The effect of course section size on the cost of instruction in agriculture by Jacob Robert Hehn A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Agricultural Economics Montana State University © Copyright by Jacob Robert Hehn (1968) Abstract: The financing of a modern program of education in a university involves large sums of money. Wise managements of a university's resources requires constant analyses of costs. Past efforts to establish the cost of instruction have centered on average costs per unit of production, specifically cost per student-credit-hour produced. This information has been of limited usefulness for decision-making. The possibility of over-utilization (or under-utilization) of a course section as it relates to a stated optimum size and what this means in terms of unit costs, both average and marginal, is examined. It is concluded that for a large percentage of the courses offered in the two professional curricula examined, agriculture and engineering, there is no linear relationship between the number of student registrations and the total cost of a teaching section. Data on the nature of the section of instruction--numbers of sections, distribution by size, average size and numbers of student registrations—-were acquired from the colleges of agriculture and engineering at Colorado State University. An examination of the data made it possible to conclude that additional student registrations could be absorbed at both the lower division and upper division undergraduate level without adding to the total cost of instruction; that is to say, average cost per student registration would decrease with additional student registra-tions. This is important for faculty, academic administrators, curriculum committees and other decision-makers in a university.  THE EFFECT OF COURSE' SECTION SIZE ON THE COST OF INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURE by JACOB ROBERT HEHN A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Agricultural Economics Approved^ Lajor Department Chairman, Examining Committee GrsAiAte Dean MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana December, 1968 ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people must be acknowledged for their assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. A very special appreciation is extended to Dr. Edward H. Ward for his assistance, guidance, and especially his gentle, but persuasive, encouragement to continue. Special thanks is also extended to Dr. Roy E. Huffman for his assistance and encouragement over many years. Sincere thanks to Dr. Richard 0. Wheeler and Dr. Clarence W. Jensen for their suggestions and willingness to discuss various aspects of the paper. i Appreciation is offered to Dean C. W. Hotchkiss at Colorado State University for his counsel and assistance. Thanks is also given to the various offices at Colorado State University that provided some of the data used. After struggling through the trials of two earlier degrees, thanks to one's wife is not new, but is humbly offered again. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA. ......................................... .......... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ................ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... iv LIST OF TABLES. v LIST OF FIGURES ............................ x ABSTRACT* . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . I Justification for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Purpose and Objectives. . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . 2 CHAPTER II: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THE ELEMENTS IN THE COST OF INSTRUCTION AND ESTABLISH THEIR INTERACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CHAPTER III: PER UNIT COST OF INSTRUCTION. 23 CHAPTER IV: THE ECONOMICS OF SECTION SIZE.......... 31 Sectioning. . . . ...................................... 37 CHAPTER V: DESCRIPTION OF TEACHING FUNCTION IN THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING ................ . . . . . 44 CHAPTER VI: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE: COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE . . . . . 51 CHAPTER VII: AM EXAMINATION OF THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE: COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING . . . . . 77 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. CHAPTER VIII: COMPARISON OF COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING. 103 CHAPTER IX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Appendix B, . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Appendix C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 138 iv LITERATURE CITED. . . . 140 VLIST OF TABLES Number Page I INCREASE IN PUBLIC COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENTS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL INCREASE IN OPENING FALL ENROLLMENTS AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ENROLLMENTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, 5-YEAR PERIOD 1955-60, BY STATE. ......................... 15 II EXPENDITURE AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL EXPENSES BY INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS, OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY, FISCAL YEAR 1961-62. ........................ 18 III AVERAGE COST PER STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1963-64 THROUGH 1966-67. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 IV STUDENT-CREDIT-HOURS PRODUCED PER MAJOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1964-65 ........ . . . . . . . .......... . 25 V COURSE OF STUDY FOR FRESHMEN YEAR (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING) 27 VI EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR AND STUDENT-FACULTY RATIOS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1963-64 THROUGH 1966-67 . . 27 VII MEAN FACULTRY SALARIES, ACADEMIC YEAR EQUIVALENT, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1963-64 THROUGH 1967-68. . . . . . . . . . 29 VIII TEACHING LOAD FOR ONE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 o o o o • e o e e • o • ♦ o o o » ’« • e o o o 6 o a 5 4 IX TEACHING LOAD WITH PERCENTAGE TIME DISTRIBUTION FOR ONE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 36 X COST DATA FOR COURSE: ENTOMOLOGY 106... . . . . . . . . . 42 XI STUDENT ENROLLMENT, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967—68, 44 XII TOTAL ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS BY COLLEGE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68........ 46 XIII GRADUATE ENROLLMENTS BY -MAJORS AND BY COLLEGE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. . 46 XIV UPPER DIVISION ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND BY COLLEGE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FALL QUARTER 1960-61 THROUGH vi Numb er Page XV LOWER DIVISION ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND BY COLLEGE,. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68* e o • » o e a • e • • ® e o o o « e a • o o o . » • 4 7 XVI FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT FACULTY MEMBERS BY COLLEGE, ACADEMIC YEAR 1963-64 THROUGH 1967-68 . . . . . . . . ............ 48 XVII STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR PRODUCTION BY COLLEGE, 1963-64 THROUGH 1966—67. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . 48 XVIII AVERAGE SECTION SIZE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. ... 53 XIX NUMBER OF SECTIONS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................■ . 54 XX DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS COMBINED BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 XXI DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS, AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . 57 XXII NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 XXIII NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZE'S BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 XXIV DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 XXV NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL . STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . 65 XXVI NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Number Page XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXi-V XXXV XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII vi i NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS.ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . «, 67 DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965~~ 66o e e e e no e o « e e # e o o o e o o » o e o o e e 69 DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. 70 NUMBERS OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS ,OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 71 NUMBERS OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. 72 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS OFFERED, STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . „ ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 73 SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS": REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . 74 SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRA­ TIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS WITH "20' OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66 . . . . . . 74 AVERAGE SECTION SIZE, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . 79 NUMBER OF SECTIONS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS COMBINED BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING; 1965-66 81 DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS COMBINED BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. 82 viii Number XXXIX XL XLI XLII XLIII XLIV XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66, . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE. COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66 ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRA­ TIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRA­ TIONS, AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66 .. -.,o . . . . . . . . . . . . . NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965—66. e e o e e a e e o o o ' ® a # o ' . * . o ' . e o e o * a NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66 . . DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965 — 66 o e a * o a * o a o o a a a a a o ' . o a a * e a * a DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF .ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . NUMBERS OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965—66 o a a o e a a a * a o a a a o a a » * . a o a a a • NUMBERS OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,' 1965-66. . . . . . Page, 84 85 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 ix Number Page XLIX SUMMARY OF SECTIONS OFFERED, STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 L SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. ........ 98 LI SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRA­ TIONS ACCOMMODATED• IN SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" .'REGISTRA­ TIONS , COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . 99 L U STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR PRODUCTION BY GRADUATE STUDENTS, FOUR COLLEGES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1965-66. . . . . •. 107 LIII SUMMARY TABLES FOR ANALYSIS OF SECTION SIZE, DISTRIBUTION OF SIZES AND STUDENTS ACCOMMODATED, COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING, 1965-66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 LIV TUITION CHARGES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 1959-60 THROUGH 1968—69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 XLIST OF FIGURES Figure Page' 1 Average■Cost Curve for Student Registrations„ . . . . . . . . 39 2 Marginal Cost Curve for Student Registrations . . . . . . . . 40 xi ABSTRACT The financing of a modern program of education in a university involves large sums of money. Wise managements of a university's resources requires constant analyses of costs. Past efforts to establish the cost of instruction have centered on average costs per unit of production, specifically cost per student- credit-hour produced. This information has been of limited usefulness for decision-making. The possibility of over-utilization (or under-utilization) of a course section as it relates to a stated optimum size and what this means in terms of unit costs, both average and marginal, is examined. It is concluded that for a large percentage of the courses offered in the two professional curricula examined, agriculture and engineering, there is no linear relationship between the number of student registrations and the total cost of a teaching section. Data on the nature of the section of instruction— numbers of sections, distribution by size, average size and numbers of student registrations— were acquired from the colleges of agriculture and engineering at Colorado State University. ' An examination of the data made it possible to conclude that additional student registrations could be absorbed at both the lower division and upper division undergraduate level without adding to the total cost of instruction; that is to say, average cost per student registration would decrease with additional student registra­ tions. This is important for faculty, academic administrators, curriculum committees and other decision-makers in a university. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The financing of a modern program of education in a university involves large sums of money. Anyone who is at all acquainted with modern institutions of higher education is aware of the importance of financial matters in the operation of a college or-university. Correla­ tions between institutional excellence and financial factors are known to be high. The university that cannot meet competition in faculty salaries and instructional equipment is scheduled for mediocrity. Rules of thumb are not adequate for the multi-million dollar enterprises most universities have become. Justification for the Study Most ,analyses of university costs and specifically, instructional costs are undertaken because costs may be a manifestation of good manage­ ment or they may also be evidence of mismanagement. Most efforts, until very recently, to establish the cost of instruction have centered on unit costs. This approach applies an after-the-fact computation which establishes cost per some unit of production. The decision-making process which affects instructional cost involves many individuals— academic administrators, curriculum committees, faculty, presidents, and recently, students. Unit cost data have been of limited usefulness to these decision-makers. Other information must be added to unit cost data. Wide-spread apprehensions arise in most colleges and universities whenever 2economic analysis, sophisticated or otherwise, is brought to bear on education. This dissertation will attempt to take account of these apprehensions. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to evaluate objective instructional production and cost data from one university, Colorado State University, in order to isolate those factors which are pertinent to an economic analysis of the teaching function, analyze their interaction, and provide a basis for the allocation of the limited resources available to the university. The Problem What are the factors which must be employed in an economic analysis of instruction and what is the nature of the interaction of the factors which affect the cost of instruction? Sub-Problems 1) What implications do low (or high) unit costs have for university admissions policies, scholarship policies, and the like? 2) Can a cost curve be developed for an individual course in an university and for groups of courses? 3) What emphasis is appropriate for the traditional cost per student credit hour approach in planning? 4) What is the relationship between the number of students enrolled in a class arid the total direct costs of the class? 35) Is the relationship between numbers of students in a department, college, or university and cost of instruction a linear relationship? 6) Is the effort to measure the incremental cost of each additional student in a class effective as a planning tool? 7) Of what importance is the number of "sections" or "events" of instruction in the determination of cost? It is not intended that this paper will answer adequately any or all of these questions. The analysis utilized two techniques. The interaction of the factors which' affect the,cost of teaching were examined. Teaching production and cost data from Colorado State University records were acquired and the interaction of the factors affecting the cost of teaching analyzed. The study proceeded in the following sequence: Step I. A historical development of attempts to develop cost . analyses in colleges and universities and a review of the literature relative to the problem. Step 2. A description of how the data which relate to faculty productivity and costs of production were assembled in terms of the economic factors to be explored. Step 3. The interaction of the factors were analyzed. Step 4. Conclusions are stated in terms of their significance for university planning. 4The possibility of over-utilization (or under-utilization) of a course section as it relates to a stated optimum size and what this means in terms of unit costs, both average and marginal, was examined. The study will attempt to establish whether there is a linear relation­ ship between the number of student registrations and total costs and whether there is a relationship between the number of student registra­ tions and the total cost of a section. Data for specific departments and colleges describing the percent of the courses offered as single­ section and multi-sectioned at.all levels of instruction were assembled. From this, the study will proceed to the implications for planning: projected additional faculty needs and admissions policies. This paper attempts to look into the general economy of ,instruc­ tional programs by examining the nature of.the section of.instruction— numbers, distribution by size, average size, and numbers of student registrations. ■ It will attempt to establish what relevancy, if any, these statistics may have for the efficient use of the resources of a department or a college within a university. It is expected that this effort will lead to additional efforts to develop the data and procedures required to facilitate projections and evaluation of alternate plans. Further studies could attempt to establish the cost of the "teaching event" as it appears to the university and proceed from this to a more inclusive concept of cost which encompasses the investment made by the student himself. The income given up by the student is an opportunity cost which may be the largest component of the total investment in university education. ■ In any case, consideration of this additional element into a cost of instruction analysis may produce decisions different than those found acceptable when student opportunity costs 5 are ignored. CHAPTER II HISTORICAL■DEVELOPMENT OF EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THE ELEMENTS IN THE COST OF■INSTRUCTION AND ESTABLISH THEIR INTERACTION Any effort.to establish the cost - of instruction.must begin with the subject of financial accounting.. This chapter will concern itself with the development of.financial accounting in our,colleges and universities, specifically the function of.accounting which concerns itself,with analyzing expenditures and other data in a way which might develop meaningful relationships. Russell I/, in describing early efforts at institutional accounting, reminded us that most accounting systems of colleges.and universities prior to 1925 revealed a lack of uniformity in policies and procedures. The lack of uniformity in.colleges and universities was in direct contrast to the considerable uniformity found in,the public elementary and secondary school systems. Russell traced the history of.progress toward uniformity in colleges and universities in some detail. Russell stated: Apparently the first important•realization of the lack of uniformity in college and university accounting practices arose from the proposal of the Carnegie pension plan. When Andrew Carnegie■in 1905 established an endowed foundation to provide pensions.for faculty members in.American higher institutionsi it appeared necessary to.limit participation in the program to the stronger and better institutions of I/ John Dale Russell, The Finance of Higher Education, (2nd ed.), Chicago, University of Chicagoj 1954. 7the country. Financial stability seemed to be one of the appropriate criteria for the selection of participating institutions, so information regarding finances was requested from all colleges and universities applying. Analysis of the reports that were submitted quickly revealed the need for agreement on terminology and practices in keeping financial records. Motivated by this experience, the Carnegie Foundation, in its annual report for 1910, made an important series of recommendations to colleges with respect to the manner in which financial reports should be prepared. In this first attempt at the development of uniformity, the suggestions made were reasonable and at the same time progressive. They provided a base not only for improvement in existing practice but from which later efforts at improvement might proceed. The actual effect of the recommendations, however, seems to have been decidedly limited, so far as modifications of accounting practices were concerned. The Foundation itself ' made no attempt to coerce institutions into following its suggested accounting plan, and only slight progress toward uniformity in college accounting practices was achieved as a result of this first effort.in that direction.. A committee appointed by the Association of University and College Business Officers reported in 1917 a suggested uniform classification of expenditures for higher institutions. This committee, under the leadership of J. C. Christensen, of the University of Michigan, proposed a sound system of classifi­ cation of income and expenditure, essentially in harmony with the plan that had been suggested by the Carnegie Foundation. The report of the committee was contained in the Proceedings of the Association, but few institutions outside of the middle western state universities seem to have done much to revise their accounting practices in accordance with its recommendations. The General Education Board of New York, a philanthropic foundation established by John■D. Rockefeller, also became interested in the problem of college accounting at about the time of the publication of the suggestions by the Carnegie Foundation. The reasons for the interest of both foundations were somewhat similar. The General Education Board was entering on a program of philanthropic giving to American higher education, and, naturally, it wished to have some definite assurance ■ regarding the financial position of the institutions it was seeking to aid. The unsound financial policies followed in many colleges, and the lack of uniformity in their reporting practices, soon became clearly evident,. For some time the 8Board, .through its staff members, gave advice oh financial and accounting matters individually to the institutions with which it made contact. A great forward step was taken in 1922, when the General Education Board published a volume by Trevor Arnett entitled College and University Finance.^ Mr. Arnett had had the opportunity to visit a large number of colleges and to inspect their accounting systems, besides having served for many years as auditor of the University of Chicago. He was thus peculiarly well qualified for the authorship of a treatise on financial management. At about the time the book was published, Mr. Arnett joined the staff of the General Education Board and later became its president, a position from which he retired in 1936. The merits of Arnett's College and University Finance were so apparent that the book became almost immediately the bibIe of business managers„ Besides the suggestions with reference to accounting and reporting, the book contains a sound treatment of many other phases of financial administration, including budgetary procedure and management of endowments. Although for a long period of years the book was to be found on the desk of practically every progressive business manager, the suggestions it contains with respect to budgeting and endowment management seem to have.been followed more carefully than those with respect to accounting. While many colleges and universities made some modification in their accounting practices to conform with Arnett's suggestions, a decade after the publication of the book the accounting systems in a great majority of.institutions still departed so markedly from the basic features of the plan that uniformity seemed a very distant goal. In the meantime other groups had also been convinced of the need for greater uniformity in the accounting and reporting practices of colleges and universities„ The staff of the United States Office of Education, having responsibility for the compilation of statistics relating to education, was keenly aware of the deficiency in the published data concerning the finances of higher institutions. A Committee of the Association of American Colleges, concerned with the cost of education, had found its work seriously hampered through inability to obtain trustworthy data for interinstitutional comparisons. The associations of college and university business officers had frequently discussed the need for some further standardization of accounting and reporting practices. The regional accrediting agencies had also encountered .the problem in enforcing financial standards for accreditation. 9The United States Office of Education, through Dr. Arthur J. Klein, then serving as chief of the Division of.Higher Education, took the leadership in securing the appointment of a committee to work on the problem. This committee, appointed in 1930 under the title of National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education, represented in its membership practically all the organizations that had displayed an interest in the problem, including the Association of American Colleges and the Council of Church Boards of Education, the various associations of college and university business officers, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars. The General Education Board of New York gave evidence of its continued interest in the problem by providing a generous grant of funds for the work of the National Committee. The National Committee deliberated on the problems of financial reporting for a number of years. Advice was sought from experts in the technical field of accounting, such as the Terminology Committee of the American Institute of Accountants, from research workers in the field of education, from college presidents and other administrative officers, and from various agencies which make authoritative use of financial information from colleges and universities. Preliminary bulletins on various phases of the problem, presenting tentative findings and recommendations, were issued from time to time. The definitive final report of the committee was published early in 1935.7 The committee not only published its recommendations but also provided a valuable follow-up in the form of advisory service to colleges. As an outgrowth of these activities the American Council on Education, assisted by a grant from an endowed foundation, established in the autumn of 1935 the Financial Advisory Service for higher institutions, with an office at its headquarters in Washington, D . C. The leadership under which this service was inaugurated was the same as that which guided the National Committee through the preparation of its final report. The Financial Advisory Service was discontinued in'1941 when further support could not be obtained. During the six years of its existence the organization rendered notable service through the publication of a series bf bulletins ("American Council on Education Studies," Series III) and books and through consultations with individual college officers and various associations and agencies interested in financial accounting and reporting. 10 The work of the National Committee was limited chiefly to the problems of financial reporting, and the subject of accounting techniques was treated only incidentally. Although the first chapter of the committee's final report is devoted to a theoretical discussion of the characteristics and functions of institutional accounting, and the final chapter concerns the classification of accounts, the committee did not set up a complete model accounting system for colleges to follow.^ The character of an institution's financial reports, however, goes far to determine the nature of its accounting system. The report of the National Committee has everywhere been recognized as marking a notable advance in institutional ■ accounting and reporting practices. Within a few years after its publication a number of influential agencies adopted it as the basis of their financial reporting. The forms on which reports are made to the United States Office of Education were changed to accord with the recommended pattern of classification. Many of the denominational boards of education revised their reporting requirements to follow the recommendations of the National Committee. The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools requires that financial reports from its member-institutions of higher education be set up in the form recommended by the National Committee, and the reports are made on the same forms as are used by the United States Office of Education; the Association further strongly urges that its member-institutions set up their financial accounting systems in the recommended manner. At least one state (Texas) has by legislative mandate required its publicly-controlled institutions to keep their financial accounts in the manner prescribed by the National Committee, and in other states the same end has been achieved by boards and other rule-making agencies. A considerable number of colleges and universities have voluntarily manifested an eagerness to modify their accounting and reporting organizations to conform to the recommended plan. In the early 1940's there was every reason to believe that institutions would rapidly adopt the principles suggested in the report of the National Committee. There was hope that statistics concerning the finances of higher education in the United States would become increasingly reliable and informative. Some even -expected that institutional reports would provide financial data on such a uniform basis that direct comparisons between and among colleges and universities would be feasible. The events of the decade of the 1940's, however, indicated that this optimism was unwarranted. The discontinuance of the 11 Financial Advisory Service of the American Council.on Education withdrew an important stimulus toward uniformity. The absorption of the country and the institutions of higher education in the war effort, and in postwar problems of financing, prevented business officers from continuing the attention they had been giving to the development of uniform accounting procedures. Normal turnover in the field of college business management brought into positions of leadership new personnel who had not.been closely identified with the earlier movement toward uniformity in accounting procedures. As a result of these and other factors, a complete standardization of financial accounting practices and procedures in institutions of higher education seems at midcentury still to be a distant, though desirable, goal. In a Master's thesis written in 1950 at the University of Illinois, entitled "Progress in Financial Reporting in Selected Universities since 1930", Harvey Sherer reaches a rather optimistic conclusion regarding the progress that has been made in the general adoption of the recommendations of the National Committee on Standard Reports. He notes that a number of the Committee's recommendations have not been generally adopted, but his evidence clearly shows that the pronouncements of the Committee are recognized as the generally accepted principles for financial accounting in institutions of higher education. He finds also that there is a high degree of.uniformity in the application of these principles by colleges and universities. His conclusion that "great progress has been made" is certainly sound, even though the evidence of his study indicates that still further progress in the direction of uniformity is possible and desirable. In 1938 a committee was formed to prepare a manual of college and university business administration. The Carnegie Foundation in 1942 made a grant to the American Council on Education to finance the work of .this committee. The project moved slowly, however, during the war years. Later the member­ ship of the committee was' changed, and a decision reached that the first task should be to prepare a revision of the manual originally published in 1935 as a result of the work of the National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education. The 1935 report was out of print and difficult to obtain, so a real need existed for a revision of it. The committee completed its work and published the revised report in 1952. The revised edition supported practically all the basic principles of the 1935 report and made.only a few minor changes, though it did include some chapters on additional topics. 12 In 1935 the National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education published a volume entitled Financial Reports for Colleges and Universities. This volume contains a detailed plan for unit-cost computations including a method of allocating overhead costs as well as an analysis of direct instructional cost. The U. S. Office of Education published Bulletin No. 21, entitled University Unit Costs, in 1937. The plan for cost computation proposed by the National Committee in the 1935 volume was used as a basis for this report. This study revealed‘both differences in student-credit-hour costs among curricula or disciplines within a university and substantial unit-cost variations among universities for the same subjects or disciplines. The study did establish some, but not universal, uniformity between institutions with respect to greater student-credit-hour costs at the upper division and graduate division levels than at the lower division^ Additional encouragement to the use of unit cost data came during and following World War IT. The various armed services training programs at colleges and universities— e.g., V-12, V-5, ASTP— required cost data to arrive at contract rates for the educational services rendered. After World War II, colleges and universities able to demonstrate that their tuition charges did not represent the total cost of instruction were in a position to negotiate with the Veteran's Administration for reimbursement of some part of a calculated expenditure per student. This provided a direct impetus to efforts to establish unit costs. Some of these efforts were no more than a computation which 13 Involved dividing total institutional instructional expenditures by the number of students enrolled without respect to curriculum or level of work (graduate or undergraduate). 7j This procedure, although crude, is still in practice. President Francis H. Horn of the University of Rhode Island reported _3/: The last time I saw figures (they were for 1959-60) Yale stated that the net cost to Yale per student was $1,602. Upon inquiry, I was informed that the figure was arrived at by a formula which took the total University expenditures, subtracted income from charges on term bills and from gifts (exclusive of the Alumni Fund), and divided the difference by the total university enrollment. The result was the net cost of Yale's- annual subsidy to each student. I question the defensibility of the formula. The practice of my predecessor at the University of Rhode Island was just as indefensible. Every year he published figures on the cost per student to the state. He arrived at this figure by dividing the total state appropriation by the number of full-time students. But what about the part- time students? To understand the impetus to efforts to establish unit costs during and after World War II one must have some understanding of the nature of the enrollment increases which occurred after World War II. In the decade of the 1950's when the U, S. population of college age increased about I percent per year, college and university enrollments rose by 1.6 percent per year. In the years 1955-60 enrollments increased by TJ No literature is cited here; the author reports this as personal experience having followed precisely this practice as the chief business officer of a small college following World War II. 3/ The University of Wisconsin Office^of Institutional Studies, The Role of Institutional Research in Planning. Proceedings of Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum, May 5-7, 1963, Madison, The University of Wisconsin, 1963, pp. 8-9. 14 2.6 percent annually. In the first part of the nineteenth century, new colleges took care of much of the demand for additional college education. 4/ A large share of the increases’ in enrollment in the decade of the 19501s took place in existing colleges and universities. Table I is descriptive of the increase in enrollments, e.g., enrollments in public institutions increased 42.5 percent in the five-year period 1955-60. The point in this, brief discussion of enrollment increases is to emphasize the importance of specific and accurate cost and management data for colleges and universities now confronted with large increases in enrollments. Many university administrators had serious doubts that the growth in resources available to higher education would parallel the growth of enrollment. Many different approaches to analyzing expenditures were employed, but the techniques may be classified into two major types: (I) computa­ tion and comparison of percent of .total educational and general expendi­ tures that have been used by the various functions performed by the institution, and (2) the determination of the cost per unit of service, such as cost per student or cost per student-credit-hour. 4/ Selma J. Mushkin, State Financing of Higher Education, Economics of Higher Education, Office of Education, Department of Health, Educa­ tion and Welfare: OE-50027, Bulletin 1962, No. 5, Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, 1962, pp. 221-222. 15 TABLE I. INCREASE IN PUBLIC COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENTS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL INCREASE IN OPENING FALL ENROLLMENTS, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ENROLLMENTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, 5-YEAR PERIOD 1955-60, BY STATE.* State Percentage of Total Increase in Opening Fall Enrollments in Public Institutions Percentage Change _!/ Public Private Institutions Institutions Alaska 100.0 106.1 — Nevada 100.0 123.7 — Wyoming 100.0 30.0 — Arizona 98.5 78.4 48.8 North Dakota 98.5 50.1 14.6 Louisiana 97.1 46.6 2.7 New Mexico 96.4 61.4 34.4 Colorado 93.5 64.9 - 11.2 Oklahoma 90.8 28.6 8.9 California 87.4 53.4 32.3 Montana 87.3 42.3 33.0 Washington 86.9 49.0 19.9 Minnesota 86.8 68.4 18.5 Mississippi 85.9 41.8 25.4 New Jersey 85.4 178.1 9.8 Oregon 85.1 62.3 28.6 Michigan 82.6 36.1 25.7 Wisconsin 81.6 42.8 18.0 Kansas 81.4 35.7 33.1 Florida 77.6 74.5 24.0 Indiana 76.5 41.7 17.2 Nebraska 76.3 41.1 30.1 Hawaii 76.1 50.0 2/ Virginia 74.6 39.2 26.5 Tennessee 71.4 54.8 27.0 New Hampshire 71.4 52.4 19.0 Idaho 71.3 36.5 52.7 Illinois 67.8 53.2 19.2 South Dakota 67.8 33.4 43.1 Missouri 65.9 47.4 16.3 Maine 65.8 62.3 49.0 West Virginia 65.7 25.0 41.1 Kentucky 65.6 44.4 38.9 (table continued) 16 TABLE I. (Continued) State Percentage of Total Increase in Opening . Percentage Change JL/ Fall Enrollments in Public Private Public Institutions Institutions Institutions North Carolina 65.3 45.3 26.8 South Carolina 64.6 41.0 24.0 Delaware 59.9 22.1 82.3 Maryland 59.6 37.4 34.5 Rhode Island 58.7 96.0 29.7 Alabama 57.8 15.3 36.3 Utah 56.8 25.5 38.3 Vermont 54.9 28.7 20.1 Georgia 54.5 16.0 29.4 Ohio 54.0 33.2 34.7 Arkans as 52.4 25.0 84.4 Texas 46.7 14.2 39.8 Pennsylvania 39.1 49.2 18.6 Iowa 35.4 19.2 41.2 Connecticut 35.0 31.0 38.2 Mas s achus etts 32.5 90.1 23.4 New York 31.3 21.0 21.0 District of Columbia 1.5 3.4 32.0 JL/ Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming have no private institutions. The relatively large percent of change in public institutions in New Jersey reflects the shift of Rutgers from a private Institution to a State university during this period. 2/ No degree-credit enrollment in private institutions reported in 1955. *Source: Compiled by Justin Lewis from data on opening fall enrollment, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Research and Statistics Division, 1962. 17 The first of these has the advantage of being easily determined in terms of percentage of total expenditure. An example using data from Oklahoma University follows in Table II. The method is also useful when applied to data over several years, thereby permitting a comparison between years of operation; an expenditure pattern is revealed. There are shortcomings. This technique reveals nothing relative to the efficiency of funds expended. For example, in the Oklahoma University data, it is not possible to say that the expenditure of $5,414,109, representing 56.5 percent of total expenditures, was sufficient for this function. Obviously, any conclusions made about a particular institution and supported by data do not necessarily apply to other institutions. The technique employing a cost per unit of service is, in brief, a computation which adds instructional salary expenditures plus instructional operating expenditures and divides the total (the direct instructional cost) by the student-credit-hours produced. The short­ coming lies with the student-credit-hour as a unit of measurement. Generally the use of unit instructional costs has been upheld as a good measure of instructional production: Russell and Doi state emphatically: 5/ "The student-credit-hour is the best available measure of the production of instructional services in the department or institution." 5/ John Dale Russell and James I. Doi, Analysis of Expenditures for Instruction, College and University Business, Vol. 21:43, April, 1956, p.,43. TABLE LI. EXPENDITURE AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EDUCATIONAL AND GENERAL EXPENSES BY INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS: OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY, FISCAL YEAR 1961-62.* Total General Adminis tration General Expense Organized Instruction Activities Organized Research Extension & Public Services Libraries Physical Plant $9,579,460 $503,793 $627,633 $5,414,109 $311,968 $230,979 $852,284 $502,494 $1,136,200 100.0% 5.3% 6.5% 56.5% 3.3% 2.4% 8.9% 5.2% 11.9% *Source: Charles R, Walker and John J. Coffelt, Financing Current Operating Costs of Higher Education. Oklahoma.State Regents for Higher Education, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, 1963,•pp. 13-14. 19 However, the controversy on this point continues. Sherer _6/, is emphatic in his denunciation of unit cost techniques when he says: Unit instructional costs computed by the approved methods of today tend to emphasize the immediate specific expenditure without consideration for quality received. Furthermore, at present, we have no standards by which to judge the future quality of the immediate in higher education. Sherer proceeded to explain that every unit cost figure, high or low, is found to have a perfectly logical explanation. High unit costs may be a manifestation of a course just getting started with few student registrations or a graduate course. Low unit costs may represent a straight lecture course with many student registrations. In 1952 the Commission on Financing Higher Education issued a volume by John D. Millett entitled, "Financing Higher Education in the United States". Ij Although Millett was consistently skeptical about the value of cost studies, his analysis revealed that faculty salaries are an important cost factor, but operate on the cost of instruction along with the size of teaching load and the student-faculty ratio. As might be expected, the interest in the unit cost approach continues. Williams 8/ reported in 1961 that, as a general rule of thumb, upper division costs could be expected to be approximately twice that of lower division unit costs. _6/ Harvey Sherer, Progress in Financial Reporting in Selected Universities Since 1930, (Champaign, Illinois: The Illinois Bookstore), 1950. TJ John D . Millett, Financing Higher Education in the United States, The Staff Report of the Commission on Financing Higher Education, New York, Columbia University Press, 1952. 8/ Robert L. Williams, "The Cost of Educating One College Student," The Educational Record, Vol. 43, No. 4, October 1961, pp. 322-323. 20 A comprehensive study in higher education in Oklahoma was undertaken by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education in 1961. J9/ Determina­ tion of unit costs was an important part of this study. The study revealed that in only a few cases were upper division costs twice the amount of the lower division costs. The explanation offered for this was the relatively low faculty salary level in the state. The study concluded further that instructional costs increase with the advance in the class level of the student. The research efforts beginning with that of the 1920's succeeded in establishing some of the factors affecting the cost of instruction. They include the following: • Faculty salaries • Distribution of faculty time • Distribution of faculty by rank • Class size • Teaching load • Scope and type of instructional program • Level of instruction, A review of the literature relating to the analysis of expenditures in colleges and universities reveals that most of the attention has been concentrated on the concept of "average cost per unit" of service produced The result has been undue emphasis on average unit expenditure or average 9/ Charles R. Walker and John J. Coffelt, Financing Current Operating Costs of Higher Education. Oklahoma State Regents- for Higher Education State Capitol, Oklahoma City, 1963, pp. 13-14. 21 unit-cost analyses with lesser emphasis on the marginal cost aspect of this problem. The approach found most easy to comprehend by. the legislatures, boards of control, faculties, and others responsible for the interpretation of budgets and budget requests has been one that divides the total cost of instruction by the total number of students receiving instruction to establish an average budget per student. Funds required in the ensuing year are then computed by multiplying the additional number of students anticipated times the expenditure per student in the prior year and adding factors for price increases and whatever quality improvement levels are to be pursued. The most recent major step in the analysis of the instructional costs in American colleges and universities came with Cooperative Research Project No. 1853 undertaken by the Institute of Public Adminis­ tration of the University of Michigan. This research effort was reported in 1966. 10/ A sample of H O colleges and universities was selected in the study as were 16 governing boards and coordinating agencies, 5 budget offices, and 3 regional associations. This author was one of those inter­ viewed in the sampling of H O colleges and universities. The study had as its task the development of an analytic procedure which could be applied to all institutions of higher learning and would develop the information necessary to answer questions. One of the important areas 10/ John E. Swanson, Wesley, Arden, and Homer E. Still, Jr., Financial Analysis of Current Operations of Colleges and Universities, Institute of Public Administration, The. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966. 22 of the evaluative function of management is that of costs. The study was intended to develop procedures for establishing cost, identifying the factors which caused this cost to be what it was and the relation­ ships between these factors and the actual dollar expenditures = The Michigan study is a landmark of progress in the field of cost analysis in colleges and universities and it is expected that it will stimulate further studies in the field. This dissertation will attempt to look into the general economy of instructional programs by examining the nature of the section of instruction— numbers, distribution by size, average size and numbers of student registrations. It will attempt to establish what relevancy, if any, these statistics may have for the efficient use of the resources of a department or a college within a university. It is expected that this will lead to additional efforts to develop the data and procedures required to facilitate projection and evaluation of alternate plans. CHAPTER III PER UNIT COST OF INSTRUCTION The cost of production incurred by a university will be considered to consist of the money outlays the university must make for resources used to produce its product. This chapter will concentrate on the "per unit" aspects of costs and will explore the advantages and disadvantages of unit expenditures as a tool for the analysis of organized instruction. Essentially, per unit costs are no more than a definition of total costs which takes into account the units of output. The literature relating to the analysis of university expenditures has concentrated on the unit cost approach. Some of this literature has been cited in the preceding chapter. Much controversy exists over the use of the unit-cost technique in universities. Industry has made a good deal of this approach, particularly the average-unit-cost aspects. Marginal unit cost information is much more difficult to acquire, both in industry and higher education. A serious criticism of the use of unit costs stems from the problem of obtaining a valid measure of education production in terms of some measurable unit. Universities do indeed produce units in the sense that, say, a degree is produced or a student-credit-hour is produced. The imparting of knowledge through an active production process involving teachers, students, librarians, equipment, and the like is, at best, difficult to measure. This chapter will explore specifically the student-credit-hour as the unit of measure of educational output. I/ JL/ Refer to Appendix A. 24 Average cost per student-credit-hour is derived by dividing the total expenditures for the various outputs by the respective outputs. In Table III total costs are those incurred at the department level and consist primarily of compensation to teaching faculty, support staff, and expenditures for routine operation of a department or college— e.g., ■ instructional supplies and materials, and travel. TABLE III. AVERAGE COST PER STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1963-64 THROUGH 1966-67-.* Academic Year Dollars Expended SCH Produced Cost Per !Student-Credit-Hour 1963-64 $394,286 16,788 $23.49 1964-65 432,301 18,728 23.11 1965-66 634,100 19,702 36.36 1966-67 708,662 21,750 32.58 *Source: Office of Budgets, Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year, 1963-64 Through 1966-■67, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University), 1967. Although the SCH approach to a description of output has some merit for instruction at the lower level (freshmen and sophomore) and the upper level (junior and senior), it may not be as useful for an analysis of graduate level work. For the latter, a distinction should be.made. Generally, the graduate student in the first year beyond the baccalau­ reate degree is engaged in course work somewhat typical of his under­ graduate years. Beyond the first year of graduate work and particularly in the later stages of the student's doctoral program, course work may be a less important part of his work. In an effort to fit a number scheme. 25 many colleges and universities in recent years have awarded credit for "dissertation" or "research" registrations. Unless something of the sort is done, the graduate instruction load in a college or department can be much understated. The difficulty of computing costs and projecting needs is obvious. The first task in assessing the usefulness of the cost per student- credit-hour units is to establish that there is indeed a relationship between the expenditure items and the production items. In Table IV the expenditures in the College of Engineering have been related to the student-credit-hours which have been produced by that college. Specifically, only the direct costs of teaching are related to student- credit-hour production. Logical analysis confirms that the expenditure and production items, the input and output items, are related to each other and thus the proposition may have some usefulness. The basic shortcoming,, of course, has to do with the question whether the SCH accurately measures the output of a college. Examination of the following table reveals that there is some doubt that it does. The case concerns the College of Engineering during the academic year 1964-65. TABLE IV. STUDENT-CREDIT-HOURS PRODUCED PER MAJOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1964-65.* Lower Division SCH Produced Upper Division SCH Produced Graduate Division SCH Produced SCH Produced Majors Per Major SCH Produced Majors Per Major SCH Produced Majors Per Major 5,390 516 10.4 10,910 326 33.5 2,408 185 13.0 *Source: Office of Admissions and Registrar, Student Statistical Report, Fall Quarter, 1960-61 Through 1967-68, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University), 1967. 26 An explanation for the "Number of SCH Per Major" is essential. The College of Engineering does not, as a college, offer a great many service courses for other disciplines, An opposite situation exists in, say, the College of Science and Arts, wherein the Department of English devotes as much as 75 percent of its effort, measured in SCH, to service work for other disciplines. The common course of study for the freshmen year for all1 engineering majors listed below requires only 4.5 credits of a total of 51, some 8 percent, from courses within the College of Engineering itself. The specific courses are ME I and ME 2 (Engineering Graphics) and CE 12 (Engineering Profession). This clearly accounts for the low SCH produced per major at the lower division. Contrast this with the junior and senior years during which the engineering student completes only 15 to 25 percent of his course work outside the College of Engineering. This is reflected in the large number of student-credit-hours, 33.5, per major at the upper division. The student-credit-hours per major at the graduate division, 13.0, reflect in large part the progression from the normal course work typical of undergraduate work toward the one-to-one (one faculty to one student) relationship found in instruction at the graduate level. The student- credit-hour as a unit of production measure is much less useful at the graduate level. Some useful information can be gleaned from the cost per student- credit-hour exercises. Table VI extracts specific information from Table III. 27 TABLE V. COURSE OF STUDY FOR FRESHMEN YEAR (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING).* Course Fall Winter Spring CE 12 Engineering Profession .5 C 2,3 C 4a M 17, Fundamental Chemistry Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry 4.0 4.0 36,37 Anal. Geometry and Calculus 5.0 5.0 5.0 E 2,3 Sp 23 Hy 50, English Composition Public Speaking 3.0 3.0 3.0 51,52 History of Civilization 3.0 3.0 3.0 ME 1,2 Engineering Graphics 2.0 2.0 PE Physical Education .5 .5 .5 Total 16.0 17.5 17.5 *Source: Office of Admissions and Registrar, Biennial Catalog 1964-65 and 1965-66, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University), 1964. TABLE VI. EXPENDITURES PER SCH AND STUDENT-FACULTY RATIOS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1963-64 THROUGH 1966-67.* Year Dollars Expended SCH Produced $/SCH FTE Students FTE Faculty FTE Ratios: Students to Faculty 1963-64 $394,286 16,788 23.49 373.03 32.67 11.42 to 1.00 1964-65 432,301 18,728 23.11 416.18 33.22 12.53 to 1.00 1965-66 634,100 19,702 36.36 437.82 46.84 9.35 to 1.00 1966-67 708,662 21,750 32.58 483.33 48.17 10.03 to 1.00 *Source: Office of Admissions and Registrar, Biennial Catalog 1964-65 and 1965-66, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University), 1964. 28 The year 1965-66 reveals a dramatic increase (from $432,301 to $634,100) in the budget for this college, a 46.6 percent increase. This is reflected in the increase in the expenditures per student-credit-hour from $23.11 to $36.36, an increase of 57.3 percent. The student-faculty ratio is derived by computing the number of FTE students (SCH produced -f 45 SCE) as described earlier and dividing the FTE students by FTE faculty. 2/ Again, the budget increase in 1965-66 is reflected in a narrowing of the student-faculty-ratio. It is possible that price increases absorbed a significant part of the budget increase. This deserves specific exploration. The instruc­ tional budget JB/ for this college was distributed as follows for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66: 1964-65 1965-66 Increase Faculty salaries Non-professional staff salaries Total Personal Services Budget 370,543 44,666 415,209 568,952 48.848' 617,800 198,409 4.182 202,591 Operations: Supplies, Materials, Travel, etc. 10.000 16,300 6,300 Total Budget 425,209 634,100 208,891 Faculty salaries, all ranks combined, increased an average of 8.0 percent from 1964-65 to 1965-66, requiring $29,643. 2J Refer to Appendix B . JB/ Office of Budgets, Operating Budgets for Fiscal Years, 1964-65 and 1965-66, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University), 1964 and 1965. 29 TABLE VII. MEAN FACULTY SALARIES, ACADEMIC YEAR EQUIVALENT, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1963-64 THROUGH 1967-68, INDIVIDUAL RANKS AND ALL RANKS COMBINED.* Mean Salaries— Academic Year Equivalent Year Professors Associate Professors Assistant Professors All Instructors ,.'Ranks Combined 1963-64 13,008 9,498 8,209 6,200 9,988 1964-65 13,171 10,266 8,511 6,100 10,233 1965-66 14,540 10,769 9,141 6,534 10,313 1966-67 14,923 11,804 9,641 6,442 10,911 1967-68 16,714 12,583 10,322 7,242 ' 12,195 ^Source: Office of Budgets, Faculty Salaries Analysis, 1963-64 Through 1967-68, (Fort Collins : Colorado State University). Non-professional staff salaries increased by 5.0 percent and required $2,233. In summary, increases in prices, specifically salaries, account for $31,876 in a total budget increase of $202,591 for personal services. The balance of the increase of this college budget was available for additional staff and increases in the operations budget for supplies, materials, and travel. The increase for the latter was $6,300 leaving the amount $170,715, which was available for additional staff. With a budget increase of this magnitude, given no more than 5.2 percent increase in the college teaching load, as measured in SCH, and given price increases of the order of those described, it appears probable that the budget increase in 1965-66 was able to support a reduction in teaching . loads and thereby an improvement in the quality of instruction. The examination of both the "expenditure per SCH" and the "student-faculty" ratio would point in this direction. Obviously, auxiliary evidence is essential. 30 Reference to Table III indicates that the expenditure per SCH in 1964-65, $23.11, was 38 cents less per SCH than the $23.49 expended in 1963-64. It is entirely possible that this decrease represents a decrease in the "quality of instruction". It is also possible that the additional SCH produced in 1964-65, specifically 1,940 more than in 1963-64, did not require additional faculty or additional teaching sections. In fact, only .55 FTE additional faculty were employed. Note that these were 1,940 additional SCH produced; 1,940 SCH reduces to 43.11 additional FTE students, which obviously cannot be assigned to the addition of .55 FTE faculty. In summary, at best, an analysis of average unit costs based on accounting records gives a rough approximation to the relative efficiencies among colleges or departments of instruction. CHAPTER IV THE ECONOMICS OF SECTION SIZE In order to undertake an economic analysis of organized instruction, a number of definitions _1/ are essential: A course is defined as a body of subject matter in which instruction is offered within a given period of time. Course divisions are defined as subdivisions of a course in which the same students are instructed through organiza­ tions with different characteristics. In a lecture-laboratory course, for example, the lecture would comprise one course division and the laboratory (or laboratories) another course division. Sections are defined as subdivisions of a course division in which instruction is offered in the same body of subject matter and through the same form of organization to separate groups of.different students meeting at differing times and/or places within the same academic term. A student registration is defined as one enrollment by a student in one course division or section of a course division for one term. Registrations refer only to the number of enrollments, not to the individual person. One student generally will account for more than one registration. A student course is defined as one enrollment by a student in one course. Again, since a student may, and normally does, enroll in more than one course, one student may account for more than one student course. A course division made up of one section only is a single­ section course division; if more than one section, it is a multi-section course division. An illustration follows: I/ Swanson, John E., Arden, Wesley and Still, Homer E., Jr., Financial Analysis of Current Operations of Colleges and Universities, (Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Administration, The University of Michigan, 1966). ..........Course......... Student Course ........Courses' ' Division Student Registrations' Section Student Registrations (I) Entomology 6 53 Lecture 53 I 27 2 26 Laboratory 53 I 27 2 26 (2) Electrical Engineering 20 50 Lecture 50 I 11 2 24 3 15 (3) Civil Engineering 149 20 Laboratory 20 I 20 Many other combinations are possible, but those illustrated should serve to clarify the definitions. 33 The average cost per SCH data described in Table TI probably disguise a good deal more than they disclose. Unit cost is directly affected by the salary of the faculty member, plus the funds supporting the faculty member's effort, 2/ his teaching load, and by the number of student registrations. To demonstrate this, there was selected the case of a full professor in the Department of Entomology, a department administra- " tively located in the College of Agriculture. His salary for the academic year 1965-66 was $10,200. During the academic year, he had no specified research duties, which is to say that for instruction purposes he constituted 1.00 FTE faculty. A record of his teaching effort for that academic year is given in Table VIII. It is possible to assign an approximate cost of a specific teaching event or section if (I) the salary of the faculty member teaching the section is known and (2) the portion of the total load of the faculty member teaching the section is estimated. The "portion of total load" is not easy to establish. Many criteria are involved. These include: 1) Level of course: lower, upper, or graduate division; 2) Number of credits taught; 3) Number of contact hours required. This varies from student to student for graduate dissertation supervision and those other courses which tend to the one-to-one relationship, e.g., special topics, special problems, and the like; 4) Number of student registrations; 5) Distinctions between groups of students; some faculty insist that teaching the same material to different sections of students requires different amounts of time; TJ Refer to Appendix C— Faculty Teaching Reports. 34 TABLE VIII. TEACHING 1965-66. LOAD FOR ONE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, Course Credit . Contact Hours Lee . Lab Sections Registrations Entomology 6 3 2 ' I 27 2 2 27 - 2 I 26 2 2 26 Entomology 100 5 • 5 - I 5 Special Problems Entomology 100 5 5 - I 3 Special Problems Entomology.106 5 3 - I 11 - 4 I 11 Entomology 108 6 3 - I 5 - 6 I 5 Entomology 109 4 3 - I 16 - I 16 Entomology H O I I - I 4 S eminar Entomology 125 3 I - . I 4 - 4 I 9 Entomology 210 I I - I 4 Graduate Seminar Entomology 215 5 3 - I 6 - 4 I 6 Entomology 299 5 5 - I I Research Entomology 299 5 10 - I I Research Entomology 299 6 6 - I 4 Research 35 6) Course division: lecture or laboratory; 7) Interest in the particular course at a particular time; 8) Experience of the faculty member with the particular course. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that the department head established the teaching assignment for the members of the staff in the Department of Entomology. It is assumed further that he is given the following arbitrary definitions: 1) Teaching at the various levels is weighted 1.00 for lower division, 1.50 for upper division, and 2.00 for graduate division. 2) For the following courses at the upper division and graduate levels, 30 student enrollments constitute a full academic load: Special Problems Special Topics Master's Research Doctoral Research With these definitions and his knowledge of the demands of the various sections on faculty time, the department head computes the percentages in the last column (Table IX) to represent the portion of total load for each course division taught by this faculty member. Again, the cost of a section is established by two principal factors, (overhead costs, administration, library, and plant maintenance are ignored) : 1) The compensation of the individual teaching the sections (C) 2) The total teaching load of the faculty member and the portion of this which the subject section constitutes (PTL) Thus, (PTL) (C) = (Z) Cost of Section. The number of student registra­ tions (R) is not introduced at this point and need not be; the number of student registrations does not affect the total cost of a particular 36 TABLE IX. TEACHING LOAD WITH PERCENTAGE TIME DISTRIBUTION FOR ONE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Contact. Hours Student Percent of Course Credit Lee Lab Sections Registrations Total Load Entomology 6 3 2 I 27 .020 2 2 27 .020 - 2 I 26 .020 2 2 26 .020 Entomology 100 5 5 - I 5 .075 Special Problems Entomology 100 5 5 - I 3 .075 Special Problems Entomology 106 5 3 - I 11 .045 - 4 I 11 .060 Entomology 108 ' 6 3 - I 5 .045 - 6 I 5 .090 Entomology 109 4 3 - I 16 .045 - I 16 .030 Entomology H O I I - I 4 .015 Seminar Entomology 125 3 I - I 9 .020 - 4 I 9 .060 Entomology 210 I I - I 4 .020 Graduate Seminar Entomology 215 5 3 - I 6 .060 - 4 I 6 .080 Entomology 299 5 5 - I I " Research Entomology 299 5 10 - I I i .200 Research Entomology 299 6 6 - I 4 y Research 37 section unless variable costs are permitted as section size increases. The number of student registrations does affect unit,cost. Average unit costs decrease as the number of student registrations increases from the first registration. If the number of student regis­ trations for a section, say Entomology 106, was 11, it is appropriate to say that the average cost per student registration was $'9.82. The marginal cost is, after the first registration, zero up to some number. To establish that number requires a closer look at the sectioning process. Sectioning It is not enough to say that the optimum section (as opposed to maximum) size for a course is 20 students. One must answer the question as to when, precisely, the second section is opened. If a second section is added with the 21st registration, the result may be one section with 11 students and another with 10 students. A formula which "maximizes the degree to which the average actual section size can approach the optimum section size with any given number of student registrations" 3/ follows: R = Number of student registrations P = Section size stated optimum (20) N = Number of sections P R-I + Y ------- = N (using the whole number only from the result; where N < I, make N = I) 3/ Swanson, Arden, and Still, 0j3_. Git. , pp. 82-83. 38 In the selected case, Entomology 106, R = 11, P = 20. Then 11-1 + ^ 1.00 (I section required) Had the number of student registrations been 30, then 30-1 + 1.95 (I section required) Had the number of student registrations been 31, then 31-1 + ^ 2.00 (2 sections required) The "break-point" for the second section is 31 registrations. A particular unit cost, such as C in Figure I, represents no more than a point on the cost curve for this section. Specifically, at C, with five student registrations, the cost is $21.80 per student registration. The marginal cost curve for this same course is depicted in Figure 2. Since the decision to teach at least one section has been made, the marginal cost is described by the horizontal axis of the diagram between I to 30 student registrations. With the 31st student registration, the marginal cost increases to the total cost of the second section offered. The table and diagram which follow describe the marginal cost aspects. The cost of the first and each additional section is assumed to be $108. Figure I depicts an average cost curve for the course of Entomology 106. An optimum section size of 20 is stated for this course. The 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 39 10 20 30 Number of Student Registrations I 50 Average Cost Curve for Student Registrations. Ma rg in al Co st Pe r St ud en t Re gi st ra ti on 40 120 -I 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 10 , I 20 30 40 Number of Student Registrations 50 Figure 2. Marginal Cost Curve for Student Registrations. 41 total cost of the first section is $108. Total cost does not change for any number of student registrations between and including I student and 30 students. This is a critical point. There is no relationship between the number of students registered and the total cost of this section, that is, if variable costs are assumed, as they are in Table X, to be zero. Variable costs are assumed to be zero for all levels of student registra­ tion. Also, it is assumed that the product is the same regardless of the number of students in the section from I to 30. Obviously, an increase in the number of student registrations can result in the use of additional teaching and laboratory supplies. Further, as the number of student registrations increases, the teacher may be required to spend more time with the mechanics of examinations and the like. For the present it is assumed that this is not the case. As student registrations increase from, say 5 to 15, no increases in variable costs are permitted. The discontinuous marginal cost curve depicted in Figure 2 does, in reality, describe almost precisely what is taking place in much university planning. That is to say, alternatives are restricted to the addition at some point, 31 registrations in the diagram, of another section. The total cost must be $108 for the range I to 30 student registrations and $216 with the 31st registration. Some effort has been made to provide assistance to the teacher as the size of his classes grow with teaching aid, graduate student assistance, paper graders, and the like; but much more should be done in the way of introducing 42 TABLE X. COST DATA FOR COURSE: ENTOMOLOGY 106. Average Cost Total Variable Marginal Per Student Registrations Cost Cost Cost Registration I 108. 0 ■ 108. 108.00 2 ■ 108. 0 0 54.00 3 108. 0 0 36.00 4 108. 0 0 27.00 5 108. 0 0 21.60 6 108. 0 0 18.00 7 108. 0 0 15.43 8 108. 0 0 13.50 9 108. 0 0 12.00 10 108. 0 0 10.80 11 108. 0 0 9.82 12 108. 0 0 9.00 13 108. 0 0 8.31 14 108. 0 0 " 7.71 15 108. 0 0 7.20 16 108. 0 0 6.75 17 108. 0 0 6.35 18 108. 0 0 6.00 19 108. 0 0 5.68 20 108. 0 0 5.40 21 108. 0 0 5.14 22 108. 0 0 4.91 23 108. 0 0 4.70 24 108. 0 0 4.50 25 108. 0 0 4.32 26 108. 0 0 4.15 27 108. 0 0 4.00 28 108. 0 0 3.86 29 108. 0 0 3.73 30 108. 0 0 3.60 31 216. 0 108. 6.97 32 216. 0 0 6.75 33 216. 0 0 6.55 34 216. 0 0 6.35 35 216. 0 0 6.17 36 216. 0 0 6.00 43 expenditures which vary with the size of class with the objective of serving more students with each teacher. The earlier examination of average.costs per SCH revealed nothing about the relationship between the number of students registered and total costs. The next step will be a look at the nature of the curricula being taught; the number of courses, course divisions and sections being taught, and the number of single section course divisions and multiple section course divisions being taught. CHAPTER V DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZED TEACHING FUNCTION IN THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING This and subsequent chapters will examine data relating to section size for two of the seven colleges at Colorado State University. The seven colleges are: Agriculture, Business, Engineering, Forestry and Natural Resources, Home Economics, Science and Arts, and Veterinary Medicine. Large enrollment increases were experienced during the period 1960 through 1968. TABLE XI. STUDENT ENROLLMENT, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. Year Student Enrollment 1960-61 6,131 1961-62 6,529 1962-63 7,304 1963-64 8,460 1964-65 10,185 1965-66 11,848 1966-67 12,701 1967-68 14,565 Colorado State University is the Land-Grant university in the State of Colorado. The College of Agriculture and the College of Engineering are selected for detailed analysis.of the organized instruction function. Both are professional colleges. The College of Agriculture did not experience the rapid increase in enrollment so typical of most.of the colleges and departments in our.public colleges and universities during the decade of 45 the 1960's. The College of Engineering experienced a more substantial rate of growth in total number of majors; it also provides a case of rapid growth in enrollment at the upper and graduate division with a more static enrollment at the lower level. The data on the number of faculty employed to serve the students are available only for the years 1963-64 through 1967-68. A faculty member for a specific college is defined as one whose principal effort is devoted to the instruction and research program of that college. Our full-time-equivalent (FTE) faculty member for instruction is defined as the equivalent of a full-time teaching responsibility for the academic year (nine months); thus, a faculty member on a nine-month contract devoting full time to teaching is one FTE. The output of a college can be described in a number of ways. Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV JL/ enumerate the number of majors enrolled in each college. These numbers, although they give some indication of the work load or output of this college, can be deceptive. For example, a freshman major in the College of Agriculture may be taking most of his course work in other colleges. The number of students who complete a curriculum and qualify for the degree, may also serve as an indicator of output. Again, this statistic by itself does not give a measure of output. Obviously, it is possible that a curriculum may have few JL/ Office of Admissions and Registrar, Student Statistical Report, Fall Quarter 1964, (Fort Collins: Colorado State University). TABLE XIIe TOTAL ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND BY COLLEGE: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. Year Agri­ culture Engin- ' eering Business Forestry Home & NR Econ. Science & Art Veter­ inary Medicine Unclassified Under­ graduate Graduate Total 1960-61 701 757 822 482 436 2,219 529 14 171 6,131 1961-62 675 749 853 . 507 ■ 470 2,590 581 6 98 6,529 1962-63 706 830 927 579 491 2,958 681 10 122 7,304 1963-64 686 934 1,026 657 554 -3,712 735 11 145 8,460 1964-65 692 1,027 1,279' 778 651 4,780 821 13 134 10,185 1965-66 688 1,090 1,532 959 707 5,791 931 23 • 127 11,848 1966-67 685 1,154 1,520 1,051 784 6,309 967 51 180 12,701 1967-68 790 1,290 1,683 1,147 955 7,294 969 125 312 14,565 TABLE XIII= GRADUATE QUARTER, ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND BY 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. COLLEGE: COLORADO STATE "UNIVERSITY: FALL ' Year Agriculture Engineering Business Forestry & NR Home 'Econ Science & Arts' Veterinary Medicine Graduate Unclassified 1960-61 61 43 0 34 3 134 141 171 1961-62 72 63 I 51 11 186 150 98 1962-63. 72 95 8 63 14 ' 225 173 122 1963-64 76 128 12 76 18 284 201 ' 145 - 1964-65 75 185 40 91 23 458 231 134 1965-66 91 225 43 127 25 653 256 127 1966-67 108 247 43 143 32 643 256 180 1967-68 • • 151 ■ • • I ..... ■ 377 ...... . 68 168 - . 40 832 276 312 ON TABLE XIV. UPPER DIVISION ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND BY COLLEGE: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. ' Year'' Agriculture Engineering Business Forestry Home '& NR Econ Science Veterinary Unclassified & Arts ' Medicine Undergrad Grad 1960-61 318 289 272 179 175 834 177 14 0 1961-62 323 286 290 167 176 1,026 171 6 0 1962-63 358 295 351 175 172 1,200 190 10 0 1963-64 350 330 405 224 197 1,410 209 11 0 1964-65 372 326 434 281 233 1,666 205 13 0 ■- 1965-66 3.44 342 479 285 336 1,945 225 23 0 1966-67 323 331 522 345 262 2,304 273 51 0 1967-68 377 385 683 433 329 2,858 280 125 0 TABLE XV. LOWER DIVISION ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS AND COLLEGE: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: FALL QUARTER, 1960-61 THROUGH 1967-68. Year'"Agriculture Engineering Business Forestry ' .& NR Home Econ Science Veterinary & Arts Medicine Unclassified Undergrad _ Grad 1960-61 322 425 550 269 258 1,2-51 . 211 0 0 1961-62 280 400 562 289 283 1,378 260 0 0 1962-63 276 440 568 341 305 1,533 318 0 0 1963-64 260 '376 609 357 339 ,2,018 325 0 0 1964-65 245 516 805 406 395 2,656 395 0 0 1965-66 253 '523 1,010 547 446 3,193 450 0 0 1966-67 254 576 955 563 490 3,362 438 0 0 1967-68 ■ 262 .. ... . 528 .. .... 932 • 546 586 3,604 413 0 0 TABLE XVI- FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT FACULTY MEMBERS BY COLLEGE, ACADEMIC YEAR 1963-64 THROUGH 1967-68. Forestry Home Science Veterinary Year - Agriculture Engineering Business ' & 'NR_____Econ & Arts____Medicine 1963- 64 30.09 32.67 27.04, 17.09 17.46 243.90 37.40 1964- 65 31.24 33.22 27.50 18.77 21.15 278.74 44.61 1965- 66 30.93 46.84 35.50 20.22 23.14 350.98 53.39 1966- 67 35.13 48.17 39.00 26.90 26.45 387.67 58.95 1967- 68 . 37.72...... 52.03 45.08 . 29.26 32.52 413.15 68.16 TABLE XVII. STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR PRODUCTION BY COLLEGE, 1963-64 THROUGH 1966-67. Forestry- Home Science Veterinary oo Year'' Agriculture' Engineering ' Business' ' '&'NR' Ecdn & Arts ' 'TMedicine________ 1963- 64 16,165 16,788 26,001 9,209 9,543 268,388 21,750 1964- 65 15,523 18,728 29,185 11,450 11,498 321,535 25,734 1965- 66 15,465 19,702 33,700 13,202 12,640 374,772 26,528 1966- 67 17,786 21,750 39,785 13,957 13,991 381,449 28,108 49 graduates in a particular year, but may have large numbers of majors progressing through the curriculum. Another unit used to describe educational output is the student- credit-hour -(SCH). A class of 20 students in a course for which four quarter-hour credits are awarded produces 80 student-credit-hours. If the curricula in a particular college requires, say, 180 student-credit- hours for graduation, and the student normally requires four academic years or 12 quarters to complete a curriculum, it is possible to say that 45 student-credit hours constitute the equivalent of one student (45 SCH equals I FTE student). Given this definition, it is possible to say that a college which produces 45,000 SCH in an academic year has produced 1,000 FTE students. A computation of this sort makes the individual student's status as full-time or part-time irrelevant. It has the advantage of recording output to that department or college which serves the student, whatever his major. Higher education cannot be exempt from constant examination of how the resources available to it are employed. Resources in education are never adequate to do all the things educators want to do and choices must be made among alternative uses of these resources. Choice of alternative course of action is inescapable. The elements which must be considered in the economics of higher education are not easily translated into money terms. Most of the inputs in the process of organized instruction are measurable in terms of money and physical units. Measuring output is much more difficult. Some of the benefits of education are measurable 50 in such things as income commanded by the degree-holder, achievement tests, job performance, and the like. CHAPTER VI AN EXAMINATION OF THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE The College of Agriculture at Colorado State University in 1965-66 offered 180 different courses with 242 course divisions to accomplish its programs. Courses of instruction in the College of Agriculture were aimed at training students for positions in the wide field of agriculture and its many related industries and professions. Curricula and courses listed were designed to provide basic and applied knowledge in fields of specialization chosen by the student upon satisfactory completion of his freshman year. Major courses leading to the degree of bachelor of science in agriculture were as follows: Agronomy, agricultural business, agricultural economics, agricultural journalism, animal nutrition, animal production, animal science, crop science, dairy science, entomology, farm and ranch management, floriculture, general agriculture, horticulture, landscape and nursery management, poultry science, soil conservation, soil science, and vocational agriculture. The following advanced degree programs were offered in the College of Agriculture: Master of Agriculture and Master of Science. The fields of study included agricultural economics, animal genetics, animal nutrition, animal products, dairy science, entomology, crop science, horticulture, poultry genetics, poultry nutrition, soil science. 52 Doctor of Philosophy The fields of study included animal genetics, nutrition, plant genetics, poultry genetics, and soil science. The direct cost of instruction for this college was $484,548. Direct cost is defined as the sum of the expenditures made by the departments within the college for the instruction function. A total of 180 courses would have been offered whether the number of majors (total 688, including 91 graduate majors) had been substantially higher or lower than the actual number enrolled. The decision to offer the programs had been made, the number of students not withstanding. Since, in fact, many multiple section courses were taught in the College of Agriculture, the cost of the teaching program was less than $484,548. The number of sections which it was mandatory to teach was, then, a minimum of 242. Each case in which the number of student registrations forced the offering of more than one section of a course produced an increment cost with the final result that the total number of sections taught required $484,548. Average section size in the lower and upper level course divisions in the College of Agriculture are given in Table XVIII. Average section size is derived by dividing the total student registrations in all sections by the number of sections offered. Recall now that •there were a total of 597 majors in agriculture, 253 at the lower division and 344 at the upper division. One might suspect that the average size of section would have been larger at the 53 TABLE XVIII. AVERAGE SECTION SIZE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Single Section Course Divisions Multiple Section Course Divisions All Courses Lower Division 18.24 21.74 20.55 Upper Division 15.93 16.90 16.07 Total Upper and Lower Division 16.63 20.89 18.39 upper division because there were 91 more majors. This was not the case. The upper .division sections averaged 16.07 registrations per section, whereas the lower division sections averaged .20.55 registrations per section. The multiple section course divisions at the lower division averaged 21.74 student registrations per section, whereas the single section courses averaged 18.24 registrations. The disparity is not as large at the upper division with 15.93 student registrations per single section course division and 16.90 student registrations per multiple course division.• Table XIX describes the number of single sections and multiple sections as a percent of total sections. At the lower division 34.48 percent of total sections were single sections, whereas at the upper division 84.13 percent were single section courses. This is a critical piece of information and will be referred to later. At the lower division 65.52 percent of all sections were multiple sections, whereas, at the • upper division, only 15.87 percent of all sections were multiple sections. Reference to Tables XIV and XV reveals that there were 344 upper division 54 TABLE XIX. NUMBER OF SECTIONS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 1965-66. Single Section Multiple Sections All Sections Number Percent Numb er Percent Numb er Percent of of of of of of Division Sections Total Sections Total Sections Total Lower Division 50 34.48 95 65.52 145 100.00 Upper Division 106 84.13 20 15.87 126 100.00 Total Upper and Lower Division 156 57.56 115 42.44 271 100.00 majors enrolled in the College of Agriculture and only 253 undergraduate majors, for a total of 592. One might ask why with significantly fewer majors, specifically 91 fewer at the lower division, it was necessary to offer 65.52 percent of all sections in multiple sections. Attention is directed to the 106 sections or 84.13 percent total sections (126) at the upper division taught as single sections. At this point an hypothesis can be stated: there is additional capacity in the single-section course division sections at the upper division in the College of Agriculture. No direct verification is found in Tables XVIII or XIX. Average section size in the single section course divisions at the upper division, 15.93 registrations per section, is smaller than at the lower division, 18.24 registration per section, but smaller section size at the upper and graduate level is indeed planned and generally acceptable. 55 A look at the distribution of sections in terms of their size is in order. Table XX gives the distribution of sections in terms of size from both single and multiple course divisions with lecture and laboratory course divisions combined, by lower and upper division. Later tables will examine lecture and laboratory sections separately. At the lower division 7.59 percent of total sections had 5 or less student registrations, whereas at the upper division 22.22 percent of total sections had 5 or less registrations. At the upper level this may be the first indication that unused capacity exists. (One may also take the point of view that.this is an indication of quality education.) Consider the "20 or less" size of section. At the lower division, 65.51 percent of total sections have 20 or less registrations, whereas at the upper division 76.98 percent of the sections have 20 or less registrations. Another approach is to examine the number of student registrations. ■ which "take place" in sections with specific sizes. Tables XXII and XXIII give the data for the College of Agriculture. From Table XXI it was learned that at the lower division 65.51 percent of the total sections had 20 or less student registrations. At the upper division 76.98 percent of the total sections had 20 or less student registrations. If small classes are indeed prerequisite to quality instruction, this prerequisite appears to have been satisfied at the upper division. The large number of sections at the upper division with 10 or less student registrations, 69 (or 54.76 percent) of the total 56 TABLE XX. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS COMBINED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF • AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Size of Section Lower Division Sections Upper Division 5 or less 11 41 6 - 1 0 21 30 11 - 15 36 12 16 -' 20 27 16 21 - 25 22 11 26 - 30 17 31 - 35 2 8 36 - 40 2 2 41 - 45 46 - 50 2 51 - 60 I 3 61 - 70 71 - 80 - I 81 - 90 2 91 - 100 I I 101 - H O 111 - 120 I 121 - 130 131 - 140 141 - 150 151 - 160 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 I I 191 - 200 Over.200 . I Total Sections 145 126 57 TABLE XXI. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Cumulative Cumulative Size Lower Percent Upper Percent of Division of Total Division of Total Section. Sections Sections Sections Sections 5 or less 11 7.59 39 30.95 10 or less 32 22.07 69 54.76 15 or less 68 46.90 81 64.29 20 or less 95 65.51 97 76.98 25 or less 117 80.69 108 85.71 30 or less 134 92.42 108 ' 85.71 35 or less 136 93.79 116 92.06 40 or less 138 95.17 118 93.65 45 or less 140 96.55 118 93.65 50 or less 140 96.55 118 93.65 60 or less 141 97.24 121 96.03 70 or less 141 CMr*.o\ 122 96.82 80 or less 141 97.24 122 96.82 90 or less 141 97.24 . 124 98.41 100 or less 142 97.93 125 99.21 H O or less 142 97.93 125 99.21 120 or less 143 98.62 125 99.21 130 or less 143 98.62 125 99.21 140 or less 144 99.31 125 99.21 150 or less 144 99.31 125 99.21 160 or less 144 99.31 126 100.00 170 or less 144 99.31 126 100.00 180 or less 144 99.31 126 100.00 190 or less 144 99.31 126 100.00 200 or less 145 100.00 126 100.00 58 TABLE XXII. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION: COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Section Size Lower Division Student Registrations Upper Division Student Registrations 5 or less 40 83 6 - 1 0 176 253 11 - 15 468 143 16 - 20 491 292 21 - 25 460 214 26 - 30 453 31 - 35 64 258 36 - 40 76 78 41 - 45 87 46 - 50 5 1 - 6 0 52 175 61 - 70 71 - 80 61 81 - 90 170 91 - 100 . 97 95 101 - H O 111 - 120 113 121 - 130 131 - 140 • 141 - 150 151 - 160 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 138 159 191 - 200 Over 200 194 59 TABLE XXIII. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Section Size Lower Division Student Regis trations Cumulative Percent of Total Student Registrations Upper Division Student Regis trations Cumulative Percent of Total Student Regis trations 5 or less 40 1.38 83 4.19 10 or less 216 7.. 43 336 16.96 15 or less 684 23.51 479 24.18 20 or less 1,175 40.39 771 38.92 25 or less 1,635 56.20 985 49.72 30 or less 2,088 71.78 985 49.72 35 or less 2,152 73.98 1,243 62.75 40 or less 2,228 76.59 1,321 66.68 45 or less 2,315 79.58 1,321 66.68 50 or less 2,315 79.58 1,321 66.68 60 or less 2,367 81.37 1,496 75.52 70 or less 2,367 81.37 1,557 78.60 80 or less 2,367 81.37 1,557 78.60 90 or less 2,367 81.37 1,727 87.18 100 or less 2,464 84.70 1,822 91.97 H O or less 2,464 84.70 1,822 91.97 120 or less 2,577 88.59 1,822 91.97 130 or less 2,577 88.59 1,822 91.97 140 or less 2,715 93.33 1,822 91.97 150 or less 2,715 93.33 1,822 91.97 160 or less 2,715 93.33 1,981 100.00 170 or less 2,715 93.33 1,981 100.00 180 or less 2,715 93.33 1,981 100.00 190 or less 2,715 93.33 1,981 100.00 200 or less 2,909 100.00 1,981 100.00 60 upper division sections, may be an indication of unused capacity. Again, additional evidence is necessary. The number of student registrations accommodated in sections of various sizes is described in Table XXII and Table XXIII gives another view. Whereas at the lower division 65.51 percent of total sections had 20 or less registrations, only 40.39 percent of total registrations were accommodated in sections with 20 or less registrations. Attempts to measure quality depend on the development of quantitative measures and considerations which may be largely related to intangible factors, but it is interesting nevertheless to experiment with a few crude quality scales. A scale is devised for the upper division awarding 100 to that instruction, in terms of student registrations, which is carried out in sections with 20 or less registrations■follows. Contrary to what might be expected, using the same.quality scale, 40.39 percent of the student registrations at the lower-level as compared with 38.92 percent at the upper level were accommodated in sections with 20 or less students, rating 100 on the quality scale. Recall that 65.51 percent of total sections taught at the lower level were at the "20 or less" size compared with 76.98 percent at the upper level. If small classes are an indication of quality it would appear that the number of student registrations accommodated at various section size levels is a better indication of the quality of an instructional program than is the statistic which concerns itself only with the number of sections at various section sizes as a percent.of total sections. 61 Upper Division Section Size Quality Scale Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated Cumulative Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated 5 or less 100 4.19 4.19 6 - 1 0 100 12.77 16.96 11 - 15 100 7.22 24.18 16 - 20 100 14.74 38.92 21 - 25 97 10.80 49.72 26 - 30 94 0.00 49.72 31 - 35 91 13.03 62.75 36 - 40 88 3.93 66.68 41 - 45 85 0.00 66.68 4 6 - 5 0 82 0.00 66.68 Lower Division Section Size Quality Scale Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated Cumulative Percent of Student Regis trations Accommodated 5 or less 100 1.38 1.38 6 - 1 0 100 6.05 7.43 11 - 15 100 16.08 23.51 16 - 20 100 16.88 40.39 - 21 - 25 97 15.81 56.20 26 - 30 94 15.58 71.78 31 - 35 91 2.20 73.98 36 - 40 88 2.61 76.59 41 - 45 85 2.99 79.58 46 - 50 82 0.00 79.58 62 Above 20 registrations the scale is dropped 3 points for each addi­ tional 5 registrations. A similar, but tighter, quality scale for the upper division is suggested below. At the lower division, quality was rated at 100 if the section had "20 or less" student registrations. At the upper division only those sections with 15 or less registrations are now rated at 100, Upper Division Section Size Quality Scale Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated Cumulative Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated 5 or less 100 2.22 4.19 - 6 - 1 0 100 12.04 16.96 11 - 15 100 22.47 24.18 16 - 20 97 17.51 38.92 21 - 25 94 16.05 49.72 26 - 30 91 9.66 49.72 31 - 35 88 8.89 62.75 36 - 40 85 6.41 66.68 41 - 45 82 4.50 66.68 46 - 50 79 .98 66.68 Reference is again made to Table XXI which discloses that 64.29 percent of the upper division sections taught had "15 or less" registra­ tions. On the quality scale above, only 24.18 percent of the total student registrations were accommodated in sections with "15 or less"■ registrations. In approximate terms, then, almost two-thirds of the total number of sections taught had 15 or less registrations. These sections provided an educational experience for only one-fourth of the total 63 student registrations which had to be accommodated. This is another indication of unused capacity and the possibility of some "bottleneck" courses. Laboratory sections, as a general rule, are intended to be of smaller size than are lecture sections. This pattern is manifested in the fore­ going tables. For example, whereas only 57.89 percent of the lower division lecture sections have 20 or less registrations, 70.45 percent of the laboratory sections are of this size. At the upper division the fact that nearly.as large a percentage (76.29 percent) of the lecture sections have 20 or less registrations than is the case with the laboratory sections (79.31 percent) is another indicator of unused capacity at the upper level. ■Tables XXVI and XXVII give the number of student registrations which take place in sections with specific sizes. Consider the lecture section aspect. At the lower division 57.89 percent of the sections taught are at the "20 or less" size, but these sections accommodate only 34.20 percent of the total lecture student registrations." At the upper division 76.29 percent of the sections are. at the "20 or less" size, but these sections accommodate only 33.20 percent of total student registrations. The picture in- the laboratory sections is similar. At the lower division 70.45 percent of the laboratory sections taught are at the "20 or less" size. These sections accommodate 54.17 percent of total student registrations. At the upper division 79.31 percent of the 64 TABLE XXIV. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Section Size Lower Division Sections Upper.Division Sections Lecture Laboratory Lecture Laboratory 5 or less 4 7 38 I 6 - 1 0 7 14 15 15 11 - 15 12 24 10 2 16 - 20 10 17 11 5 21 - 25 6 16 8 2 26 - 30 9 8 31 - 35 I I 4 ' 4 36 - 40 I I 2 41 - 45 2 46 - 50 51 - 60 I 4 61 - 70 I 7 1 - 8 0 81 - 90 2 101 - H O 111 - 120 I 121 - 130 131 - 140 I 141 - 150 151 - 160 I 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 I Over 200 Total Sections 57 88 97 29 To this point no distinction has been made between lecture and laboratory sections. Table XXVI gives the distribution of sections in terms of size for lectures and laboratories. TABLE XXV. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Lower Division Sections-' '■ Upper Division Sections Section ■■■■ Size Lecture ■ Cumulative ' Percent'' Laboratory-' Cumulative. Percent' Lecture Cumulative 'Percent' Laboratory Cumulative Percent 5 or less 4 7.02 7 7.95 38 39.18 I 3.45 10 or less 11 19.30 21 23.86 53 54.64 16 55.17 15 or less 23 40.35 45 51.14 63 64.95 .18 62.07 20 or less 33 57.89 62 70.45 74 76.29 23 79.31 25 or less 39 68.42 78 88.64 82 84.54 25 86.21 30 or less 48 84.21 86 97.73 82 84.54 25 86.21 35 or less 49 85.96 87 98.86 86 88 „ 66 , 29 100.00 40 or less 50 87.72 88 100.00 88 90.72 29 100.00 45 or less 52 91.23 88 100.00 88 90.72 29 100.00 50 or less 52 91.23 88 100.00 89 91.75 29 100.00 60 or less 53 92.98 88 100.00 92 94.85 29 100.00 70 or less 53 92.98 88 100.00 93 95.88 29 100.00 80 or less 53 92.98 88 100.00 93 95.88 29 100.00 90 or less 53 92.98 88 100.00 95 97.94 29 100.00 100 or less 54. 94.74 88 100.00 96 98.97 29 100.00 H O Or less 54 94.74 88 100.00 96 98.97 29 100.00 120 or less 55- 96.49 88 100.00 96 98.97 100.00 130 or less ' 55 96.49 88 100.00 96 98:97 29 100.00 140 or less 56 98.25 88 100.00 96 98:97 29 100.00 150 or less 56 ■ 98.25 88 100.00 96 98.97 29 100.00 160 or less 56 98.25 88 100.00 97 100.00 29 100.00 170 or less 56 98.25 88 100.00 97 100.00 29 100.00 180 or less 56 98.25 88 100,00 97 100.00 29 100.00 190 or less 56 • 98.25 88 100.00 97 100.00 29 100.00 200 or less . ■.. 5 7 ■ •■ ■ ..100.00- 100,00 ■ 97 100.00 29 . 100.00 66 TABLE XXVI. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY,LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Lower Division Upper Division Section Student Registrations Student Registrations Size Lecture Laboratory Lecture Laboratory 5 or less 17 23 70 3 6 - 1 0 60 116 133 120 11 - 15 157 311 121 22 16 - 20 181 310 180 112 21 - 25 87 373 167 47 26 - 30 242 201 31 - 35 32 32 129 129 36 - 40 39 37 78 41 - 45 46 - 50 87 51 - 60 52 175 61 - 70 71 - 80 61 81 - 90 180 91 - 100 101 - H O 97 95 111 - 120 121 - 130 131 - 140 113 141 - 150 148 151 - 160 149 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 Over 200 194 TABLE XXVII. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Lower Division'Sections ............. Upper Division Sections Section Size . ' Lecture. Cumulative- ' Percent' Laboratory Cumulative Percent Lecture ■Cumulative Percent' Laboratory Cumulative Percent 5 or less 23 1.64- 70 4.52 3 6.93 10 or less' 77 5.11 139 9.91 203 13.11 123 28.41 15 or less 234 15.54 450 32.07 324 20.93 145 33.49 20 or less 415 27.56 - 760 54.17 514 33.20 257 59.35 25 or less 502 33.33 1,130 • 80.54 '681 43.99 304 70.21 30 or less 744 49.40 1,344 95.79 681 43.99 304 70.21 35 or less 776 51.53 1,366 97.36 810 52.33 433 100.00 40 or less 815 54.12 1,403 100.00 888 57.36 433 100.00 45 or less 902 59.89 1,403 100.00 888 57.36 433 100.00 50 or less 902 59.89 1,403 100.00 888 57.36 433 100.00 60 or less ■ 954 • 63.35 1,403 100.00 1,063 68.67 433 100.00 70 or less 954 63.35 1,403 100.00 1,124 72.61 433 100.00 80 or less 954 63.35 1,403 100.00 1,124 72.61 433 100.00 90 or less 954 63.35 1,403 100.00 1,304 84.24 433 100.00 100 or less 1,051 69.79 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 100.00 H O or less 1,051 69.79 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 100.00 120 or less 1,064 70.65 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 100.00 130 or less 1,165 77.36 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 100.00 140 or less 1,164 77.36 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 . 100.00 150 or less 1,312 87.12 1,403 100.00 1,399 90.37 433 100.00 160 or less" 1,312 87.12 1,403 100.00 1,548 100.00 433 ’ 100.00 170 or less 1,312 87.12 1,403 100.00 1,548 100.00 433 100.00 180 or less 1,312 87.12 1,403 100.00 ■ 1,548 100.00 433 100.00 190 or less • 1,312 87.12 1,403 100.00 1,548 100.00 433 100.00 200 or less 1,506 ■ 100.00 1,403 100.00 1,548 100.00 433 100.00 68 laboratory sections taught are at the "20 or less" size. These sections accommodate 59.35 percent of total student registration. Here again is evidence of unused capacity. The College of Agriculture does not "need" more teaching sections. It "needs" more students. Another comparison can be made. Tables XXVIII and XXIX explain the numbers, size, and distribution of sections in terms of a single course division sections and multiple course division sections. In this case lecture and laboratory sections are combined. During 1965-66 the College of Agriculture was in a position to provide quality instruction to those students pursuing its curricula. Average section size for the lower division (20.55 student registrations'per section), for the upper division (16.77), and for lower and upper divisions combined (18.39) must be described as conducive to quality instruction. Average section size for laboratory sections was smaller than section size for lecture sections, in accord with stated college objectives on this point. Average section size for both lecture and laboratory sections was smaller at the upper division than at the lower division. ____Average Sections Size____ Lower Division Upper Division Lecture Sections 26.42 15.95 Laboratory Sections 15.94 14.93 The distribution of sections in terms of size also provided a prereq­ uisite for quality education-. Consider the percent of sections with "20 or less" student registrations. 69 TABLE XXVIII. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Lower Division Upper Division Section Single Multiple Single Multiple Size Sections Sections Sections Sections 5 or less 8 3 39 6 - 10 12 9 20 6 ii - 15 11 - 25 10 6 16 - 20 4 23 14 2 21 - 25 4 16 7 2 26 - 30 8 10 31 - 35 I I 4 4 36 - 40 I 2 2 41 - 45 2 I 46 — 50 I 51 - 60 I 3 61 - 70 I 71 - 80 81 - 90 2 91 - 100 I I 101 - H O 111 - 120 I 121 - 130 131 - 140 I 141 - 150 151 - 160 I 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 I Over .200 Total Sections 50 95 106 20 TABLE XXIXc DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66, Section . Size Lower Division Upper Division Single Sections Cumulative ' Percent Multiple Sections Cumulative Percent' Single Sections Cumulative Percent Multiple Sections Cumulative Percent 5 or less 8 16.00 3 3.16 39 36.79 10 or less 20 40.00 12 12.63 59 55.66 6 30.00 15 or less 31 62.00 37 38.95 69 65.09 12 60.00 20 or less 35 70.00 60 63.16 83 78.30 14 70.00 25 or less 39 78.00 76 80.00 90 84.91 16 80.00 30 or less 47 94.00 ■ 86 90.53 90 84.91 16 80.00 35 or less 48 96.00 87 91.58 94 88.68 20 100.00 40 or less 49 98.00 89 93.68 96 90.57 20 100.00 45 or less 49 98.00 91 95.79 97 91.51 20 100.00 50 or less 49 98.00 91 95.79 98 92.45 20 100.00 60 or less 49 98.00 92 96.84 101 95.28 20 100.00 70 or less 49 98.00 92 96.84 102 96.23 20 100.00 80 or less 49 98.00 92 96.84 102 96.23 20 100.00 90 or less 49 . 98.00 92 96.84 104 98.11 20 100.00 100 or less 49 98.00 93 97.89 105 99.06 20 100.00 H O or less 49 98.00 93 . 97.89 105 99.06 20 100.00 120 or less 49 . • 98.00 94 98.95 105 99.06 20 100.00 130 or less 49 98.00 94 98.95 105 99.06 20 100.00 140 or less 49 98.00 95 ■ 100.00 105 99.06 20 100.00 •150 or less 49 98.00 95 100.00 105 99.06 20 100.00 160 or less 49 98.00 95 100.00 106 100.00 20 100.00 170 or less 49 98.00 95 100.00 106 100.00 . 20 100.00 180 or less 49 98.PO 95 100.00 106 • 100.00 20 100.00 190 or less 49 98.00 95 100.00 106 100.00 20 100.00 200 or less . .50 . .100.00 . - 95 - 100.00 ■ 106 100.00 20 100.00 71 TABLE XXX, NUMBERS OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Section Size Lower Division Upper Division Single Sections Multiple Sections Single Sections Multiple Sections 5 or less 31 9 73 6 - 1 0 ' 104 72 171 51 11 - 15 147 321 124 66 16 - 20 74 417 235 51 21 - 25 93 367 164 50 26 - 30 184 269 31 - 35 32 32 126 79 36 - 40 37 78 78 41 - 45 87 43 46 - 50 48 51 - 60 52 172 61 - 70 62 71 - 80 81 - 90 170 91 - 100 97 95 101 - H O 111 - 120 121 - 130 113 131 - 140 141 - 150 99 151 - 160. 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 194 Over 200 123 Student registrations accommodated in the single and multiple sections are described in Tables XXXII and XXXIII. TABLE XXXI. NUMBERS OE STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, AS CUMULATIVE PER CENT OF- TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. Lower Division____ ' . ' ____ Upper Division Section .. Size' • Single 'Sections' Cumulative Percent . Multiple Sections' Cumulative Percent Single Sections Cumulative ' Percent Multiple Sections Cumulative Percent 5 or less 31 34.60 9 44.71 73 43.35 10 or less .. 135 15.07 81 40.24 244 14.49 51 17.17 15 or less 282 31.47 402 19.97 368 2-1.85 117 39.39 20 or less 356 39.73 819 40.69 603 35.81 168 56.57 25 or'less - 449 50.11 1,186 58.92 767 45.55 218 73.40 30 or less - 633 70.65 1,455 72.28 767 45.55 218 73.40 35' or less 665 - 74.22 1,487 73.87 893 53.03 297 100.00 40 or less . - 702 78.35 1,565 77.74 971 57.66 297 100.00 45 or less - 702 78.35 1,652 82.07 1,014 60.21 297 100.00 50 or less . ■ 702 78.35 1,652 82.07 1,062 63.04 297 100.00 60 or less 702 78.35 1,704 84.65 1,234 73.28 297 100.00 70 or less ■ 702 - 78.35 1,704 84.65 1,296 76.96 297 100.00 80 or less • 702 78.35 1,704 84.65 1,296 76.96 ' 297 100.00 90 or less ■ 702 78.35 1,704 84.65 ' 1,466 87.05 297 100.00 100 or less - 702 78.35 1,801 89.47 1,561 92.70 ' 297 100.00 H O or less - 702 78.35 1,914 95.08 1,561 92.70 297 100.00 120 or less ; 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,561 92.70 297 100.00 130 or less 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,561 92.70 297 100.00 140 or less 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,561 92.70 297 100.00 150 or less 702 78.35 2,0.13 100.00 1,561 92.70 297 100.00 160 or less ■ 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,684 100.00 297 100.00 170 or less ■ 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 . 1,684 100.00 297 100.00 180 or less ■ 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,684 100.00 297 100.00 190 or less ' 702 78.35 2,013 100.00 1,684 100.00 297 100.00 200'or less- •'• 896 .. ■ ■ 100.00. • 2,013 ■ 100.00 1,684 100.00 297 100.00 TABLE XXXII0 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS OFFERED,■ STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. All Sections Combined ' Lower' Upper' Lecture Laboratory Single Multiple All'Sections Combined Sections offered Student registrations 271 145 126 154 117 156 115 accommodated 4,890 2,909 1,981 3,054 1,836 2,580 2,310 Average size of section 18.39 20.55 16.07 16.63 20.89 Lower Division Sections Sections offered Student registrations 145 57 88 50 95 accommodated■ 2,909 1,506 1,403 896 2,013 Average size of section 20.55 18.24 21.74 Upper Division Sections Sections offered Student registrations - 126 97 29 106 20 accommodated 1,981 1,548 433 1,684 297 Average size of section 16.07 15.93 16.90 74 TABLE XXXIII„ SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. All Sections Combined Lower Upper Lecture Lab Single Multiple All Sections Combined Number with 20 or less 192 Percent with 20 or 95 97 107 . 85 118 74 less 70.85 65.51 76.98 69.48 72.65 75.64 65.30 Lower Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 95 33 62 35 60 less 65.51 57.89 70.45 OOO 63.16 Upper Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 97 74 23 83 14 less 76.98 76.29 79.31 78.30 70.00 TABLE XXXIV. SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 1965-66. All Sections Combined Lower ■Upper Lecture Lab Single Multiple All Sections Combined Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 1,946 1,175 771 929 1,017 959 987 less 39.80 40.39 G\COO<1* 30.42 51.44 37.17 42.73 Lower Division Number with 20 or less 1,175 415 760 356 819 Percent with 20 or less 40.39 34.20 54.17 39.73 40.69 Upper Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 771 514 257 603 168 less 38.92 33.20 59.35 FCO Ln OO O 56.57 75 All Sections Lecture Sections Laboratory Sections Percent Percent Percent Lower Division Upper Division All Sections 65.51 76.98 70.85 57.89 76.29 69.48 70.45 79.31 72.65 It can be concluded that there was unused capacity in terms of student registrations in The College of Agriculture, particularly in the upper division. The average section sizes stated in an earlier paragraph do not reveal this directly, The number of sections and percent of total sections for a specific section size limit are a better indication; 70o85 percent of the total sections taught had 20 or less student registra­ tions . Another indication of unused capacity is the number and percent of total student registrations accommodated in sections with 20 or less registrations. At the lower division, only 39.80 percent of the total student registrations were accommodated in these small classes, whereas 70.85 percent of the sections being taught were of the "20 or less" size. Another indication of unused capacity is the large number of single sections and multiple sections with registration sizes of "20 or less". Lower Division_______ Upper Division Single Multiple Single Multiple Sections Sections Sections Sections Numbers of Sections Sections with 20 or less 35 60 83 14 Total Sections . 5 0 95 106 20 Percent of Total Sections Sections with 20 or less 70.00% 63.16% 78.30% 70.00% 76 Once the decision to offer the section is made, the total cost of the section is not affected by an increase in registration within some range of registrations. For a large percent of the total sections taught in this college, approximately 70 percent, the average cost per unit (per registration) would have decreased with additional registrations and the total cost of the individual section would not have increased (assuming variable costs at zero) with additional student registrations. More will be said later with respect to the implications for planning. CHAPTER VII AN EXAMINATION OF THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS BY SIZE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING The College of Engineering in 1965-66 offered 208 different courses with 283 course divisions to accomplish its programs. This college consists of the departments of agricultural, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering, and the department of atmospheric science. The engineering courses of study have a common freshman year and differ only slightly in the sophomore year. Basic subjects such as English, physics, chemistry, mathematics, humanities, engineering sciences, and graphics form an important part of the first two years. Each engineering student takes a course in orientation. The orientation subject is intended to acquaint students with the academic and professional requirements of the branches of the engineering profession. During their junior and senior years students are directed toward their respective branches. Elective courses must be in a technical field and have the prior approval of the student's adviser or department head. All departments within the College of Engineering offer the master's degree. In addition, the civil engineering department offers the doctor of philosophy degree. The branches of engineering offered here are among about six that might be called fundamental or basic in the profession. Most other majors or options offered are combinations and subdivisions of the most fundamental branches. A student majoring in a fundamental branch at 78 an accredited institution is usually prepared to enter the profession and specialize in work of some subdivision (option) or combination. Examples might be hydraulic engineering, electronic engineering, irrigation engineering, and automotive engineering. The direct cost of instruction for this college was $634,100. This number of courses, 208, would have been offered whether the number of majors (total 1,090, including 225 graduate majors) had been substantially higher or lower than the actual number enrolled. The decision to offer the program had been made, the number of students notwithstanding. Since, in fact, many multiple sections were taught in the College of Engineering, the basic cost of the teaching program was less than $634,100. The number of secttions which it was mandatory to teach was 283. Each case in which the number of student registrations forced the offering of more than one section of a course produced an increment of cost with the final result that the total number of sections taught required $634,100. Average section size in the lower and upper level course divisions in the College of Engineering are given in Table XXXV. The multiple section course divisions at the lower division averaged 34.41 registrations per section. The lower.division sections averaged 70.00 registrations. Since there were only two lower division sections, it is difficult to make any meaningful comparison between these two averages. I 79 TABLE XXXV, AVERAGE SECTION SIZE, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965--66. Division Single Section Course Divisions Multiple Section Course Divisions All Courses Lower Division Upper Division 70.00 16.67 34.41 15.53 35.21 15.91 Total Upper and Lower Division 17.72 21.89 20.83 At the upper division there is relatively little difference in the average size of sections, 16.67 registrations for the single section courses and 15.53 for the multiple section courses. An examination of the number of sections reveals that at the upper division 33.34 percent of the sections are single sections and 66.66 percent are multiple sections„ Reference to Tables XXIV and XXV reveals that there were 342 upper division majors and 523 lower division majors for a total of 865. TABLE XXXVI. NUMBER OF SECTIONS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Single Section Multiple .Section All Sections Number Percent Numb er Percent Number Percent of of of of of of Division Sections Total Sections Total Sections Total Lower Division 2 1.87 105 98.13 107 100.00 Upper Division 99 33.34 198 66.66 297 100.00 Total Upper and T V-Xl- T V-X T\ -I V-I S V-X 101 25.00 • 303 75.00 404 100.00Lower Division 80 Attention is directed to the 33.34 percent (99) of the total sections (297) at the upper division taught as single sections. Comparisons with the College of Agriculture will be made in detail later, but at this point it should be noted that whereas the College of Agriculture taught 84.13 percent of.total sections in single sections in the upper division, the College of Engineering taught only 33.34 percent of its sections in this manner. Average section size in the single section course divisions at the upper divisions, 16.67 student registrations per section, cannot be compared to the lower division average because only two sections were taught and these averaged 70.00 student registrations. For the multiple sections, the lower division class size is over twice the average for the upper division, specifically 34.41 compared with 15.53. Table XXXVII presents the distribution of sections in terms of their size, followed by Table XXXVIII which gives the distribution of sections in terms of size from both single and multiple course divisions with lecture and laboratory course divisions combined, by lower and upper division. Later tables will examine lecture and laboratory sections separately. At the lower division there were no sections with five or less student registrations, whereas at the upper division 10.77 percent of total sections had five or less. Taking lower and upper together, only 32 sections from a total of 404, or 7.92 percent had five or less student registrations. Recall that in the College of Agriculture 19.93 percent of all sections had five or less student registrations. 81 TABLE XXXVII. . DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE .COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY COURSE DIVISIONS COMBINED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,■1965-66. Size of Section_______ Lower Division Sections'. Upper Division Sections 5 or less 0 32 6 - 10 8 68 11 - 15 21 73 16 - 20 6 46 21 - 25 23 34 26 - 30 18 16 31 - 35 13 15 36 - 40 9 6 41 - .45 I 5 46 —. 50 0 I 51 - 60 2 61 - 70 I 71 - 80 I 81 - 90 I 91 - 100 101 - H O 111 - 120 121 - 130 131 - 140 141 - 150 151 - 160 I 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 I Over 200 2* ^Specifically 300 student registrations.in one section of MEl (Engineering Graphics) and 230 student registrations,in ME2 (Engineering Graphics). 82 TABLE XXXVIII. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OE SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY COURSE DIVISIONS COMBINED, BY LOWER AND 'UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Cumulative Cumulative Size Lower Percent Upper Percent of Division of Total Division of Total Section Sections Sections Sections Sections 5 or less 0 32 10.77 10 or less 8 7.48 100 33.67 15 or less 29 27.10 173 58.25 20 or less . 35 32.71 219' 73.74 25 or less 58 ■ 54.21 253 85.19 30 or less 76 71.03 269 90.57 35 or less 89 83.18 284 95.62 40 or less 98 91.59 290 97.64 45 or less 99 92.52 295 99.33 50 or less 99 92.52 296 99.66 60 or less 101 94.39 296 99.66 70 or less 101 94.39 297 100.00 80 or less 102 95.33 297 100.00 90 or less 103 96.26 297 100.00 100 or less 103- 96.26 297 100.00 H O or less 103 96:26 297 100.00 120 or less 103 96.26 297 100.00 130 or less 103 96.26 297 100.00 140 or less 103 96.26 297 100.00 150 or less 103 96.26 297 100.00 160 or less 104 97.20 297 100.00 170 or less 104 97.20 297 100.00 180 or less 104 97.20 297 100.00 190 or less 105 98.13 297 100.00 200 or less 105 98.13 297 100.00 250 or less 106 99.07 297 100.00 . 300 or less 107 100.00 297 '100.00 83 Consider the "20 or less" size of section. At the lower division 32.71 percent of total sections had 20 or less registrations, whereas at the upper division, 74.41 percent of the sections had 20 or less. When the numbers of student registrations which take place in sections with specific sizes are examined, another picture emerges. Tables XXXIX and XL Outline the details for the College of Engineering. Table XL reveals that at the lower division 32.71 percent of total ■sections had 20 or less student registrations; at the upper division 73.74 percent of total sections had 20 or less student registrations. If the availability of small classes is a prerequisite to quality instruction, this prerequisite appears to have been satisfied at the upper division. Fully one-third (specifically 33.67 percent) of the sections at the upper division had 10 or less student registrations. This may be an indication of unused capacity. Additional evidence is necessary. The number of student registrations accommodated in sections of various sizes described in Tables XXXIX and XL gives another view. Whereas at the lower division 32.71 percent of total sections had 20 or less registrations, only 12.96 percent of total registrations were accommodated in sections with 20 or less registrations. If it were assumed that size of section was the only determinant of quality, a quality scale can be devised for the lower division giving a grade of 100 to that instruction which is carried out in sections with 20 or less registrations. A similar scale for the upper division, again awarding 100 to that instruction, in terms of student registrations, which is carried out in sections with 20 or less registrations is also given. 84 TABLE XXXIX. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION: COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66.- Section Size Lower.Division Student Registrations Upper Division Student Registrations 5 or less 0 104- 6 - 10 66 565 11 - 15 273 950 16 - 20 H O 823 21 - 25 551 753 26 - 30 512 453 31 - 35 430 497 36 - 40 335 221 41 - 45 42 211 46 - 50 46 51 - 60 115 61 - 70 68 71 - 80 80 81 - 90 91 - 100 101 - H O 111 - 120 121 - 130 84 131 - 140 141 - 150 ' 151 - 160 161 - 170 171 - 180 155 181 - 190 191 - 200 182 Over 200 530* *Specifically 300 student registrations in one section of MEl (Engineering. Graphics), and 230 student registrations in ME2 (Engineering Graphics). 85 TABLE XL. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION AS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Section Size Lower Division Student Registrations Cumulative Percent of Total Student Registrations Upp er Division Student Registrations Cumulative Percent of Total Student Registrations. 5 or less 0 104 2.22 10 or less 66 1.91 669 14.26 15 or less 339 9.78 1,619 34.51 20 or less 449 12.96 2,442 52.06 25 or less 1,000 28.86 3,195 68.11 30 or less 1,512 43.64 3,648 77.77 35 or less 1,942 56.05 4,145 88.36 40 or less 2,277 65.71 4,366 93.07 45 or less 2,319 66.93 4,577 97.57 50 or less 2,319 66.93 4,623 98.55 60 or less 2,434 70.25 4,623 98.55 70 or less 2,434 70.25 4,691 100.00 80 or less 2,514 72.55 4,691 100.00 . 90 or less 2,598 ’ 74.98 4,691 100.00 100 or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 H O or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 120 or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 130 or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 140 or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 150 or less 2,598 74.98 4,691 100.00 160 or less 2,753 79.45 4,691 100.00 170 or less 2,753 79.45 4,691 100.00 180 or less 2,753 79.45 4,691 100.00 190 or less 2,935 84.70 4,691 100.00 200 or less 3,465 100.00 4,691 100.00 86 Lower Division Section Size Quality Scale Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated Cumulative Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated 5 or less 100 6 - 1 0 100 1.88 1.91 11 - 15 100 9.31 9.78 16 - 20 100 3.13 12.96 21 - 25 97 15.65 28.86 26 - 30 94 14.55 43.64 31 - 35 91 12.21 56.05 36 - 40 88 9.52 65.71 41 - 45 85 1.19 66.93 46 - 50 82 66.93 Upper Division Percent Cumulative Percent of Student. of Student Section Registrations Registrations Size Quality Scale Accommodated Accommodated 5 or less 100 V 2.22 2.22 6 - 1 0 100 12.04 14.26 11 - 15 100 22.47 34.51 16 - 20 100 17.51 52.06 21 - 25 97 16.05 68.11 26 - 30 94 9.66 77.77 31 - 35 91 8.89 86.66 36 - 40 88 6.41 93.07 41 - 45 85 4.50 97.57 46 - 50 82 .98 98.55 87 The pattern found in the College of Agriculture again appears; 73.74 percent of total sections are offered in sizes of 20 or less student registrations, but only 52.06 percent of the student registrations are accommodated in these sections. A similar, but tighter, quality scale for the upper division is given below. At the lower division quality was rated at 100 if the section had 20 or less student registrations. At the upper division only those sections with 15 or less registrations are rated at 100. Upper Division Section Size Quality Scale Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated Cumulative Percent of Student Registrations Accommodated 5 or less 100 2.22 2.22 6 - 1 0 100 12.04 14.26 11 - 15 100 22.47 34.51 16 - 20 97 17.51 52.06 21 - 25 94 16.05 68.11 26 - 30 81 ' 9.66 77.77 31 - 35 88 8.89 86.66 36 - 40 85 6.41 . 93.07 41 - 45 82 4.50 97.57 46 - 50 79 .98 98.55 Reference is again made to Table XXXVIII which disclosed that 58.25 percent of the upper division sections taught had 15 or less registrations. On the quality scale used above, only 34.51 percent of the total student registrations were accommodated in sections with 15 or less registrations. 88 To this point no distinction has been made.between lecture and laboratory sections. Table XLI gives the distribution of sections in terms of size for lectures and laboratories. The effort to maintain laboratory sections at a smaller size than is the case for lecture sections is manifested in Tables XLI and XLII. For example, whereas 28.26 percent of the lower division lecture sections have 20 or less registrations, 36.07 percent of the laboratory sections are of this size. At the upper division, the fact that nearly as large a percentage (67.27 percent) of the lecture sections had 20 or less registrations than is the case with the laboratory sections (81.82 percent) may be an indication of excess capacity at the upper level. Tables XLIII and XLIV give the number of student registrations which took place in sections with specific sizes. Consider the lecture section.. At the lower division 28.26 percent of the sections taught are at the "20 or less" size, but these sections accommodate 43.09 percent of the total student registrations. The picture for the laboratory sections is different. At the lower, division, 36.07 percent of the laboratory sections are "20 or less" in size, but 43.09 percent of the registrations are accommodated in this manner. At the upper division, 81.82 percent of the laboratory sections are of the "20 or less" size and these accommodate 65.96 percent .of total registrations. Here again is evidence of some unused capacity. Another comparison can be made. Tables XLV and XLVI explore the numbers, size, and distribution of sections in terms of single course 89 TABLE XLI. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Section Lower■Division Sections Upper Division Sections Size Lecture Laboratory Lecture Laboratory 5 or less 21 11 6 - 10 I 7 27 41 ii - 15 10 11 38 35 16 - 20 2 4 25 21 21 - 25 10 13 20 14 26 - 30 6 12 12 4 31 - 35 2 - 11 11 4 36 - 40 6 3 5 I 41 - 45 I 4 I 46 — 50 I 51 - 60 2 I 61 - 70 71 - 80 I 81 - 90 I 91 - 100 101 - H O 111 - 120 121 - 130 131 - 140 141 - 150 151 - 160 I 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - 200 I Over 200 2 TABLE XLII. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE FROM BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE COURSE DIVISIONS WITH LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED, BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION, AS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower Division Sections____ ■_____ __________Upper Division Sections Section Size..... Lecture■ Cumulative Percent Laboratory Cumulative Percent Lecture Cumulative Percent Laboratory' Cumulative Percent 5 or less 21 12.73 11 8.33 10 or less I 2.17 7 1.15 48 29.09 52 39.39 15 or less 11 23.91 18 29.51 86 52.12 87 65.91 20 or less 13 28.26 22 36.07 111 67.27 108 81.82 25 or less 23 50.00 35 57.38 131 79.39 122 92.42 30 or less ■ 29 63.04 47 77.05 143 86.67 126 95.45 35 or less 31 67.39 58 95.08 154 93.33 130 98.48 , 40 or less 37 80.43 61 100.00 159 96.36 131 99.24 < 45 or less 38 82.61 61 100.00 163 98.79 132 100.00 50 or less 38 82.61 61 100.00 164 99.39 132 100.00 60 or less 40 86.96 .61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 70 or less 40 86.96 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 80 or less 41 89.13 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 90 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 100 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 H O or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 ■100.00 132 100.00 120 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 130 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 • 100.00 140 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 150 or less 42 91.30 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 160 or less 43 93.48 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 170 or less 43 93.48 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 180 or less 43 93.48 61 - 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 190 or less 43 93.48 61 100.00 165 ■ 100.00 132 100.00 200 or less 44 95.65 61 100.00 165 100.00 132 100.00 300 or- less '46 100.00 61 ■ ■ 100.00 . -■ ■ 165 • 100.00 132 100.00 91 TABLE XLIII. NUMBER OF STUDENT•REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS SEPARATED, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower.Division Upper Division Section Student Regis!rations Student Registrations Size Lecture Laboratory Lectute Laboratory. 5 or less 57- 47 6 - 10 9 57 227 338 11 T- 15 ' 128 145 499 451 16 - 20 34 76 446 377 21 - 25 239 312 ' 456 297 26 - 30 170 342 337 116 31 - 35 65 365 361 136 36 - 40 225 H O 185 36 41 - 45 42 170 41 46 - 50 46 51 - 60 115 61 - 70 68 71 - 80 80 81 - 90 84 91 - 100 101 - n o 111 - 120 121 - 130 131 ■- 140 141 ■- 150 151 - 160 155 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 182 191 - 200 Over 200 530 \ TABLE XLIV. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY LECTURE AND LABORATORY SECTIONS AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower Division Sections__________ ____ Upper Division Sections Section Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Size Lecture Percent Laboratory Percent Lecture Percent Laboratory Percent 5 or less 57 2.00 47 2.56 10 or less 9 4.37 57 4.05 284 9.96 385 20.94 15 or less 137 6 o 66 202 14.36 783 27 i 45 836 45.46 20 or less 171 8.31 278 19.76 1,229 43.09 1,213 65.96 25 or less 410 19.92 590 41.93 1,685 59.08 1,510 82.11 30 or less 580 28.18 932 66.24 2,022 70.90 1,626 88.42 35 or less 645 31.34 1,297 92.18 2,383 83.56 1,762 95.81 40 or less 870 42.27 1,407 100.00 2,568 . 90.04 1,798 97.77 45 or less 912 44.31 1,407 100.00 2,738 96.00 1,839 100.00 50 or less 912 44.31 1,407 100.00 2,784 97.62 1,839 100.00 60 or less 1,027 49.90 1,407 100.00 2,784 97.62 1,839 100.00 70 or less 1,027 49.90 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 80 or less 1,107 53.79 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 90 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 100 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 H O or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 120 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 130 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 140 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 150 or less 1,191 57.87 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 160 or less 1,346 65.40 1,-407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 170 or less 1,346 65.40 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 180 or less 1,346 65.40 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 190 or less 1,528 74.25 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 200 or less 1,528 74.25 1,407 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 300 or -less 2,058 ■ • - 100.00 1,407 • - 100.00 2,852 100.00 1,839 100.00 I93 TABLE XLV. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower-Division Upper Division Section Single Multiple Single Multiple Size Sections Sections Sections Sections 5 or less 12 20 6 - 1 0 8 20 48 11 - 15 .21 20 53 16 - 20 6 12 34 21 - 25 23 10 24 26 - 30 1 18 7 9 31 - 35 13 11 4 36 - 40 9 3 3 41 - 45 I 3 2 . 46 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 I I I I 71 - 80 81 - 90 I I 91 - 100 101 - HO 111 - 120 121 - 130 131 - 140 141 - 150 151 - 160 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 191 - .200 Over 200 2 TABLE XLVI. DISTRIBUTION OF SECTIONS IN TERMS OF SIZE WITH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATED AS A CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower, Division_______________ _________ ' Upper Division Section Size Single Sections ' Cumulative ■ Percent Multiple Sections Cumulative Percent Single Sections Cumulative Percent Multiple Cumulative Sections ' Percent 5 or less 12 12.12 20 10.10 10 or less 8 7.62 32 32.32 68 34.34 15 or less 29 27.62 52 52.52 121 61.11 20 or less 35 33.33 64 64.65 155 78.28 25 or less 58 55.24 74 74.75 179 90.40 30 or less 76 72.38 81 81.82 188 94.95 35 or less 89 84.76 92 92.93 192 96.97 40 or less 98 93.33 • 95 95.96 195 98.48 45 or less 99 94.29 98 98.99 197 99.50 50 or less 99 94.29 99 100.00 197 99.50 ' 60 or less I 50.00 100 95.24 99 100.00 197 99.50 70 or less I 5.0.00 100 95.24 99 100.00 198 100.00 80 or less 2 100.00 100 95.24 ■ 99 100.00 198 100.00 90 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 100 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 HO. or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 120 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 130 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 ' 99 100.00 198 100.00 140 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 150 or less 2 100.00 101 96.19 99 100.00 198 100.00 160 or less 2 100.00 102 97.14 99 100.00 198 100.00 170 or less 2 100.00 102 97.14 99 100.00 198 100.00 180 or less 2 100.00 102 97.14 99 100.00 198 100.00 190 or less 2 100.00 102 97.14 99 100.00 198 100.00 200 or less 2 100.00 103 98.10 99 100.00 198 100.00 300 or less . . 2 - . .100.00. 105 100.00 99 100.00 198 100.00 95 division sections and multiple course division sections. A single section is one which by itself constitutes a course division offering. If more than one section is taught to accomplish the course division, each of the sections is labeled a multiple section. Student registrations accommodated in the single and multiple sections are described in Tables XLVII and XLVIII. Summary During the year 1965-66, the College of Engineering was in a position to provide quality instruction. Average section size for the lower division (35,21 student registrations per section), for the upper division (15.91), and for lower and upper divisions combined (20.83) must be described as conducive to quality instruction. Average section size for laboratory sections was smaller than section size for lecture sections, in accord with stated college objec­ tives on this point. Average section size for both lecture and laboratory sections was smaller at the upper division than at the lower division. _______Average Section Size______ Lower Division Upper Division Lecture Sections 26.42 15.95 Laboratory Sections 15.94 14.93 The distribution of sections in terms of size also provided a prerequisite for quality instruction. Consider the percent of sections with "20 or less" student registrations. 96 TABLE XLVII. NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. Lower Division Upper Division Section Single Multiple Single Multiple Size Sections Sections Sections Sections 5 or less 46 58 6 - 10 66 164 401 ii - 15 273 249 701 16 - 20 H O 220 603 21 - 25 551 163 590 26 - 30 512 203 250 31 - 35 430 403 94 36 - 40 335 113 108 41 - 45 42 129 82 46 - 50 46 51 - 60 60 55 61 - 70 68 71 - 80 80 81 - 90 84 91 - 100 101 - H O 111 ■- 120 121 - 130 131 - 140 141 - 150 151 - 160 155 161 - 170 171 - 180 181 - 190 182 191 - 200 Over 200 530 TABLE XLVIIIo NUMBER OF STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES BY LOWER AND UPPER DIVISION BY SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS SEPARATELY AS CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. ____________Lower Division_____________ __________Upper Division__________ ____ Section Single Cumulative Multiple.Cumulative Single Cumulative Multiple Cumulative S i z e ..... Sections' Percent' Sections' Percent Sections Percent Sections Percent 5 or less 46 2.65 58 1.96 10 or less 66 1.98 210 ■ 12.10 459 15.53 15 or less 339 10.20 459 26.44 1,160 39.26 20 or less 449 13.50 679 39.11 1,763 59.66 25 or less 1,000 30.08 842 48.50 2,353 79.63 30 or less 1,512 45.47 1,045 60.20 2,603 88.09 35 or less 1,942 58.41 1,448 83.41 2,697 91.27 40 or less 2,277 68.48 1,561 89.92 2,805 94.92 45 or less 2,319 69.74 1,690 97.35 2,887 97.70 50 or less 2,319 69.74 1,736 100.00 2,887 97.70 60 or less 60 42.86 2,374 71.40 1,736 100.00 2,887 - 97.70 70 or less 60 42.86 2,374 71.40 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 80 or less 140 100.00 2,374 71.40 1,736 10,0.00 2,955 100.00 90 or-less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 100 or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 . 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 H O or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 120 or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 130 or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 . 100.00 2,955 100.00 140 or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 150 or less 140 100.00 2,458 73.92 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 160 or less 140 100.00 2,613 78.59 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 170 or less 140 100.00 .2,613 78.59 1,736 100.00 2*955 ■ 100.00 180 or less 140 100.00 2,613 78.59 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 190 or less 140 100.00 2,795 84.06 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 200 or less 140 100.00 - 2,795 84.06 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 300 or less 140... ■ ■ 100.00 3,325 100.00 . 1,736 100.00 2,955 100.00 98 TABLE XLIX. SUMMARY OF SECTIONS OFFERED, STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF SECTIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. All Sections Combined Lower Upper Lecture Lab Single Multiple All Sections Combined Sections offered 404 107 Student registrations accomodated 8,156 3,465 Average section size 20.83 35.21 Lower Division Sections offered 107 Student registrations accommodated • 3,465 Average section size 35.21 Upper Division Sections offered Student registrations accommodated Average section size 297 211 193 101 303 4,691 15.91 4,910 23.27 3,246 16.82 1,876 17.72 6,280 21.89 46 61 2 105 2,058 44.74 1,407 23.07 140 70.00 3,325 34.41 297 165 132 99 198 4,691 15.91 2,852 17.27 1,839 13.93 1,736 16.67 2,955 15.53 TABLE L. SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. All Sections Combined Lower Upper Lecture Lab Single Multiple All Sections Combined Number with 20 or less 254 Percent with 20 or 35 ' 219 124 130 64 190 less 62.87 32.71 73.74 58.77 67.36 63.37 62.71 Lower Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 35 13 22 35 less 32.71 28.26 36.07 33.33 Upper Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or 219 111 108 64 155 less 73,74 67.27 81.82 64.65 78.28 99 TABLE LI. SUMMARY OF NUMBERS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL STUDENT REGISTRATIONS ACCOMMODATED IN SECTIONS WITH "20 OR LESS" REGISTRATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 1965-66. All Sections Combined Lower Upper Lecture Lab Single Multiple All Sections Combined Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or less 449 12.96 2,442 52.06 1,400 28.51 1,491 45.93 679 36.19 2,212 35.22' Lower Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or less 449 12.96 171 8.31 278 19.05 449 13.52 Upper Division Number with 20 or less Percent with 20 or less 2,442 52.06 1,229 43.09 1,213 65.96 679 39.11 1,763 59.66 100 All Sections Percent Lecture Sections Laboratory Sections Percent Percent Lower Division Upper Division All Sections 32.71 73.74 62.87 28.26 67.27 58.77 36.07 81.82 67.36 It can be concluded- that there is additional capacity in terms of student registrations in the College of Engineering, specifically in the upper division. The average section sizes stated in an earlier paragraph do not reveal this directly. The number of sections and percent of total for a specific section size limit are better indicators; 62.87 percent of the total sections taught had 20 or less student registrations. Another indication of unused capacity is the number and percent of total student registrations accommodated in sections with 20 or less registrations. At the lower division, only 12.96 percent of the total student registrations are accommodated in these small sections, which comprise 32.71 percent of the lower division sections taught. At the upper division, 52.06 percent of the student registrations are accommo­ dated in the 73.74 percent of total sections which had 20 or less registra­ tions . Another indication of unused capacity is the large number of "single sections" and "multiple sections" with registration sizes of 20 or less. 101 Lower Division. Upper Division Single Multiple. Single Multiple Sections Sections Sections Sections Number of sections with 20 or less 35 60 83 14 Total Sections 50 95 106 20 Percent of Total Sections with 20 or less 70.00% 63.16% 78.30% 70.00% Once the decision to offer the section is made, the total cost of the section is not affected by an increase in registrations within some range of registrations. For a large percent of total sections taught in this college, approximately 70 percent, the average cost per unit (per registration) would have decreased with additional registrations and the total cost of the individual section would not have increased with additional student registrations, assuming variable costs at zero„ More will be said later with respect to the implications for planning. Large numbers of sections with small registrations constitute a problem. When pecuniary considerations are.added, it becomes apparent that small registrations in large numbers of classes produces high costs of instruction. The foregoing analysis of the economics of section size in the Colleges of Engineering and the College of Agriculture points both to the (I) probability of.quality instruction at the upper limit and to (2) additional capacity, resulting in high costs. To the extent that the numbers presented are an index of quality, the colleges should plan to continue to provide those elements necessary to good instruction. .To the extent that the numbers are an index to 102 inefficiencies related to size, curriculum planning, admissions policies, and the like, the university should proceed with efforts to reduce the inefficiencies. CHAPTER VIII COMPARISON OF COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING This chapter will compare the data outlined in the preceding chapter in an attempt to establish similarities and contrasts. Consider first the number of majors in each college for the year 1965-66. This discussion, as is the case in the earlier chapters, will concern itself with an analysis of the lower.and upper divisions only. Number of Majors_____ ______College of________ Agriculture Engineering Lower Division 253 523 Upper Division 344 342 Total 597 865 The larger number of majors in the College of Engineering might be expected to make a great deal of difference in the statistics on section sizes and numbers of sections. At the upper division, however, the numbers of majors are almost the same in both colleges. The number of courses listed and number of sections actually required to accommodate the teaching program are of interest. Number of Sections Number of Majors Offered by College Served by Sections __________________________Offered by College Agriculture Engineering Agriculture Engineering Lower Division 145 107 253 523 Upper Division 126 297 344 342 Total 271 ' 404 597 865 104 Interestingly, the ratio of majors to the number of sections taught in the College of Agriculture, 2.20 to 1.00, is almost that found in the College of Engineering, 2.14 to 1.00. One might ask why it required 145 sections of instruction to serve 253 majors at the lower division in the College of Agriculture when the College of Engineering used only 107 sections to serve 523 majors, or twice as many. Part of the answer is found in the nature of the curricula in agriculture. Recall that the departments of instruction in the College of Agriculture are five in number: Agronomy, Animal Science, Entomology, Horticulture, and Poultry Science. Only the Department of Entomology provides any significant number of service courses for other curricula. The College of Engineering is also comprised of five departments: Agricultural Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Atmospheric Science. Some service courses are taught, primarily in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Department of Civil Engineering— e.g., Engineering Graphics and Elementary Surveying. Part of the explanation is found in the nature of the freshman year curriculum. The basic freshman year curriculum in engineering required that only 4.5 credits of a total of 51, or some 8 percent, be taken in the College of Engineering. This is, in part, why the College of Engineering can serve 523 majors with only 107 sections. In the College of Agriculture, on the other hand, depending upon aptitude, scholastic background, and career interest, the entering 105 student is advised to elect either the Applied Agriculture or the Agricultural Science course of study for freshmen. Certain major curricula require satisfactory completion of the agricultural science freshman year, while others are open to students satisfactorily completing the applied agriculture freshman year. The course of study for the Applied Agriculture Freshman Year required 27 credits of.a total of 50 credits, or 54 percent, from College of Agriculture offerings. Typically, 55 percent to 65 percent of the undergraduate majors in agriculture select the Applied Agriculture Freshman Year Curriculum. The same explanation will not suffice at the upper division. Here •the College of Engineering requires over twice the number of sections to serve the 342 majors as does the College of Agriculture to serve the same. number of majors. The sophomore, junior, and senior majors in agriculture complete approximately 51 percent of their course work in terms of credit hours within the departments in the College of Agriculture. The engineering majors complete 67 percent of their work within the College during the sophomore, junior, and senior levels. The remainder of the explanation is found in mechanics of the numbering and course symbol system. For majors in any particular department, courses in that department which are numbered from I,to 99 are normally taken in the freshman and sophomore years. For majors in any particular department, courses in that department which are numbered 100 to 199 are normally taken by juniors and seniors. Certain 100-series courses may be taken by graduate students in meeting requirements for an advanced degree upon the approval of the department offering the course, the student’s major professor, and 106 the dean of the graduate school. Courses identified by course numbers in the 200-series carry graduate credit only. As might be expected, those colleges with relatively large graduate programs tend to be at that stage of curriculum and faculty development that has justified large numbers of graduate courses that enroll primarily graduate students„ Smaller graduate programs tend to have more upper level courses open to graduate students for graduate credit. Table L U describes student-credit-hour production by lower, upper, and graduate numbered courses by graduate students for 1965-66 for all colleges. The foregoing is typical of the problem of attempting to establish the cost of graduate work as compared, say, with upper division work. A section may be.composed of students who are enrolled for graduate credit at the same time that other students will receive undergraduate, credit for the same course. The number of single sections offered gives an interesting comparison. These are sections that do not have enrollments to justify, under existing class size policies, the opening of a second section of instruction. ___________Single Sections ,_________________ ________Agriculture_______________Engineering_______ Number of____ Percent Number of____Percent Majors Sections of Total Majors Sections of Total Lower Division 253 50 34.48 523 2 1.87 Upper Division 344 106 84.13 342 99 33.34 Total 597 156 57.56 865 101 25.00 TABLE•L U . STUDENT-CREDIT-HOUR. PRODUCTION BY GRADUATE STUDENTS, FOUR COLLEGES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1965-66. '_____ Division Courses____ ' Lower ' ' Upper_____ Graduate' All Courses ........ . . Number of ' •' SCH ' _' SCR ' SCH ' SCH______ ' 'College.........;• • Graduate Majors ' 'Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Totalj^ ercent Veterinary Medicine 256 32 3.0 401 38.1 620 58.9 1,053 100.00 Engineering 225 15 .8 591 34.2 1,124 65.0 1,730 100.00 Forestry 127 7 .9 246 33.6 479 65.5 732 100.00 Agriculture 91 55 ' .8 416 63.1 188 28.5 659 100.00 108 The larger number of lower division majors in the College of Engineering is manifested in the small number of single sections. Quite simply, there were enough students to justify multiple sections. In the College of Agriculture additional majors could be added without adding to the cost of the lower division 50 sections. At the upper division, the 106 single sections offered served the upper division majors plus a substantial part of the course requirements (some 51 percent) for the 91 graduate majors as well. When one adds this to the knowledge■that 77 percent of these sections have 20 or less students, 64 percent had T5 or less, and 55 percent had 10 or less, it appears reasonable to conclude that the case for additional faculty in the College of.Agriculture to serve the present number of majors is difficult to make. Modest increases in enrollment could be accepted without adding substantial numbers of additional faculty, assuming the curricula are not changed. TABLE LIIIo SUMMARY TABLES FOR ANALYSIS OF SECTION SIZE, DISTRIBUTION OF SIZES, AND STUDENTS ACCOMMODATED, COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING, 1965-66. College of Agriculture College of Engineering I. Dollars Expended $484,548.00 $634,100 .00 SCH produced 15 ,465.00 19,702 .00 Dollars expended per SCH $31.33 $36.36 II. Number .of Majors 688.00 1,090 .00 Dollars expended per major $704.00 $582.00 Ill o Mean Salary (9-month equivalent)— ^ , $8 ,655.00 $10,313 .00 Median Salary (9-month equivalent)— $8,018.00 $ 9,818.00 IVo FTE Students 343.67 437 .82 FTE Faculty 30.93 46.84 Ratio FTE. Students to FTE Faculty ■ 11.11:1 9.35:1 Number Average Numb er Average of Size of of Size of Sections Section Sections Section Vo Total Sections Offered 271 18.39 ' 404 20.83 Lower division sections offered 145 20.55 107 35.21 Upper division sections offered 126 16.07 297 15.91 Lecture sections offered 154 19.83 211 23.27 Laboratory sections.offered 117 15.69 193 16.82 Single sections offered 156 16.63 101 17.72 Multiple sections offered 115 20.89 303 21.89 (table continued) 109 TABLE LIlX (continued) College of Agriculture College of Engineering V. Lower division sections offered 145 20.55 107 35.21 Lecture sections 57 26.42■ 46 44.74 Laboratory sections 88 15.94 61 23.07 Single sections 50 18.24 2 70.00 Multiple sections 95 21.74 105 34.41 Upper.division sections offered 126 16.07 297 15.91 Lecture sections 97 15.96 165 17.27 Laboratory sections 29 14.93 132 13.93 Single sections 106 15.93 99 16.67 ■ Multiple sections 20 .16.90 198 15.53 VI. Sections With 20 or Less 192 70.85 254 62.87 Student Registrations Lower division 95 65.51 35 32.71 Upper division 97 76.98 219 73.74 Lecture 107 69.48 124 58.77 Laboratory 85 72.65 130 67.36 Single 118 75.64 64 63.37 Multiple , 74 65.30 190 62.71 Lower.division sections with 20 or less student registrations. 95 65.51 35 32.71 Lecture 33 57.89 ■ 13 28.26 Laboratory 62 70.45 22 36.07 Single 35 70.00 — — ........113-p 16 • .... ... ... 60 63.16 . 35 33.33 (table continued) H O TABLE LIIX. (continued)„ College of Agriculture College of Engineering VI. Upper.division sections with 20 or less student registrations 97 76.98 219 73.74 Lecture 74 76.29 111 67.27 Laboratory 23 79.31 108 81.82 Single 83 78.30 64 64.65 Multiple 14 70.00 155 78.28 VII. Student Registrations Accommodated in With 20 or Less Student Registrations All sections combined Sections 1,946 Percent of Total Student Registrations 39.80 2,891 Percent of Total Student Registrations 35.45 Lower division sections 1,175 40.39 449 12.96 Upper division sections 771 38.92 2,242 52.06 Lecture sections 929 30.42 1,400 28.51 Laboratory.s actions 1,017 51.44 1,491 45.93 Single sections 959 37.17 679 36.19 Multiple sections 987 42.73 2,212 35.22 Lower division sections 1,175 40.39 449 12.96 Lecture sections 415 34.20 171 8.31 Laboratory sections 760 54.17 278 19.05 Single sections 356 39.73 — Multiple sections 819 40.69 449 13.52 (table continued) 111 TABLE LIII. (continued). College of Agriculture College of Engineering VII. Upper division sections 771 38.92 2,442 52.06 Lecture sections 514 33.20 1,229 43.09 Laboratory sections 257 59.35 1,213 65.96 Single sections 603 35.80 679 39.11 Multiple sections 168 56.57 1,763 59.66 a/ Four ranks combined. y 45 SCE = I FTE student. 112 CHAPTER IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The summarization of data and the drawing of conclusions is always difficult. Behind this difficulty is a truism stated most succinctly in the old Turkish proverb: "A man is a victim of the words he speaks; he is the master of those he does not speak." This thesis assignment requires the writer to "speak". The discussion on the economics of section size established the principle that there is little direct relationship between the number of student registrations and the total cost of a course for the single-section course division. A relationship comes only as more sections are added. The chapters analyzing section size establish rather dramatically that in the colleges considered a large percentage of the sections offered are single sections, particularly at the upper division. Although this dissertation does not pursue the matter of section size at the graduate level, sections offered at the graduate level do also have capacity for more registrations.■ From this must be exempted the "courses" taught in a manner approaching the one-to-one relationship— e.g,, special problems courses, special topics courses, and supervision of dissertations. The existence of large numbers of sections at the upper division ■ with fewer than 20 student registrations (or fewer than 15 or any other number that might be selected to assure teaching effectiveness) in these colleges is one of the principal determinants of higher cost per unit at this level than at the lower division,. Unit costs can be reduced by adding students to the upper division sections. 114 A procedure which might fix the cost of adding one additional upper division major, for example, in Landscape and Nursery Management, could proceed as follows: (1) List the specific course requirements.within the College of Agriculture. (2) List that section of each of the course division require­ ments with the lowest number of student registrations. (3) Assume that the section with the smallest number of registra­ tions is open to our student, that is, there are no scheduling problems. (4) Assume that our student is a junior college transfer student who has not completed all of the requirements of the first two years of.the curriculum in Landscape.and Nursery Manage­ ment and must acquire these credits during his junior and senior years. (5) Given a stated general optimum section size policy of 20, it is then possible to find which courses would require the creation of a new section to accommodate our student. (6) For those courses outside of the College of Agriculture, the procedures in (I) through (5) must be repeated. One might'reasonably expect to find that few, if any, new sections would be required in agriculture. It should be recalled that the percent of sections at the upper division enrolling 20 or less students are as follows: Total Sections, 76.98 percent; Lecture Sections, 76.29 percent; Laboratory sections, 79.31 percent; and Single sections, 78.30 percent. However, the specific details regarding the course requirements within the College of Agriculture for 1965-66 are given on the following p a g e . . Course'' Credits Lecture Sections Number of Registrations Laboratory Sections Number of Registrations Ag H O Principles of Genetics 5 15 19 H 15 - Greenhouse Management 5 I 13 I 13 H 46 - Landscape Plants 3 I 7 I 7 H 48 - Landscape Plants 3 I 18 I 18 H 47 - Indoor Plants 3. I 26 I 26 H 109 - Nursery Management 5 I 8 I ■ 8 H 106 - Landscape Design & Theory 5 I 21 I 21 H 105 - Turf Management 3 I 18 — —T H 150 - Breeding'Eort. Crops 5 I 17 I 17 H 152 - Horticulture Seminar I. I 16 — —— H H O - Retail Nursery Mgmt. 5 I 9 I 9 H 151 - Landscape Planning 5 I 13 I 13 H 153 - Ecology Hort. Plants 5 I. 8 I 8 Ag 2 - Soils 6 2 113 - 11 20 En I - Farm and Home Insects 5 8 11 8 11 H 4 - Plant Propagation 4 I 10 I 10 H 10 - Fruit Production 5 I 19 I 19 Ag I - Crop Production 6 8 10 8 10 An I - Intro. Animal Science 4 I 194 — — ■« An 2 - Intro.; Animal Sci= Lab. 3 - — 5 10 E . I- -■ Basic Horticulture .... 5 ■;2 43 6 8 115 116 The courses Ag 2 - Soils, and H l - Basic Horticulture, require specific explanation. The first, Ag 2 - Soils, is taught in two large lecture sections with registrations of 138 and 113, and the second H l - Basic Horticulture in two sections with registrations of 52 and 43. The laboratory sections, however, are taught in 11 sections for Ag 2 - Soils with registrations numbering 20, 20, 24, 24, 24, 20, 24, 24, 24, 25, and 21 and in 6 sections for H l - Basic Horticulture with registrations number 16, 8, 17, I, 16, and 19. At this point it is possible to state that given the foregoing assumptions, the addition of one more major in the upper division Land­ scape and Nursery Management curriculum will not necessitate the initiation of additional sections of teaching in the College of Agriculture. This is the case, however, for this single student only. The case for the courses taken outside the College of Agriculture is not as clear. If it is assumed that the credits taken outside the College of Agriculture have.a cost equal to the average cost per student-credit- hour, a rough estimate of the cost of instruction can be made. For 1965- 1966, the costs per SCH in those departments in which our student completed Credits Required B 116 - Elements of Plant Pathology B 24 - General Accounting E 22 - Vocabulary Building Ph 21 - General Physics SP 27 - Advanced Public Speaking M 20 - Basic Concepts in Algebra 5 5 3 5 3 5 courses were as follows: 117 Department . 1965-66 Department Budget SCH Produced Bv Dept. Cost Per SCH SCH Taken by Student Cost of Instruction Botany and Plant Pathology $173,470 18,550 $ 9.35 5 $ 46.75 Business 389,633 33,700 11.56 5 57.80 English 479,214 51,569 9.33 3 27.99 Physics 181,796 11,437 15.90 5 79.50 Speech Arts 105,695 9,227 11.45 3 34.35 Mathematics 408,527 46,674 8.75 5 43.75 Total $290.14 This assumption should be explored further. All of the courses listed are taught as multiple-section course divisions with many sections offered. For example, Bu 24 - General Accounting was taught in 21 sections with registrations numbering, 41, 37, 34, 35,41, 24, 40, 39, 33, 31, 38, 30, 27, 32, 32, 33, 41, 40, 36, 40, and 37. An average cost curve for a course of this kind would be kinked and linear with this large number of sections. From Figure I it is possible to visualize the average cost.curve for this course. There.would tend to be a linear relationship between the number of student registrations and the total cost of the course, all other factors being constant. This implies that space is not a problem, as this development does. If the factor of space were considered, one might expect the average cost curve to move upward as large numbers of students are added. From the preceding two computations, it can be said that the cost of the course work completed by our student was as follows: 118 Courses taken within the College of Agriculture $000.00 Courses taken outside the College of Agriculture 290.14 Total direct cost of instruction $290.14 To this must be added a pro-rata share of the overhead costs of the university; that is to say, the indirect expenditures of the institution must be allocated to the various functions of the university. The total costs of a university include those expenditures which are readily identifiable as being related exclusively to a particular function, service, college of.department (these are the direct costs as cpmputed for our student above) and an appropriate share of the expenditures which are incurred in behalf of more than one function or unit (these are.the indirect costs). Indirect expenditures include those for general administration and expense, library operation, and the maintenance and operation of the physical plant. A number of methods for allocating indirect expenditures are.known and.widely used. Only a brief summary of the methods commonly used will be given here. Each of these methods is and has been the subject.of examination and improvement for years. I/ The expenditures for general administration and general expense may be allocated on a dollar-volume basis, that is, the relation of the direct expenditures for a function ,or unit to the total current expenditures for the university. Total current I/. Clarence Scheps, Accounting for Colleges and Universitites, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1949, pp. 265-305; and The National Committee .on the Preparation of a Manual on College and University Business Administration, College and University Business Administration, Vol. I and II, Washington, D. C., 1955,. pp. 120-134. 119 expenditures must exclude, of course, expenditures for general administra­ tion and general expense. This approach assumes that a dollar expended in one function requires no more."administration" than a dollar expended for another function. Library expenditures can be allocated to instruction on the basis of the extent of use of library facilities and services by students and faculty. This requires some method of establishing load on the library expressed in.terms of student-credit^hours, or the number of students, graduate and undergraduate; Physical plant.maintenance and operation expenditures can be allocated on,the basis of the extent of the use made of physical plant space, facilities, and services by the various functions in the university. The area factor (or volume of space used) is adjusted for the time the plant is in use. Obviously, very complicated methods requiring much time and effort can be employed in this exercise for determining the most accurate and logical basis for allocating plant maintenance and operation expenditures. A word, must be said about, depreciation. Kester 7J describes depreci­ ation as an element in cost arising out of the use of long-lived assets in business operation and closely bound up with problems of accounting 2/ Roy B, Kester,. Depreciation, New York, Ronald Press Company, 1924, p. 2. 120 for profits, taxation of business, accounting for earnings which are available for distribution of dividends, negotiations of long-time loans, the purchase and sale of business enterprises, the determination of the limitation of capitalization, and the current commercial value of going concerns„ Education institutions are not profit producing enterprises. Neither their incomes nor their property ordinarily is subject to tax. Loan terms are.rarely obtained by liens on real property. Hence, the fundamental purposes in determining and accounting for depreciation do not apply to these enterprises. The consensus appears to be that the taking of depreciation on the educational plant of a university has little It is possible to make an approximation of the amount of indirect expenditure which should be allocated to the credits completed by our transfer student in his junior and senior years by establishing the percentage distribution of total educational and general expenses by institutional function for Colorado State University in 1965-66. This is similar to the procedure described in the Oklahoma data in Chapter II. value. Percent of Total Expenditures 3/ General Administration and General Expense Library Expense Physical Plant Maintenance 11.71 6.67 and Operation Total 11.58 29.96 3/. Office of Budgets, Statement of 1968-69 Budget Request for Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado State University, 1967, p. 3. ■ 121 The-direct cost of .instruction has been computed as•$290^14. This, based on the percentages above, constitutes 70,04 percent of total■cost; thus, $290o14 mT „7004 gives an approximation of total cost of $414.25 for the instruction of this student for two years. To this point, this analysis has concerned itself with the estimated cost of instruction of a specific student, a transfer student majoring in Landscape and Nursery Management. An analysis of the income available for instructional purposes at Colorado State.University in 1965-66 reveals 4/ that 32.03 percent of total income available was derived from student tuition charges. Source of Income Amount Percent of Total State Appropriation Tuition Income Other Income. 7,395,332 63.50 3,730,330 32.03 500,450 4.47 Total 11,646,112 100.00 The average cost per FTE student for the entire university for that year was $972.54 ($11,646,112 -r 11,975 FTE students)„ The tuition charge for students who were residents of Colorado was $225 for the academic year for non-residents the charge was $900. For the university as a whole, all students were paying an amount of tuition which was less than the average cost per FTE student. 4/ Ibid. 122 Percent of Tuition Average Average Cost - Paid by Cost Per Per Student Student FTE Student Paid by Student Colorado Resident Student $225.00 $972.54 23.13 Non-Resident Student 900.00 972.54 92.54 The transfer student in Landscape and Nursery Management paid, if he had been a Colorado resident, 108.63 percent of the cost of his instruction as computed in the earlier paragraphs. If he had been a non-resident, he would have paid 434.53 percent of the cost of his instruction. In planning for the optimum use of the fiscal resources available to a university, this information has a number of implications. To enter Colorado State University, a student must surmount three barriers. The first, the income barrier, is the tuition and student fee charge (for athletics, student health services, student union fees, etc.). The tuition rate for 1965-66 has already been described. The increase in tuition rates (excluding student fees) in recent years is described in Table LIV. The tuition escalation at Colorado State University has been partic­ ularly rapid in recent years. Some observers insist that no further escalation is possible without having a drastic effect on the demand for educational services. Colorado State University is determined that it will do everything possible to assure that no academically promising student is prevented from attending the university because of lack of funds. 123 TABLE LIV. TUITION CHARGES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1959-1960 THROUGH 1968-69. Year Colorado Student Non-Resident Student 1959-60 $126 $ 426 1960-61 141 486 1961-62 141 486 1962-63 ' 141 561 1963-64 141 561 1964-65 225 810 1965-66 225 810 1966-67 225 900 1967-68 225 1,002 124 The second barrier to admission is the university admission standard. The stated admissions policy for the first-time-entering freshman is as follows: "Colorado State University seeks to admit those first­ time entering freshmen who present a record of intellectual performance and potential, evidencing the probability of satisfactory performance in the academic program of the University. The admission decision is based on information including secondary school grades, class rank, pattern of high school academic units and trend in quality of high school performance, scholastic aptitude test scores, principal- counselor recommendations, leadership qualities, citizenship record, and appropriateness of proposed field of study. The most significant factor considered is scholastic achievement in the secondary school program, but no single.criterion for admission is employed. For the admission of both resident and non-resident first- time-entering freshmen, major emphasis is placed on the require­ ment that the student rank in the upper one-half of his high school graduating class. The other information mentioned, such as counselor recommendations and verbal and quantitative scholastic aptitude scores of the College Entrance Examination Board tests, is evaluated in conjunction with the rank in high school graduating class in arriving at the admissions decision." The admission requirement for the transfer student is stated as follows: "An undergraduate student with a satisfactory academic, record in another institution of recognized standing may apply for admission to Colorado State University. The applicant,is accepted on the basis of his previous academic record and his proposed program. Transfer students are expected to have a "C" average in all previous college work to be considered for admission. When computing the average for admission, the University includes credits of failure (F), withdrawn failing (WF), or repeats in the total credits attempted at.all colleges and universities. Evaluation of transfer record is made only from official transcripts after the student has been accepted for admission. Courses with a "D" grade are acceptable in transfer into all 125 colleges of-the University except into the college of engineering and the college of forestry and natural resources. As a general rule, the maximum credit which may be allowed in transfer from an approved junior college is 96 quarter credits. Students who have completed more than 96 quarter credits during two years at a junior college may apply during their senior year at Colorado State University for acceptance of the actual number of credits earned at the junior college. Such credits will be allowed provided they are needed for graduation and do not exceed one-half of the total credits required for the degree in a particular major. After a student has completed the equivalent of 2 years of college courses, credit will not be allowed for courses completed at a junior college." A final barrier is that imposed by the Colorado legislature with respect to the admission of the non-resident student. No specific limita tions are.written into the law, but the documents describing legislative intent which accompany appropriation bills constitute compulsion. Residence is not a direct condition for the admittance for either the graduate student or the transfer student, although historically, the Colorado legislature has been critical of the large numbers of students from "outside Colorado" whom the Colorado taxpayers are called upon to educate. To return to the admissions standards, the fact that there is no single criterion for admission for the first-time-entering freshman is important. If one begins with the objective of serving as many qualified students as possible with a given level of budget, the analysis in the preceding chapters would indicate that the admissions decision could be weighted on the basis of.the program of studies desired. The list of criteria employed in the admissions decision would now look like this: 126 Student Considerations (1) Secondary school grades (2) Class rank (3) Pattern of high school academic units (4) Trend in quality of high school performance (5) Scholastic .aptitude test scores (6) Principal-counselor recommendations (7) Leadership qualities (8) Citizenship record (9) Appropriateness of proposed field of.study University Considerations (10) Cost circumstances of field of study selected (a) Do teaching sections now have unused capacity? (b) Is the field of study selected a new area with small numbers of students enrolled? (c) Is the curriculum of the vocational-technical sort? (d) During which quarter is the student enrolling? The application of internal cost considerations to the admissions decision can increase educational opportunity to many students at little or no additional cost to the institution. Return again to the tuition (or income) barrier to admission. There is considerable evidence that family income is associated with educational attainment. Brazer and David 5/ assert that among other factors incomes are associated with more than average educational attainment. At 5/ Harvey E. Brazer and Martin David, Social and Economic Determinants of the Demand for Education, Economics of Higher Education (Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, OE-50027). 127 Colorado State University, approximately 800 applications for student scholarships were denied in 1965-66 for lack of university funds. The scholarships are awarded on the basis of need and scholarship. A student had little chance of being awarded any assistance unless he was a strong "B" student. Many students with C+ to B+ records who had financial needs were denied assistance. University records reveal that some students drop out each year because of lack of funds. Clearly, it would make sound fiscal sense to provide funds to those students pursuing courses of study in those departments and colleges where low or no cost teaching at the margin was possible. Given the earlier assumptions, the picture for our additional non-resident student is outlined in the diagram which follows: I. Expenditure by the University A. For teaching expense University $None. UR Faculty salaries, etc. B . For one. tuition scholarship $900University Student Income.to the University C. From one student University a. $900 Student Net to University D. C = A + B and thereby one more year of educational achievement by one more student at no cost to the university III. 128 There are other possibilities for serving additional students as well. The student attrition from quarter to quarter in 1965-66 for the two colleges considered is given here. 1965-66 All Undergraduate Manors Enrolled College of Agriculture Percent of Fall Quarter College of Engineering Percent of Fall Quarter Fall Quarter 597 100.00 865 100.00 Winter Quarter 581 97.32 792 91.56 Spring Quarter 565 94.63 736 84.86 The attrition rate in the College of Engineering is particularly significant. Recall that very little course work is done by freshmen within the College of Engineering. The freshmen year curriculum is characterized by courses in mathematics, chemistry, and English composi­ tion. The specific courses in mathematics are analytic geometry and calculus. In the sophomore year the specific mathematics courses are analytic geometry, and calculus, and differential calculus. University records reveal that many of the student casualties occur in mathematics„ It may be that an additional investment in the form of student academic assistance (tutors in dormitories, evening television lectures in dormitories and libraries, discussion sessions with paid graduate assistants, smaller section sizes in the mathematics sections) might retain some of the majors in their programs. The cost of this invest­ ment may be balanced against both the tuition the student will return in his junior and senior years in college and the increase in human capital which comes with his continued education. 129 1965-66 College of Engineering Freshman Majors Percent of Fall Quarter Sophomore Majors Percent of Fall Quarter Fall Quarter 329 100.00 194 100.00 Winter Quarter 304 92.40 179 92.27 Spring Quarter 283 86.02 163 84.02 The mention of human capital introduces another possibility. The existence of unused capacity in a number of university curricula affords an opportunity to furnish financial assistance to foreign students for additional educational achievement. Investment in human capital is a distinctive and important feature of any economy. 6/ A major source of human capital is education; economic progress is much dependent upon the knowledge and skills that education produces. In many countries of the world, the limiting factor in achieving economic growth is ignorance. For a small university investment, it could be possible to teach substantial numbers of foreign students in agriculture and engineering. Not only would the society to which the foreign student return gain, but there could also be a gain to the university community from the foreign student's presence. The foreign student is .an educational resource in a university. Part of a university education ought to include the knowledge 6/ Schultz, Theodore, Rise in the Capital Stock Represented by Education in the United States, 1900-57, Economics of Higher Education, (Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, OE-50027, 1962, p. 93). 130 ■that not all the values of life are those which prevail in the American student's home, community, and nation. The fraternization of the American and the foreign student can yield enrichment for both. The analysis in Chapters VI and VII can be useful in planning and budgeting additional faculty positions. Generally> requests for additional faculty are made by academic deans and department heads on the basis of increased teaching loads and responsibilities to the department or college. The increase in load claim is often made on the basis of increased load as manifested in increasing student-credit-hour production or increasing numbers of majors. The data for the College of Agriculture offer a case for examination. Student-credit-hour production increased significantly during the years 1963-64 through 1966-67, from 6,336 to 7,866, an increase of 24.15 percent. Student-Credit- Number of Majors_______ _________Hours Produced Year Lower Division Upper Division Graduate Division Lower Division -Upper Division Graduate Division 1963-64 260 350 76 9,337 6,336 492 1964-65 245 273 75 8,229 6,605 689 S'INZAII 253 344 91 7,595 6,868 1,002 1966-67 254 323 108 9,013 7,866 907 Without the information relating to section size now available, academic administrators may have concluded that an increase in staff was necessary to carry this additional.load. Add to the data on student-credit- hours produced the information relating to the number of sections at the upper division with 20 or less registrations. 131 Total sections Lecture sections Laboratory sections Single sections Multiple sections 76.98 percent 76.29 percent 79.31 percent 78.30 percent 70..00 percent The case for additional staff to teach upper division courses is less clear. Additional faculty were provided for in the College of Agriculture during these years. One would hope that this increase in staff resulted in some reduction in teaching loads, or some enrichment in the graduate and research program. Information relating to section size, distribution of size, and student registrations accommodated could, if made available to department and college curriculum committees, be of use in planning course additions, deletions, and changes. An action taken by a curriculum committee increasing the number of courses offered by a college is in a real sense a commitment of future resources. Funds committed to additional courses in a college curriculum cannot be spent again for salary increases or for the services of laboratory ,assistants. Curriculum committees should have information relating to the economics of section and class size available to them. Some incentive to control the number of courses offered might be established if the curriculum committee were to under­ stand that any "savings" which arise within a department or college from FTE Faculty 1963- 64 1964- 65 1965- 66 1966- 67 30.09 31.24 30.93 35.13 t ) 132 a curriculum revision that reduces the number of courses and/or sections offered become available to that department or college for other purposes. Information about the capacity Of a college or department to teach additional students without adding to total instructional cost can be helpful to those responsible for administering a student financial assistance program. Student financial assistance can take the form of scholarships, grants, loans, work-study assistance and the like. The existence of unused capacity can be considered in construction of a program of financial assistance for the individual student. 133 APPENDICES 134 APPENDIX A STUOENT-CREOIT-HOUR PRODUCTION BY COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENT FALL-WINTER-SPRING QUARTER 65-66 COLLEGE DEPARTMENT LOWER PERCENT UPPER PERCENT GRAD PERCENT TOTAL AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE RESIDENTS 145.0 62.77 86.0 37.23 231.0 NON-RESIDENTS 49.0 56.98 37.0 43.02 86.0ALL STUDENTS 194.0 61.20 123.0 38.80 317.0AGRONOMY RESIDENTS 1482.0 41.64 1997.0 56.11 80.0 2.25 3559.0NON-RESIDENTS 848.0 40.38 955.0 45.48 297.0 14.14 2100.0 ALL STUDENTS 2330.0 41.17 2952.0 52.16 377.0 6 • 66 5659.0 ANIMAL SCIENCE RESIDENTS 1870.0 50.82 1651.0 * * GD 159.0 4.32 3680.0 NON-RESIDENTS 1019.0 48.83 854.0 40.92 214.0 10.25 2087.0ALL STUDENTS 2889.0 50.10 2505.0 43.44 373.0 6.47 5767.0ENTOMOLOGY RESIDENTS 776.0 69.60 300.0 26.91 39.0 3.50 1115.0NON-RESIDENTS 295.0 52.49 226.0 40.21 41.0 7.30 562.0ALL STUDENTS 1071.0 63.86 526.0 31.37 80.0 4.77 1677.0HORTICULTURE RESIDENTS 660.0 57.64 463.0 40.44 22.0 1.92 1145.0NON-RESIDENTS 196.0 42.79 170.0 37.12 92.0 20.09 458.0ALL STUDENTS 856.0 53.40 633.0 39.49 114.0 7.11 1603.0POULTRY RESIDENTS 195.0 63.11 89.0 28.80 25.0 8.09 309.0NON-RESIDENTS 60.0 45.11 40.0 30.08 33.0 24.81 133.0ALL STUDENTS 255.0 57.69 129.0 29.19 58.0 13.12 442.0 TOTAL RESIDENTS 5128.0 51.08 4586.0 45.68 325.0 3.24 10039.0NON-RESIDENTS 2467.0 45.47 2282.0 42.06 677.0 12.48 5426.0ALL STUDENTS 7595.0 49.11 6868.0 44.41 1002.0 6.48 15465.0 135 136 APPENDIX B m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m FACULTY STUDY - FULL TIME DATE 1965-66 ilV.o•ii BASIS DEPT. ANNUAL NINE ANNUAL ANNUAL RI FTE NAME OF SALARY MONTHS PERA SALARY LESS SERVICE RATE EQUIVALENT DEPT SUMMER CURTIS BYRO C 12 11010 12.700.00 10,390.88 207.84 3,463.56 3,463.56 . 333 DANIELSON ROBERT E 12 11010 12.900.00 10,554.52 422.28 7,036.32 7,036.32 .6e>7 OOTZENKO ALEXANDER D 12 11010 11,200.00 9,163.61 366.60 6,109.08 5,090.90 .556 OOXTADER KENNETH G 12 11010 9,800.00 8,018.16 51.29 853.76 853.76 . 106 HAUS THILO E 12 11010 13,400.00 10,963.61 511.68 8,527.32 8,527.32 .778 JOHNSON DONAL D 12 11010 13,800.00 11,290.88 401.40 6,690.96 6,690.96 .593 LEONARD WARREN H 12 11010 15,000.00 12,272.70 572.76 9,545.40 9,545.40 .778 LINDSAY WILLARD L 12 11010 11,600.00 9,490.88 253.20 3,624.36 3,624.36 .382 PHIPPS ROGER L 12 11010 6,000.00 4,909.08 130.92 2,181.84 2,181.84 .444 REEVES DALE L 12 11010 6,200.00 5,072.71 270.60 4,509.12 4,509.12 .889 ROMINE DALE S 12 11010 10,700.00 8,754.52 350.16 5,836.44 5,836.44 . 6b7 ROMSDAL STANTON D 12 11010 8,900.00 7,281.80 145.68 2.427.24 2,427.24 .333 SCHMEHL WILLARD R 12 11010 15,700.00 12,845.42 513.84 8,563.56 8,563.56 .667 WHITNEY ROBERT S 12 11010 17,500.00 14,318.15 477.24 7,954.56 7,954.56 .556 WOOD DONALD R 12 11010 13,500.00 11,045.43 441.72 7,363.68 7,363.68 .667 TO BE ASSIGNED 12 11010 10,300.00 8,427.25 51.50 858.30 858.30 .102 BLACKBURN THOMAS R 10 IlOll 11,500.00 10,350.00 690.00 11,500.00 10,350.00 1.000 BULLIS DANIEL D 12 non 9,000.00 7,363.62 . 7,363.68 7,363.68 1.000 CONNELL WILLIAM E 12 11011 12,100.00 9,899.97 594.00 9,900.00 9,900.00 1.000 DAUGHERTY FORD C 12 non 14,200.00 11,618.15 542.16 9,036.36 9,036.36 .778 ESPLIN A LAMAR 12 non 12,000.00 9,818.16 589.08 9,818.16 9,818.16 1.000 KNOX KIRWIN L 12 non 10,600.00 8,672.70 106.92 1,781.76 1,781.76 .205 MATSUSHIMA JOHN K 12 non 14,200.00 11,618.15 284.04 4,733.40 4,733.40 .407 SNYDER WALTER E 12 non 12,000.00 9,818.16 589.08 9,818.16 9,818.16 I.000 STONAKER HOWARD H 12 non 16,400.00 15,054.51 301.08 5,018.16 5,018.16 .333 STORY CHARLES D 12 non 16,700.00 13,663.60 819.84 13,663.68 12,145.50 .889 SUTHERLAND THOMAS M 12 non 13,400.00 10,963.61 393.48 6,557.88 6,557.88 .598 SWANSON VERN B 12 non 10,500.00 8,590.89 572.76 9,545.40 8,590.86 1.000 WARD GERALD M 12 non 14,300.00 11,699.97 324.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 .462 TO BE ASSIGNED 12 non 8,000.00 6,545.44 349.08 5,818.20 5,818.20 .689 TO BE ASSIGNED 12 non 8,000.00 6,545.44 2,909.16 2,909.16 .444 DANIELS LESLIE B 12 11013 12,900.00 10,554.52 633.24 10,554.60 9,381.87 .889 JOHNSEN RICHARD E 12 11013 9,300.00 7,609.07 194.47 3,240.93 3,240.93 .426 SIMPSON ROBERT G 12 11013 10,600.00 8,672.70 404.76 6,745.44 6,745.44 .778 THATCHER THEODORE O 12 11013 13,600.00 11,127.24 667.68 11,127.24 11,127.24 I. 000 WELLSO STANLEY G 12 11013 9,000.00 7,363.62 294.60 4,909.08 4,909.08 .657 BEACH GEORGE 12 11014 12,400.00 10,145.43 62.01 1,033.32 1,033.32 . 102 DENNA DONALD W 12 11014 9,500.00 7,772.71 155.40 2,590.92 2,590.92 .333 FOSKETT RICHARD L 12 11014 13,700.00 11,209.06 298.92 4,981.92 4,981.92 .444 HANAN JOE J 12 11014 8,500.00 6,954.53 92.76 1,545.48 1,545.48 .222 HOLLEY WINFRED D 12 11014 15,000.00 12,272.70 327.24 5,454.60 5,454.60 .444 JORGENSEN CARL J 12 11014 9,400.00 7,690.89 564.00 9,399.96 7,690.87 1.000 WORKMAN MILTON 12 11014 13,500.00 11,045.43 220.92 3,681.84 3,681.84 .333 TO BE ASSIGNED 12 11014 11,900.00 9,736.34 369.40 6,490.92 6,490.92 . 6t>7 TO BE ASSIGNED 12 11014 11,800.00 9,654.52 531.00 8,850.00 8,850.00 .917 137 138 APPENDIX C EMP NO EMPLOYEE NAME TITLE DEPT COURSE NO--SEC 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU 21 02 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU291 E Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 ST 30 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 ST 30 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU 22 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU299 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU299 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 ST 30 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU 22 Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 BU291 E Ol 142844 D M CARTER 3139 1210 ST 30 Ol 142978 F C CARTER 3137 1210 BU190 Ol 142978 F C CARTER 3137 1210 BU190 Ol 142978 F C CARTER 3137 1210 8U191 Ol 142978 F C CARTER 3137 1210 BU190 Ol 159740 R B CLARX 3139 1210 BU 57 Ol 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU153 Ol 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU153 02 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU 57 Ol 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU150 03 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU153 Ol 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU 57 Ol 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU 57 02 159740 R B CLARK 3139 1210 BU153 Ol 174420 M H COOK 3147 1210 BU 24 10 174420 M H COOK 3147 1210 BU 24 06 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU 75 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU 75 02 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU293 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU 75 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU136 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3136 1210 BU136 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU 75 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU190 Ol 187150 J M CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU206 Ol 187150 J W CREIGHTON 3138 1210 BU291 D Ol 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 05 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 06 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 03 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 03 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 OS 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 06 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 07 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 ST 2 Ol 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 BU 2 04 228380 W C DOOLEY 3147 1210 ST 2 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 7 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 11 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 7 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 11 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 12 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 Ol 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 8 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 12 02 229325 W R DOUD 3139 1210 ST 9 Ol HRS NO. CRED CONTACT HRS STUD.CR.HRS YR 3.0 29 3.0 87.0 87.0 W66 3.0 4 3.0 12.0 12.0 W66 1.0 11 1.0 11.0 11.0 W66 6.0 11 2.0 66.0 22.0 W66 2.0 29 2.0 58.0 58.0 S66 7.0 I 7.0 7.0 7.0 S66 3.0 I 3.0 3.0 3.0 S66 1.0 36 1.0 36.0 36.0 S66 2.0 29 1.0 58.0 29.0 S66 2.0 I 1.0 2.0 1.0 S66 6.0 36 2.0 216.0 72.0 S66 3.0 2 3.0 6.0 6.0 F65 3.0 9 3.0 27.0 27.0 W66 3.0 3 3.0 9.0 9.0 W66 3.0 2 3.0 6.0 6.0 S66 3.0 20 3.0 60.0 60.0 F 65 3.0 24 3.0 72.0 72.0 F65 3.0 9 3.0 27.0 27.0 F65 3.0 30 3.0 90.0 90.0 W66 4.0 25 4.0 100.0 100.0 W66 3.0 21 3.0 63.0 63.0 W66 3.0 27 3.0 81.0 81.0 S66 3.0 17 3.0 51.0 51.0 S66 3.0 34 3.0 102.0 102.0 S66 5.0 41 5.0 205.0 205.0 F65 5.0 29 5.0 145.0 145.0 S66 4.0 30 4.0 120.0 120.0 F65 4.0 32 4.0 128.0 128.0 F65 3.0 3 3.0 9.0 9.0 F65 4.0 38 4.0 152.0 152.0 W66 2.0 12 2.0 24.0 24.0 W66 2.0 12 1.0 24.0 12.0 W 66 4.0 38 4.0 152.0 152.0 S66 3.0 13 3.0 39.0 39.0 S66 3.0 10 3.0 30.0 30.0 S66 2.0 I 2.0 2.0 2.0 S66 2.0 36 1.0 72.0 36.0 F65 2.0 36 1.0 72.0 36.0 F65 2.0 36 1.0 72.0 36.0 F65 2.0 35 1.0 70.0 35.0 W66 2.0 32 1.0 64.0 32.0 W66 2.0 34 1.0 68.0 34.0 W66 2.0 35 1.0 70.0 35.0 W66 1.0 38 1.0 38.0 38.0 Sbb 2.0 37 1.0 74.0 37.0 Sbb 4.0 38 1.0 152.0 38.0 Sbb 3.0 32 3.0 96.0 96.0 F65 3.0 16 3.0 48.0 48.0 F65 3.0 30 3.0 90.0 90.0 F65 2.0 32 1.0 64.0 32.0 F65 2.0 16 1.0 32.0 16.0 F65 2.0 30 1.0 60.0 30.0 F65 3.0 21 3.0 63.0 63.0 W66 3.0 22 3.0 66.0 66.0 W66 3.0 25 3.0 75.0 75.0 W66 2.0 21 1.0 42.0 21.0 W66 2.0 22 1.0 44.0 22.0 W66 2.0 25 1.0 50.0 25.0 W66 3.0 28 3.0 84.0 84.0 Sbb 139 LITERATURE CITED Brazer, Harvey E. and David, Martin. Social and Economic Determination of the Demand for Education. Economics of Higher Education. (Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. OE-50027, 1962). Christensen, John C. "Unit Costs," Journal of Higher Education, XII (December, 1941), pp. 464-468. Harris, Seymour E. Education and Public Policy. (Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Company). Hicks, J . W. "Making the Best of Limited Resources." College and University Business, Vol. 23, No. 6 (December, 1957), pp. 41-^ 47. Joliffe, E , T. "How to Establish a Unit Cost Program," College and University Business, Vol. XI (July, 1951). Lewis, Justin. Increase in Public College and University Enrollments. 1955-60. Economics of Higher Education.' (Washington, D. C. : Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. OE-50027, Bulletin 1962, No. 5, 1962), p. 222. Kester, Roy B . Depreciation. (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1924), p. 2. McNeeley, John H. University Unit Costs. (Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, Government Printing Office, Bulletin 1937, No. 21, 1937). Miller, James L. Jr. State Budgeting for Higher Education: The Use of Formulas and Cost Analysis. Michigan Governmental Studies No. 45. (Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Administration, The University of Michigan, 1964). National Committee on the Preparation of a Manual on College and University Business Administration.. College and University Business Administration, Volumes I and II (Washington, D. C.: ■ American Council on Education, 1955), National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education. Financial Reports for Colleges and. Universities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935). Office of Admissions and Registrar. Biennial Catalog 1964-65 and 1965-66. (Fort Collins: Colorado State University, 1964). 141 __________________ . Student Statistical Report, Fall Quarters 1960-61 through 1967-68. (Fort Collins: Colorado State University). Office of Budgets. Faculty Salaries Analysis, 1963-64 through 1967-68. (Fort Collins: Colorado State University). __________________ . Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year, 1963-64 through 1966-67. (Fort Collins: Colorado State University). __________________. Statement of 1968-69 Budget Request for Colorado State University. (Fort Collins: Colorado State University, 1967). Reeves, Floyd W. "The Computation of Unit Costs," Nations Schools, IV (October, 1929). Reeves, Floyd W. and John Dale Russell. "The Computation of Unit Costs," Nations Schools, IV (October, 1929). Russell, John Dale. "Practical Methods of Reducing Cost of Instruction," Journal of Higher Education, V (January, 1934). __________________ . The Finance of Higher Education, 2nd Ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1954). Scheps, Clarence. Accounting for Colleges and Universities. (Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Press, 1949). Schultz, Theodore. Rise in the Capital Stock Represented by Education in the United States, 1900-57. Economics of Higher Education. (Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, OE-50027, 1962). Sherer, Harvey. Progress in Financial Reporting in Selected Universities Since 1930. (Champaign, Illinois: The Illinois Bookstore, 1950). Stecklein, John E. How to Measure Faculty Load. (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education). Stevens, Edwin B. "The Functions of Unit Costs," Journal of Higher Education, XIII (December, 1942). Swanson, John E., Arden, Wesley, and-Still, Homer E. Jr. Financial Analysis of Current Operations of Colleges and Universities. (Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Administrations, The University of Michigan, 1966) . 142 Technical Committee on Costs of Higher Education in California. The Costs of Higher Education in California, 1960-1975.. Prepared for the Master Plan Survey Team and Liaison Committee of the Regents of the University of California and the State Board of Education. (Berkeley: Office of the President, University of California). MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 762 100 0774 5 • I < THESES D378 Hehn, J. H]62 The effect of course cop. 2 section size on the cos- of instruction in agriculture. NAM K A N D A O O H K S S % Co p.-a