution of support dif­ fers by sector, reflecting a healthy diversity which has been charac­ teristic of United States higher education. On the other hand, no sec­ tor is completely dominated by a single source. Another important I Table 25 Detailed Financial Implications for Michigan Higher Education of the Recommended Policy (millions of 1972-73 dollars) C urtailed Enrollment Sector 1972—75 1975-76 l?8 5 5 l ~ T “ R estricted Fund: T o tal-^ Federal State P rivate Other Public Two-Year: T o tal General Fund: T o tal T u itio n : To tal Gross per SGiF' Net: T o t a l! // Net per SCHF F e d e ra l!/ S ta te !/ Locals Other R estricted Fund: T o tal 19.5 56 262 30 n .a . 100 30 n. a. (24) n .a . 11 53 6 156 105 14 30 7 100 68 9 19 4 135 133 36 14 21 8 16 50 27 4 n .a . 100 27 n .a . (16) n .a . 12 38 20 3 652 496 148 24.1 120 747 n .a . 582 100 174 30 25.7 n .a . 134 (23) 19.8 n. a. 21 124 43 249 6 35 865 n .a . 681 100 30 203 28.9 n .a . 143 (21) 20.4 n .a . 166 24 278 41 34 5 100 68 9 19 4 182 123 16 35 8 100 68 9 19 4 160 n .a . 160 100 40 25 n .a . 14 17 (11) 6 n .a . 37 23 46 29 20 32 5 3 182 182 46 15 10 3 47 47 36 6 n .a . 100 25 n .a . (5 ) n .a . 2$ 26 20 3 165 112 14 32 7 1972-73 s T 1973-76 i 1980-81 % ~t 686 524 157 24.9 119 18.9 64 272 31 n .a . 100 30 n .a . (23) n .a . 12 52 6 .804 622 188 27.0 126 18.1 147 250 37 xua. 100 30 n .a . (20) n .a . 24 40 6 936 714 214 30.3 121 17.1 199 265 36 n .a . 100 30 n .a . (17) n .a . 28 37 5 162 110 14 31 7 100 68 9 19 4 182 123 16 35 8 100 68 9 19 4 222 151 19 42 10 100 68 9 19 4 187 n .a . 100 187 25 47 14- n .a . 2 (1) 0.6 n .a . 43 23 29 54 20 37 6 3 246 246 62 15 -25 -6 63 65 49 7 n .a . 100 25 n .a . 139 n .a . 100 139 38 27 14 n .a . 16 (12) 6 n .a . 12 17 52 58 28 20 4 3 — n# 3*1 26 26 20 3 260 Public Four-Year: T o tal General Fund: T o ta l!/ T u itio n : T o tal „# Gross per Net: T o t a l! // Net per SCH^ F e d e ra l!/ S ta te * Other Expanded Enrollment Table 25 (co n t'd ) Sector C urtailed Enrollment 1972. 1980-81 1975-7^ ■77, I $ 3 % * i P riv a te : T o tal General Fund: T o tal T u itio n : T o tal Gross per SCH 2/ Net: T o t a ls , Net per SCiF Federal^/ P rivate Other 96 a, a. 100 96 60 58 36 n .a . 46 (48) 29 n .a . 14 15 18 19 6 6 112112 58 33 42 24 30 18 6 n .a . 100 52 n .a . (38) n .a . 27 16 5 134 134 68 37 45 24 39 20 7 n .a . 100 51 n .a . (34) □ •a. 29 15 5 ic>72. $ i 96 96 58 36 43 27 14 18 6 n .a . 100 60 n. a. ( 45) n .a . 15 19 6 .1973-76 $ % 1980-81 119 119 62 169 n .a . 100 169 87 51 n .a . 37 48 (28) 20 n .a . 29 49 15 25 8 5 33 40 22 32 19 6 n .a . 100 52 n .a . ( 34) n .a . 27 16 5 i R estricted Fund: T o tal n .a . indicates "not applicable'1 1/ Does not include the overhead portion o f research and development funds, which is usu ally placed in th is fund. 2/ SCH re fe rs to "student c re d it hour." Net tu itio n is defined as gross tu itio n and fees minus a l l student a id funds from state and fe d e ra l sources. tj Does not include grants made d i^ c t ly to students. Includes the overhead portion wliich is usually placed in the general fund. 262 point concerning1the general pattern is the high degree of stability in the face of enrollment changes, i.e., this policy would share the burden of unexpected, or expected, increases in enrollment among all of the funding agents rather than placing the entire load on one or two participants. The state continues to be the major supporter of public four-year institutions, but part of its responsibility is gradually shifted to the federal government. Student tuition charges continue to provide 30 percent of the general fund receipts, with only minor amounts coming from sources other than these three. The instructional program of these colleges would still be dependent on student and state support, as is true now, but the federal government would also be expected to have an influence in the form of criteria associated with its aid. Public two-year colleges would receive major support from four sources, one more than in either of the other two sectors. Receipts from student tuition decline slightly, in relative terms,tto about 25 percent of the general fund, in accord with the policy objectives of keeping tuition charges low in this sector. Local sources continue to provide 20 percent of the budget, which is also a "target” figure in the proposed policy. As was true in the public four-year sector, the major change is a shift of a portion of the state burden to the federal government; by 1980—81 each level of government contributes an equal share, 26 percent of general fund monies. Thus, to the degree that budgets do reflect influence, these local colleges would find themselves responding to the needs of their students and three levels of govern­ ment-local, state and federal. One would hope that the local compo­ nent would be sufficiently strong to produce in these institutions a 263 responsiveness to local problems and people not normally expected or found in the four-year colleges, public or private. The private sector exhibits a distinctly different pattern, in keeping with its important tradition of providing a home for endeavors which may lack broad public support. The bulk of the funds would still come from students and other private groups, e.g,, 51 percent and 20 percent, respectively, in 1980—81, This should, it is'hoped, be suffi­ cient to insure that special interest groups now exerting a major in­ fluence on these institutions will continue to be the dominant force. For example, religious groups would still have a special, close rela­ tionship with some institutions and those students looking for a good liberal arts education in a small college atmosphere would continue to be able to find such an experience. The balance of the funds, 29 per­ cent in 1980—81, originate with the federal government. These federal dollars will help to reduce the cost to special interest groups of realizing their preference, but will undoubtedly carry restrictions which will limit the recipients to some extent. Exactly how this trade­ off would be resolved is impossible to foresee, but the author hopes it would be in the direction of continued, and even expanded, diversity in private colleges due to relatively lower student costs (as compared to other colleges in the system) and few federal restrictions. Summary The proposed policy for the financing of higher education strives for a balance between providing a service to existing society and being a stimulus for change. It would be incorrect to look upon the desired neutrality as derived from a detachment from society. A more accurate 264 view would be one of higher education as the focus of a variety of forces, some strong and others weak, butnone sufficiently powerful to dictate policy* The situation is like that of a satellite in a sta­ tionary orbit above a point on the earth's surface, whose apparent stability is the result of a carefully balanced set of forces. Each sector receives support from a variety of sources, each with its own viewpoint of the world and its problems. In addition, and equally important, the pattern of financing differsffrom one sec­ tor to another. ThiB plan would not destroy, but instead encourage, diversity among our colleges and universities. The federal government retains its central role in the promotion of research and development and expands its commitment to instruction. All federal student aid programs are combined into one grant program which Would focus on aiding low-income students directly, rather than through the colleges. A non—subsidized loan program would be availa­ ble to all who required additional funds for their education. Insti­ tutions, both public and private, would receive aid on a formula basis recognizing differences in levels— and possibly fields——of instruction. State and local governments would continue to have a major res­ ponsibility for recognizing and supporting good instructional programs in the public colleges. Their functions would change very little with the adoption of the proposed policy, although the federal institutional aid would provide a significant measure of fiscal relief to the state. The bulk of the costs of instruction, 70 percent or more (in­ cluding opportunity costs), would be borne by students, just as they are now. Students would be an important source of cash funds in all sectors, but they——in combination with other private interests——would 265 tie most dominant in the private colleges. The private sector would remain distinct in its distribution of financial support, as well as in other dimensions such as governance. Students from higher-income families would find themselves facing an array of tuition costs much like the present one, except for a slight decline in the relative cost of public two-year and private colleges. Low—income students would have an Increased probability of receiving aid and a great deal of latitude as to where they used it. Chapter YIII Summary The research on the financing of higher education which is the tasis for this report had three prime objectives: 1) Identify the relationships between the goals recommended for higher education and the alternative methods of finance, 2) Develop a model which specifies in quantitative terms the causal links between the physical variables of primary con­ cern. 3) Evaluate several policy alternatives in order to assist those who are making public policy decisions and to demon­ strate the use of the frameworks developed under objectives 1) and 2). The major results of the analysis are summarized in this chapter. American higher education must be understood in dynamic, rather than static, terms. The first institutions represented attempts to copy English colleges. Education in this period was not to focus narrowly on the intellect but on the whole person, which was accom­ plished best in residential colleges. The curriculum, consisting primarily of the classical languages and literatures, was designed to develop men who would preserve culture— not reconstruct Bociety. The English-based model, although challenged, dominated the scene until the Civil War, a pehlod of approximately 200 years. The other impor­ tant foreign influence, the German university, rose in importance throughout the 1800* s. This model centered on a concept of the uni­ versity as a place where truth would be pursued through original sci­ entific investigation by free agents, 266 267 Neither the English nor German influence was transplanted with­ out change, however. Ideals distinctly American in their origin gained increasing importance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, American higher education is more democratic, hoth in its large stu­ dent body from diverse backgrounds and its wide—ranging curriculum. The American college or university is more dedicated to service to society; those expecting, and often obtaining, service range from small farmers to corporate heads, from county commissioners to the President, In most cases the growth in the scope and magnitude of higher educa­ tion in this country has come in response to external pressures from a wide variety of sources, with little attention paid to broader is­ sues, The resulting lack of a comprehensive philosophy or understan­ ding as to the proper role of higher education is at the root of the present crisis in higher education, which encompasses financial con­ cerns as well as many other dimensions. The main pointB of view differ in many respects, but disagree­ ments related to the role of the higher education community as critics of society appear to be at the core of much of the oonfl int- Many people expect the colleges and universities to facilitate theeendeavors of others, not criticize them. The important decisions concern­ ing the goals of education should be left to those with economic power, political power, the faculty or students— depending on the values of the particular writer. A different group maintains that a detached pursuit of knowledge leads to the best formulation of problems and solutions; they argue the aim of those in higher education should be to insulate themselves as much as possible from the contemporary con­ cerns of mankind. Others urge those in higher education to be active 268 critics of society, maintaining a careful balance between responding to the wishes of those served and simultaneously offering advice as to alternative goals and means. Finally, there are those who believe that the higher education community, both individuals and institutions, should play a leading role in overthrowing existing centers of power. The importance of giving careful consideration to these differ­ ences in role orientation is that many organizational and financial implications flow from each. Those who expect higher education to assume a passive role of responding to the needs of individuals and other institutions tend to favor clearly defined, responsive lihkages between higher education and those to be served. Such linkages insure that a lack of responsiveness on the part of educational institutions is met by a cut-off in support so severe that the institutions must adjust quickly if they are to survive. The people who prefer that higher education maintain a detached perspective abhor linkages such as the above; ideally, they favor sources of funds completely within institutional control such as endowment funds, but where this is im­ possible they tend to favor a di ence can dominate. of so no one infln™ Such diversity is also supported by those who urge higher education to play a critical role, as a means of insuring that higher education be relevant to current problems while limiting the power of any single force to retaliate. Those who argue that higher education serve a counter-culture find it difficult to identify a viable system of finance, but they do condemn the use of funds from established powers such as corporate business and many of the action agencies within the federal government. 269 While essential, knowledge of the relationships between the goals of higher education and the altemaitve methods of finance is not adequate for planning purposes. A framework, i.e., model, is needed which allows decision makers to estimate the resource require­ ments of alternative goal (policy) choices. Statistical analysis of aggregate undergraduate and graduate (analyzed separately) enrollments in Michigan over the last two de­ cades indicates that changes are associated with variations in the college-age population, number of people discharged from the Armed Services, income, and unemployment. Projections based in part on the statistically estimated parameters and in part on supplementary policy assumptions indicate that substantial differences in enrollment can be expected as a result of variations in economic growth and higher education policy. However, there is very strong evidence that the growth in undergraduate, and to a large extent total, enrollments will slow to a very small rate by the late 1 9 7 0 *s. Using the results of the analysis of aggregate undergraduate enrollments plus much mere detailed data for a shorter period (six years, 1965 / 66 —70 / 7 1 ), the impacts of tuition and student aid variables on enrollments were investigated. Increases in tuition at the public four-year institutions did appear to have a negative impact on enroll­ ments; the evidence was inconclusive elsewhere. The two student aid programs administered by the State of Michigan, which both award grants to students who then have considerable flexibility with regard to their choice of college, did appear to be affecting enrollment patterns and possibly levels. There is very little evidence, however, that federal student aid programs had an impact on enrollments. The 270 federal funds are given to colleges which are responsible for selec­ ting recipients. In the case of two universities it seems probable that students receiving federal aid replace other students, with the result that enrollment in each university is unaffected but total enrollment in higher education may increase. be occurring in other institutions; This "bumping" may also it was impossible to determine the scale of such displacement with this analytic model*:: Tndthe au­ thor* s judgment, the analytic results imply that in many instances financial aid officers in the colleges are primarily making awards to students who would remain in attendance without benefit of such aid. The final modeling effort required before policy alternatives could be analyzed was the development of a rather simple framework which Enables estimates of future financial requirements to be compu­ ted, assuming alternative public policies and enrollments. After first converting the headcount enrollment figures to student credit hours, the required number of faculty and total faculty compensation are calculated. H s*w > The remainder of the budget, except for research and ■? n n ■? i< ^ T 4*Vi O WilW *1 T w m rtvtl particular quantities or prices are identified. ks 1-1 4- 4 J- *-• U X W M t f C J- L/UU H U The estimate can be modified to reflect alternative policies concerning changes in the student—faculty ratio, faculty compensation, mix of institutions with respect to size, relative program emphasis, and many other factors. Turning to the policy lmplications, there are strong indications that the rate of increase in total financial requirements in the re­ mainder of the 1 9 7 0 's will be quite comparable to the rate of growth in the economy, as opposed to the 1960*s when higher education con­ sumed an ever increasing fraction of the gross national product. An 271 examination of two of the most common approaches to cost—cutting yields estimates that 1) increasing the student—faculty ratio by 5 percent would reduce cash outlay costs of instruction by 2,1 percent and 2) a decrease of 1.5 percentage points (from 5-5 to 2.0 percent) in the annual growth of faculty compensation would reduce cash outlay costs of instruction by 5 a-nd 6 percent in 1975—76 and 1980—81, respectively. Students, as a whole, will continue to bear the great majority (slightly over three-quarters) of the total costs— including opportu­ nity costs— associated with their education, although rather massive amounts of student aid would reduce this slightly. This is not often realized or remembered due to the excessive emphasis on cash ottlay costs, to which students contribute 29 percent of the total. If pre­ sent policies are continued, tuition charges will rise at a moderate but persistent rate of about 2*»3 percent per year. Adoption of a full—cost tuition and vouchers policy would raise tuition levels by more than a factor of three in the public sector. Considering the vouchers as well as the tuition charges, the average student in the ■public sector is likely to experience a much larger net charge while those in private institutions would have much lower net costs; al­ though still having the lowest net cost in terms of tuition minus the value of the voucher for the average student, those in public twoyear colleges gain less than those in the private sector. Expansion of existing federal student aid programs with the addition of a "cost of education" grant directly to the institution would benefit private institutions and their students most, public two-year colleges and students least, with public four—year institutions and students in an intermediate position. 272 Increasing the growth rate of research and development funds by 2 percentage points (assuming 4 rather than 2 percent per year, both of which are higher than recent rates) yields an extra $16 million in 1975-76 and $39 million in 1980—81 for these purposes in Michigan higher education. The author recommends a system in which financial support comes from a variety of sources. The aim is, on the one hand, to keep the higher education community cognizant of a wide range of current and future problems while, on the other hand, to insure that no single outside force is sufficiently powerful to dictate higher education policy. APPENDICES Appendix A Data Base For The Aggregate Demand Model Appendix A contains all data used in the estimation of the para— meters of the aggregate demand model presented in Table 2 of the text. The data are accompanied by a detailed listing of the sources and a comment by the author as to their characteristics. 275 Table 26 Pall Headcount Enrollment in Michigan by Student Level and Type of Institution, 1951-71 Year Public Four-Year Grad­ Under­ grad uate Total Public TwoYear Private Under- Grad­ RracL uate Total All Institutions Under­ Grad­ grad uate Total 1959 1952 1955 1954 54,395 54,834 56,600 61,439 14,311 14,661 14,958 16,097 68,706 69,495 71,558 77,536 4,900 6,854 8,102 9,739 21,536 21,367 21,766 24,000 1,593 1,589 1,598 1,773 23,129 22,956 23,364 25,773 80,831 83,055 86,468 95,178 15,904 16,250 16,556 17,870 96,735 99,305 103,024 113,048 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 68,642 75,046 78,165 78,447 78,789 17,239 19,68? 21,473 23,525 24,274 85,881 94,733 99,638 101,972 103,063 13,652 16,176 19,837 22,784 24,592 26,857 28,227 28,999 30,541 31,763 1,911 1,816 1,929 2,251 2,350 28,768 30,043 30,928 32,792 34,113 109,151 119,449 127,001 131,772 135,144 19,150 21,503 23,402 25,776 26,624 128,301 140,952 150,403 157,548 161,768 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 80,653 83,290 89,374 97,023 107,528 27,005 28,792 30,560 32,090 35,586 107,658 112,082 119,834 129.113 143.114 27,229 31,619 34,356 38,001 46,123 34,065 35,184 36,436 37,015 39,697 2,333 3,094 3,264 3,596 3,775 36,398 38,278 39,700 40,611 43,472 141,947 150,093 160,066 172,039 193,348 29,338 31,886 33,824 35,686 39,361 171,285 181,979 193,890 207,725 232,709 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 122,632 132,677 141,203 149,841 158,639 39,680 43,810 46,505 48,578 49,684 162,312 176,487 187,708 198,419 208,323 58,216 69,496 79,698 95,065 115,299 43,766 45,060 45,979 46,297 46,282 4,130 4,402 4 ,4 8 2 ., 4,480-i/ 4,477 47,896 49,462 50,461 50,777 50,759 224,614 247,233 266,880 291,203 320,220 43,810 48,212 50,987 53,058 54,161 268,424 295,445 317,867 344,261 374,381 1970 1971 164,525 169,080 53', 277 51,085 217,802 220,165 125,553 132,059 47,861 48,039 4,487 4,889 52,348 52,928 337,939 349,178 57,764 55,974 395,703 405,152 1/ Estimate ro Table 26 (cont*d) Sourceb 1969-71, ALL CATEGORIES: Michigan Department of Education, "Analysis of Opening Pall Enrollment of Resident and Extension Students at Col­ leges and Universities in Michigan, Headcount Basis, by Type of Insti­ tution, 1967 —1 9 7 1 >" 1 9 7 1 ? undergraduate and graduate enrollments ob­ tained from unpublished data collected by the Higher Education Planning and Coordination Services, Michigan Department of Education. 1968 , ALL CATEGORIES: Michigan Department of Education, Enrollments in Michigan Colleges and Universities. Pall 1968. 1969* I96 O-67 , ALL CATEGORIES: Michigan Department of Education, A Report on Enrollments in Michigan Colleges and Universities. June 1 9 6 8 . 1951-59, PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR: Michigan Council of State College Presi­ dents, Historical Enrollment Counts for Council Institutions 1950—51 to 1964 -65 . (Lansing. Michigan). April 196&. 1951—59, PUBLIC T W O - Y E A R : Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, all is— sues during the 1952—61 period. 1951-59, PRIVATE: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, all issues during the I952 -6 I period; Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (MACRAO), MACRAO Enrollment Report for the years 1955 -59 * It was necessary to subtract the enrollments in some of the proprietory schools in order to make the 1951—59 series consistent with the i960—69 data* Missing observations were completed by refer­ ring to either MACRAO or U.S. Office of Education data. The procedure used to separate graduate and undergraduate enrollments in the private sector for 1951-59 is as follows: The BiennialReports were the source of total enrollment for all years. Graduate enrollments in 1955—59 were obtained from the MACRAO Report by subtracting undergra­ duate enrollment from total enrollment; the undergraduate enrollment in the above table was then obtained by subtracting the MACRAO graduate enrollment from the total enrollment figure in the Biennial Report. The rationale for this approach is that the Biennial Report contains no breakdown by level and that the MACRAO figures for graduate enroll­ ment are likely to be more consistent with our intent of including both degree and non-degree credit enrollments than the MACRAO figures for undergraduate enrollment, i.e., probably few, if any, graduate students enrolled in private institutions were excluded from the MACRAO count by virtue of being enrolled in courses for which credit toward a degree was not normally granted. No figures for enrollment by graduate and undergraduate level are available for the private sector during 19 51 — 54. Thus, it was necessary to extrapolate in this period using the observed values in 1955 — 5 9 ? "to ihe degree that the relative percentage of graduate and undergraduate students changed in this period there will be some error. 27 6 Table 26 (cont*d) 1951-59, ALL INSTITUTIONS: Calculated by summing public four-year, public two-year and private. 277 Discussion of the Data in Table 26 The figures for all categories in the I960—71 period appear to be quite accurate and consistent. The data for the public four-year institutions in the 1951—59 period also seem to be good, having under­ gone scrutiny by the institutions themselves as well as by a central collecting agency. ThUB, the bulk of the data is very reliable since the public four—year colleges contained over 60 percent of the students in the 1951—59 period. The public two-year enrollment figures prior to i960 have not been submitted to the same degree of review as those of the public four-year institutions. However, they appear to be quite good. These figures tend to be slightly higher than those recorded by the Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (MACRAO), but this is to be expected since the MACRAO figures include "only stu­ dents enrolled in courses for which credit toward a degree is normally granted," The MACRAO series extends only as far back as 1955* The figures for enrollments in the private colleges in 1951—59 Eire probably reasonably accurate, although to a lesser degree than the public sector data. The weaknesses are quite obvious from the expla­ nation of sources and derivation given earlier. Since total state enrollment is the variable which was used in the estimating procedure and the private sector contained less than one—fourth of total enroll­ ment, small errors in this series are not particularly worrisome. 278 Table 27 Sum Of Public And Private Enrollments In Michigan Primary and Secondary Schools by Grades For Selected Years, 1933-67 Grade 2 & Year x 1933 1934 104,114 102,549 96,742 98,893 9 6 ,7 4 1 9 6 ,7 9 0 97,344 97,177 93,212 97,457 91,306 92,781 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 102,560 93,914 94,348 94,806 95,479 94,540 92,409 95,914 94,492 93,924 91,046 91,018 9 5 .1 7 2 9 4 ,2 4 0 9 3 ,2 1 3 9 2 .1 7 2 88,173 95,748 92,428 93,090 92,520 89,425 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 93,978 97,704 99,941 105,103 110,649 85,576 87,518 91,180 94,152 96,627 86,644 84,180 85,785 90,959 92,461 85,997 83,310 86,144 89,269 90,354 87,997 84,610 83,908 84,285 90,776 85,034 81,953 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 108,816 111,319 110,830 100,867 100,152 103,082 109,948 124,440 94,072 98,476 98,782 101,578 109,119 90,064 92,067 97,166 96,899 101,759 86,665 87,937 90,596 95,810 97,283 82,089 85,152 87,140 89,456 96,045 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1 2 2 ,4 5 2 1 2 3 ,3 7 2 1 4 6 ,3 6 6 121,589 1 0 0 ,0 5 6 118,149 139,527 107,579 121,040 124,328 117,359 118,868 107,380 119,048 125,395 117,429 95,991 99,838 105,523 119,840 125,591 176,611 165,329 188,271 188,988 162,365 164,713 165,983 173,900 177,711 163,508 161,104 161,645 162,465 170,670 138,578 161,470 157,898 157,934 159,285 118,412 137,089 158,584 154,830 155,446 117,475 117,627 134,830 155,856 152,638 195,300 198,006 204,054 178,971 185,262 188,273 175,547 176,375 183,393 167,940 173,340 1 5 7 ,6 8 8 153,408 156,199 165,169 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1 0 2 ,2 2 9 9 9 ,6 3 1 9 5 ,2 9 1 9 1 ,9 9 8 1 3 2 ,1 4 0 1 3 3 ,5 4 0 171,413 169,143 1 7 3 ,6 8 8 9 1 ,1 0 3 126,839 117,874 117,835 140,331 164,587 1 1 2 6 ,2 1 3 1 1 6 ,5 0 9 A 9 1 ,8 6 8 91,219 8 8 ,9 6 4 1 7 5 ,2 1 2 1 166,304 171,451 89,800 89,759 8 8 ,7 1 1 279 Table 27 (cont*d) Grade Year 2 8 2 10 11 12 1939 91,673 90,410 84,336 7 6 ,6 8 4 63,954 57,212 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 8 9 ,7 0 0 82,692 80,350 8 7 ,8 6 9 75,243 72,189 67,573 65,376 67,088 64,870 62,010 54,931 54,578 53,821 5 6 ,9 2 3 5 6 ,1 2 3 5 0 ,9 0 1 87,140 84,058 88,909 86,160 84,293 85,732 83,145 45,331 45,877 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 81,545 81,795 85,235 87,286 91,197 79,849 77,688 78,797 82,332 86,014 7 6 ,0 4 7 7 3 ,3 7 0 7 3 ,4 3 1 69,405 75,069 80,141 65,800 66,682 68,958 57,023 59,276 58,512 57,400 59,043 47,788 52,536 53,865 53,299 54,121 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 95,560 96,906 98,770 80,989 84,154 87,834 90,213 95,236 70,373 73,666 74,643 81,488 83,077 58,328 62,597 62,798 65,934 121,261 87,869 93,142 92,958 98,044 105,311 52,075 53,436 56,115 57,802 60,974 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 126,874 118,435 118,151 134,476 155,581 119,263 123,951 114,876 114,211 130,940 102,098 115,215 120,913 111,337 110,658 87,577 94,733 107,836 112,842 103,308 72,833 77,318 84,968 96,736 99,586 66,168 66,5 8 6 70,835 77,813 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 153,810 154,638 158,595 166,745 168,973 152,325 150,488 152,456 157.191 161,376 1 2 8 ,0 7 9 104,830 122,535 140,695 149.439 149,336 93,580 95,803 111,425 138.647 135,074 9 2 ,8 8 8 1965 1966 1967 173,245 181,806 185,761 168,829 174,543 179,484 163,532 171,744 173,150 155,218 1 6 4 ,2 4 0 138,004 143,863 170,283 1 5 1 ,2 1 1 89,368 1 0 7 ,3 0 2 7 7 ,3 7 2 7 6 ,5 0 3 7 8 ,1 3 1 150,654 1 4 6 ,1 6 7 153.889 154,135 6 7 ,8 8 9 7 1 ,9 9 2 8 8 ,2 7 0 86,532 8 8 ,5 0 2 106.582 126,255 125,469 128,191 131,631 Sources ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL LATA: "Enrollments By Grades For Selected Years," Bureau of Administrative Services, Department of Education. 1964 —67 , PRIVATE: Bureau of Research, Michigan Department of Education. 1949-63, PRIVATE: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, all issues in the 1950-64 period. 1 Table 27 (cont*d) Derivation of total enrollment in 1935-48: Since there is no data by grade for the private sector prior to 1949 , it was necessary to estimate the sum of the public and private from the public school data* Using data available in the Bureau of Research on the total enrollment in the private system in selected years prior to 1 9 5 0 , it was determined that the private enrollment was a slowly increasing proportion of the public enrollment. A slight complicating factor is the apparent practice of many students taking their first eight years of schooling in the private sector and then transferring to the public system for grades nine through twelve. This manifests itself in the data 4s a drop in the proportion of private to public students after the eighth grade. It is assumed that the factors used to convert the public school data to an estimate of total enrollment. Grade Year 1—8 9 -1 2 1933-42 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.135 1.145 1.155 1 9 4 3 -4 6 1 9 4 7 -4 8 281 Discussion of the Data in Table 27 Including private enrollment is very important because of the recent decline in the percentage of students in the private sector; if this percentage was constant and was expected to remain constant, pub­ lic school enrollment would have exactly the same predictive powers as total enrollment when the regression technique is used. However, in present circumstances a model including only public school enroll­ ments would contain a misleading upward trend attributable to a trans­ fer of students from the private to the public sector. These data are probably an accurate measure of year-to-year vari­ ation. However, they are inconsistent with the population data which casts some doubt on the general level of the figures. This point is covered in greater detail in the discussion of the population data in Table 28. i 282 Table 28 Michigan Population By Single Years of Age for Ages 0-5 For Selected Years, 1930-56 Age 2 Year 0 1 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 8 8 ,9 0 9 85,243 79,110 74,581 73,992 89,251 89,897 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 77,106 78,687 81,010 84,838 86,127 74,814 77,963 80,016 81,911 85,780 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 87,092 92,972 104,205 113,526 108,758 87,084 88,060 94,005 9 1 ,8 6 9 9 2 ,8 9 8 1 0 6 ,5 2 0 99,170 114,774 1 1 1 ,1 5 2 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 103,566 115,059 138,964 146,010 145,792 111,148 119,764 114,733 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 148,766 156,278 166 *96 171^382 178,159 1 4 7 ,3 4 3 1 5 0 ,3 4 9 4*i;o1 1955 1956 184,489 8 6 ,1 9 0 94,753 94,155 94,836 79,989 75,410 84,384 9 0 ,9 2 5 79,553 7 8 ,9 2 4 02,247 84,413 86,412 90,493 ... . 3 4 . ..5 _ 96,141 95,740 95,136 95,824 91,873 96,141 95,740 95,136 95,824 99,114 98,701 98,078 85,263 80,382 79,747 83,104 85,292 91,873 85,263 80,382 79,747 83,104 98,788 94,714 87,900 82,868 82,213 87,312 91,436 9 2 ,8 2 6 — 93,866 100,203 85,292 87,312 91,436 92,826 93,866 85,674 87,930 9 0 ,0 1 2 94,264 95,697 1 1 2 ,3 1 0 100,203 121,011 115,929 109,195 1 1 2 ,3 1 0 1 0 3 ,3 0 2 1 2 1 ,3 1 2 121,011 115,929 109,195 115,783 124,754 119,514 1 5 0 ,7 2 0 144,941 1 2 1 ,3 1 2 1 5 2 ,2 9 0 144,941 H fTO O O O 168,137 173,186 148,894 151,932 159,603 168,137 112,572 1 2 5 ,0 6 4 H *0 ***0*** • 157,000 155,098 180,035 173,186 169,889 1 0 4 ,6 9 2 1 1 7 ,5 6 0 1 4 0 ,4 5 9 1 4 9 ,1 5 0 1 0 8 ,0 6 9 120,061 143,447 -t crn> a a r * 153,514 161,265 150,445 153,514 161,265 96,769 158,262 166,253 Sources Michigan Department of Public Health, Michigan Population Handbook 1965. November 1965U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Reports for 1930* 1940, 1950 and 1960, Bureau of the Census* 285 Table 28 (cont*d) Derivation Data on the population by single years of age are published for only the census years. Thus, it was necessary to do a great deal of Interpolating using the number of live births to estimate the above data. The figures in the above table should be regarded as approximate indicators of the general level of population and not as "exact1' in anv sense of the word. In order to estimate the potential number of 0 year-olds on July 1 (to correspond with census estimates) in year t, the number of live births in year t—1 plus the number of live births in year t is divided by 2. This number is the basic figure from which all survival ratios are calculated using census data, i.e., the number of 0 yearolds is compared with the potential number in the current year, the number of 1 year-olds with the potential number of 0 year-olds in the previous year, etc. The following survival ratios are the result of this exercise. 0 1 2 JL 1930-42 1943-44 1945-46 .9 0 1 9 4 7 -4 8 .93 .94 .95 .96 .91 .92 .93 .94 -95 .96 .97 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 -96 -97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 Year 1949-51 1052-55 1956 .9 1 .9 2 5 .97 .97 -97 .97 .97 .97 .97 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 Two factors appear to be implicit in the above pattern: 1) de­ clining infant mortality and 2) declining importance of In-migration; Both of these are reasonable trends. 284 Discussion of the Data an Tahle 28 The author considers this set of data to be the weakest link in the chain of support for the analysis. This conclusion stems not only from the method of derivation, but also from certain tests of consis­ tency with the data on enrollments by grade. The problem in the data appears to be one of the general level of the figures and not one of faulty year-to—year variation. In 1940 census figures indicate there were 70*286 six yeaa>-olds while enroll­ ment figures showed 9 3 *9 7 0 students in the first grade; in 19 50 the respective figures are 118,565 figures are 181,630 and 195*300. "122 ,4 5 2 ; in i960 the respective To the degree that the census figures and/or the enrollment figures err in a consistent percentage fashion, the predictive power of a regression model will not be affected. How­ ever, a fluctuating or changing percentage of coverage might have sig­ nificant effects. T'flVino' £>_ more optimistic view, the date on population, by single years of age are used only in developing the long-term projections, i.e., for 1982 and beyond. These long-term projections should be in­ terpreted only as very general indications of level; for this p u rp o s e we might be willing to tolerate a greater degree of error in the data than we would in the short and intermediate-term. 285 Table 29 Table 30 Apparent Size of the Armed Forces,* 1943—70 (thousands) 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 9,240 11,689 12,355 3,004 1,560 1,463 1,610 1,572 2,384 2,498 3,543 3,436 3,209 2,916 2,821 2,671 2,616 2,536 2,546 2,851 2 ,7 3 2 2,726 2,711 2,905 3,380 3,449 3,472 3,386 * Total, population including Armed Forces overseas minus civilian resident population. Sources: 1943-49 figures are for July 1 and are calculated from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Pop­ ulation Reports. Series P-25, No, 223. 1950-70 figures are for January 1 and are calculated from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series P-2 5 , No. 4 3 9 . Discharges from the Armed Forces, Fiscal Years 1946—70 (thousands) 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 9 ,0 0 0 1 ,7 0 0 600 390 430 240 710 1,140 1,000 1,160 800 670 730 620 530 500 470 620 610 540 550 600 810 1,000 over 1,000* * Opinion of Clayton Thompson Source: Unpublished data from the Denertment of Defense* oh— tained 1946—67 from Dr. Harvey Galper and 1968-70 from Mr. Clayton Thompson. 286 Table 31 Selected Economic Indicators, 1951— 69 Year Michigan Michigan Real Personal ^ , Real Per Capita Income (Millions)— ' Income^/ Michigan Insured Unemployment Rate-2/ U.S. Unemployment Rate^/ 1951 1952 1955 1954 13,454 14,078 15,649 15,173 2,071 2,117 2,294 2,147 2.7 3.2 2.2 6.2 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.5 1955 1956 1957 16,825 17,164 17,023 16,396 17,412 2 ,3 1 0 2,299 2,249 2,138 2,242 2.9 5-3 11.2 5.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 6.8 5.5 17,969 17,842 18,904 2,294 2,256 2,386 2,507 2,675 5.3 7.3 4.5 3.5 2.9 5.5 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 2 ,8 6 4 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.2 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 2 0 ,1 4 2 21,828 23,870 24,“914 25,332 26,811 27,534 2,932 2,943 3 ,0 6 8 3,141 4 .8 Sources 1J and 2/ Executive Office of the Governor, Economic Report of tthe Governor 1970. State of Michigan, F e b r u a r y I97 O. 3/ Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan Statistical Abstract■ Eighth Edition, Michigan State University, 1970. 4/ U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Report of the President. "Table A-12. Unemployed Persons 16 Years and Over and Unemployment Rates, by Sex and Color: Annual Averages, 1947— 69," U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1970. Appendix B Table 32 Base Bata Used In Calculating The Enrollment Projections Year Armed Forces Discharges. (lOOO’s)-!/ Michigan Beal Personal Income 0, (Millions Y* U.S. Unemployment Bate4/ 26,779 28,032 29,606 31,175 32,671 3,009 3,116 3,270 3,411 3,540 4.9 5.9 5.6 4.7 4.2 1973-0 1972-0 1971-0 34,240 35,883 3,675 1970-2 3,959 4,110 4,266 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Grade 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1,120 1,014 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 500 400 400 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 400 400 400 400 400 43,285 45,362 47,540 49,822 52,213 4,428 4,596 4,771 4,952 5,140 1985 400 54,719 $,336 1986 1987 400 400 57,346 60,099 5,-539 5,749 1988 400 62,983 5,968 1989 400 66,007 6,194 900 750 600 400 400 37,606 39,411 41,302 3,814 Year-Age 1970-0 1970-1 1970-4 1970-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population By 5/ Age-Group" 177,268 172,470 167,819 162,375 158,355 155,355 166,858 176,499 1970-71 Enrollments by Graded/ 191,373 190,917 189,368 193,331 190,222 189,641 195,475 191,965 188,450 181,673 287 Michigan Real • Per Capita Income^/ Table 32 (cont*a) Year 1990 1991 Aimed Forces Discharges ( 1000*3)1 / 400 400 Michigan Real Persona'.1 , Income p / (MillionnP 69,1715 72,495 Michigan Real Per Capita Income^/ 6,430 6,674 U.S. Unemployment Rate4/ 4.1 4.1 Grade 1970-71 Enrollments by Graded/ 11 12 163,675 144,695 1 / M orris Janowits, "Toward An A ll-V o lu n te e r M ilita r y ," The Public In te re s t. No. 27, Spring 1972 , p. 105 suggests th a t the size o f the Armed Services w ill f a l l w ith in the range o f 1*5 to 2 .0 m illio n men by about 1975* Past experience would in d icate th a t the assumed discharge fig ures are roughly consistent w ith th is trend; in itia tio n o f an a ll-v o lu n te e r force might change the ra te of tu rn -o v e r, o f course. j5/ 1970- 72: see footnote 2 /, Per cap ita income is forecast based on the assumution th a t the increase from 1971 to 1972 w ill be 4 .9 per­ cent (as forecast in the Economic Report o f the Governor 1972). 4.3 percent from 1972 to 1973, and 3.8 percent annually th e re a fte r. The h is to ric a l annual rates o f increase are 2,1 percent from 1951 to 1971 and 3*3 percent from I 96I to 1971 but 4»2 percent from 1961 to 1969* The d ifferen ce between th is series and the per capita income series im plies a 1 percent annual ra te o f increase in population which is less than h is to ric a l rates but consistent w ith present b ir th and death ra te s . 288 2 / 1970-71: Executive O ffice of the Governor, Economic Report o f the Governor 1972. State o f Michigan, 1972, Table X, p . 31; figures adjusted to a 1957-59 base. 1972: Ib id .. p. 30. This series is forecast based on the assumption th a t the increase from 1971 to 1972 w ill be 5.9 percent (as forecast in the Economic Report of the Governor 1972). 5.3 percent from 1972 to 1973, and 4.8 percent annually th e re a fte r. The h is to ric a l, annual rates o f increase are 3*7 percent from 1951 to 1971 and 4*6 percent from 1961 to 1971 but 5*6 oercent from 1961 to 19^9- The d ifferen ce between th is series and the per capita income series im plies a 1 percent annual ra te o f increase in copulation which is less than h is to ric a l rates but consistent w ith present b irth and death ra te s . 289 Table 32 (cont'd) 1970-71i U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Earnings. Vol. 18, No. 10, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 1972, Table A-1, p. 22. The assumption of a 4*1 percent uneibpjiaym&nt in the long-run assumes that the economy will be operating at near full employment. &J 1970—0 through 1970—5: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Pop­ ulation: 1970, General Population Characteristics. Final Report PC(1)— B24 Michigan, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 197lf Table 20, p. 66. 1971-0 through 1973— 0: Projections computed in the mid—1960*s were multiplied by a factor of .86; the adjustment factor was derived by comparing the actual 1970 census data with the projections for 19 7 0 . 6/ Unpublished data from the Bureau of Administrative Services, Michi­ gan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Appendix C Computing The Nondiscriminatory Enrollment Projections As mentioned in the text, the data used as a base for these com­ putations are those in Table 3* "the present policies enrollment projec­ tions. Deriving the nondiscriminatory projections is a simple process which makes use of the following relationship: = ( 100^1 “ (100-P) v ny where = Enrollment which is consistent with the nondiscriminatory policy assumptions. E P = Enrollment which is consistent with the present policies assumptions. Pjj = Percentage of minority students which is consistent with the nondiscriminatory policy assumptions. P p = Percentage of minority students which is consistent with the present policies assumptions. In order to illustrate the use of this formula, consider enroll­ ment in the public four—year institutions;in 1974* Using the assump­ tions in the text we determine that the "present policies" figures con­ sist of 35*600 first— time students, 58*600 other lower division students, 83,800 upper division students and 7 2 ,0 0 0 graduate students; another assumption is that 6.6 percent of the undergraduates are minority stu­ dents and 9*6 percent of the graduate students are minority students. Turning to the nondiscriminatory projections, from the assumptions we know that the following are the percentages of minority students by student level: first time students, 12.8 percent; other lower division 290 students, 12*8 percent (assuming these entered in 1973 037 transferred in); upper division students, one—half contains 9*7 percent and the other half contains 6,6 percent (assuming these are students admitted in 1972 and 1 9 7 1 * respectively, or who transferred in); graduate, half contains 12,8 percent, one—fourth contains 11,2 percent and the re­ maining fourth contains 9*6 percent (assuming these are students ad­ mitted in 1973—74* 1972 and 1971* respectively). Now the formula can "be applied. For example, in the case of first—time students the total enrollment required under the nondiscri— minatory assumptions is ]o^2% 55,600 = 38,100 or in the case of graduate students (looliafe) 5 6 '0 0 0 + [looliifg) 1 8 »0 0 0 + 1 8 ’000 = 73«600- This method yields an approximation,oof course. However, it should be sufficiently accurate for most state-wide policy decisions; *? 4* — w n*r*4" n 4 v d ir w v ^ w j ***n ■Pi w u *-3 m 1^, w + a u h* 4 i* • J ■ *-• y * 1- *■1 * V 4 u, V^» y j completely ignoring the normal progression of students through higher education, i.e,, using total enrollment figures without making refeiv ence to the composition by student level. Appendix D State A n d Federal Financial Assistance For Students In Michigan Institutions Of1 Higher Education By Program And Institution, 1965/66-1970/71 Table 35 State and Federal Financial Assistance fo r Students in Michigan In s titu tio n s of Higher Education by Program and In s titu tio n , 1965-66 In s titu tio n T o tal Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc D elta Genessee (F lin t C .C .) Gogebic Grand Rapids J r. Henry Ford Highland Park 115,217 59,695 18,394 5,650 11,575 357,562 59,766 39,254 48,470 388,575 426,219 138,600 — 67,068 307,864 38,378 24,081 }/ y 455,643 734,083 176,978 24,081 2/ 568,860 773,778 195,372 27,731v 11,575^ 1,565,520 341,569 335,015 372,486 244,767 93,035 86,005 294,930 9,000 1,082,500 492,300 121,351 25,966 252,166 82,585 1,207,958 281,803 295,781 324,016 9,000 1,108,466 744,466 205,936 1,115,370 4,483,465 1,082,746 5,566,211 6,681,581 3,240 490 7,338 11,784 18,672 29,503 11,010 48,175 11,010 51,415 21,420 112,423 1,530 31,871 13,990 69,255 28,758 124,207 3,250 47,577 20,751 70,347 1,720 15,706 6,761 1,092 1,115,695 191,995 222,300 — 21,420 28,935 — 18,225 13,990 — 92,263 89,808 73,481 29,086 T o tal A ll Programs — — 83,488 1,530 13,646 69,255 9,000 1,353,233 837,501 289,941 11,500 292 Public Foiu>-Year C entral Michigan Eastern Michigan F e rris State Grand V alley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland U n iversity Saginaw V alley Univ. o f Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan State . / Scholarships-' Federal-^/ N ational Defense College Student Lo&ns (NDSL) Work-Study (CWS) Table 53 (contfd) Institution-5 State Schj-rshps NDSL 4» 558 4(250 3t615 3,638 —— 9(646 4,362 7*097 207 3,755 501 Total 89,738 303,889 26,410 57,491 41,085 36,950 58,330 116,594 —— 651 — — — — 210 33,300 Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLina Detroit Bible Detroit Col.of Bus. 12,059 17,982 4,269 20,430 220,140 18,900 17,982 520,055 823,944 913,682 33,300 66,116 28,682 13,285 100,164 4,547 4,269 2,430 76,140 18,900 12,059 69,312 9,047 41,967 100,164 19,646 19,646 36,900 26,401 109,440 6,480 59,710 57,491 60,731 75,850 84,731 226,034 6,480 7,752 7,752 8,403 10,800 60,300 60,300 4,856 4,856 210 — 36,900 26,401 109,440 6,480 49,500 4,856 Programs 16,617 73,542 12,662 45,605 100,164 9,646 8,631 27,527 220,347 22,653 18,483 ■ 3,196 4,500 18,000 44,000 All Total —— 293 Public Two-Year (cont'd) Jackson Kellogg Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Muskegon North Central NorthwesternMichigan Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Federal CWS Table 33 (cont*d) Institution State Schlrshps Federal NDSL CWS All Total Programs Private Colleges (cont'd) Detroit Col, of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Merrill-Palmer Michigan Christian Michigan Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St, John's St, Mary's Shaw Col, (Mich. Luth.) — 190 190 5,640 5,640 — 296 296 4,290 127,350 127,350 131,640 62,670 81,000 81,000 143,670 — 72,428 600 4,278 62,235 13,230 ro 12,537 75.465 16,926 12,537 147,893 17,526 16,815 27,466 27.466 89,959 3,555 58,132 34,220 124,179 3,555 58,132 85,144 138,015 3,555 59,557 9,000 14,184 23,184 35,684 16,926 — 57,676 13,836 — 1,425 — - — — 12,500 800 14,620 308 1,440 — — — - — 800 48,177 15,435 1,687 9,180 49,864 24,615 64,484 24,923 1,440 S Table 33 (cont'd) In s titu tio n s P rivate Colleges (co n t'd ) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi U. of Detroit Walsh Inst. Western Theo. Total Higher Education Other GRAND TOTAL \J 2/ 3/ HDSL 6,440 — 12,314 6,105 '81,732 . Federal CWS T o tal A ll Programs — — — 6,440 — — — ___ - 67,197 41,020 222,300 ------ 22,296 30,640 87,197 63,316 252,940 99,511 69,421 434,672 __ — — — — — 4,5C0 ------ 4,500 4,500 — 797,311 1,116,757 220,564 1 , 537,301 2,134,612 2,002,419 5,904,091 1,823,365 7, 727,456 9,729,875 10,859 10,859 7,738,315 9.740,734 — 2,002,419 10,859 5,914,950 — 1,823,365 State T u itio n Giant program was not implemented u n til 1966- 67. Federal Educational Opportunity Grant program was not implemented u n til 1966- 67. Federal funds included in those granted to Michigan Technological U n iv e rs ity . Sources: State program data are actual expenditures as recorded by Student F in an cial Assistance Services, Michigan Department o f Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are gTants to in s titu tio n s as recorded in N o tific a tio n to Members o f Con­ gress; these w ill d if f e r from actu al expenditures when in s titu tio n s did not spend the e n tire grant. 295 Total State Sclilrshns 296 Table 34 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education by Program and Institution, 1966—67 Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genesee(Flint C.C.) Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kellogg Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw Total Federal N&t'l Def. College Educ’l Oppor. Stu. Loans Work-Study Grants(EOG) Cn d s l ') Cows') 9,710 153,420 94,580 44,010 465,940 578,400 256,284 98,815 53,683 629,213 54,855 4 0 ,0 0 0 y 3 7 6 /7 5 0 y 1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 9 5 ,2 3 4 4 8 ,0 6 0 7 0 ,3 0 0 159,180 180,028 303,768 416,250 15,156 1,494,000 752,400 751,500 25,317 146,153 78,507 20,808 35,522 556,398 244,273 1,893,164 6,612,541 13,980 17,183 ------- 1 9 4 ,2 0 0 7 4 2 ,9 5 4 ------- 26,410 7t 570 21,840 4,080 ---- 5,030 1 ,9 0 0 3,110 3 2 ,0 4 0 ---- 2 0 ,3 9 0 ---- 19,260 21,600 : -■ 31,950 18,720 — ---- 2,668 1,783 21,455 --- 18,000 ---- 10,200 ---- — 9,320 --- 6,597 16,470 21,542 ---- ------------- 156,670 197,228 ---- 529,333 1,361,033 405,719 182,825 y 1,971,984 253,405 5 2 0 ,2 2 1 494,757 35,964 1,723,722 2,051,752 1,154,953 2,179,963 10,685,668 47,090 57,540 1 0 2 ,0 5 2 22,680 7 2 ,7 0 0 30,915 63,270 1 4 ,6 8 8 10,530 38,398 41,192 21,820 — — 78,255 57,540 19,260 150,062 30,250 126,490 53,715 65,270 20,518 15,098 4 3 ,2 9 1 94,687 21,820 38,390 --- ..— --- 1/ Total 47,250 — . 12,040 47,250 6,597 3 8 ,7 1 0 6 8 ,0 4 0 89,582 38,925 8,830 15,396 56,418 3 8 ,9 2 5 769,774 1,123,672 18,150 1 5 ,3 9 6 56,418 297 Table 34 (cont'd) Institution Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col. of Bus. Detroit Col. of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Michigan Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St. John* s St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. Luth.) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Grafts Spring Arbor Suomi EOG >9,540 35,760 34,660 23,600 16,310 --- 16,430 NDSL Federal cws 33t ?50 17,775 17,435 Total 76,140 154,565 141,935 158,043 53,840 153,560 9,405 42t390 128,250 88,740 58,500 30,240 123,750 9,405 6 4 ,8 8 3 -- 40,185 40,185 2 2 ,0 5 0 102,380 63,900 ; 13,500 7,110 --- 7,110 --- 104,400 42,000 104,400 94,500 27,360 1 6 3 ,8 6 0 37,870 4,660 9,900 63,720 16,200 18,158, 35,100 8,408 10,802 1 3 6 ,6 9 0 2 9 ,2 6 8 24,280 72,450 109,604 3,521 52,117 40,500 60,932 1 3 7 ,2 3 0 15,670 1 3 ,5 0 0 18,000 47,170 19,340 9,900 49,950 13,905 10,970 83,195 19,500 3,600 19,500 3,600 36,135 113,922 993,515 --- 13,980 1 1 ,2 5 0 38,860 170,536 3,521 52,117 3 2 ,1 2 0 --- 113,922 41,400 2^8 Tahle 34 (cont'd) Federal Institution EOG EDSL CWS Total Private Colleges (eont*d) U. of Detroit 94,910 Western Theo* Total Total Higher Educ. 4,500 407,810 1,627,387 2,457,644 8,437,156 Other GRAND t o t a l 305,910 9,693 2,457,644 8,446,849 56,225 — 551,015 457,045 4,500 2,586,212 3,500,752 14,395,552 44,113 53,806 3,544,865 14,449,358 299 Table 34 (cont’d) Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (FlintC.C.) Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kellogg Lake Michigan Scholarships (Schol) 180,396 81, 753 33*908 32,553 16,351 667,235 82,621 63,103 83,062 3,765 463,235 129,474 139,844 I N E L I G I B L E 1,977,280 3,125 3,890 9,265 6,142 4,055 21,952 5,755 1,632 6,801 7,813 7,398 CD A Macomb Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw State Tuition Grant s(TG) 3,460 I N E I G I N E L 7 ,8 7 6 15,458 362 9,525 1 ,9 7 4 48O 200 L I G rr 4* E 495 -15,670 B I E -r a . B L L I I E G I N E B L All Programs 180,396 81,733 33,908 32,553 16,351 667,235 82,621 63,103 83,062 3,765 463,235 129,474 139,844 709,729 1,442,766 439,627 215,378. 16,3512,639,219 336,026 583,324 577,819 39,729 2,186,957 2,181,226 1 ,2 9 4 , 7 9 7 1,977,280 12,662,948 3,125 3,890 81,378 61,430 28,525 9 ,2 6 5 6 ,1 4 2 L I Total L E I G I B 4,055 21,952 5,755 1,632 6,801 7,813 7,398 3,594 3,460 495 1 5 6 ,2 0 4 3 4 ,3 0 5 148,442 5 9 ,4 7 0 6 4 ,9 0 2 2 7 ,3 1 9 2 2 ,9 1 1 50,689 0 0 <0 0-1 — w 1 25,280 38,885 ------ 15,670 7,876 15,458 362 9,525 1,974 480 200 62,920 14,473 54,168 89,944 48,450 1 3 6 ,9 2 2 1,260,594 2 0 ,1 2 4 15,876 ■56,618 L Total 136,922 E 300 Table 34 (cont'd) Institution Private Collets Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col. of Bus. Detroit Col. of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. MidraBha Muskegon Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St. John's St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. Luth.) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi Schol 4 1 ,8 2 5 101,490 69,077 57,239 100,335 204,084 State TG 23,992 32,770 1 3 4 ,2 6 0 3 1 ,1 0 0 2 8 ,7 0 0 4 9 ,0 0 0 9 0 ,0 4 0 100,177 85,939 149,335 294,124 —— 555 3,090 1 ,9 0 2 ----- ----- 7,536 940 570 1,329 6 5 ,0 9 2 5 ,0 6 0 — - — — ----- ----- 2,114 8, 182 ----- ----- 5,320 384 18,232 4,293 98,839 ----- 102,094 8,430 1 1 ,1 7 0 ----- 96,378 41,515 32,047 ----- 8,975 4,700 28,945 ----- 2 7 ,1 1 0 65,186 19,630 ----- — — — 2 4 ,2 2 7 37,678 10,535 ----- _____ — — ----- 1 1 ,6 7 0 — — 33,902 6,330 2,437 3,090 72,628 6,000 570 1,329 — — 1 0 ,2 9 6 ----- 37,367 384 — — 1 0 ,0 2 2 1 7 ,2 2 3 6 ,4 1 0 28,307 2 4 ,6 0 0 10,296 — 129,204 73,616 30,800 265,894 102,884 120,605 79,193 19,282 6 9 ,6 6 0 —— 257,835 249,729 3 ,5 2 1 71,399 ----- ----- ----- ----- . 12,030 ■ ----- ----- — — -- 175,008 6,000 7,680 1,329 ----- 4 6 ,9 2 0 1 2 ,4 0 1 ----- 2 4 2 ,1 1 2 243,982 203,175 447,684 9,405 2,437 43,275 8,993 127,784 2 7 ,2 0 7 18,175 9,350 11,085 141,957 288,825 37,367 384 27,207 113,393 291,644 3 9 ,1 7 4 — All Programs ----- — — 3,268 35,595 41,551 — ----- 1 2 ,0 3 0 ----- ----- ----- 3,268 24,510 2,377 28,745 3,051 65,817 ----- ----- 8,747 Total 3,268 82,765 41,551 130,115 44,521 ...1- — 1 2 ,0 3 0 --------- 10,022 28,893 6,410 62,209 30,930 2 9 ,5 2 2 32,493 6,410 176,131 122,445 301 Table 34 (cont’d) Schol Institution Private Colleges (cont’d") U. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL 2 6 3 »336 State TG Total All Programs 79,530 5,030 3 4 2 ,8 6 6 545 5,575 799,911 5,575 4,500 1,375,330 843,777 2,219,107 4,805,319 3,489,532 843,777 4,333,309 18,728,861 261 1,250 1,511 55,317 3,489,793 845,027 4,334,820 18,784,178 — _1/ Federal funds included in those granted to Michigan Technological University. 2/ Adjusted from $26,410 "because these funds not expended. Sources: State program data are actual expendituresas recorded by Student Financial Assistance Services, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are grants to institutions as recorded in Notifications to Members of Congress; these will differ from actual expenditures when institutions do not spend the entire grant. 302 Table 35 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education by Program and Institution, 1967—68 Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C.) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. TT--.-— — xic.-ilJ.J' T-» - - . “1 X1 U X ’U. Highland Park Jackson Kellogg Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw Total Federal Nat*l Def. College Educ*l Oppor. Stu. Loans Work-Study Grant s (EOG) (NDSL) (CWS) Total 9 0 ,0 0 0 1 7 6 ,8 5 0 1 7 6 ,6 0 0 496,189 622,903 215,826 128,800 1 1 0 ,2 7 7 1 0 ,9 0 0 129,650 11,343 1,925,458 175,851 305,623 8 ,2 5 0 2 9 1 ,2 4 7 14,500 505,750 631,900 398,650 6,173 1,480,852 882,210 569,827 72,490 1,527,322 51,333 44,500 16,950 620,231 73,057 95,709 100,280 27,863 37,867 354,677 188,737 3,474,550 7,093,779 3,211,016 13,779,345 18,750 13,785 2 4 ,0 0 0 33,871 21,157 16,542 1,082,000 1 2 0 ,7 0 0 48,300 15,000 3 ,0 0 0 60,700 16,600 12,850 1 2 ,3 0 0 19,800 2 3 ,2 0 0 10,000 18,700 ------- 1 9 ,2 0 0 ------- 28,200 1 5 ,0 0 0 — — 2 9 ,8 8 8 11,343 __ _ 10,843 9,689 18,117 7,877 15,754 2,363 ------- 4,412 19,141 ------- ------- 1,575 8,000 ------- 353,600 216,357 54,173 58,581 29,009 100,218 48,825 12,093 64,005 38,650 57,979 12,795 15,283 49,093 22,057 24,882 2 2 ,6 9 5 4,200 48,742 4 ,5 0 0 1 7 ,8 2 9 5 4 ,6 0 0 3 4 ,3 0 5 658,679 2,327,075 443,759 283,577 39,193 3 ,6 2 7 , 6 8 9 3 6 9 ,6 0 8 530,982 399,777 48,536 2 ,0 2 4 , 4 6 9 1,868,787 1,157,214 86,708 58,581 86,880 169,675 80,367 15,093 154,593 66,793 57,979 25,645 38,426 78,582 63,374 42,759 57,149 6,563 67,942 8 ,9 1 2 34,980 15,568 64,100 65,170 69,600 35,880 42,980 15,568 64,100 889,362 1,459,319 305 Table 55 (cont’d) Federal institution Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Galvin Calvin Theo* Cleary Concordia Cranbrook .Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col* of Bus. Detroit Col. of* Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Mcrrill-Palmcr Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St. John*s St, Mary’s Shaw (Mich. Luth.) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi Total EOG NDSL 32,019 12,596 20,550 76,450 1 5 2 ,8 8 2 3 2 ,8 6 0 2 0 6 ,0 9 2 83,259 24,104 9 0 ,0 5 0 8 0 ,6 0 0 9 2 ,8 0 0 4 6 ,0 8 0 5 8 ,2 0 0 2 7 ,0 0 0 7 5 ,0 0 0 183,813 194,330 137,138 309,584 9,543 —— --------- 29,538 141,784 9,543 — - --------- 53,300 CWS -1 1 ,0 0 0 — —— 51,594 ----- ----- ----- 25,380 ----- ----- 44,615 1 1 ,0 0 0 ----- 1 3 0 ,2 7 4 ----- 1 1 ,5 0 0 1 1 ,5 0 0 --------— ----- ----- 24,445 — — — 2 4 ,4 4 5 ----- ----- --------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16,800 ----- 7 9 ,9 0 0 112,245 102,084 ----- 4 9 ,7 5 0 6 ,6 0 0 1 5 ,5 0 0 — — 45,200 38,500 ----- f 50,412 93,514 * u u U 4 ,6 5 0 23,479 8 ,0 4 2 65,218 ----- ----- * a 2 9 ,1 0 0 ----- 61,085 15,527 14,763 51,390 ----- 31,350 55,697 --------- ----- 16,800 112,245 211,084 ----- 134,314 30,169 95,481 —— 126,962 187,711 y r"'! *-» r~\ 56,040 — ----- ----- ----- — — ----- ----- — ----- 2 8 ,1 5 0 — ----- 11,500 ----- 6 4 ,0 0 0 2 4 ,4 5 0 ----- 56,083 12,840 — ___ — .1. ----- — - _____ — — — — — — - 23,105 8,131 32,217 — ----- 2 9 ,0 0 0 ----- 89,796 43,323 ----- 143,188 45,421 32,217 — — — 18,511 — 60,650 ■ , — — 21,000 — — _ 18,511 --------— — 3 5 ,4 7 1 ----- 8 9 ,7 9 6 1 0 7 ,7 9 4 304 Table 35 (cont*d) Federal Institution EOG NDSL CWS 326,921 55,273 Total Private Colleges (cont*d) U. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. 151,600 Total 969,450 1,632,492 672,734 3 ,2 7 4 ,6 7 6 4,797,600 8,942,628 4,773,112 18,513,340 5 2 ,0 0 0 9 2 ,6 8 8 143,464 288,152 4,849,600 9,035,316 4,916,576 18,801,492 Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL ---- — 3,938 533,794 — — — H. ----- 3,938 305 Table 35 (cont*d) Institution Public Four—Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Perris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C.) Glen Oaks ' Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kellogg Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw Total Scholarships (Schol) 307*874 150,506 54*512 59,778 23,220 1,243,571 164,541 106,992 130,126 6,670 697,225 255,506 256,187 State Tuition Grants(TG) 307,874 150,506 54,512 59,778 X N E L I G I 500 262,456 697,225 255,506 256,187 966,553 2,477,581 498,271 343,355 62,413 4 ,8 7 1 , 2 6 0 534,149 637,974 529,903 55,206 2 ,7 2 1 , 6 9 4 2,124,293 1,413,401 3 ,456,708 17,236,053 7,478 6,233 15,378 14,573 94,186 64,814 102,258 184,248 82,003 26,310 201,081 74,300 60,705 38,614 56.501 88,200 74,796 50,458 60,119 6,848 95,562 18,932 90,395 72,557 47,795 47,206 19,287 2 3 ,2 2 0 B L E 3,456,708 7,478 6,233 15,378 14,573 1,636 11,217 46,488 7, 507 2,726 12,969 18,075 9,618 11,422 7,699 2,970 285 27,620 10,020 25,225 2,957 11,915 4,226 3,719 Total I N E L I I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E G I B L E All Programs 1,243,571 164,541 106,992 130,126 6 ,6 7 0 1 ,6 3 6 1 1 ,2 1 7 4 6 ,4 8 8 7,507 2,726 12,969 18,075 9,616 1 1 ,4 2 2 7,699 2,970 285 2 7 ,6 2 0 10,020 25,225 2 ,9 5 7 1 1 ,9 1 5 4,226 3,719 500 6 4 ,6 0 0 262,456 1,721,775 30 6 Table 35 (con£*d) State Institution Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo* Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col* of* Bus. Detroit Col, of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Maiygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St. John*s St. Mary* s Shaw Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi 54,704 133,480 95,098 67,951 127,778 293,823 Total 62,483 117,187 224,180 188,591 140,567 266,074 588,275 9 0 ,7 0 0 93,493 72,616 1 3 8 ,2 9 6 294,452 --- 1,038 8,634 --- 17,554 — — 113,982 190 1 0 ,3 9 0 800 600 3,078 — —— 18,592 8,634 ------- 22,688 127,804 10,580 468 800 600 25,766 —— 5,515 --- 14,788 7,520 115,475 56,537 --- 1 2 ,0 7 1 11,925 95,492 i. — I.. 131,004 14,163 11,965 65,876 1 6 8 ,8 9 6 19,640 1 0 ,5 0 0 ■r.,— . i --- 5,348 30,150 2,088 37,875 5,829 --- 20,860 -- - 195 --- 1 2,970 1,600 35,633 5,825 161,802 430,272 372,404 334,897 4 0 3 ,2 1 2 897,859 9,543 18,592 19,634 2 5 8 ,0 7 8 10,580 11,968 800 600 5 0 ,2 1 1 --- 6 2 ,0 5 2 62,052 --- — 26,859 19,445 210,967 43,659 131,690 422,051 196,880 183,059 31,605 331,194 213,228 127,086 --- 500 500 50 0 59,364 163,957 1 R6 380 40,594 290,919 --- 104,593 57;747 180 Programs -.- 1 3 ,0 2 2 468 All TG Schol qq.n^Q 200 30,094 --—— 35,660 66,356 17,805 18,221 — — .i ■ ... m-T — 25,369 38,325 13,025 65,580 45,734 —— 5,348 65,810 68,444 55,680 2 4 ,0 5 0 --- 2 0 ,8 6 0 -- 195 25,369 51,295 14,625 1 0 1 ,2 1 3 5 1 ,5 5 9 ✓ 1' ,/tQ7 ' 1 * A A i jf f S 6,607 96,634 — --- 5,348 126,460 68,444 198,868 69,471 —— 53,077 195 43,880 51,295 14,625 191,009 159,353 307 Table 35 (cont*d) Institutions t Schol _S±abe______________ TG Total All Programs Private Colleges (cont1a ) U, of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. 3 6 4 ,0 9 2 306,787 670,879 9 ,0 0 0 9 ,0 0 0 1,204,673 9,000 3,938 1,797,379 2 ,1 7 8 , 1 5 0 3,975,529 7,250,205 5,516,543 2 ,1 7 8 , 1 5 0 7 ,6 9 4 , 6 9 3 26,208,033 795 1 ,0 7 5 1,870 2 9 0 ,0 2 2 5,517,338 2 ,1 7 9 ,2 2 5 7,696,563 26,498,055 Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL Sources: State program data are actual expenditures as recorded by Student Financial Assistance Services, Michigan Department of* Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are grants to institutions as recorded in Notifications to Members of Congress; these will differ from actual expenditures when institutions do not spend the entire grant. 308 Table 36 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education by Program and Institution, 19 6 8 - 6 9 Institution Public Four—Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State, Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C. ) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. H p---i r mVr —~dVcr*r) — Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kellogg Kirtlarid Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Federal Nat'l Def. College Educ*l Oppor. Stu. Loans Work—Study Grants(EOG) (n l s l ) (CWS) 1 4 0 ,9 6 0 4 4 2 ,8 2 6 164,330 / 649,036 2 2 9 ,0 7 2 130,766^ 158,670 132,584 35,300 24,990 1,145,930 1,696,828 98,740 1 0 9 ,2 7 4 159,550 3 0 0 ,4 3 1 49,100 2 3 4 ,6 2 5 2 1 ,7 1 0 570,260 642,300 1 1 ,1 7 6 1 ,5 4 2 ,5 7 1 4 8 1 ,3 0 0 798,281 616,335 3,798,916 6,788,029 2 1 ,0 7 0 13,397 8,460 49,860 33,630 29,370 12,010 88,390 0 1^0 ✓ , * ----- 16,270 2 ,0 7 0 17,630 — 47,150 19,550 17,160 --- 20,770 ----- 4,110 33,240 50,820 --- 1 3 ,2 0 0 ----- 31,584 19,282 124,434 839,203 8 8 ,5 0 5 4 7 ,3 0 0 1 2 0 ,7 6 5 696,228 39,500 1 7 0 ,1 0 0 143,921 2 9 ,6 0 0 165,768 437,200 372,107 101,133 53,346 5 2 ,1 2 0 113,449 60,780 26,378 2 3 ,8 9 0 7 5 ,3 9 2 ^ A -i 0 0 7 0 8 ,2 2 0 1,652,569 448,343 338,554 181,055 3,538,986 247,514 630,081 427,646 62,486 2,278,599 1,877,781 1,469,742 3,274,631 13,861,576 2 4 ,2 9 5 T Total 0 or A 135,600 61,806 133,564 166,361 114,445 35,900 190,160 S' A <-H-, — ... 7 ,8 8 6 6 ,9 4 2 1 0 ,6 2 4 ----- 20,877 6 6 ,6 0 0 2 3 ,1 1 5 3 7 ,0 0 9 2 3 ,3 3 4 49,608 59,575 2 2 ,9 0 7 2 9 ,5 2 0 7,566 39,700 4,502 46,952 12,155 61,872 — - 19,436 2,082 — ■1 3,818 14,230 41,649 2,777 5 ,0 0 0 J (J 66,600 47,271 46,021 51,588 49,608 135,602 71,977 64,426 4,502 87,158 1 4 ,2 3 7 65,982 8,818 19,800 6 7 ,2 7 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 122,469 64,697 92,139 61,920 78,939 30 9 Table 36 (cont'd) Federal institution EOG hiblic Two-Year (cont'd) Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw West Shore 82,930 --------- -------- Total 576,820 2 5 ,2 2 0 rivate Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Galvin Galvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col. of Bus. Detroit Col. of Law Detroit Xnst. of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Marygladd Marygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart --------- 34,260 76,800 7 8 ,9 7 0 99,520 1 4 6 ,6 5 0 NDSL cws 2 9 ,8 5 1 6 3 ,7 6 0 3 ,6 4 8 29,851 216,107 3,648 366,336 1,269,224 2,212,380 39,185 102,933 6 5 ,£50 58*448 30,851 142,302 9,107 2 1 ,3 2 2 83,727 194,133 174,050 150,924 157,321 399,634 9,107 -------- 69,417 56,940 3 2 ,0 0 0 13,506 26,950 110,682 --------- --------- --------- --------- 3,611 7,935 — — -------- --------- 51,970 4,150 -------- 40,400 6,942 10,586 28,750 4,200 -------- --------------- 33,840 3,730 -------- -------- 22,213 — . ■ 13,501 7,030 —— — --------- --------- -------- .... --------- -------- 16,190 20,730 1 1 4 ,9 8 0 64,390 18,770 2 3 ,0 0 0 79,134 98,917 58,031 17,179 19,662 52,560 15,090 — — . ■■ - i,i. — 28,450 11,200 54,430 36,590 --------- 40,261 112,974 5,866 44,495 — ■ ...... . 21,630 37,851 R ROi — » ss • 63,650 11,904 75,549 —— —— 5 6 ,2 3 0 2 ,5 0 0 Total — —— — -------- 7,983 6,942 55,880 10,943 11,546 ....... 121,120 1 5 ,2 9 2 10,586 ----------------- 69,554 10,760 ----------------- 1 6 ,1 9 0 121,494 251,748 R ROl w ' 186,071 47,853 118,211 --------- 2 6 ,4 0 0 1 1 9 ,2 2 1 83,620 252,824 8,3 66 69,845 — — 10,260 ■i. —. 1. m ----- _ 8,393 2 1 ,4 0 0 16,735 2 4 ,0 0 0 13,910 _ —— ..... --------- 44,248 8,393 57,833 34,877 134,310 61,443 T T u r 44,248 510 Table 56 (cont'd) Federal Institution EOG Private Colleges (cont,d) St. John*s St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. Luth. ) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi H. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL NDSL — — CWS — Total — . — PH ■ ■ .. — — — — 3,480 --------- --------- — --------- — — — — --------- 13,680 24,510 2 5 2 ,2 4 0 ... — 83,993 31,931 374,152 22,949 — _ _ 40,803 9 5 ,2 0 9 --------- 8 ,6 7 8 — --- 3,332 --- — ■ ■ 26,429 ■■ ■I 97,673 97,244 701,601 8,678 3,332 1,342,130 1,592,181 949,918 3,884,229 5,717,866 8,746,546 5,493,773 19,958,185 65,300 90,132 125,446 280,878 5,783,166 8,836,678 5 ,6 1 9 , 2 1 9 20,239,063 311 Table 36 (cont,d) Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan jterris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C.) Glen Oaks:: Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich, Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw West Shore Total State Tuition Scholarship s (Schol) Grants (TG) Total 910,893 374,061 172,147 E 52,677 60,702 L I 24,145 G 1 ,489,049 I 196,957 B 123,974 173,812 L E 6,769 910,893 374,061 172,147 52,677 60,702 24,145 1,489,049 196,957 123,974 175,812 I N All Programs 1,082,281 1,824,716 5 0 1 ,0 2 0 399,256 2 0 5 ,2 0 0 5,028,035 4 4 4 ,4 7 1 7 5 4 ,0 5 5 2 9 0 ,9 1 6 2 9 0 ,9 1 6 286,913 286,913 601,458 69,255 3,189,492 2,168,697 1,756,655 4,163,015 4 ,163,015 18,024,591 7,184 3,330 15,780 9,101 2,765 9,960 30,059 142,784 65,136 149,344 175,462 117,210 45,860 6 ,7 6 9 7,184 3,330 15,780 9,101 2,765 9,960 30,059 8,620 1,246 13,341 600 9,725 570 3 ,8 6 0 7,733 8,537 710 3,520 1,203 19,707 9,067 17,712 2 ,0 6 0 7,070 5,344 2,412 665 I N E L I I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E G I B L E 8 ,6 2 0 1,248 13,341 600 9,725 570 3,860 7,733 8,537 71 0 3,520 1,203 19,707 9 ,0 6 7 17,712 2,060 7 ,0 7 0 5,344 2,412 66 5 --- --- 201,883 201,883 2 2 0 ,2 1 9 73,193 67,848 60,612 46,621 61,313 50,178 139,462 79,710 72,963 5,212 9 0 ,6 7 8 1 5 ,4 4 0 85,689 17,885 84,982 124,529 71,767 97,483 32,263 216,772 3,648 2,414,263 312 Table 36 (cont'd) Institution Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo# Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col. of Bus. Detroit Col. of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Eapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade I-Iarygrove Mercy Merri11-Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St. John's St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. Luth.) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi State TG (Schol 51,310 169,785 122,847 64,710 143,095 275,009 78,887 107,335 142,057 110,105 172,653 465,159 --- 1,972 6,984 --- 1 0 ,4 8 2 65 0 1,014 1,769 15,648 684 350 119,604 7,425 36,744 1,405 4,147 26 0 1 6 ,3 8 0 130,197 2 7 7 ,1 2 0 264,904 174,815 315,748 7 4 0 ,1 6 8 — 1 7 ,6 2 0 7 ,6 6 8 350 1 3 0 ,0 8 6 8,075 1,014 38,513 71,927 — 73,332 59,750 — --- — - 4,110 ...... ——— 4,571 23,513 1,612 44,680 3,690 — 8 ,8 6 5 --- 305 — 7,435 1,313 34,166 4,700 24,225 20,475 8 2 ,7 6 6 2 0 9 ,9 2 1 234,124 57,875 250,307 66,975 --- --- 100,539 115,261 173,599 166,070 125 28,594 125 24,484 .. — 57,145 77V333 99,300 17,604 .. — --.— ..— 55,805 48,505 18,099 96,611 56,698 1 4 2 ,8 8 6 56,795 147,373 544,102 8,591 395,992 --- 5 0 ,8 0 9 38,513 260 1 5 1 ,8 0 2 73,060 1 1 ,6 0 0 26 0 .. --- 19,214 350 251,206 23,367 10,760 63,097 40,605 25,879 292,354 9 ,1 0 0 1 ,1 3 9 ,8 0 2 9 ,1 0 7 1 7 ,6 2 0 63,897 --- 5,404 140,552 127,155 16,183 213,924 471,253 438,954 325,739 473,069 --- ----- Total All Programs 2 9 8 ,1 6 0 185,186 2 9 2 ,8 2 0 418.894 8,491 98,439 ... .. 4,571 80,658 78,945 143,980 12,964 138,491 113,822 2 1 ,2 9 4 278,290 82,737 8 ,8 6 5 53,113 — ... 305 55,805 55,940 19,412 130,777 61,398 305 62,234 55,940 19,412 228,450 158,642 315 Table 36 (cont'd) Institution Private Colleges (cont'd) U. of Detroit Valsh Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL Schol State TG Total All Programs 415,460 578,181 19,042 993,641 19,042 1,695,242 27,720 3,332 1,848,502 3,324,327 5,172,829 9,057,058 6,213,400 3,324,327 9,537,727 29,495,912 140 2,175 2,315 283,193 6,213,540 3,326,502 9,540,042 29,779,105 _1J Adjusted from $210,020 because ilot all of this was spent* Sources: State program data are actual expenditures as recorded by Student Financial Assistance Services, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are grants to institutions as recorded in Notifications to Members of Congress; these will differo from actual expenditures when institutions do not spend the entire grant. 314 Table 37 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education by Program and Institution, 1 9 6 9 —70 Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C. ) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Federal Nat'l Def. College Educ'l Oppor. Stu. Loans Work—Study Grants(EOG) (n d s l ) (cws) 4 6 1 ,8 2 1 6 1 1 ,4 8 1 2 1 2 ,6 4 2 1 5 5 ,0 2 2 5 7 0 ,1 1 9 5 4 ,7 2 4 163,628 40,210 1,656,281 47,321 82,981 113,899 1,184,811 84,541 Total 8 2 1 ,8 7 8 205,035 182,557 84,933 156,088 39,748 1,057,933 96,101 157,117 53,848 31,423 469,096 552,245 454,003 318,307 18,455 1,463,483 790,185 489,445 1 8 0 ,9 0 3 1 9 7 ,9 5 2 2 7 ,5 5 1 3 0 7 ,5 4 9 4 3 4 ,6 5 0 2 2 3 ,4 0 3 1,364,157 352,299 402,697 193,857 3,899,025 227,963 547,998 570,107 77,429 2,240,128 1,777,080 1,166,851 3,540,127 6,483,237 3,618,105 13,641,469 15,857 17,192 60,427 35,186 25,766 28,559 66,473 8,567 109,820 25,713 20,213 23,424 17,753 91,215 65,480 54,819 111,769 44,684 25,543 93*437 46,326 80,146 22,816 48,127 35,826 27,533 99,937 34,894 40,576 4,711 45,807 19,177 55,336 8,883 14,773 56,546 69,437 72,123 124,825 82,672 --- 51,893 1 9 ,5 0 0 34,845 2,745 14,335 2,745 19,663 5,820 25,737 89,540 3,569 18,238 2 0 9 ,9 7 8 --- 37,955 15,798 23,225 --- 30,224 17,339 127,259 11,148 8,908 14,219 --- 26,343 20,680 30,256 6,363 19,089 2,020 16,035 5,653 1 6 ,4 6 1 72,538 2 ,9 2 7 -- 1 5 3 ,2 0 1 162,753 93,675 54,102 190.134 7 2 ,2 3 2 317,225 59,677 77,248 73,469 27,533 178,173 75,074 105,677 13,819 79,231 23,942 91,034 20,356 56,971 218,624 75,933 90,361 315 Table 37 (cont’d) Federal Institution EOG Public Two-Year (cont’d) Southwestern Mich, Washtenaw Wayne Co, Comm, Col, West Shore 5,234 81,031 — • Total Private Collets Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo, Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col, of Bus, Detroit Col, of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech, Duns Scotus General Motors Inst, Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus, Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Merril 1-Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible.Inst. ----- NDSL — — 63,630 cws 2 6 ,7 9 2 7 4 ,2 9 7 Total 3 2 ,0 2 6 218,958 ----- ----- ----- —— 6,842 6,842 8 1 2 ,0 9 2 585,823 1 ,3 7 7 , 8 5 2 2,775,767 3 7 ,5 2 0 5 4 ,0 7 6 3 5 ,9 6 7 17,408 39,106 42,410 8,682 37,683 91,304 90,895 224,081 187,977 119,173 80,028 63,723 104,398 1 5 8 ,7 1 0 --------- 130,899 65,539 4 6 ,7 6 8 30,440 139,031 9,544 — — — ----- ----- 3,137 8 ,3 2 0 ----- ----- ----- 28,615 6 ,4 9 2 ... 29,461 7,010 9,646 ----- — ----- ----- 4 1 ,0 9 9 2 ,1 9 6 — 17,816 ----- 22,882 1,748 — ■ — — 17,820 41,296 155,297 ----- — — 60,224 14,229 15,041 ... 70,941 15,271 23,067 — 99,621 47,971 2,474 16,436 8 6 ,4 0 9 9 0 ,2 3 0 2,055 35,249 — — — — — _ — — — 26,442 21,533 81,103 16,483 — — — 6,999 54,149 10,845 — — — 80,958 1 5 ,2 5 0 9 ,6 4 6 ----- ----- i i ----- — — 18,618 4,989 — - 11,457 — ----- ----- — ----- — — 70,788 109,761 1 7 2 ,5 2 1 389,045 9,544 77,533 7,185 ----- 32,958 31,281 5,612 65,544 11,236 69,331 17,820 145,044 296,339 5,612 196,709 40,736 107,439 34,082 51,228 220,112 189,429 ___ ----- 14,494 ----- 4 ,5 2 9 6 6 ,1 7 9 ----- ----- __ ----- 5,769 21,014 22,384 23,258 13,367 5,769 54,455 43,917 158,510 40,695 ----- — 316 Table 37 (cont’d.) Institution EOG Federal NDSL Private Colleges (cont’d) Sacred Heart St. John’s St. Mary’s Shaw (Mich. L u t h . ) Siena Heights Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi D. of Detroit Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL CWS 35,409 —— — — 45,906 — —- - - - - - - - -— -—— 36,546 — — — 58,251 28,346 243,806 —— 74,765 39,769 373,506 — — . — . 51,813 94,463 -912,939 Total 35,409 -—— 82,452 —— —— 133,016 119,928 71*1,775 -- 1 ,5 6 9 , 1 3 8 1,589,062 4,071,139 5,921,357 8,658,122 58,621 103,003 150,722 3 1 2 ,3 4 6 5,979,978 8 ,7 6 1 , 1 2 5 6 ,0 5 9 , 6 1 8 2 0 ,8 0 0 ,7 2 1 5,908,896 20,488,375 517 Table 57 (cont'd) Scholarships Institution Public FomvYear Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Perris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C.) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Bapids Jr. Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw Wayne Co. Comm. Col. West Shore (Schol) 38 4,751 162,890 51*626 86,212 State Tuition Grant s(TG) I N All ’Total Programs 357,585 384,751 162,890 E 51,626 L 86,212 I 26,876 G 1,911,117 I 213,171 B 126,699 L 233,786 E 14,273 1,205,898 268,656 357,385 1,206,629 1,527,047 403,925 488,909 220,733 5,810,142 441,134 674,697 803,893 91,702 3,444,026 2,045,736 1,524,234 5,041,338 5,041,538 18,682,807 8,877 3,915 15,325 7,106 1,099 8,861 28,193 133,702 86,587 168,526 169,859 94,774 62,963 218,327 8 ,2 9 7 8 0 ,5 2 9 3 1 7 ,2 2 5 2 6 ,8 7 6 1,911*117 215,171 126,699 255,786 14,275 1,205,898 2 6 8 ,6 5 6 8^877 3,915 15,325 7,106 1,099 8,861 28,193 8,297 — — 9,145 1, 280 8 ,5 1 4 955 2,575 7,484 5,298 990 2,980 2,159 22,825 7,267 19,846 5,108 9,285 4,000 1,822 680 — 520 I N E L I G I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L I E G X B L X N _ _ _ 9 ,1 4 5 1,280 8,314 935 2,375 7,484 5,298 99 0 2,980 2,159 22,825 7,267 19,846 5,108 9,283 4 ,0 0 0 1,822 680 — 68,822 78,528 81,783 28,468 180,548 82,558 110,975 14,809 82,211 26,101 113,859 27,623 76,817 223,732 85,216 94,361 33,848 2 1 9 ,6 3 8 — ....... 320 7,162 318 Table 37 (cont'd) Institution Public Two-Year (cont'd) Total State TG Sohol All Programs 193,784 2,969,551 251,380 168,269 247,484 644,882 181,080 373,366 391,727 227,996 374,459 993,604 --- --- 195*784 Private Colleges Adrian 51*753 Albion 178*475 Alma 140,347 Andrews 59,727 Aquinas 126,975 Calvin 348,722 Clavin Theo. — Cleary 1,028 Concordia 7*745 Cranbrook — Davenport 5*508 DeLima 400 Detroit Bible 2,642 Detroit Col. ofBus. 2,390 Detroit Col. of Law------- -Detroit Inst, ofTech. 2,350 Duns Scotus -General Motors Inst. 3*525 Grace Bible 1,268 Grand Rapids Baptist 25*821 Hillsdale 9*794 Hope 155*660 Jackson Bus. — Kalamazoo 163*182 Lawrence Ineti ofTech. 16,198 Madonna 7 j758 Maryglade -Marygrove 64 *4 60 Mercy 63,305 Merrill—Palmer 804 Michigan Christian 2,770 Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha —— Muskegon Bus. 3*378 Nazareth 24*503 Northwood 800 Olivet 46,910 Owosso 4*378 Reformed Bible Inst. -Sacred Heart 11,700 St. John's — St. Mary's 150 Shaw (Mich. Luth, ) -Siena Heights 9,575 Total 8,697 5,253 9,725 12,998 271,975 597,447 579,704 347,169 546,980 1,382,649 9,544 9,725 24,455 148,540 84,451 154,048 400 2,642 86,841 235,006 15,650 12,288 86,841 106,380 108,730 1 2 9 ,3 2 7 1 9 4 ,8 9 1 — —— — 89,491 247,644 252,673 263,842 6Q./136 <-■ " 77-10/1 1 9 1 * 186,263 7,185 13,255 1,268 93,838 192,767 694,843 5,612 449,382 304,578 184 *633 150,704 178,691 280 215,164 241,996 1,084 34,636 435,276 431,425 5,613 100,815 34,136 --- 9,730 — —— 5 0 ,1 9 7 3 7 ,9 2 9 242,844 —— 13,255 1,268 76,018 47,723 398,504 --- ~ » 3 1 ,8 6 6 t 30,758 79,899 84,186 173,635 13,595 84,986 220,545 17,973 39,905 158,857 128,903 379,055 58,668 -- 1 1 ,7 0 0 47,109 150 73,702 62,885 150 156,154 62,885 73,702 53,310 1 0 4 ,4 0 2 319 Table 57 (cont'd) Institution Private Colleges (cont'd) Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi U. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL Sources: Schol 800 44,320 State TG Total All Programs 398,874 340 25,994 151,168 85,840 1,004,462 11,735 26,794 195,488 87,440 1,405,336 12,075 26,794 528,504 207,368 2 ,1 1 5 ,1 1 1 12,075 1,989,935 4,886,650 6 ,8 7 6 ,5 8 5 10,947,724 7,225,057 4,886,650 12,111,707 52,600,082 400 312,746 12,112,107 52,912,628 1 ,6 0 0 400 7,225,457 --- 4,886,650 State program data are actual expenditures as recorded by Student Financial Assistance Services, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are grants to institutions as recorded in Notifications to Members of Congress; these will differ from actual expenditures when institutions do not spend the entire grant. 320 Table 38 State and Federal Financial Assistance for Students in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education b y Program and Institution, 1970— 71 Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Ferris State Grand Talley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech. Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Talley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C. ) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr. Kenry Ford. Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Talley Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich. Oakland C.C. St. Clair Schoolcraft Federal Nat'l Def. College Educ *1 Oppor. Stu. Loans Work— Study Grants(EOG) (n d s l ) (cws) 257,900 2 4 2 ,2 0 0 1 6 4 ,8 0 0 1 9 4 ,1 0 0 5 3 ,1 0 0 1,028,200 9 3 ,0 0 0 1 5 8 ,6 0 0 1 0 1 ,1 0 0 4 2 ,0 0 0 397,100 674,842 698,950 223,634 2 0 0 ,5 1 2 72,965 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 8 8 ,5 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 235,359 2 ,082,445 1 ,1 2 2 , 5 0 0 38,389 310,358 332,077 1 7 9 ,0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 2 ,0 6 0 1 ,6 9 8,099 1 ,126,033 80,000 28,000 Total 1,132,742 1,541,150 476,934 494,612 361,424 4,233,145 2 1 1 ,3 8 9 647,958 633,177 9 2 ,0 6 0 719,509 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 2 9 ,0 6 6 2,445,199 2,240,433 1,515,475 3,813,400 8 ,199,873 4,012,425 1 6 ,0 2 5 , 6 9 8 2 1 ,6 0 0 1 8 ,4 0 0 7 2 ,0 0 0 26,533 1 1 7 ,3 8 2 165,515 61,905 8 0 ,3 0 5 1 0 6 ,5 6 0 100,000 45,600 160,980 102,007 71,600 227,151 88,484 330,589 78,042 61,049 75,373 6 1 4 ,4 0 0 4 6 6 ,9 0 0 37,100 2 7 ,6 0 0 4 1 ,6 0 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 6 ,5 0 0 1 4 7 ,2 0 0 2 9 ,7 0 0 16,100 26,800 4 ,2 0 0 4 0 ,4 0 0 2 3 ,0 0 0 58,300 8,200 13,400 3,100 2 3 ,3 0 0 8 ,7 0 0 2 7 ,2 0 0 1 1 5 ,3 0 0 6,800 21,200 — — 44,560 23,880 28,807 ------ 35,251 21,984 83,389 19,331 14,949 18,573 ------ 25,775 29,944 42,074 15,162 13,275 2,927 16,678 8,183 12,281 90,591 6,444 12,508 7 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 110,000 60,000 100,000 2 9 ,0 1 1 3 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 26,000 8 0 ,3 0 0 44,280 40,000 16,800 30,475 2 6 ,0 0 0 55,300 11,199 17,900 90,000 83,000 7 2 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,2 0 0 146,475 97,224 140,374 40,162 57,150 32,027 95,278 28,082 57,381 295,891 96,244 105,708 321 Table 38 (cont’d) Federal Institution Public Two-Year (cont'd) Southwestern Mich. Y/ashtenaw V/ayne Co. Comm. Col. West Shore Total S/ Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquinas Calvin Calvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col. of Bus. Detroit Col. of L a w Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maryglade Marygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Mich. Col. of Osteo. Midrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible.Inst. EOG NDSL 1 4 ,6 0 0 -49,654 75,808 — 991,900 718,561 47,800 53,300 39,193 133,953 75,429 48,517 58,751 161,623 14,024 -3,419 — 43,211 — ■9,324 17,057 -22,742 ---22,742 80,073 1 4 ,2 0 0 8 3 ,5 0 0 —— 1 0 5 ,8 0 0 6 0 ,8 0 0 1 0 3 ,2 0 0 1 2 7 ,0 0 0 ---— — 1 0 4 ,0 0 0 -■.-1 2 0 ,5 0 0 -5 8 ,1 0 0 3,500 — . ■■ 14,700 3 8 ,2 0 0 1 4 3 ,6 0 0 8 4 ,8 0 0 2 3 ,7 0 0 14,500 -00,600 68,100 700 14,400 -- 1 2 8 ,8 6 9 -- 1 / 7 2 ,0 1 8 22,424 21,946 ___ 75,675 1 0 2 ,1 9 2 611 49,465 18,952 ■■■■■■ -2 9 ,1 0 0 28,000 86,800 23,300 — cws 2 6 ,5 1 6 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 Total 40,716 233,154 1 9 5 ,8 0 8 3 4 ,6 0 0 1 ,6 4 3 , 6 6 8 3,354,129 8,556 4 4 ,0 0 0 6 2 ,0 0 0 4,903 45,000 1 2 3 ,0 0 0 -- 95,549 231,253 243,229 1 1 4 ,2 2 0 206,951 411,623 14,024 -- 9,869 — 1 3 ,2 8 8 4 5 ,0 0 0 1 9 2 ,2 1 1 -- — — 16,000 — — 18,000 2 ,0 0 0 9,324 53,557 -98,842 5,500 --1 0 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,7 0 6 2 9 ,7 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 7 8 ,4 2 5 10,784 77,396 -45,000 53,062 — 6 ,0 5 6 25,620 ___ 47,442 133,979 302,169 1 0 ,0 0 0 2 3 5 ,2 4 3 5 6 ,9 0 8 1 1 3 ,8 4 2 -2 0 9 ,2 7 5 2 2 3 ,3 5 4 1 ,3 1 1 6 9 ,9 2 1 4 4 ,5 7 2 — ™ 1 3 ,2 6 6 12,000 2 5 ,2 6 6 8,187 -65,043 6,595 -- 2 4 ,0 0 0 61,287 64,500 182,063 47,050 — 36,500 3 0 ,2 2 0 17,155 -- 322 Table 38 (cont'd) Federal Institution Private Colleges EOG H D S L ___________ C W S ____ Total (cont'd) Sacred Heart -- —— - St. J o h n ' s --- —— St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. L u t h . ) Siena Heights Soc. of A r t s & C r a f t s Spring A r b o r Suomi U. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. Total —— 27,400 — — — — 77,600 37,200 332,200 45,000 — — 36,546 -- 18,952 -— 75,534 48,896 416,944 18,952 45,000 ---------- --- --- 103,668 118,297 6,018 1,163,463 -82,898 -— — 151,134 189,764 8 6 7 ,4 4 1 18,952 6,018 1,816,900 1,898,597 4 ,8 7 8 , 9 6 0 Total Higher Educ. 6,622,200 10,817,031 6,819,556 24,258,787 Other GRAND TOTAL 38,800 6,661,000 75,212 10,892,243 79,616 193,628 6,899,172 24,452,415 325 Table 38 (cont*d) Institution Public Four-Year Central Michigan Eastern Michigan Perris State Grand Valley Lake Superior Michigan State Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan Oakland Univ. Saginaw Valley Univ. of Michigan Wayne State Western Michigan Total Public Two-Year Alpena Bay de Noc Delta Genessee (Flint C.C.) Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Jr, Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kellogg Kirtland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Mid Michigan Monroe Montcalm Muskegon North Central Northwestern Mich, Oakland C.C, St. Clair Schoolcraft Southwestern Mich. Washtenaw Wayne Co. Comm. Col. West Shore Scholarships (Schol) 340,619 138,373 49,024 111,111 34,894 1,692,204 235,230 149,578 232,571 27,476 1,218,920 327,209 362,232 State Tuition Grants(TG) I N E L 8,430 8,050 18,380 10,996 4,490 15,492 4 1 ,3 0 2 11,040 1 ,3 2 0 19,057 3,390 14,363 572 4,405 1 3 ,6 0 6 1 2 ,1 0 7 1,388 6,605 4,493 2 7 ,2 0 2 10,023 22,829 9,301 9,719 6,585 1,550 1 ,4 2 0 930 3,470 27,476 1,218,920 327,209 362,232 1,473,361 1,679,523 525,958 605,723 396,318 5,925,349 446,619 797,536 865,748 119,536 3,664,119 2 ,5 6 7 ,6 4 2 1,877,707 4,919,441 20,945,139 8,430 173,945 88,355 204,940 171,976 106,497 I G I B L E 4,919,441 X N E L I I G N I E B L L I E I G N I E B L L X E I G N I E B L L I E I G 11 X E B L L I E G I B L E Total All Programs 340,619 138,373 49,024 111,111 34,894 1,6 9 2 , 2 0 4 235,230 149,578 2 3 2 ,5 7 1 8 ,0 5 0 18,380 10,996 4,490 15,492 41,302 11,040 1 ,3 2 0 19,057 3,390 14,363 572 4,405 13,606 1 2 ,1 0 7 1,388 6,605 4,493 2 7 ,2 0 2 1 0 ,0 2 3 22,829 9,301 9,719 6,585 1,550 1,420 930 3,470 8 7 ,0 9 2 268,453 99,524 331,909 997,099 644439 89,736 30,772 150,880 110,830 152,481 41,550 63,755 36,520 122,480 38,105 80,210 305,192 105,963 1 1 2 ,2 9 3 42,266 234,574 196,738 38,070 324 Table 38 (cont'd) State Institution Public Two-Year (cont'd) Total Private Colleges Adrian Albion Alma Andrews Aquitfas Chlvin Calvin Theo. Cleary Concordia Cranbrook Davenport DeLima Detroit Bible Detroit Col* of* Bus* Detroit Col. of Law Detroit Inst, of Tech. Duns Scotus General Motors Inst. Grace Bible Grand Rapids Baptist Hillsdale Hope Jackson Bus. Kalamazoo Lawrence Inst, of Tech. Madonna Maxyglade Marygrove Mercy Merrill—Palmer Michigan Christian Mich, Col. of Osteo. Kidrasha Muskegon Bus. Nazareth Northwood Olivet Owosso Reformed Bible Inst. Sacred Heart St, John's St. Mary's Shaw (Mich. Luth.) Siena Heights Schol TG 292,515 63,993 159,520 1 6 1 ,6 9 6 54,816 125,535 346,153 ----------------- 947 9,630 - — 9,616 — — 2,320 3,298 All Total Programs 292,515 3,646,644 196,798 299,340 344,621 292,347 530,593 587,850 330,426 556,536 1,282,812 14,024 13,592 31,070 132,805 139,820 102,925 161,390 2 1 6 ,2 0 6 2 2 4 ,0 5 0 5 2 5 ,0 3 6 349,585 871,189 — _ 12,645 8,152 ---------------• 13,592 17,782 4 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 173,847 183,463 375,674 —— ----------------- 2 ,3 2 0 11,644 1 7 7 ,8 8 8 2,400 970 9,155 504 38,405 14,262 166,738 61,843 36,485 194,692 124,331 6,750 96,794 970 17,765 504 100,248 50,747 361,430 ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- 156,454 31,118 10,530 60,365 216,174 53,500 216,019 247,292 64,030 — ----------------- ----------------- 55,520 74,815 179,272 244,252 234,792 319,067 — ----------------- 3,859 ........ 2,161 2 6 ,5 0 5 1 ,3 6 6 54,602 2,280 140 6,085 -----T I I— ■ I 10,750 ----------------- ----------------- 121,033 6,750 94,394 ----------------- 8,610 — ~ 36,209 ----------------- 40,068 ——— — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64,162 85,288 77,459 187,616 29,438 66,323 111,793 78,825 242,218 31,718 140 -■■■— - — 6,085 —■ — — 71,098 59,013 — 71,098 69,763 6,750 195,636 6,470 17,765 504 147,690 184,726 663,599 10,000 4 5 2 ,0 6 2 3 0 4 ,2 0 0 177,872 ----------------- 4 4 4 ,0 6 7 5 4 2 ,4 2 1 1 ,3 1 1 109,989 44,572 ——— 91,589 173,080 143,325 424,281 78,768 140 51,085 ----------------■■ ■ 1 5 5 ,9 9 6 69,7 6 3 325 Table 58 (cont*d) Institution Private Colleges (cont1d) Soc. of Arts & Crafts Spring Arbor Suomi TJ. of Detroit Walsh Western Theo. Total Total Higher Educ. Other GRAND TOTAL Schol State TG Total All Programs 2,585 45,929 1 9 2 ,3 1 2 393,050 84,053 1,191,284 5,721 30,896 238,241 90,053 1,584,314 5,721 2,053,485 4,954,206 7 ,0 0 7 ,6 9 1 1 1 ,8 8 6 ,6 5 1 7,265,441 4,954,206 12,219,647 36,478,434 6 ,0 0 0 --- 7,265,441 28,513 -4,954,206 --- 12,219,647 3 0 ,8 9 6 389,375 279,817 2,451,755 24,673 6,018 193,628 3 6 ,6 7 2 , 0 6 2 yj Adjusted from $9*097 because these funds not expended. Sources: State program data are preliminary figures of actual expendi­ tures as recorded by Student Financial Assistance Services, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Federal program data are grants to institutions as recorded in Notifications to Members of Congress; these will differ from actual expenditures when institutions do not spend the entire grant. Appendix E A Procedure F o r E s t i m a t i n g T h e Foregone Earnings O f Students The average gross weekly earnings in current dollars in private nonagricultural industries were $114*61 in 19 6 9 and $ 1 1 9 . 4 6 in 1970 (Council of Economic Advisors, 1972 Annual Report transmitted with the Economic Report of the President. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C., 1972, Table B—32, p. 232). Let the average, $117,04, represent weekly earnings foregone by full-time enrolled students who would have worked if not in college in the 1969—70 academic year. S ince " f u l l - t i m e " i n t h i s u s a g e i m p l i e s m ately t h r e e — f o u r t h s o f t h e y e a r , year would be i n g in school approxi­ the earnings foregone in the academic be 39 X $117*04 = $4564*56 f o r those who would have worked. Not all young people, of course, do work. The labor force parti­ cipation rates for civilian, noninstitutionalized 18—24 year olds not enrolled in school in 1969—7° were 93 and 6 4 percent for males and females, respectively (U.S. Department of Labor, Handbook of Labor Statistics 1971. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 17°5> U.S. ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971, Table 11, p. 45)* Govern­ The student population in Michigan was approximately 60 and 64 percent male at the undergraduate and graduate levels, respectively. Combining the above information on the sexes, we obtain the following labor force participation rates for undergraduates and graduates: Undergraduates (.60 X 9 3 ) + (.4° X 6 4 ) = 81.45& Graduates ( . 6 4 X 9 3 ) + ( . 3 6 Xd64) = 82.6^ Using the above labor force participation rates to deflate the earnings figure for an employed young person, the foregone earnings 326 327 become: Undergraduates ,814 X $4565 — $3716 Graduates *826 X $4565 — $3771 The calculation for graduate students assumes that their added earnings potential is balanced by their additional income as teachers and re­ searchers; the assumption is admittedly crude, but it does have some basis in fact (see Theodore W. Schultz, Investment in Human Capital, N.Y*: The Free Press, 1971* PP. 115—119)* Since the two figures differ by only a small amount, it is reasonable to use just one estimate, say $3740. In order to project foregone earnings, it is necessary to assume a rate of growth to apply to $3740. During the 1961—69 period average gross weekly earnings in constant dollars in privatenonagricultural industries grew at an annual rate of 1.56 percent and from 1961 to 1971 the average rate was 1.24 percent (Council of Economic Advisors, op. cit.). Using a rate of 1.3 percent which is roughly comparable to the income assumptions in the enrollment projections yields the follow­ ing estimates of foregone earnings in 1969—70 dollars in the four academic years appearing in the analysis: 1969-70: $3740 1972-73: $3888 1975-76: $4041 1980-81: $4311. Converting these to 1972—73 dollars gives 1969-70: $4180 1975-76: $4520 1972-73: $4340 1980-81: $4820. Finally, these estimates must be used in conjunction with full­ time-equivalent enrollment figures rather than headcount enrollments, for all of the above calculations assume that the student is a full— 328 time student. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blbliography Historical References Adams, Charles K. "State Aid to Higher Education," State Aid to Hipfoer Education, Edited by Herbert B. Adams, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. 18. Baltimore, Md.; The Johns Hopkins Press, 1899* Angell, James B. 1912 . Reminiscences. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co,, Art, Richard G. The Federal Government and Finanolnfi' HI gher Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Becker, Carl L. Cornell University: Founders and the Founding. ca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1943* Itha­ Binkley, Wilfred E,, and Moos, Malcolm C. A Grammar of American Poli­ tics. Third edition, Revised. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1958. Blackmar, Prank W. The History of Pederal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United StateB. Bureau of Education Circular of Information 1. Washington, B.C.: Government Printing Office, . 1890 Brubaoher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. Revised Edition. New York: Harper and_ Row. ' 1968Bruce, Philip Alexander. History of the University of Virginia 1819— Vol. I. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1920. Bryan, William Lowe. "Educational Policies of the United States Govern­ ment." Educational Record. Vol. II, April, 1930. Cowley, W.H. "European Influences Upon American Higher Education." Educational Record. Vol. 20, April, 1939. Curti, Merle, and Carstensen, Vernon. The University of Wisconsin: A History. 1848—1925. Vol. 2. Madison, Wis.: University of Wis­ consin Press, 1949* Dunbar, Willis. "Public Versus Private Control of Higher Education in Michigan, 1817—1855*11 Mississippi Valley Historical Review (title has since been changed to Journal of American History^. Vol. 22, December, 1935* 329 330 Farrand, Elizabeth M. History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Register Publishing House, 1885* The Financial Support of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan: Its Origin and Development. Harvard Bulletins in Education, No. 8. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1923- Cambridge, French, John C. A History of the University Founded by Johns Hopkins. Baltimore, Md. : The Johns Hopkins Press, 1946. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "Junior College Growth." journal. Vol. 31» February, 1961. Junior College Henderson, JoBeph Lindsey. Admission to College by Certificate. Series of the Columbia University Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 50* New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1912. Hofstadter, Richard, and Metzger, Walter P. The Development of Aca­ demic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia Univer­ sity Press, 1955* Hollis, E r n e s t V i c t o r . Philanthropic Foundations and Higher Education. N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938. Honeywell, Roy J. The Educational Work of Thomaa Jefferson. Harvard Studies in Education, Vol. 16. Cambridge, Mass.: Haryard Uni­ versity Press, 1931* as reprinted by New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1964* Howe, Frederic C. Wisconsin: An Experiment in Democracy. New York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1912. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: The First Hundered Years. sing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1955- East Lan­ McAnear, Beverly. "The Raising of Funds by the Colonial Colleges." Mississippi Valley Historical Review (title has since been changed to Journal of American History). Vol. 38, March, 1952. McCarthy, Charles. pany, 1 9 1 2 . The Wisconsin Idea. New York: The Macmillan Com­ McClellan, Edwin. "The Educational Ideas of Henry Philip Tappan." Michigan History. Vol. 38, March, 1954M axwell, R o b e r t S. LaFollerte and the Rise of the Progressives in Wisconsin. Madison, Wis.: State Historical Society of Wiscon— sin, 1956. Morison, Samuel Eliot* Three Centuries of Harvard 1636—1956. bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 193^- Cam­ 331 Montgomery, Caroline Williamson. Bibliography of College. TTrHvarsity and. Church Settlements. Press, 1905* Social. Chicago, 111*: The Blakley Oviatt, Edwin. The Beginnings of Yale 1701—1726. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1916. Price, Richard Rees. The Financial Support of State Universities. Harvard Studies in Education, Vol. 6. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924* as reprinted by New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969* Rogers, Walter P. Andrew D. White and the M o d e m University. N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1942. Ithaca, Ross, Earle D. Democracy1s College: The Land—Grant Movement in the Formative Stage. Ames, Iowa: Xowa State University Press, 1942. Rudolph, Frederick, The American College and University. Vintage Books, 1962. New York: . "Who Paid the Bills? An Inquiry into the Nature of Nine­ teenth-Century College Finanoe." Harvard Education Review. Vol. 31, Spring, 1961. Sears, Jesse B, Philanthropy in the History of American Higher Edu­ cation. Bureau of Education Bulletin 26. Washington, B.C.: Government Printing Office, 1922. Sheldon, Henry D. Student Life and Customs. New York: D, Appleton and Company, 1901 • Tewksbury, Donald G. The Founding of American Colleges and Universi­ ties Before the Civil War. Series of the Columbia University Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 543. New York: Bureau of Publloatluiiu, xwctoiie.L'u ouixu^, Uuj.umu.ia unxversiuy, 1932. Thompson, W.O. "The Spirit of the Land—Grant Institutions." Procee­ dings of the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities. 1931. Wayland, Frances. Thoughts on the Present Collegiate System in the United States. Boston, Mass.: Gould Kendall & Lincoln, 1842, as reprinted by New York: A m o Press & The New York Times, 1969* Wertenbakey, Thomas Jefferson. Princeton 1746—1896. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1 9 4 ^. — White,^Andrew Dickson. Autobiography. New York: The Century Co., 332 Philosophy of Education References American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) • The Assembly on Univer­ sity Goals and Governance; A First Report, Cambridge, Mass*: AAAS, 1971. Ashby, Sir Eric* Any Person. Any Study* Book Company, 197*1* Technology and the Academics* and Company Ltd., 195B* New York, N.Y*: McGraw-Hill London, England; Macmillan Birenbaum, William M. Overlive i Power* Poverty, and the University* New York, N.Y.: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1969_ Bonnen, James T. ’’Some Observations on the Organizational Nature of a Great Technological Payoff." Journal of Farm Economics. Decem­ ber 1 9 6 2 . Bowen, Howard R. "Tuitions and Student Loans in the Finance of Higher Education." The Economics and Financing of Higher Education in the United States, a Compendium of Papers submitted to the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19^9* Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Open-Door Colleges; Policies for Commnnity Colleges. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. . Quality and Equality; Revised Recommendations— New Levels of Federal Responsibility for Higher Education, New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Conway, Jill. "Styles of Academic Culture." Daedalus. Winter 1970. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company, 1946* Dungan, Ralph A. "Higher Education: The Effort to Adjust." Winter 1970. Erikson, Erik H. 1968 . Daedalus. Identify: Youth and Crisis. New York, N.Y.: Norton, Flexner, Abraham. Universities; Amerio?m1 English. German. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1930. Priedenberg, Edgar Z. "The University Community in an Open Society." Daedalus. Winter,197°. * The Vanishing- Adolescent. New York, N.Y.: Dell Publishing Co., 1959. 533 Friedman, Milton. Capitalism & Freedom. of Chicago Press, 1962. Chicago, 111. s The University Goodman, Paul. The Community of Scholars. New York, N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1962. Governor’s Commission on Education. A Forward Look; Final Report. MadiBon, Wis.: State of Wisconsin, November I9 7 O. Hanson, W. Lee, and Burton A. Weisbrod. "A New Approach to Higher Education Finance.” Discussion Paper 64—70, Institute for Re­ search on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, February 1970Hoffman, Stanley. 1970. "Participation in Perspective?” Daedalus. Winter Hutchins, Robert M. The Higher Learning in America. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1936. . The University of Utopia. Chicago Press, 1953* Chicago, 111.: University of Illich, Ivan. "Schooling: The Ritual of Progress." view of Books. December 1970* . "Why We Must Abolish Schooling." Books. July 2, 1970. The New York Re­ The New York Review of ' Jencks, Christopher, and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1 9 ^9 . Jondahl, H. Lynn. Unrest on the Campus. New York, N.Y.: Friendship Press, Inc., 197°. Keniston, Kenneth. Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth. New York, N.Y.; Raroourt, Brace and World, 1 9 6 8 , Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. University Press, 1 9 6 3 . Levi, Edward H, Point of View. Press, 1969- Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Lilge, Frederic. The Abuse of Learning. New York, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company, 1948. Litt, Edgar. The Public Vocational University: Captive Knowledge and Public Power. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.. 1969Morison, Robert S. University." "Some Aspects of Policy—Making in the American Daedalus. Summer 1970. 334 Organization for Economic Co—operation and Development (OECD). Growth and Society. Paris, Prance: OECD, 1971. Science. "Original Papers in Relation to a Course of Liberal Education.” The American Journal of Science and Arts (title has since been changed to American Journal of Science). Vol. 15, No. 2, 1829. Orlans, Harold. The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1962. President’s Commission on Higher Education. Higher Education for American Democracy. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947* Ritterbush, Philip C. "Adaptive Response Within the Institutional System of Higher Education and Research.” Daedalus. Summer 1970* Russell, Bertrand* A History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster, 1945* New York, N.Y. : Shoben, Edward Joseph, Jr. "Cultural Criticism and the American Col­ lege." Daedalus. Summer 1970* Taylor, Harold. How To Change Colleges. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rine­ hart and Winston, 1971* Taylor, John P.A. The Masks of Society. Publishing Co., 1966. Wolff, Robert Paul. Beacon, 196 9 . New York, N.Y.: Meredith The Ideal of the University. Boston, Mass.: Methodology and Statistical Studies Blaug, M., ed. Economics of Education 1. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Ino., 19^9* Campbell, Robert, and Barry N. Siegel. "The Demand for Higher Educa­ tion in the United States, 1919*1964*’' American Economic Review. Vol. 5 7 , June 1967. Corazzini, A.J., D. Dugan and H.G. Grabowski. "Determinants and Dis­ tributional Aspects of Enrollment in U.S. Higher Education." Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings, Detroit, Michigan, December 28—30, 1970, and later published In Journal of Human Resources, Vol. VII, No. 1, Winter 1972. Galper, Harvey, and Robert M. Dunn, Jr. "A Short—Run Demand Function for Higher Education in the United States." Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 77, Sept.-Oct. 19 6 9 . 335 Eight, Joseph E. "The Supply of Higher Education in the U.S.: The Pub­ lic and Private Institutions Compared." Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings. Detroit, Michigan. December 28—30, 197°. Hoenack, Stephen A,, and Feldman, Paul. "Private Education in the United States." Institute Research Paper P-649* Arlington, Virginia, Economics and Financing of Higher Education Compendium of Papers submitted to the Joint Congress of the United States, Washington, ment Printing Office, 1969* Kmenta, Jan. Elements of Econometrics. Co., 1971- Demand for Higher for Defense Analysis 1969* Also in The in the United States. Economic Committee, D.C.: U.S. Govern­ New York, N.Y. : The Macmillan Malinvaud, E. Statistical Methods of Econometrics. Rand McNally & Co., 1966. Chicago, 111.: Michigan Department of Education. Financial Requirements of Public Baccalaureate Institutions and Public Community Colleges. Lan­ sing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1971 • Michigan Department of Education. State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan, 19 6 9 . ' Radnor, R., and L.S. Miller. "Demand and Supply in U.S. Higher Educa­ tion: A Progress Report." American Economic Review. Vol. 60. May 1970. ----------------------Schultz, Theodore W, Investment in Human Capital. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1971* Thompson, Ronald B. Projections of Enrollments. Public and Private Colleges and Universities. 1970—1987. Washington, D.C.: American Aawoelation 01 Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1970. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Project ions of Educational Statistics to 1978—79 and 1979—80. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office, 19 69 and 1971* Data Sources Audited financial reports for Michigan institutions of higher education for 1969-70. Council of Economic Advisors. 1972 Annual Report, transmitted with the Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 336 Executive Office of the Governor, Economic Report of the Governor 1970 and 1972, Lansing, Mich,: State of Michigan, 1970 and 1972, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan Statistical Ab­ stract. Eighth Edition. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1970. Janowitz, Morris. "Toward An All—Volunteer Military." terest. Spring 1972. The Public In­ Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (MACRAO). MACRAO Enrollment Report. Lansing, Mich.: MACRAO, 1955-1959. Michigan Bureau of the Budget. Institutional Budget Requests for Fis­ cal Year 1971—72. Lansing, Mich.: 1971. Michigan Council of State College Presidents. Historical Enrollments Counts for Council Institutions 1950—51 to 1964—65. Lansing. Mich.: Michigan Council of State College Presidents, April, 1966. Michigan Department of Education. "Analysis of Opening Fall Enroll­ ment of Resident and Extension Students at Colleges and Univex>sities in Michigan, Headcount Basis, by Type of Institution, 1967—1971." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Education, 1971. . "Enrollments By Grades For Selected Years." Lansing, Mich.: Bureau of Administrative Services, Michigan Department of Edu­ cation, 1 9 7 0 . — — —— * Enrollments in Michigan Colleges and Universities. Fall. 1968. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Education, 1 9 6 9 . . A Report on Enrollments in Michigan Colleges and Universi— 11 ^ * Lairing, I’LLoh. : Michigan Department ox' Education, June, 1968 . * Selected data collected in the Higher Education General Information Survey. Lansing, Michigan. —- . "A Summary of Racial—Ethnic Enrollments in Michigan Insti­ tutions of Higher Education, Fall 1970." Lansing, Mich.: Plan­ ning Division, Bureau of Higher Education, undated. . "Survey of Post—Secondary Educational Plans of Michigan High School Graduates." Lansing, Mich.: Student Financial As­ sistance Services, September, 1971. « Unpublished data on primary and secondary school enrollments kept by the Bureau of Administrative Services. Lansing, Michigan. 337 Unpublished data on primary and secondary school enrollments kept by the Bureau of Research. Lansing, Michigan, Unpublished data on student financial aid awards kept by the Student Financial Assistance Services. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Public Health. Michigan Population Handbook •12S5-. Lansing, Mich,: Michigan Department of Public Health, November, 1965* Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1950— 1964* 0*NeilI, June. Resource Use in Higher Education: Trends in Outputs and Inputs. 1930 to I9f>7. Berkeley. Cal.; Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971* U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1930—1960. ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930—1960. Washing- . Census of Population: 1970* General Population Characteris­ tics. Pinal Report PC(1)-B24 Michigan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971* Current Population Reports. Series P—25, No. 225* ton, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office. Washing­ Current Population Reports. Series P—25, No. 439ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Washing1- U.S. Department of Defense. Unpublished data on discharges from the Armed Forces. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1970. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Educational Statistics. ^ Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. U.S. Department of Labor. April 1972. Employment and Earnings. Vol. 18, No. 10, . Handbook of Labor Statistics 1971. Bureau of Labor Statis­ tics Bulletin 1705- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. . Manpower Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March, 1970* U.S. Office of Education. Biennial Survey of Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 9 4 4 -4 6 and 1948-50. 338 . Notifications to Members of Congress regarding- Federal grants to institutions for student aid awards* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966-1971* Other References Berls, Robert H. "Higher Education Opportunity and Achievement in the United States." The Economics and Financing of Higher Edu­ cation in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, U.S. Government Prin­ ting Office, 1969College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB). Financing a College Edu­ cation; A Guide for Counselors. Princeton, N.J.: CEEB, 1971* Coons, John E., Clune, William H., 111, and Sugarman, Stephen U. Private Wealth and Public Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970* Johnson, Glenn L. "The Quest for Relevance in Agricultural Economics." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 53* Wo. 5* December 1971. Kristol, Irving. "From Priorities to Goals." Summer 1971* "Technology Assessment (Cont.)." The Public Interest. Scientific American. May, 1972. U.S. Congress. "Technology Assessment Act of 1972," Public Law 92—484. Washington, D.C.: 92nd Congress, H.R. 10243* October 13* 1972.