1

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 022 326EF 001 510

PLANNING AND COORDINATION OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN OHIO. THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1967.

Ohio Board of Regents, Columbus.Pub Date Oct 67Note-65p.EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$2.68Descriptors-EDUCATIONAL FINANCE, ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, *HIGHER

EDUCATION, *MASTER PLANS, PRIVATE COLLEGES, *STATE FEDERAL AID, TAX ALLOCATION, *UNIVERSITIES

Identifiers-ColumbusThe philosophy of public higher education underlying the planning and

coordination of higher education institutions in Ohio is set forth. A master plan based

on this philosophy proposes to establish technical institutes, additional community

colleges and university branches, convert some municipal universities into stateuniversities and develop new state universities. Proposed financial support toimplement the master plan is listed in terms of support per student and allocation ofconstruction funds by institution. The appendices summarize the 1966-67 dataregarding student enrollment and income-expenditure for the municipal universities,community colleges and state universities. (HH)

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

IN OHIO

The Fourth Annual Report

of the

Ohio Board of Regents

Far the Year Ending

June 30, 1967

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

IN OHIO

The Fourth Annual Report

of the

Ohio Board of Regents

For the Year Ending

June 30, 1967

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

90SITION OR POLICY.

OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS1966 - 67

Robert F. Doolittle

Richard T. Baker

John Marshall Briley, Chairman

Robert F. Doolittle, Vice Chairman

Maceo R. Clarke, M.D., Secretary

MEMBERS

Terms Expiring September 20, 1969

J. Ward Keener

Terms Expiring September 20, 1972

J. Ottis Ford

William H. Zimmer

Arthur G. Thatcher

Terms Expiring September 20, 1975

John Marshall Briley Maceo R. Clarke, M.D. Robert Lazarus, Sr.

William B. CoulterProgram Officer

Robert 0. LehnertBudget Analyst

STAFF

John D. Mil lettChancellor

James M. FurmanExecutive Officer

John H. YeamansFacilities Analyst

III

Raymond L. StrasburgerFacilities Analyst

Henry L. WhitcombFinance Officer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I A Philosophy of Public Higher Education 1

II A Master Plan for Higher Education 11

III Implementation of the Master Plan 21

IV Relations with Governor and GeneralAssembly 37

APPENDICES 39

V

OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS88 East Broad Street, Room 770

Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-469-2575

John D. Mdlett. Chancellor

October 19, 1967

Honorable James A. RhodesGovernor, State of Ohio

Honorable Theodore M. GrayPresident Pro TemporeState Senate of Ohio

Honorable Charles F. KurfessSpeaker, Ohio House of Representatives

Gentlemen:

John Marshall Brdey, ChairmanRobert F. Doolittle, Vice Chairmanaceo Richard Clarke, SecretaryRichard T. BakerJames Ottis FordJ. Ward KeenerRobert Lazarus, Sr.Arthur G. The tcherWilliam H. Zimme-r

On behalf of my colleagues, I transmit herewith the Fourth Annual Report ofthe Ohio Board of Regents for the fiscal.year ending June 30, 1967. Actually,this is more than an ordinary annual report.

Because September 20, 1967, marked the fourth anniversary of the creationof the Ohio Board of Regents and because these past four years have beencrucial and productive in developing the public system of higher education inOhio, we wish to record here the major events not of one year but of ourhistory to date. We believe this report presents a comprehensive and clearaccount of the actions which:have been taken to promote a new structure andquality of public higher education in this state.

Once again let me express the appreciation which the Board .of Regents hasfor the cooperative and generous support the Board has received from youpersonally and from your colleagues in the executive and legislative branchesof state government.

Cordially yours,

PlAO.L.John M"#.111"44arshallBCP3rile

Chairman

I. A PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

The Ohio Board of Regents was created byHouse Bill No. 214 of the 105th General Assem-bly, effective September 20, 1963. For the firsttime in the history of the State of Ohio, a state-wide administrative agency was established bylaw charged with the duty of planning and co-ordinating the state interest in higher education.The Ohio Board of Regents has now completedfour years of activity in carrying out its pioneertask.

It must be emphasized that the Ohio Board ofRegents is not a governing board for publichigher education in Ohio, but a planning and co-ordinating board. There is an important distinc-tion. By uniform provision of law, state univer-sities and community colleges are each individ-ually bodies politic and corporate. The authorityof government is vested in the board of trusteesof each university and college. The duties as-signed to the Ohio Board of Regents do not su-persede this authority. Indeed, during its briefexistence. the Board of Regents can point to nota-ble accomplishments in legislation recommendedby it and enacted by the General Assembly andGovernor which have strengthened the manage-ment position of the individual state universities.

The role of the Ohio Board of Regents is toassist in formulating a state government pointof view in the field of public higher edueation.The chief executive of Ohio in his authority toappoint members of the boards of trustees, in hisauthority to "see that the laws are faithfully ex-ecuted," and in his authority to recommend to theGeneral Assembly "such measures as he shalldeem expedient" must determine the broad out-lines of desirable public policy affecting highereducation in Ohio. The General Assembly in itsauthority to exercise "the legislative power of thestate" must determine the legal powers and thelegal limitations of state universities and com-munity colleges. In addition, the executive budgetand the biennial appropriation laws determinewhat state support shall be available for the cur-rent operations and the capital improvements ofpublic higher education. State government mustmake these decisions. The Board of Regents has

1

sought to provide professional judgment andthoughtful consideration on a state-wide, objec-tive basis as counsel to the officials of state gov-ernment in the process of their decision-making.

In performing its role as a planning and co-ordinating agency for public higher education,the Ohio Board of Regents has had to develop aphilosophy of public higher education, has had tomake explicit a point of view about what theState of Ohio should undertake to accomplishthrough public higher education. Obviously, theBoard of Regents did not start from scratch 'in

this endeavor. In 1963 there were five stateuniversities, one state college, two communitycolleges, and some 33 state university academiccenters in existence. In addition, in 1963 theState of Ohio began to provide financial supportto the three municipal universities in Ohio. Therewere also in existence a considerable body of lawsand a long history of activity which establishedthe framework of public higher education in Ohio.

The Board of Regents has necessarily endeav-ored to build its own basic philosophy upon thelaw and experience of the past, as well as upon acareful review of current needs and emergingproblems. The Board of Regents has endeavcredat all times to do this in terms of the publicinterest, the state-wide interest, which shouldbe served by all public institutions of higher edu-cation in Ohio.

Development of Individual Talent

Education at all levels in our society is con-cerned with individual achievement. Education is

a social and cultural process which seeks to as-sist individual persons in obtaining literacy in

the use of language, in developing their capacityto learn about the world and society of which theyare a part, and in perfecting their inherent abil-ity to perform useful work in society.

Higher education is that part of this formalprocess of education which occurs after secon-dary education. Higher education provides an op-portunity for the high school graduate to enhancehis learning, to advance his capacity to learn, and

to prepare himself for para-professional or pro-fessional employment.

In this whole educational process, the individ-ual student must make the effort to develop his

own abilities to the fullest extent consistent withhis talent and his interest. Others may encourage,guide, assist, and direct the individual in hislearning activity. In the end, it is the individualwho learns and who makes use of learning. Thereis no substitute for the effort of the individual.

State government, and the State of Ohio inparticular, has a social interest in and obligationto this process of education. A democratic societyis feasible only if there is a literate citizenry. Afree society is possible only if individuals haveopportunities to develop and to use their talents. Aprosperous society is realizable only if individu-als obtain the educational levels needed to con-tribute effectively to technological improvementand economic growth.

American society has bsen described in our dayas consisting of a complex technology, an advanc-

ing science, and large-scale organizations. These

very characteristics have discouraged or alien-

ated some persons who doubt their capacity tofunction within such a social system. To certain

persons, technology, science, and organization areconsidered hostile to individuality. Some personsapparently wish to turn their backs alike uponthe benefits and the problems of present-day so-cial, economic, and political life. To other per-sons, technology, science, and organizaticn arechallenges which demand renewed effort by in-dividuals to contribute to the welfare of all andto make a place for creative talent.

Let us accept the proposition that oUrs is asociety with complicated work processes and sys-tems, with an expanding knowledge of the bio-logical and physical properties of life and en-vironment, and with large groups of people

working together to provide the products andservices we require and consume. In such a so-ciety, education takes on an importance for indi-viduals and for nations such as it has never hadbefore in man's known experience.

In our own national history, we have long rec-ognized two basic propositions about education.One was that a common level of schooling was de-

sirable for all individuals expected to participate

2

in community affairs. The nation in this centuryhas become a major community with which weare all vitally concerned. The second proposition

was that higher education was needed in orderfor some individuals to practice essential pro-fessions in society. During our colonial experi-

ence, some nine colleges were created to provideministers, lawyers, and certain other learnedpersons who rendered professional service to oth-

ers. Over the years, we have had to expand ourconcept of common schooling and of professionaleducation to keep pace with changing circum-

stances.For an agency concerned with higher educa-

tion, it is especially important to have a clear un-derstanding of the changing scope of this activ-ity. The period in our history before 1860 hasbeen called the age of the college ; the period since

1860 has been called the age of the university.We need a new label for the period since 1940

or 1945 : the age of research and service. Thesedesignations tell much about the activity of

higher education.Until 1860 American higher education meant

primarily an undergraduate education in the artsand sciences, although the science part of thiseducation was relatively simple. After 1860 three

new directions began in higher education. For one

thing, undergraduate education became increas-ingly practical and more specific in terms of pro-fessional preparation. For example, engineeringeducation, agricultural education, business edu-

cation, and teacher education became importantnew fields of undergraduate study. Secondly, grad-uate study began to emerge, both in academic dis-ciplines and in professional fields such as medi-

cine, law, and theology. In the third place, atten-tion was given to research and to public servicein promoting use of new knowledge. Initially, thiseffort was undertaken with federal governmentfinancial assistance in agriculture through experi-ment stations and extension services. Since 1940,

under the impact of World War II and in con-sequence of a rising concern for national health,the federal government has utilized universitiesfor research and for various services both athome and abroad. In this same period, the revo-lutionary expansion of knowledge has lengthenedthe process of higher education.

We shall say more about enrollment growth in

higher education below. We may note in passing,however, that the rapid increase in higher educa-tion since 1945 reflects not so much an increasein the college-age population in America as itdoes an increase in the proportion of college-ageyouth actually going to college and a substantiallengthening of the time spent in higher educa-tion. More youth have wanted or needed highereducation, and thanks to the circumstance ofgrowing family wealth, more youth have had theopportunity to go to college. Furthermore, an un-dergraduate education has not been sufficient toprovide students with the educational prepara-tion required for various professions. Increasing-ly, students have continued their studies beyondthe baccalaureate level in graduate colleges andin graduate-professional schools.

Today there is no easy or convenient stoppingpoint in the process of higher education betweenthe first year after high school and the topgraduate and graduate-professional degrees whichrequire from three to four years of educationbeyond the baccalaureate level. To be sure, somestudents may not attend higher education beyondtwo years. Others may halt their formal edu-cation with a bachelor's degree. Nonetheless, weshall not have the doctors and dentists, the law-yers, the engineers, the college and universityteachers and tne scientists our society needs un-less we carry the formal process of higher edu-cation through the graduate and graduate-pro-fessional years.

There is another concern which is now emerg-ing. It may be called "mid-career" education.More and more school teachers, college teachers,engineers, doctors, scientists, and others areseeking to upgrade their knowledge and theirskill after 20 years of professional practice. Someform of continuing education may be desirable inmany professions, but a formal mid-career pe-riod of education may be increasingly necessaryin a society where both technology and scienceare advancing so rapidly.

Amid all these concerns with social develop-ments and educational requirements, we shouldrot forget that the first objective in higher edu-cation is to enhance individual talent and indi-vidual capacity to contribute usefully to the wel-fare of others. A system of higher education inOhio and elsewhere in America must always keep

3

its effort clearly directed toward the educationof indi viduals. It is the individual talent whichhigher education seeks to cultivate and whichsociety continues to need.

The Supply of Professional Talent

Among professional educators in higher edu-cation, there is some conflict in point of viewabout basic objectives. Most persons interested inhigher education would agree with the state-ments just made above which point out the im-portance of individual talent and interest in theeducation process. We have underlined here,however, the role of the individual as a func-tioning, useful member of society. This empha-sis does not detract from or deny the usefulnessof the social critic. At the same time, societyas opposed to anarchy presupposes some minimumdegree of socially acceptable behavior and of con-sensus in individual thought.

There are educators and others who think ofknowledge primarily as an individual satisfaction,as a personal commodity. These individuals pre-fer to look upon higher education as a meanswhereby a person broadens his own intellectualoutlook, pushes back his own ignorance, and ac-quires a new understanding of himself and theworld about him. The purpose in such educationis not to make the individual socially useful ; itis to make the individual happier or wiser in hisown personal attitudes.

This is a highly individualistic point of viewabout higher education. We have no desire tocriticize this position in and of itself. But thissense of purpose in higher education raises somevery profound issues of economics and of govern-ment which must be answered. If higher educa-tion is a personal satisfaction, then in economicterms higher education can be considered to be aconsumer good to be purchased like other con-sumer goods and services. The implication then is

that the consumer should pay for the satisfac-tion he receives, measuring this satisfactionagainst other satisfactions in the use of his per-sonal or family resources. If higher education isconsidered to fall in the realm of a desirablegovernment service, then is it a service to be ren-dered to everyone? If it is not v. service for all,then how and why do governments discriminateamong citizens in deciding who shall receive the

benefits of the service? In fact, state governmentshave provided higher education service only tothose who presented themselves for the service,and then have justified retention on a selectivebasis depending upon the talent and effort of theindividual student.

The point of view we would emphasize here isthat higher education is more than a matter ofproviding satisfaction to individuals. In economicterms, higher education may be regarded as acapital investment in creating a productive laborforce. In social terms, higher education may be re-garded as preparation of individual talent to per-form essential services to otier citizens. In gov-ernmental terms, higher education may be re-garded as an essential service whose importanceis so great that government must underwrite itsperformance. It is in these terms that a sub-stantal governmental investment in higher edu-cation must be considered not only as justifiablebut as imperative. Just as common schooling isan investment in democracy, higher education isan investment in social need.

In considering the social need for higher edu-cation, the first concern is that of the bupply anddemand for professional talent. The Ohio Boardof Regents has had this concern in the forefrontwhen making individual decisiov.s about new in-structional programs and new educational insti-tutions.

Manpower statistics and manpower projectiensin the United States have been unfolding a star-tling story in recent years. At the beginning ofthis century, only 18 percent of all jobs in thiscountry required formal educational preparation,and only 4 per cent of these jobs were classified

as professional. The remaining 82 percent of alljobs in the United States included various cate-gories of employment where formal educationalpreparation had not been considered necessary.Steadily, these proportions have altered through-out this century. As of 1964 it was reported that12 percent of all employment was in the profes-siong, and another 31 percent of all jobs werethose where some education beyond high schoolwas considered desirable. This left only 56 per-cent of all jobs in the categories where a highschool education or less might be the desired edu-cational preparation. This trend is continuing.By 1975 it is estimated that 50 percent of all em-

4

ployment will require some education beyond thehigh school, and most of these will be profes-sional. The proportion of employment which will

be available to high school graduates or thosewith lesser educational background will have beenreduced to 50 percent.

These same trends are applicable to Ohio. In-deed, as a major industrial state, these trends willbe accentuated in Ohio as more industrial pro-cesses are automated and as industry becomesincreasingly in need of engineering, scientific,managerial, and other professional personnel.

The planning activity of the Ohio Board ofRegents continually seeks to assess the supplyand demand for educated talent in various profes-sions and in other categories of employment.There are substantial shortages in Ohio of doc-tors, dentists, nurses, engineers, school teachers,college and university professors, scientists, ac-countants, economists, managerial personnel, SG-cial workers, and librarians, among others. Thereis also a substantial shortage of technicians inengineering, health, and business technologies toasist professional personnel in their practice.

There are, of course, occupations which do notappear in employment statistics. The two prin-cipal categories of such occupations are those ofhousewife and of volunteer service to various re-ligious, charitable, welfare, fraternal, and civicagencies. Many college graduates, and especiallywomen students and graduates, will be found inthese two occupational groupings. Thus, highereducational enrollments cannot be clearly andclosely related at all times to professional em-ployment demands.

Representations have been made to the OhioBoard of Regents on several occasions that theprofessional employment of women tends to lagbehind the available or potential supply of women.It is very difficult to determine whether or not

there is unemployment of women in various pro-fessions, since it is difficult to determine when

women are available for full-time or part-timeemployment. It is sometimes said that morewomen would prepare themselves for professionalemployment in various professions if there weresome assurance of employment after their educa-tion. From time to time we hear also that womenare discriminated against in employment opportu-

nities. Where such discrimination may actuallyoccur, we are told that it arises primarily froma doubt whether women who are employed inprofessional jobs will remain a sufficiently longtime to justify the expense of the preliminaryperiod of experience on the job. This kind of doubtis understandable, if perhaps not always justified.

No representations have been made to theBoard of Regents at any time about a lack ofprofessional employment opportunities for Ne-groes. On the contrary, we have been informedon a number of occasions that there are moreprofessional opportunities for Negro educated tal-ent than there are educated Negroes to fill suchpositions. We have reason to believe that there

is no discrimination in the admission or reten-tion of students on the basis of race, color, relig-ion, or national origin at any state-assisted col-lege or university in Ohio. There may be econom-ic barriers which affect the Negro student moreseverely than other students. And there may beinadequacies in the educational preparation ofthe Negro student to undertake college study.These inadequacies may be the result of family,economic, environmental, and school circum-stances. In any event, it is to be hoped that anincreasing number of Negro students will enrollin higher education and will enter various pro-fessions.

The developments over recent years in the

Table 1

Degrees AwardedOhio Public Colleges and Universities

Selected Years 1955-1967

Degrees 1955-56 1960-61 1966-67

Associate Degrees 1,611=11 11

Baccalaureate Degrees 7,504 10,027 16,198

Arts & Sciences 2,512 3,801 7,186

Business Administration 1,723 1,760 2,348

Education 1,700 2,400 3,897

Engineering 616 1,007 1,102

Other 953 1,059 1,665

Master's Degrees 1,459 2,031 4,245

Graduate-Professional Degrees 717 700 788

Dentistry 119 123 125

Law 167 158 261

Medicine 228 212 227

Optometry 21 25 15

Pharmacy 115 115 95

Veterinary Medicine 67 67 65

Doctor's Degrees 266 309 586

Total 9,946 13,067 23,428

award of degrees by public institutions of highereducation in Ohio are indicated in Table 1. Fromthese data, it will be noted first of all that some1,600 associate degrees were awarded in the aca-

5

demic year ending June 30, 1967, whereas no suchdegrees had been awarded in 1961 or in 1956.The number of baccalaureate degrees increasedfrom 7,500 to over 16,000 in the eleven-year pe-

riod. The rise in the number of degrees in thearts and sciences is especially noteworthy. It willbe observed that 44 percent of all bachelor's de-grees conferred by the public universities of Ohioin 1966-67 were in the arts and sciences. This in-crease reflected increasing interest on the part ofstudents in entering graduate study or a gradu-ate-professional school in order to rirepare fora profession The number of degrees in teach-er education was 24 percent of all bachelor's de-grees in 1966-67. Of the remaining degrees con-ferred at the baccalaureate level, nearly 15 per-cent were conferred in business administrationand nearly 7 per cent in engineering. The numberof degrees in business increased only 36 percentbetween 1956 and 1967, while engineering de-grees increased nearly 60 percent. On the otherhand, the number of bachelor's degrees as awhole increased by 116 percent.

The increase in the number of master's de-grees and in the number of doctor's degrees con-ferred by public institutions between 1956 and1967 is especially noteworthy. The number ofmaster's degrees increased by nearly 200 percent,and the number of doctor's degrees by 120 per-cent.

Contribution to Economic GrowthPerhaps no domestic problem is of greater

importance to the American people than thatof ensuring continued economic growth. In com-parison with the accomplishments of other na-tions, ours is an affluent economy. In terms ofunmei; material needs, our economy is one inwhich demands still exceed our productive ca-pacity. Only economic growthan expansion ofproductive output in goods and servicescanhelp to meet our unfulfilled needs.

One study recently reviewed the productionlevels required to achieve various national ob-jectives which had been enumerated by Presi-dent Eisenhower's Commission on National Goals.This study found a decided gap as of 1975 be-tween the productive output required to meetnational goals and the projected productivecapacity for that year. This means that ourproduction objectives for various goods andservices, including national defense, may wellexceed our input resources for many years tocome.

6

There is considerable discussion among busi-ness leaders, government leaders, and economistsabout the conditions and circumstances requiredfor sustained economic grdwth. Although thereis a good deal of disagreement about variousmatters, there is a considerable agreement aboutcertain basic propositions. It is generally agreedthat economic growth means an increasing out-put of goods and services. It is generally agreedthat an increasing output depends upon im-provements in production processes, the expan-sion of productive plant, the development of newproducts, and an increased supply of profession-ally and para-professionally educated talent.

In the past several years a number of econo-mists in the United States and abroad have cometo look upon educational expenditures, and espe-cially educational expenditures at the higher edu-cation level, as an investment in productive ca-pacity. We have come to understand that there isa qualitative as well as a quantitative importanceto a nation's work force. This qualitative factorhas to do with the educational attainment of thepeople who do the productive work of a nation.It has b ecom e critical to a nation's economicgrowth to have a supply of educated talent, notjust a supply of people.

There is still a great deal to learn about eco-nomic growth in the United States, and abouteconomic growth in Ohio. It does seem clear, how-ever, that economic growth in our nation and inour state is related to our educational effort andto our e duc a ti on a 1 accomplishment. The exactrelationship is still to be explored, and frombetter knowledge may come more effective actionto ensure that educational activities and educa-tional support do contribute to economic growth.

One subject of great concern to the Ohio Boardof Regents during its first four years has beenthe research performance of Ohio's universities.Various data available to the Board's staff haveclearly indicated that Ohio has not received itsfair share of federal government support for uni-versity research projects. To be sure, "fair share"is not a clearly defined standard. But some com-parison can be made among states on the basis ofgrant distribution by federal research agenciesin relation to population. Such a comparison isprovided for selected states in the accompanyingtable.

The data in Table 2 show that Ohio has notfared well in comparison with these other states.Inquiries or complaints about this situation havebeen met with the response that Ohio's universi-

ties, and especially its public universities, havenot had the plant, personnel, and other resourcesrequired in order to receive major research sup-port from the federal government.

Table 2

Comparison of Population Distribution

and Research Grants by the National Science Foundation

and the National Institutes of HealthSelected States

NationalPopulation

% Program GrantsNational

Science FoundationF. Y. 1966

% Program GrantsNational Institutes

of HealthF. Y. 1966

Massachusetts 2.79 6.62 8.96

New York 9.36 9.38 15.77

Pennsylvania 5.99 4.04 6.64

Texas 5.43 6.30 3.18

California 9.45 12.22 11.48

Ohio5.28 2.41 3.20

Michigan 4.23 3.08 3.42

Indiana 2.52 3.26 1.47

Illinois 5.48 5.07 5.51

Wisconsin 2.15 1.79 2.31

This situation is one which calls for definite

concern. Federal research grants are essentialtoday in order for a university to build effective

programs of graduate study, especially in thephysical sciences, the biological sciences, engi-neering, and mathematics. It is graduate studywhich provides the top talent important to indus-

try in carrying out its research and developmentactivities. It is graduate study which providesthe top talent important to higher education in-struction and research. It is graduate study which

provides the top talent needed by government in

its manifold services.University research is a basic national and

state resource. University research provides theexpansion of knowledge upon which new products,

new production processes, and new contributions

to health and welf are depend. University re-search satisfies a basic drive of individuals to

7

learn more about themselves and their universe.University research has become a standard ofacademic excellence.

Several studies have been conducted with thefinancial support of the Board of Regents in orderto determine what contributions Ohio businessand industry seek primarily from Ohio's uni-versities. These studies have all come to thesame set of conclusions. It is evident that busi-ness and industry in Ohio are vitally interestedin the kind of higher education which is availablein the state.

These interests are as follows:

1 Availability of graduate education in thevicinity of major business locations, especiallyof development and testing laboratories.

2. A supply of educated talent for engineer-ing, scientific, and managerial positions.

3. Basic research activity which undergirdsbusiness and industry development and de-cision-making,

4. Interchange of information about busi-ness problems and university research.

5. More university concern with and assist-ance to business problems.Our studies have indicated that industry in

Ohio does not generally expect universities to per-form developmental or testing work on behalf ofindustry. For the most part, Ohio industries dotheir own developmental work and plan to con-tinue to do so.

With the small funds which have been madeavailable for this purpose by the federal govern-ment under the State Technical Services Act of1965, the Board of Regents has undertaken toencourage universities in the state to providebetter communication with business and industry.

Three different kinds of activity have beenundertaken to assist business and industry inOhio. The first of these is the creation and opera-tion of a referral service network in order thatany business or industry seeking current infor-mation of a scientific or technical nature can behelped to find the material or persons of interestto it. The state has been divided into eight areasin order to provide this service, and increasingreliance will be placed upon personal contact inorder to make this technical service available tobusiness. Secondly, three technical informationcenters have been established specifically to pro-vide information in construction research andtechnology, in the glass industry through a sili-cate institute, and in the machine tool industry.In the third place, seminars and conferences havebeen organized to provide information about con-struction materials and building codes, aboutinstrumentation and c ontrols, about researchproject management, about laser beam tech-nology, about offset duplication, and machinetool design. In all these ways, higher educationin Ohio is seeking to help promote improvementsin business and industry products and productionprocesses.

Higher education has always been a factor inthe economic growth of the United States. Whatis different today is that higher education hasbecome a more important economic factor thanever before in our national history. Moreover,

8

this importance is tending to increase. We maynot know yet all the ways in which higher edu-cation can and does contribute to economicgrowth, but that a close relationship does exist isclearly evident.

If Ohio is concerned about its own participationin national economic growthand the state issurely so concernedthen Ohio must demon-strate a substantial disposition to develop and im-prove its resources for higher education.

Contribution to Public Service

A major purpose of government in the UnitedStates has been to promote the general welfare.The ways and means of such promotion must bedecided by the representatives of the peoplefrom time to time in the context of varying cir-cumstances. In a variety of ways publicly spon-sored universities have been asked to contributeto governmental action for the general welfare.

The most common undertakings of public uni-versities in the area of public service includehospital servke, agricultural extension, continu-ing education, public television, and internationaltechnical assistance. In addition, universities maybe requested from time to time to make facultymembers available to render public service in themany different programs which are operated bylocal, state, and federal governments.

Without endeavoring to consider these variousareas of public service in any detail, we may notetwo major problems. The first problem is that ofthe intensified demand being made upon universi-ties to extend the scope of their public serviceactivities. The second problem is that of financingthe expense of such activities. Both of these prob-lems have occupied a good deal of time for consid-eration by the Ohio Board of Regents in the pastfour years.

For example, there is increasing evidence thatthe instructional objectives of a university can-not be fulfilled solely by the educational prepara-tion of persons to enter a professional field ofpractice. Because knowledge has expanded sorapidly and because research results have far-reaching implications for professional practice,there is a growing demand for mid-career educa-tion, for an up-dating of skill and knowledge ina professional field. When instructional resources

Ii

of a university are already burdened with thepre-professional education load of numerous stu-dents, it is not easy for a university to respondto the demands for a broadened program of mid-career education.

There is the further complication of obtainingthe financial resources for such mid-career educa-tion. In recent years federal government agencieshave provided funds for the expense of mid-career education of teachers in such fields asthe sciences, mathematics, guidance, and modernforeign languages. The federal government hasshared the expense of agricultural extension serv-ice. And, of course, in the field of internationaltechnical assistance, the entire expense has beenprovided by the federal government. Under TitleI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the fed-eral government has provided matching fundsfor certain continuing education activity. Butonly state and local funds are available for theoperation of a teaching hospital, supplementedby such patient charges as may be collected. Andno direct support has been provided for publictelevision. In many instances short courses andspecial seminars for various professional person-nel are supported entirely by charges to theindividual participant.

The Board of Regents has administered thecontinuing education program under the HigherEducation Act of 1965. The Board has given pri-mary emphasis to projects for the mid-career orprofessional updating of state and local govern-ment officials. These projects have included cabi-net officers, police officers, social workers, develop-ment officers, city attorneys, water supply andpollution control officers, tax officials, and guid-ance counselors.

The Board of Regents would like to see moreattention and support given to public service pro-grams, and especially to mid-career education.At the same time, these activities must necessar-ily be subordinated to the pre-professional educa-tion which is the primary instructional objectiveof higher education.

9

Contribution to National SecurityHigher education in the past 30 years has also

become a major factor in the national securityof the United States. This role is performed pri-marily through the research activities of uni-versities which provide the basic knowledge orbackground technology for weapons systems andspace exploration. This effort is largely supportedby the federal government, and especially by themilitary departments. There appears to be a wide-spread understanding that the appropriate rolefor universities is to undertake general researchwhich may have some military application. Thisapplication, however, is usually realized throughdevelopmental work performed by industry labo-ratories or by government laboratories. In a fewinstances, although there are no such examples inOhio, a university may contract to operate a mili-tary or military-related laboratory for the armedforces or other government agencies.

It should not be overlooked that another con-tribution of universities to the national securityis the pre-professional educ at i on of militaryofficers for the armed forces. All but two of thepublic universities in Ohio offer military instruc-tion as a part of their curriculum. The two whodo not do so are new institutions where thearmed forces have not seen fit to establish suchinstruction. This instructional contribution is animportant service on behalf of national security.

SummaryIn this section we have endeavored to set forth

certain aspects of the higher education functionwhich make the whole enterprise a matter ofmajor concern for the citizens of Ohio and of thenation. Higher education serves the Americanpeople to the extent and with the effectivenessthat the citizens will themselves support. Theimportance of higher education to the generalwelfare is not widely understood, and the de-pendence of all citizens upon professionally edu-cated talent is not always appreciated. Much moreremains to be done to demonstrate the indispens-able endeavor which higher education provides.

II. A MASTER PLANThe first task of the Ohio Board of Regents

was to prepare a Master Plan to guide the actionsof the Board in making recommendations forlegislation to the Governor and the GeneralAssembly and in exercising such direct authorityas was vested in the Board itself. Just as soon asthe Board of Regents was organized in Septem-ber, 1963, it began to explore means for under-taking preparation of a Master Plan. In Decem-ber, arrangements were concluded whereby theAcademy for Educational Development, a non-profit corporation formed by persons well knownin the field of higher education, agreed to under-take a master plan survey for the Board.

The survey inquiry was performed during thefirst six months of 1964, and a final report withsome 20 separate studies was delivered to theBoard of Regents in September, 1964. The staffof the Board used the survey report and studiesas the basis for preparing a master plan docu-ment which the Board itself approved and pub-lished in tentative form in April, 1965. This pro-visional Master Plan was given wide circulationthroughout Ohio.

During September and October, 1965, theBoard of Regents held hearings in Toledo, Cleve-land, Cincinnati, and Columbus where representa-tives of public institutions and representatives ofinterested groups were invited to present com-ments and suggestions. In addition, various ad-visory committees set up by the Board wereasked to make suggestions about revision in thepreliminary plan. Altogether, comment s andrecommendations about the contents of the mas-ter plan were received from some 100 differentorganizations. The Board of Regents reviewedthese various proposals with care and gave ex-tended consideration to the preparation of a finalMaster Plan which was published in June, 1966.

There are two particular aspects of the Board'sMaster Plan which deserve emphasis. The MasterPlan provides guide lines for public action affect-ing the operation of colleges and universities inOhio. The Master Plan of the Board of Regentscannot be a complete blueprint for the operationof every individual college and university of Ohio,

FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

11

whether publicly or privately sponsored. TheBoard of Regents has no such authority. TheBoard's task is to advise the Governor and Gen-eral Assembly about legislation and appropriationmatters affecting higher education and to makedeterminations about the chartering of commun-ity colleges and technical institutes, about theestablishment of university branches and aca-demic centers, and about the introduction of newdegree programs. The role of a master plan,accordingly, is to guide the Board of Regentsin advising about legislation and in making itsdecisions about matters entrusted to its determi-nation.

The other important qualification which shouldbe understood about the Master Plan is that itis not and cannot be an inflexible document. TheBoard believes that the Master Plan should berevised in its entirety every five years. It maywell be that only parts of the document will needto be revised on such a periodic schedule, butcertainly the Master Plan as a whole should bereviewed from time to time. In addition, as vari-ous circumstances change and as the work ofthe Board of Regents proceeds from year to year,modifications in the Master Plan may be neces-sary.

Before commenting about progress in theimplementation of the Master Plan, we believeit may be useful to outline here the Plan's majorprovisions. We shall not endeavor to compare theprovisions of the Master Plan survey of 1964,the preliminary Plan of 1965, or the Master Planof 1966. It is sufficient to note that there wasa substantial amount of continuity or agreementamong all three documents. The Board of Regentshas found the master plan concept vital to theperformance of its duties.

Access to Higher Education

For over 50 years, there has been a provisionof Ohio law which has stated that "a graduateof the twelfth grade shall be entitled to admis-sion without examination to any college or uni-versity which is supported wholly or in part bythe state. . . ." This statutory requirement has

6111116*...

been applicable to all kinds of institutions sup-ported by the state, whether a community college,a technical institute, a municipal university, ora state university. This requirement has beeninterpreted, moreover, to commit the state to apolicy of open access to public higher educationso that every high school graduate who is a resi-dent of Ohio should have the opportunity toenroll in an institution of higher education.

The first question which the Ohio Board ofRegents had to confront was whether this pro-vision of law should be continued or not, andwhether the 'legal requirement of open accesswas being fulfilled in practice or not. The secondpart if this question was the easier to answer,because it became quickly evident that the lawwas not being fully observed and could not bemade effective under existing circumstances.Extensive consultation about the first part of thequestion made it clear that there was no sizablegroup of persons in the state interested in obtain-ing repeal of the law.

In 1963 the State of Ohio was supporting fivestate universities and one state college. Two newcommunity colleges had been organized underthe 1961 legislation authorizing such institutionsand were ready to get under way in temporaryfacilities. In addition, the state was preparing toprovide support for full-time students at thelower division level (first two years) at the threemunicipal universities, Akron, Cincinnati, andToledo. The five state universities had set up 33academic centers in high school facilities on alate afternoon and evening basis, but only meagerfinancial support had been provided by the statefor this operation. These centers did have theadvantage of being located for the most part inlarge or medium sized cities.

The problem of the five state universities andthe one state college was that only one wassituated in a major urban center. This, of course,was The Ohio State University in Columbus, andthe mission of Ohio State was supposed to be toserve the state as a whole. The other institutionswere located in small communities where practic-ally their entire student body had to be housedin residence halls or in approved local dwellings.The academic centers were useful in extendingthe operations of the state institutions into urbanareas, but their facilities were inadequate. The

12

three municipal universities were located inmajor urban areas but their financing had notkept pace with enrollment expansion and theirability to serve students from the adjacent sub-urban areas was restricted.

Finally, the establishment of a public commun-ity college in Cuyahoga County was not a finalsolution to what for ten years had been referredto as the "Cleveland problem." Cuyahoga Countyhad 17 percent of the population of Ohio; thestate universities had located four academiccenters in the County. There was still a need tofind a long-term response to the public highereducation needs of the largest city, largesteounty, and largest metropolitan area in Ohio.

The Master Plan gave emphasis to the estab-lishment of new or expanded public higher edu-cation facilities in the major urban areas of thestate. In the largest centers of urban population,the Board recommended that new universitiesbe created. In counties where there was a popula-tion of 100,000 to 300,000 persons, the Board pro-posed that community colleges or universitybranches be established. In addition, the objec-tive was set of having at least a facility for atwo-year program in higher education within 30miles commuting distance of all the young peo-ple of Ohio.

There were several reasons for this emphasisupon an urban location for future higher educa-tion facilities in Ohio. Colleges and universitieslocated in small towns must build extensive resi-dential, recreational, health, and social facilitiesfor students. The expense of this capital plantand of the operation of these facilities must beborne by the student, since it is the policy of theState of Ohio in general not to build facilities orsupport special services for students on residen-tial campuses. The cost to the student and hisfamily of residence on a public university campushad become the major expense item involved inenrollment at a state university as of 1963. Butreduction in the expense of college attendancewas not the only objective the Board of Regentshad in mind. Many persons living in urban areaswere interested in enrollinff on a part-time basiswhile working in the community. There were veryfew public facilities to serve this group. More-over, many studies had indicated that a largerproportion of young people will take advantage

of the opportunity for higher education if facili-ties are located near their home.

Some individuals did urge upon the Board ofRegents that a system of selective admission tothe state universities should be recommended tothe General Assembly and that a system of com-munity colleges throughout the state should bedeveloped to provide open access to education be-yond the high school. There were two principalreasons why this proposal could not be accepted.The Board found little prospect that any such rec-ommendation would be favorably considered bythe General Assembly. In addition, the Boardfound that many communities preferred and in-deed expected higher education service from stateuniversities rather than from community colleges.

Furthermore, there was general agi eementamong professional advisers on the subject thata selective admission system for college enroll-ment cannot be completely reliable. If there arelimited resources for college education, a selec-tive admission system can determine in nine outof ten cases those persons best qualified to com-plete a baccalaureate program. But there is nodefinite assurance that some of those rejectedmight not also have achieved a college degree. Theonly sure system for assessment of individual

ability and interest in obtaining a college degreeis the actual opportunity given that individualto demonstrate by performance his capacity forcollege study.

In consequence, the Ohio Master Plan calledfor continuation of open access to public institu-tions of higher education, with recognition thatenrollment in residential facilities at the lowerdivision would have to be limited, and with ex-pansion of two-year and university facilities inthe major urban areas of the state. The Board ofRegents has been trying to bring public highereducation into harmony with the facts of an ur-banized America and of an urbanized state.

Enrollment

Under a plan of open access and of urban ex-pansion of facilities, the Board of Regents wasnext confronted with the problem of what en-rollment growth to expect in Ohio's public in-stitutions over the next 15 years, from 1965 to1980. Ohio's public and private colleges and uni-versities had experienced considerable enrollmentgrowth in the 15 years from 1950 through 1965.This experience had been as follows, on a head-count, autumn enrollment basis :

Public Private Total% of 18-21

Year Age Group1950 64,918 59,382 124,300 31.1

1955 72,173 59,427 131,590 32.8

1960 96,105 79,034 175,139 36.8

1965 168,405 97,958 266,363 44.3

While the private colleges and universities wereincreasing their enrollment by 50 percent, thepublic institutions had more than doubled theirenrollment in this 15-year period. Moreover, theenrollment total as a proportion of the college-agegrJup 18 through 21 years of age had expandedconsiderably in the 10 years between 1955 and1965. Enrollment projections for Ohio made in1958 and 1961 had tended to underestimate ratherthan to overestimate future growth.

It is not necessary here to review in detail all

13

the factors involved in enrollment forecasting.These factors include the size of the college-agepopulation, the proportion of the 18 year olds whograduate from high school and go to college, thelength of enrollment at both undergraduate andgraduate levels of higher education, the numberof part-time enrollments (especially of older ormid-career persons), and the development of pro-grams and facilities which attract a larger num-ber of persons into higher education.

On the basis of the survey study and staff

study, the Board of Regents made the followingforecasts of total enrollment growth, on a head-count, autumn basis:

1970 410,000

1975 555,000

1980 650,000

The Board recognized that these f orecastsmight well be on the generous side. Moreover,some of this enrollment growth would dependupon the capacity of the privately sponsored in-stitutions to expand. Indeed, one of the difficultiesin enrollment forecasting is that of estimatingthe future trend in enrollments at private col-leges and universities. The Board anticipatedthat the private institutions in Ohio might doubletheir enrollment between 1965 and 1980, expand-ing from 100,000 to 200,000 students. This stillwould require an enrollment growth from 170,000to 450,000 students on the part of the public in-stitutions in this same period.

The projected enrollment totals in and of them-selves do not provide a sufficient guide line formany necessary igecommendations or decisions.It has been important also to anticipate how thisenrollment growth might be distributed by levelsof instruction (lower division, upper division,and graduate or graduate-professional), and byvarious campuses in various parts of the state.The Board has assumed no marked change in thedistribution of enrollments by level of instruction(65 percent lower division undergraduate, 23 per-cent upper division undergraduate and 12 percentgraduate and graduate-professional as of 1980),but the Board in its Master Plan has indicated aconsiderable redistribution of enrollments by cam-puses. In general, the big enrollment increaseswill have to be carried by two-year campuses andby universities in major urban areas.

ProgramsThe programs of higher education may be

classified in various ways : by level (lower div-ision, upper division, graduate, and graduate-professional) , by type (general, arts and sciences,and professional), or by major fields of study(technical, the humanities, the social sciences, thephysical sciences, the biological sciences, mathe-matics, teacher education, engineering, business,agriculture, art, music, architecture, medicine,law, dentistry, nursing, optometry, pharmacy,

14

etc.). A major concern of the Master Plan was theadequacy and quality of these various instruc-tional programs as offered by the public institu-tions of higher education in Ohio.

The adequacy of instructional programs mustbe determined primarily in terms of the supplyand demand for professionally educated personnelin the American labor market. This kind of analy-sis obviously has to be made for each individualfield of professional education. The Master Planof the Ohio Board of Regents undertook to re-view the best available data and the informedobservations of consultants in order to find outwhat programs needed expansion at public insti-tutions of higher education.

The Board of Regents quickly identified tech-nical education as a program field which had beenlargely neglected by public higher education inOhio. Indeed, a first step was the necessity todefine technical education and to establish certainstandards for its operation. Moreover, it becameevident that a sharp distinction had to be madebetween technical education as a program andvarious organizational agencies which might offera technical education program. There were somepersons who seemed to think that technical educa-tion could only be provided through a technicalinstitute. This is not so, and technical educationhas been introduced into the curriculum of com-munity colleges, of community and technical col-leges attached to state universities, and of uni-versity branches.

Technical education is a two-year program forthe education of para-professional personnel inthree different categories : engineering technolo-gies, business technologies, and health technolo-gies. Technical education follows after high schoolgraduation and builds upon the high school ex-perience. Technical education is job-oriented butat the same time it endeavors to provide the stu-dent with a back-ground for further occupationaldevelopment. While one-half of the course creditsin a technical education program are specificallyrelated to a particular para-professional occupa-tion (such as electronics manufacture or mainte-ance, computer programming, or nursing), one-quarter of the course credits are expected to bein general education and another one-quarter areexpected to be in the basic subjects (such asphysics, or statistics, or biology) related to a

particular technology. Technical education neednot and should not be thought of as terminal ;much and sometimes all of the course credits maybe transferred to a four-year baccalaureate pro-gram.

Some persons have confused technical educationwith vocational education which may be providedat the high school, junior high school, or even ele-mentary school level. Others have seemed tothink of technical education as a kind of adultvocational education for the benefit of high schoolgraduates who never had an opportunity to enrollin a vocational program while in high school. Stillothers have confused technical education withjob-training for the person who did not completehigh school.

Technical education is not vocational education ;its emphasis is upon skill and general backgroundat a higher level of competence than may be ex-pected from a high school graduate. Technicaleducation is not adult education ; it is educationfor the high school graduate who has an interestin and a capacity for a particular technology.Technical education is not job-training for thehigh school dropout; it is a program of highereducation requiring a high school education foradmission.

At the undergraduate level, the Board's MasterPlan pointed out the need for more graduates inthe various disciplines of the arts and sciences,in teacher education, in engineering, in businessadministration (and especially accountancy), inhome economics, in nursing, and in agriculturalmanagement. In some programs enrollment wasbelow available capacity, as in engineering, busi-ness, and agriculture. There did not appear to beany need for additional programs in architecture,art, music, and journalism.

Among graduate-professional programs, themost urgent need was for an expansion of medicaleducation. Some expansion was also needed indentistry, veterinary medicine, and optometry.There were also needs for additional graduatesin social work, library science, and public ad-ministration. There did not appear to be a needfor any substantial number of additional gradu-ates in law or pharmacy.

In developing its Master Plan, the Board ofRegents found it necessary to give a good deal

15

of attention to the problem of graduate study andresearch, first at the master's degree level andthen at the doctor's degree level. While graduatestudy had once been thought of primarily as in-volving the educational preparation of individualsto become college and university professors, thiscircumstance has completely changed. More andmore persons with a master's or a doctor's de-gree are being sought for employment in businessand in government. In 1966 the National ScienceFoundation issued a report which indicated that38 percent of all persons registered in the Na-tional Register of Scientific and Technical Per-sonnel were employed by industry and business,32 percent by educational institutions, 13 percentby government, and 4 percent by non-profit re-search agencies and foundations; 13 percent wereemployed in private practice or in other arrange-ments. In addition, many fields of professionaleducationas in teacher education, business ad-ministration, engineering, agricultural science,art, music, and architecturehave extendedtheir programs beyond the baccalaureate level tothe master's or even doctor's degree level.

The Master Plan survey revealed two factsabout graduate study and research in Ohio andin the public universities. The first fact was that,in terms of enrollment in relation to population,Ohio's programs lagged behind the record ofsuch states as New York, Massachusetts, Cali-fornia, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Thesecond fact was that in terms of quality Ohio'srecord was not so good as that achieved by pub-lic institutions in other states, particularly otherstates in the Middle West.

As a result of these findings, the Master Plangives considerable emphasis to the need to im-prove both the quantity and quality of graduateprograms at the public universities in Ohio. Somepersons suggested that this improvement effortshould concentrate upon The Ohio State Univer-sity and the University of Cincinnati. Othersadvocated that graduate study should be ex-panded at additional public universities whereonly small beginnings in this direction had thusfar occurred. The Master Plan sought to encour-age further development of graduate study andresearch at the two "comprehensive" public uni-versities of Ohio, but at the same time also pro-posed expansion of graduate study and research

on a limited basis at other public universities.The criteria for this limited expansion were tobe local needs, general needs, general competence,and available resources.

It is not easy to determine the quality of anyeducational program. RepeatGdiy, the Board ofRegents has been told by consultants and byothers that the financial support of the publicinstitutions of higher education in Ohio had pre-vented the qualitative achievements which weredesirable in this state. To some extent, this ob-servation appeared to be justified. The recordseemed to indicate that undergraduate educationin Ohio's public institutions had been generallyof good quality, thanks in large part to manyable and dedicated faculty members who hadserved the public universities. There seemed tohave been less interest in buil ding qualityachievement at the graduate level, and the finan-cial support for graduate study and research andfor graduate-professional education left some-thing to be desired.

The Board of Regents has given a good deal ofthought to the problem of how to stress the needfor quality graduate study and quality graduate-professional education. The question has beenasked why Ohio should not send its best studentsreceiving the bachelor's degree to established andwell-known centers of graduate study in Massa-chusetts, New York, Michigan, California, andelsewhere. Without doubt, some of these best stu-dents will continue to seek and obtain admissionto these outstanding graduate schools in thefuture as they have in the past. At the same time,there are compelling reasons why the public in-stitutions of higher education in Ohio shouldgive much greater attention than in the past tothe quality of their graduate and graduate-professional programs, and why the State of Ohioshould undertake to lirovide the financial re-sources for this endeavor.

For one thing, in the increase of populationand of college graduates occurring at the presenttime, there are many good students who cannotbe accommodated at some of the best knowncenters of graduate study. Unless new and bettergraduate and graduate-professional schools areprovided elsewhere, many of these students willnot be able to continue their education to thelevel where they can make their most useful con-

tribution to society. Secondly, if Ohio dependsupon other states for qiiality graduate study andgraduate-professional education, many of thesestudents will not return to Ohio. In the thirdplace, unless the supply of well-educated talent isexpanded, the number of such persons will beinadequate to the needs of this and of otherstates. The competition for top talent is alreadyextensive and expensive. In the fourth place,much of the able talent seeking advanced educa-tion is located in Ohio in connection with presentprofessional employment. There is a tendencyfor many industries to locate new and expandedactivities only in communities where there is anopportunity for advanced education. In the fifthplace, higher education is today a seamless fabricin which undergraduate education and graduatestudy are closely interwoven. Elementary andsecondary education depend increasingli, uponboth undergraduate and graduate teacher educa-tion and university research. Two-year and four-year undergraduate programs d6pend upon grad-uate education for their staff. There is a continu-ing interaction of all educational levels today, andthis interaction will increase in the years ahead.For Ohio to ignore the importance of graduatestudy and research and of graduate-professionaleducation would be to condemn the economic, cul-tural, social, and intellectual future of this pros-perous state to continuing decline.

Finally, the Master Plan of 1966 prepared bythe Board of Regents called attention to severalother problem areas. Library facilities and serv-ices were inadequate at most of the public institu-tions. Very little was being done to provide publicsupport for continuing education, and especiallyin 1-career educatiom The only state effort instudent assistance was a loan guarantee program.The state had provided no specific support foreducational television as such, and there was agood deal of confusion between instructional tele-vision on the one hand and public television onthe other. There was also some question whetherthe state teachers retirement system establishedfor the benefit of the public school teachers ofOhio was adequate to the needs of the public in-stitutions of higher education. On each of thesematters the Master Plan set forth certain recom-mendations.

Organizations and Missions

The programs of public higher education mustbe carried out through organizational arrange-ments. The Master Plan of the Board of Regentssought to provide some general standards to beobserved in the expansion of the organizationalarrangements for public higher education. Tosome extent these organizational problems havebeen mentioned earlier, but it may be appropriateto review the subject as a whole.

The Board of Regents did not begin its worsin 1963 with a clean organizational slate. On thecontrary, the Board was given the task of plan-ning and coordinating higher education activitieswhich already involved a large number of diverseinstitutions. As we have pointed out already,there were in 1963 five state universities, onlyone of which included a comprehensive programof graduate study, three municipal universities,only one of which had an extensive program ofgraduate study, one state college, two communitycolleges, and 33 university academic centers.There was a program of technical education oper-ated by some 10 technical schools sponsored bylocal school districts and approved by the StateBoard of Education. The challenge to the Boardof Regents in preparing a master plan was to findsome organizational coherence in this array ofdiverse organizational entities.

The Master Plan of the Board of Regents pro-posed the following actions:

1. Establishment of technical institutes tooperate technical education programs insteadof technical schools in appropriate circum-stances.

2. Establishment of additional communitycolleges where the population base was suffi-cient and where there was a local willingness tomeet a part of the costs of these collegesthrough local taxation. These community col-leges should offer technical education as well asa college transfer curriculum.

3. Establishment of university branches incommunities where the population base wassufficient and where there was a local willing-ness to meet part of the cost of these branchesthrough voluntary gifts or through local taxa-tion. These university branches would offer a

17

two-year college program and in some instancesa technical education program as well.

4. Conversion of the three municipal uni-versities into state universities or state-affiliated universities in order to expand theiropportunity for educational service.

5. Development of existing and new stateuniversities to meet additional educationalneeds.

6. Continuation of academic centers on alimited scale where there were urgent localneed for educational service but neither thepopulation nor the local support base for a com-munity college or university branch.In devising a comprehensive organizational

structure for public higher education in Ohio, theBoard of Regents was confronted by severalquestions. One was the need for and desirabilityof separate technical institutes. A statute makingpossible the creation of technhal institutes hadbeen enacted in 1961 and extensively revised in1963. Even so, no such organization was in exist-ence when the Board of Regents was created.The Board took the position that in communitieswhere other institutions of higher education, pub-lic or private, were adequate to meet the needfor a college-transfer curriculum, there was aplace for the technical institute.

Another organizational problem was the ques-tion whether university branches should be estab-lished or not. It was proposed that a state-widenetwork of community colleges should be createdto provide two-year programs in technical educa-tion and in college-transfer education. It wasargued that community colleges were more re-sponsive to local needs and interests than uni-versity branches. It was implied that universitybranches were less interested in student counsel-ing and guidance and in helping students to de-velop their capacity for college study.

There were two principal reasons why theBoard of Regents was unable to take a positionin favor of a comprehensive scheme of statewidecommunity colleges as of 1965. For one thing,the state universities through their academiccenters had developed close working relationshipswith community leaders in various cities, andthese persons tended to look to the universitiesfor the fulfillment of local educational needs. In

the second place, the Board of Regents had gravedoubts about the wisdom of insisting that localcommunities should levy taxes on their generalproperty for the support of a community college.The Board felt that such local support shouldbe voluntary, not compulsory, and should not bemandated by a state agency in Columbus.

Another organizational question, whetherexisting state universities should be expanded ona residential basis or not, has been discussedabove. The Board favored the creation of newstate universities in major urban areas of thestate which could be attended on a commutingbasis.

Still another troublesome organizational ques-tion was the matter of the number of new publicinstitutions of higher education which shouldbe created in Ohio. While the Board of Regentswas concerned to expand educational opporunityin Ohio, it was equally concerned to do so on acareful and economical basis. There were somesmall communities which wanted to establishcommunity colleges or university branches. Therewere other communities which wanted to ex-pand a university branch into a full-fledged stateuniversity with an extensive program of graduatestudies. The Board decided that it was essentialto have an appropriate set of standards to guidedecision-making on this subject.

For one thing, the Board decided that new pub-lic institutions ought not to be set up in communi-ties where they would compete directly withprivate colleges and universities serving the samecommunity or the same section of the state. In-sofar as the creation of community colleges anduniversity branches was concerned, the Boardfixed a standard of 1,000 full-time equivalentstudents as the enrollment needed to justify aseparate plant financed by the State of Ohio.Insofar as the development of new state universi .ties was concerned, the Board fixed a standardof 5,000 full-time equivalent students as the en-rollment needed to justify a new state university.These standards in turn were related to a generalpopulation base for an area, as well as to thepopulation of high school graduates and the ex-perience of college enrollment among such grad-uates.

The Board of Regents has sought to confine itsown role to that of a planning and coordinating

18

agency of state government in the field of highereducation. The authority of government for eachseparate public institution of higher educationhas remained in the hands of the board oftrustees of the institution.The Private Colleges and Universitiess

Another important part of the Master Planwas concerned with the role of the state in rela-tion to the privately sponsored colleges and uni-versities of Ohio. As of 1965 there were 41 four-year accredited general colleges and universitieslocated in Ohio and functioning under privatesponsorship. Some of these colleges and universi-ties had a regional or even national reputationand drew their students on a broad basis fromvarious parts of the country. Others of these col-leges and universities were primarily concernedto provide educational service to their own com-munity or area.

Of these 41 accredited colleges and universities,33 were related to religious denominations. Al-though some degree of sponsorship by a religiousdenomination was involved in these instances,often the amount of financial support thus pro-vided was quite nominal.

The BGard of Regents gave careful considera-tion to the question of the desirable relationshipbetween the state and these privately sponsoredcolleges and universities. There were some per-sons who argued in favor of direct subsidy by thestate government to the non.sectarian collegesand universities for each student enrolled fromOhio. There were some persons who argued infavor of a scholarship program which wouldbenefit primarily Ohio residents enrolled in anyprivate college or university. There were somepersons who argued that privately sponsoredcolleges and universities should not receive anypublic support, that private colleges faced withinsurmountable financial difficulties should turntheir property over to the state for operation asa public institution.

In its Master Plan, the Board of Regentsrecommended a Tuition Equalization Grant to begiven on a sliding scale based upon family incometo every full-time Ohio resident enrolled in anyprivately sponsored, accredited college or uni-versity located in Ohio. The Board also indicatedits interest in exploring the possibility of somecapital improvement program which would bene-

fit the privately sponsored colleges and universi-ties in Ohio.

ConclusionThe foregoing account should convey some

sense of the scope of the Board's Master Planfor State Policy in Higher Education as com-pleted in 1966. The Board has found in practice

19

that this Master Plan has been a most usefulguide line in the preparation of recommendationsto be given to the Governor and General Assem-bly of Ohio and in the determination of decisionsentrusted to the Board by statutory authority.The Master Plan is by no means perfect. Experi-ence has demonstrated its utility and its essentialsoundness.

HI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER PLANA master plan is only a piece of paper until

some action is taken by the appropriate agenciesof government to carry out its recommendations.The reception of the Master Plan for State Policyin Higher Education as prepared by the OhioBoard of Regents has been quite favorable. Sub-stantial progress has been made in the actualacomplishment of most of the objectives of theMaster Plan.

Expansion of Educational OpportunityApart from capital improvement appropria-

Iionsto be discussed below several notableactions have been taken to expand the opportun-ity for higher education in Ohio. Three new stateuniversities have been established by law, twomunicipal universities have been converted intostate universities by law, the University of Cin-cinnati has been made a state-affiliated universityby law, a new Medical College of Ohio at Toledohas been created by law, two new communitycolleges have been chartered by the Board ofRegents, five technical institutes have beenchartered by the Board cd Regents, and the con-struction of 18 university branches has been au-thorized by the Board of Regents.

In December, 1964, a special session of the105th General Assembly enacted legislation creat-ing the Cleveland State University and makingpossible the acquisition of the property of aprivately sponsored institution, Fenn College.This action brought public higher educationaddition to the community college into Cleve-land. The "Cleveland problem" in Ohio publichigher education was finally on the road to solu-tion. Cleveland State University opened its doorsfor instruction in September, 1965, and has beengrowing in enrollment since that date.

Also in December, 1964, the special session ofthe General Assembly enacted a law creating theToledo College of Medicine. in 1967 the GeneralAssembly amended this statute to change thename to the Medical College of Ohio at Toledo.The Ohio General Assembly in 1959 had author-ized a survey study to determine the need for anadditional college of medicine in Ohio beyond

the th ree then in existence (one in a private uni-versity, one in a state university, and one in amunicipal university). The report of this surveystudy in December, 1962, recommended the crea-tion of a new medical college at Toledo in con-junction with the University of Toledo, the ex-pansion of the Ohio State University College ofMedic ine, and negotiations for enlargement of theCollege of Medicine at the University of Cincin-nati. it should be noted here that all three ofthese 1962 recommendations have been imple-mented by the Ohio Board of Regents in theperioO. from 1963 to 1967. The Board of Regentsmade its own further study of the need for anadditional college of medicine, transmitted a spe-cial report recommending a new medical collegeto the Governor and the General Assembly inDecember, 1964, and the law setting up the Medi-cal College of Ohio at Toledo was then enacted.

The decision was made in favor of a separatemedical college because the future status of theUniversity of Toledo was still uncertain at thistime and because it seemed desirable to encour-age close cooperation between the new medicalcollege and both the University of Toledo andBowling Green State University.

In December, 1964, a third action was takenby the General Assembly which authorized theBoard of Regents to begin construction of anengineering building at Youngstown University,a privately sponsored institution not related toany particular religious denomination. The edu-cational situation in Youngstown will be men-tioned again later.

During the regular session of the 106th GeneralAssembly in 1965 a law was enaaed enablingthe University of Akron and the University ofToledo to become state universities. The conver-sion of these two universities to state status wasapproved by the voters of both municipalitiesin May, 1966, and arrangements for the transferof property were completed so that the two newstate universities could begin operation as ofJuly 1, 1967. This conversion was advantageous tothe local communities and to the State of Ohio.The burden of local tax support was relinquished

and the institutions were enabled to serve awider area of the state with an expanded operat-ing income.

In 1965 the General Assembly also passed legis-lation which was approved by the Governor creat-ing Wright State University. The effective dateof this action was to be July 1, 1967, or the earl-iest date thereafter when the Board of Regentsshould determine that there was an enrollmentof not less than 5,000 full-time equivalent stu-dents. This provision was amended by legislationenacted in 1967 which permitted the Board ofRegents to make its determination one year inadvance of the required enrollment and for theUniversity to come into existence as of thattime. The Board of Regents subsequently madeit possible for Wright State University to beestablished as a separate institution as of October1, 1967.

In 1967 the 107th General Assembly passedtwo further pieces of legislation of major im-portance. The first of these, which became effec-tive August 15, 1967, created Youngstown StateUniversity and enabled the new state university totake over the property of the existing privatelysponsored university in that city. MahoningCounty is estimated as of 1967 to have a popu-lation of 320,000 people, with the seventh largestcity in Ohio. The county had no provision forpublic higher education. The private university,which had served the community well, neededadditional facilities and additional operating in-come in order to handle expanded enrollment andin order to provide additional instructional pro-grams in the area. The second important pieceof legislation concerned the University of Cincin-nati. The University had indicated its need foradditional state financial assistance but at thesame time sought to continue the communitysupport which had done so much to build up theUniversity. After extensive discussion, the Boardof Directors and the Board of Regents agreedthat a new arrangement whereby the Universityof Cincinnati would become a state-affiliated uni-versity was desirable. The General Assembly en-acted such legislation which became effective onOctober 13, 1967.

The new law provided that an agreement mightbe entered into between the Ohio Board ofRegents and the Board of Directors of the Uni-

22

versity of Cincinnati whereby financial supportby the state would be provided certain instruc-tional units of the University. It was intendedoriginally that such support would be extendedto the graduate program, the law program, andthe health professions programs of the University(nursing, pharmacy, and medicine). In turn, theUniversity of Cincinnati would be designated a"state-affiliated" university and four of the ninemembers on its Board of Directors would beappointed by the Governor of Ohio. The advan-tage to this arrangement was that the Universitywould receive financial support from the state forprograms which were expensive and which wereimportant to the state as a whole, while remain-ing a municipally sponsored institution withmunicipal support. Such an arrangement wasmuch less expensive to the State of Ohio than anactual transfer to state sponsorship would havebeen. At the same time, the charges to studentsat the University of Cincinnati would be broughtinto line with those charged at state universitiesgenerally.

By 1967 there were four community collegesin existence. Two of these were chartered by theState Community College Board before the Boardof Regents was established. The Board of Regentsgranted a charter on February 18, 1966, to Sin-clair Community College in Dayton, and on No-vember 18, 1966, to Lakeland Community Collegein Lake County. Both were operating in tem-porary quarters until their permanent plantscould be built. Lorain County Community College,chartend in 1962, opened its permanent campusas of September, 1967. Cuyahoga CommunityCollege, chartered in 1961, was building its perm-anent campus in 1967 and hoped to occupy it in1969. The Board of Regents also chartered theMahoning Community College on May 20, 1966,but the college tax levy was not adopted by thevoters of the County and so the college nevercame into actual existence.

As of 1967 the Board of Regents had charteredfive technical institutes: the Clark County Tech-nical Institute on February 18, 1966; the Jeffer-son County Technical Institute on September 16,1966; the Stark County Technical Institute onApril 15, 1966; the Columbus Technical Instituteon January 20, 1967, and the Penta-County Tech-nical Institute on February 17, 1967. Three of

these were in operation in temporary quartersin 1967-68, and the fourth was scheduled to beginoperation in 1968-69. The Stark County TechnicalInstitute had not succeeded in obtaining local taxlevy support and was not in operation.

The Board of Regents by 1967-68 had approvedthe establishment of 18 university branches.These branches provided two-year college trans-fer courses in permanent facilities on both a day-time and late afternoon-evening basis. In addi-tion, both the University of Akron and the Uni-versity of Toledo had set up a Community andTechnical College as part of their operation, andThe Ohio State University had established aUniversity College which would expand educa-tional opportunity in the Franklin County area.

In all of these ways the Ohio Board of Regentshad moved since its creation in 1963 to enlargethe opportunity for students at the undergrad-uate and graduate level to obtain the higher edu-cation they wished to receive.

Expansion of ProgramsAs explained earlier, the Board of Regents has

been especially concerned about two broad areasof higher education activity : technical educationand graduate education. Other instructional pro-grams have not demanded the same amount of

attention.There is no intention here to suggest that the

Board has ignored other fields. At various timesthere have been discussions of needs in nursingeducation, in teacher education, in legal education,in engineering education, in public administra-tion, in social work, in library science, and inagriculture. One new baccalaureate program innursing education was approved at Kent StateUniversity, and some planning for other under-graduate or graduate-professional programs wentforward between 1963 and 1967. It is fair to say,however, that little of a specific nature had beenacomplished in these various areas of instruc-tional concern by 1967.

By 1967 considerable progress had been madein organizing and beginning technical courses ofstudy. The four community colleges and the fourtechnical institutes were offering curricula inthe engineering technologies, business technolo-gies, and health technologies. In addition, twouniversity branches had begun such instruction,

23

and plans had been made to expand such branchactivity elsewhere. Altogether, as of September,1967, the Ohio Board of Regents had approvedsome 112 different curricula in technical educa-tion to be offered community colleges, tech-nical institutes, and university branches.

The second major preoccupation of the Boardof Regents has been with graduate study andresearch. This concern was emphasized in theMaster Plan, and the Board has moved to trans-late this concern into action as soon as possible.As of September, 1967, the Board had approved31 new master's degree programs at eight dif-ferent universities. In addition, it had authorizedthe preparation of eight new master's degreeprograms at Cleveland State University and hadencouraged the development of master's degreeprograms at Youngstown State University andat Wright State University.

These master's degree programs serve severaldifferent purposes. In some fields, such as busi-ness administration and teacher education, mas-ter's degree programs are a method of mid-career education, helping to update the knowledgeof the professional practitioner and assisting himto meet new professional assignments. In someinstances these programs provide the additionaleducational experience desirable for entry into aprofession. In still other instances these programsare a kind of preparation for admission to grad-uate study at the doctoral level. In these variousways expanded master's degree programs havebeen important in order to provide an additionalsupply of educated talent needed by business andindustry, school districts, government, and highereducation itself.

At the doctoral level the Board of Regents hadapproved 37 new degree programs at Akron,Bowling Green, Kent, Miami, Toledo, and OhioUniversity, as well as three new programs at TheOhio State University. These programs were in-tended to enlarge the opportunity for graduatestudy at the doctoral level and to expand theresources for such study at Ohio's public uni-versities. Doctoral study and research are essen-tial to business and industry, to government, andto education. In the past, doctoral study has beenconfined largely to The Ohio State Universityand the University of Cincinnati. These two uni-versities are still expected to carry the largest

part of the instructional effort for the Doctorof Philosophy degree. At the same time, sixother public universities had been emerging withfacilities and staff appropriate for graduate studyat the doctoral level, and they have now beengiven an opportunity to demonstrate their com-petence in this field.

At the same time, when instructional programshave been expanding, it has been necessary togive some thought also to the question of qualityin instructional programs. The difficulty is thatquality is an elusive characteristic or attributewhich defies careful, objective measurement. Weare often told that quality is a function of theamount of money devoted to the higher educa-tional enterprise. The more funds available tosupport higher education, the greater the im-provement in the quality of instruction. As thenext section will make clear, by this standard itcan be said that Ohio has advanced the qualityof its instructional activity since 1963. In addi-tion, it is widely recognized that quality dependsalso upon adequate and appropriate physical fa-cilities. Here again Ohio has made substantialprogress since 1963, as will be pointed out below.

But quality in higher education is more thansimply a matter of capital plant and currentoperating support. It requires an input of able,conscientious, and dedicated faculty m emberswho work effectively with students to transmit,evaluate, and advance knowledge in various disci-plines and professional fields of study. Qualityof instruction depends also upon alert, intelli-gent, and motivated students who are eager to /master their subject matter interest and tcYundertake skillful practice of their professiori.There are no very satisfactory methods for evaln-ating instructional effectiveness of faculties.Faculty members themselves are generally sAtis-fied with the subjective evaluation of thei,,:( col-leagues and have contributed little in th/.1 wayof procedures for determining instructionftl com-petence. There are standardized tests at both theadmission level and the graduating level of under-graeuate instruction which can be employed tomeasure student achievement. But these tests arenot too satisfactory, for a variety of reasons.These tests tend to emphasize verbal skill, toassess knowledge acquired, and to indicate gen-eral learning aptitude. They do not distinguish

24

between learning acquired in a cultural contextand learning acquired specifically in an educa-tional context, and they do not differentiateclearly between memory capacity and reasoningcapacity.

It seems that much more attention needs to begiven to the whole subject of determining qualityand achievement in higher education. Much ofwhat the Board of Regents can do in this fieldwill depend upon what is done to advance thescience and art of educational measurementgenerally in the United States.

Operating SupportAs the Board of Regents set out to encourage

the establishment of new state universities andof new two-year commuter campuses, to urgespecialized roles for various types of educationalorganizations and campuses, and to promote in-creased attention to undergraduate technical edu-cation and to graduate education, it was readilyapparent that earlier procedures for determiningstate operating support levels would require re-vision. In the relatively less complex circum-stances existing prior to 1963, the state's sixinstitutions of higher education were supportedeach biennium by appropriations roughly reflec-tive of enrollment levels and of the general char-acter of each institution's instructional program.The four universities considered to be similar inprograms offeredBowling Green State, KentState, Miami, and Ohio Universitieswere givenstate operating support in a common amount perstudent enrolled. While such budgets generallywere determined on the basis of anticipated en-rollments, no adjustment of appropriations wasprovided in the event actual enrollments differedfrom those anticipated at budget-making time.In recognition of the fact that The Ohio StateUniversity was the only institution with complexgraduate and graduate-professional programs, ahigher per student support allowance was givento that institution. No distinction was made, how-ever, as to just how much of the total supportgiven to Ohio State was actually required byinstructional programs of various levels. Finally,Central State College, because of its small enroll-ment size, was considered separately and a specialsupport rate was established for that institution.

With the number of institutions looking to the

state for support on the increase and with theroles of various institutions becoming more di-verse, the Board of Regents set out to deviseoperating budget formulas which would be con-sistent with the principles both of equity and ofprogram differentiation. Equity required that in-stitions in like circumstances be treated in alike manner. Hence, institutions offering fresh-man and sophomore instructional programsshould be supported in a like amount, regardlessof whether the institution was a state university,a community college, or a university branch.Program differentiation required that state sup-port be varied according to the several levels andvarious programs of instruction, in order to rec-ognize essential differences in expenditure re-quirements for different levels and fields of study.

In the operating budget recommendations de-veloped during the summer of 1964 for the bien-nium 1965 through 1967, only a partial applicationof these principles could be achieved. Insufficienttime was available to the Board for carrying outnecessary research into the expenditure require-ments of various levels of instruction, and insuffi-cient basic and comparable information from thevarious institutions was available upon which tobase such research. It was possible in the 1965-1967 budget, however, to establish for the firsttime a common undergraduate support amountfor all institutions except Central State, and toestablish a common graduate level support factorfor all institutions other than Ohio State. It wasstill necessary to make special provisions for OhioState's graduate and graduate-professional pro-grams, and for all of Central State's enrollments.Support factors for 1965-1967 were related directlyto anticipated enrollments and subject to adjust-ment if enrollment expectations were not realized.

In the interim between the 1965-1967 budget-making period and that for the 1967-1969 bien-nium, a great deal of attention was given toimproving basic data on which budget decisionscould be based, upon improving formulas for ex-pressing the principles of equity and of programdifferentiation, and upon determining the realneeds for operating support at various instruc-tional levels and in various fields of study.

A great deal of progress was made in under-standing expenditure needs of various levels ofinstruction, and it was possible in the budget for

25

the biennium 1967-1969 to express all basic sup-port needs which were related to student enroll-ments in terms of standard budget models. Foreach of seven basic levels and fields of instruction,standard expenditure needs of various kinds werecalculated, and the proportion of total incomewhich would need to come from state appropria-tions was determined. Appropriation recommen-dations proposed by the Board of Regents forthe 1967-1969 biennium were determined by ap-plying these standard state support factors toeach institution's enrollment expectations withineach of the seven basic enrollment categories.

The seven standard categories of instructionwithin which standard expenditure needs andstandard state support factors were developedwere :

1. Lower Division: Technical Education, Gen-eral Education, Arts and Sciences, TeacherEducation, Business Administration

2. Upper Division: Arts and Sciences, TeacherEducation, Business Administration

3. Professional-Baccalaureate Fields : Agri-culture, Architecture, Art, Engineering,Home Economics, Journalism, Library Sci-ence, Music, Nursing, Social Work, DentalHygiene, and Allied Medical Services

4. Master's Degree Level5. Graduate-Professional Fields: Law, Dentis-

try, and Pharmacy6. Doctor of Philosophy Level7. Medical Programs: Medicine, Veterinary

Medicine, and Optometry

In addition to improving the methodology ofdetermining various support factors, and as afurther result of the careful study of expenditureneeds of various levels of instruction, the Boardof Regents also was convinced that the overalllevels at which the State of Ohio had supportedits universities needed to be substantially raised.As shown in Table 3, Ohio's expenditures, both intotal dollar amount and in relationship to thenumber of students served by its state universities,have been modest by comparison with those ofother states of similar size and economic structure.

Substantial gains in state support per studentenrolled were clearly necessary if Ohio's state-

Table 3

Appropriations from Tax FundsFol. Current Operating Expenditures of

State Universities and Colleges

Big Ten States

TotalAmount

Actual1966-67

FTEEnrollment

AmountPer FTE

Michigan $193,856,000 137,681 $1,408

Indiana 104,152,000 83,559 1,246

Illinois 186,941,000 102,153 1,830

Wisconsin 95,160,000 86,722 1,097

Minnesota 68,061,527 75,283 904

Iowa 59,178,000 39,848 1,485

Ohio 88,154,000 106,681 826

Other

New York $214,729,000 143,809 1,493

California 416,647,000 237,915 1,751

NOTE : Data include appropriations for teaching hospitals, agriculturalresearch, and cooperative extension. Data do not include anyappropriations for a state scholarship program for higher educa-tion students. Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York,and California have such scholarship or tuition grant programs.Nor do data include appropriations to junior colleges or otherpublic institutions receiving partial support from the state. En-rollment data are from School and Society, Vol. 95, No. 2285,January 7, 1967. Appropriation data are from Grapevine, variousissues, by M. M. Chambers.

assisted universities were to be competitive inbuilding strong faculties and in carrying forwardthe expanded and improved services called for inthe Master Plan for State Policy in Higher Educa-tinn. In order both to carry out this real increase

26

in "per student" state support and to express therevised methodology for relating support needs toenrollment expectations at various levels and invarious fields of study, support rates as followswere developed for the biennium 1967-1969:

Proposed SupportPer Student

Academic Centers $ 250

Community Colleges, Technical Institutes, UniversityBranches, Lower Division of State Universities and theUniversity of Cincinnati 350

Upper Division of State Universities 1,000

Professional Programs, Baccalaureate Level, State Univer-sities and Nursing at the University of Cincinnati 1,000

(agriculture, architecture, art, engineering, home eco-nomics, journalism, library science, music, nursing,social work, allied medical services)

Master's Degree Programs, State Universities and the Uni-versity of Cincinnati 1,500

Graduate-Professional Programs, State Universities and theUniversity of Cincinnati 1,500

(dentistry, law, pharmacy)

Doctoral Degree Programs, State Universities and the Uni-

versity of Cincinnati 4,800

Medical Programs, State Universities and the University of

Cincinnati 4,800

(medicine, optometry, veterinary medicine)

The proposed biennial budget recommended bythe Board of Regents for the period 1967-1969incorporated the proposed new support rates andalso made provision for the greatly expandedsystem of institutions described earlier. Whereasduring the last year of the 1965-1967 bienniumOhio's state-assisted institutions had enrolled a

total of 150,000 full-time equivalent students, theexpanded system to be supported during the two-year period 1967-1969 would enroll 191,000 and217,000 students. Necessarily, the total supportproposed for the 1967-1969 biennium for all ofthe programs of higher education was dramati-cally higher than in earlier periods.

Previous Biennium1965-661966-67

Proposed for NextBiennium

1967-68

1968-69

AnnualAppropriation

$ 84,864,10093,100,330

$160,457,000

BiennialTotal

$177,964,430

337,991,500

ProposedIncrease

$160,027,070177,534,500

Following extended consideration during the107th General Assembly, and the fashioning of alandmark supplementary appropriation measurefor an advance in support for all levels of educa-

27

tion in Ohio, the budget as proposed by the Boardof Regents was substantially underwritten. Someadjustment in support rates was required in thefirst year of the biennium because of the timing

of revenue collections inherent in supporting taxlegislation, the schedule for establishing the Uni-versity of Cincinnati as a state-affiliated universitywas altered somewhat, and a proposal for initiat-ing a tuition equalization program for studentsenrolled in private colleges was removed from thebudget. In all other respects, however, the pro-posed budget was approved and constituted adramatic breakthrough in operating support for

Ohio's state-assisted colleges and universities. Atotal of $325 million was appropriated for supportof higher education, constituting an increase ofnearly $147 million over the provious biennium.

Th9 extent of new support for state-assistedhigher education approved for the 1967-1969biennium is striking when compared with earlierbudget periods.

State AppropriationsState-Assisted Higher Education

1951-1969

StateBiennium Appropriations

Increase fromPrevious Biennium

1951-1953 $ 49,600,000 $ 10,200,000 26%

1953-1955 55,500,000 5,900,000 12%

1955-1957 56,000,000 500,000 1%

1957-1959 74,400,000 18,400,000 33%

1959-1961 90,800,000 16,400,000 22%

1961-1963 105,700,000 14,900,000 16%

1963-1965 126,700,000 21,000,000 20%

1965-1967 178,000,000 51,300,000 40%

1967-1969 324,800,000 146,800,000 82%

While much of the increased support funds wasrequired by institutions newly brought into thestate system of higher education and by enroll-ment growth at all institutions, real gains in "perstudent" support were also made. Chart 1 plotsthe support rates per student received by the sixlong-established state-assisted universities overseveral biennial periods, and clearly illustratesthe gains made for 1967-1969. This chart recordsa composite of support received by Bowling GreenState University, Central State University, KentState University, Miami University, The OhioState University, and Ohio University.

Capital ImprovementsOne of the first tasks of the Board of Regents

upon its formation in 1963, and one of its veryimportant continuing assignments in the fouryears since that time, has been the planning andthe general supervision of massive new state in-

28

vestments in higher education physical facilities.Immediately after the Board's establishment, amajor capital improvements bond issue was placedon the state-wide ballot in November of 1963. Thisbond proposal, among other provisions, made $175million available for capital improvements at state-assisted institutions of higher education.

Voter approval of this capital development pro-posal permitted the beginning of the greatestperiod of physical expansion ever to take place inthe field of higher education in the State of Ohio.Subsequently, in 1965 a continuation of thisphysical plant expansion was made possible by asecond state-wide bond issue which earmarked anadditional $145 million for higher education con-struction programs. Together, these two bondissues made possible a capital improvements pro-gram for 1963-1967 unequalled elsewhere in theUnited States.

These funds, totaling $320 million, have been

$1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Chart 1

State Support Per Full-TimeEquivalent Student

Six-Institution Composite1953-1969

Fiscal Year Ending

29

111111111

used to expand the capacities of long-existing statecolleges and universities, to undertake expansionof new state universities now coming into beingor entering the state-assisted system for the firsttime, to finance the first stage of a new medicalcollege at Toledo, to enlarge facilities of the OhioState University Medical Center and of the Agri-cultural Research and Development Center, and to

establish some 30 two-year campuses throughoutOhio of community colleges, technical institutes,university branches, and community and tech-nical colleges of urban-based senior universities.

As is shown in detail in Table 4, bond issuefunds have been allocated in such a way to em-phasize various expansion goals established in theMaster Plan :

Percent ofTotal Funds

Expanding Central Campuses of Long-Established State-As-sisted Universities 35

Expanding or Constructing Main Campuses of New State-As-sisted Universities 27

Constructing Two-Year Campuses 28

Expanding Medical Facilities 8

Other Programs 2

100

This expansion program, in addition to makingpossible substantial expansion of graduate levelprograms on the central campuses of the senioruniversities, has increased overall student enroll-ment capacities sufficiently to serve enrollmentgrowth through the year 1970. In addition, thegoal of the Master Plan to place two-year centersof higher education within commuting distanceof the homes of all Ohio young people has beensubstantially achieved. Further expansion of facili-ties to accommodate enrollment growth duringthe 1970-1975 period will need to be undertakenin the very near future, and a proposal to thateffect has been prepared by the Board of Regentsand presented to the Governor and to the GeneralAssembly.

CoordinationCoordination is an administrative process which

seeks to avoid conflict among agencies with com-mon interests or concerns and to promote harmo-nious action in the realization of common pur-poses. In the field of public higher education inOhio, there are many different colleges and uni-versities with a potentiality of conflict and with

30

a common concern to realize their appropriateeducational objectives.

The coordinating authority of the Ohio Board

of Regents is limited, since coordination usuallymust be accomplished by participation in themanagement of an enterprise. The Board of Re-

gents has no general authority to issue orders orinstructions to the boards of trustees of commu-nity colleges, technical institutes, or state uni-versities. The Board ot Regents must attempt toobtain harmonious action primarily through itsplanning activities and through advice on desira-ble legislation affecting public higher education.The Board's direct coordinating authority is re-stricted to approval of new degree programs andto approval of new two-year institutions. Effortsat coordination must be accomplished throughlaw, through rules or decisions issued in carryingout provisions of appropriation laws, and throughstudies which may be undertaken from timeto time.

In the first four years of its existence, theBoard of Regents has necessarily had to giveprimary attention to its planning duties and to

Table 4

Allocation of Construction Funds forHigher Education Expansion

Bond Issues of 1963 and 1965

Expanding Central Campuses of Long-EstablishedState-Assisted Universities

Bowling Green State University $14,500,000Central State University 5,500,000Kent State University 19,500,000Miami University 14,500,000Ohio State University 44,200,710Ohio University 18,000,000

Total $116,200,710

Expanding or Constructing Main Campuses ofNew State-Assisted Universities

University of Akron $ 6,000,000Cleveland State University 44,750,000University of Cincinnati 21,831,074University of Toledo 6,000,000Wright State University 9,000,000Youngstown State University 5,000,000

Total $ 02,581,074

Constructing Two-Year CampusesCommunity Colleges:

Cuyahoga Community College $14,021,054Lakeland Community College 2,250,000Lorain County Community College 6,468,922Sinclair Community College 2,000,000

Sub-Total $24,739,976

Technical Institutes :Clark County Technical Institute $ 2,000,000Columbus Technical Institute 3,200,000Jefferson County Technical Institute 1,800,000

Sub-Total $ 7,000,000

University Branches:Firelands BranchBGSU $ 1,875,000Walters BranchUC 2,168,926Ashtabula BranchKSU 1,925,000Canton BranchKSU 2,450,000Columbiana County BranchKSU 20,000Tuscarawas BranchKSU 1,875,000Trumbull & Columbiana Branches KSU 2,071,896

31

Hamilton BranchMU 2,025,000Middletown BranchMU 2,422,440Lima BranchOSU 3,947,550Mansfield BranchOSU 4,259,750Marion BranchOSU 1,952,857Newark BranchOSU 1,992,203Portsmouth BranchOU 2,075,000Chillicothe BranchOU 2,158,404Zanesville BranchOU 2,170,900Belmont County BranchOU 2,150,285Lancaster BranchOU 1,875,000

Sub-Total $39,415,211

Two-Year Urban Campuses of Senior Universities :University of Akron Community and

Technical College $ 6,000,000Ohio State University

University College 9,500,000

University of Toledo Community andTechnical College 6,000,000

Sub-Total $21,500,000

Total $ 92,655,187

Expanding Medical FacilitiesToledo State College of Medicine $ 7,500,000Ohio State University Medical Center 19,869,290

Total 27,369,290

Other ProgramsOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center $ 6,085,000Ohio Board of Regents Master Planning 339,542

Total $ 6,424,542

Grand Total $335,230,803

Less Recoveries under Section 103, Title I, Higher EducationFacilities Act during 1966, 1967, 1968 15,230,803

Allocated to Higher Education from 1963 and 1965 BondIssues $320,000,000

32

its role as a legislative advisor. In general, coor-dination of the various programs of public in-stitutions of higher education has been sought bythese means. In the future, it is possible thatmore attention will and should be given to prob-lems which do require some degree of coordinatedaction by the public colleges and universities inOhio.

There are a number of areas of higher educa-tion operation where common action may be de-sirable. These would include delineation of geo-graphical areas served, elimination of duplica-tion in academic programs, development of com-mon admission procedures, articulation of two-year programs with baccalaureate programs,sharing of library resources, sharing of special-ized instructional and research facilities, coordi-nated academic planning, and sharing of special-ized computer facilities. Such a listing is by nomeans complete but only illustrative of the kindsof problems which deserve some attention.

In exercising its authority to grant chartersto community colleges and technical institutesand to approve university branches and academiccenters, the Board of Regents has been much con-cerned about the geographical distribution of suchfacilities throughout Ohio. As a matter of policy,the Board has endeavored to avoid competitionwith available programs already provided by ex-isting public and private institutions of highereducation. Thus, a technical institute district wasfavored in both Clark County and JeffersonCounty in preference to a community college be-cause e the existence of private colleges in bothcounties. The Board of Regents in 1966 disap-proved the chartering of a community collegein Columbiana County because there was conflictbetween groups of citizens in the area, many ofwhom preferred a university branch. The Boarddecided that the needs of the area could betterbe served under the circumstances by develop-ment of a university branch in the County. TheBoard did grant a charter in 1966 to the Ma-honing Community College in spite of the factthat the possibility of establishing a state univer-sity in Youngstown was under consideration.The voters of the County disapproved a taxlevy in support of the college, probably becausethey believed that a state university would ade-quately meet the needs of the geographical area.

33

The Board of Regents had planned that thegeographical distribution of higher education fa-cilities could be adequately provided through uni-versity branches, but the Board found in prac-tice that there was considerable local pressure forretention of certain academic centers where thearea population was not large enough to justifyfull-time facilities. The Board even approved thecreation of a new academic center in the Ad-ams-Brown-Highland counties area in order toprovide some opportunity for higher educationwhere the population base was sparse.

One of the geographical problems has been theassignment of supervision over two-year institu-tions. Originally, university academic centerswere developed in Ohio primarily according to aregional assignment for each of the five stateuniversities. With the expansion of the systemto 12 universities, the question has arisen wheth-er there should be some geographical redistribu-tion of supervisory jurisdiction over state univer-sity branches. Certainly, in a coordinated statesystem of higher education, a strong case can bemade for a rational assignment of geographicalduties. I..rt reorganization of this kind is not easyto carry out in the name of achieving a coordi-nated structure. There are many local attach-ments and experiences to consider before under-taking a redistribution of branch supervision.

It is not a simple matter to define what consti-tutes duplication of academic programs. It is easyto assert that duplication is uneconomical and un-desirable. It is something else to determine theexistence of duplication. The fact that severalinstitutions of higher education offer the sameacademic programs does not in itself prove dupli-cation of academic effort. For example, all stateuniversities offer programs in teacher education.This is necessary, since the demand for teachersis great and since the number of students seekinga degree in teacher education is sizable. The sameobservation can be made about a number ofother academic programs at the two-year, thebaccalaureate, and the graduate levels.

The test of uneconomical and undesirable du-plication is whether a number of institutions areoffering the same academic program for whichthere may be a limited professional demand, alimited num))er of students to be enrolled, and theneed for highly specialized and expensive facili-

ties. In approving new academic programs, theBoard of Regents has kept this standard in mind,and in the future the Board hopes to look at ex-isting programs in terms of this same standard.

In its legislative program, the Board of Re-gents has sought particularly to provide commonauthority of management for public institutionsof higher education and to strengthen the man-agement authority of these institutions. For ex-ample, the Board of Regents in 1967 recom-mended legislation which was enacted by theGeneral Assembly declaring every state univer-sity a body politie and corporate. Such languagehad been used in the original acts establishingOhio University and Miami University, but hadbeen omitted in the laws creating The Ohio StateUniversity and other universities. In addition,the Board of Regents recommended legislationwhich was enacted by the General Assembly con-ferring the same borrowing authority upon com-munity colleges and technical institutes as thatalready given to state universities.

In 1965 the Board of Regents recommended leg-islation which was enacted by the General Assem-bly enabling each state university to retain in thehands of the university treasurer all student feescharged and collected by the university ratherthan having to deposit these fees with the Treas-urer of State. There were several advantages tothis change in financial practice, both for theState of Ohio and for the state universities. Thefees had been earmarked by state law to beused only for the benefit of the collecting univer-sity, and all fees were automatically reappropri-ated to the universities. By eliminating the de-posit of these fees with the Treasurer of State,a great deal of paper work was eliminated anda clearer record of the actual support from taxfunds to public higher education resulted. At thesame time, this legislation greatly augmented themanagement autonomy of the state universitiesin Ohio.

One result of the fiscal legislation affectingstate universities was the development and adop-tion of a standard program of accounting and fi-nancial reporting for the public institutions ofhigher education in Ohio. The Uniform Manualof Accounts and Financial Reports for state-as-sisted institutions was prepared by the Auditorof State. The Board of Regents cooperated in the

34

preparation of this manual. The result should bea standard practice in maintaining the account-ing records of colleges and universities in Ohioand in reporting their financial transactions.

A major concern of the Board of Regents hasbeen the development of a standard informationsystem for public higher education in Ohio. Thisinformation system is divided into four majorparts : student enrollment and characteristics,staffing (academic, non-academic, and adminis-trative), space inventory and utilization, andfinancial operations. In each area, standard defi-nitions and standard reporting procedures are ex-pected to provide comparable data about eachptate-assisted institution of higher education.The data submitted by each institution is beingprocessed in Columbus and periodic reports willbe published making these data available for an-alysis by the staff of the Board of Regents, aswell as by the staffs of the public colleges anduniversities.

The Board's standard information system wasoriginally devised by a management consultingfirm retained for this purpose. The systems de-sign for processing the data obtained by theBoard was undertaken by another consultingfirm. The programming and processing of thedata have been performed by the data process-ing section of the Department of Finance.

The Board of Regents has believed that a sys-tem of management information is essential tothe coordination of the various public institutionsof higher education. Such information is the basisfor determining the experience of each institu-tion in the management and utilization of variousresources. In addition, the information system isexpected to provide cost experience data for eachinstitution on a program basis. This expense in-formation is required in the performance of theBoard's budgetary functions.

In 1967 the General Assembly provided a spe-cial appropriation to the Board of Regents forresearch and public service. This appropriationwill be used to enable The Ohio State Universityto undertake certain services for the benefit ofall public institutions. These services will includea teacher education improvement program, abusiness review service, an undergraduate in-struction service, development of a high energy

physics program, operation of a hydrobiologicalresearch center, development of a central libraryservice, and development of plans for a centralcomputer service. In all of these fields the inter-ests of the state universities will be coordinatedon behalf of the Board of Regents by Ohio State.

Some exploration has been started looking to-ward coordination of admission policies and pro-cedures. There appears to be a need to avoid du-

plication in payment of admission applicationfees to the various public institutions. Little at-tention has yet been given to articulation of two-

year with four-year undergraduate curricula.

Another kind of coordination has been per-formed in connection with appropriation legisla-

tion. In preparing its capital improvement recom-mendations and in reviewing the facilities plan-

ning of each institution, the Board of Regents hasfound it necessary to have a set of standard spacerequirements and standards of expected spaceutilization. Such standards have been incorporatedin the capital improvement budgets and in theplans recommended by the Board for construction.The Department of Public Works has been mostcooperative in enforcing these standards. In ad-dition, the Board in 1964-65 prepared standardspecifications to be used in the construction ofuniversity branches. It has been estimated thatas much as an additional $5 million became avail-

35

able for branch construction through savingsachieved in this manner.

In 1963 the General Assembly began the prac-tice of delegating to the Board of Regents author-ity to define full-time equivalent students uponwhich operating appropriations are based. Thisauthority was repeated in 1965 and 1967. In thisway a coordinated definition of enrollment hasbeen realized.

In establishing a year-round counting of en-rollment for appropriation purposes, the Boardof Regents became aware of a special complicationsince the public universities utilized three dif-ferent academic calendars : semester, trimester,and quarter. This aiipence of common calendararrangements could and did result in inequitiesin appropriation support. It also was evidentthat the coordination of enrollment loads amongbranches and universities would be facilitatedthrough a common calendar. In consequence, in1966 the Board of Regents announced that, be-

ginning in September, 1968, the Board woulddefine year-round enrollment only upon the basisof a quarter calendar.

This summary of the coordination activities ofthe Board of Regents indicates the kinds of con-cerns which have occupied the Board's attention.It seems probable that these concerns will becomemore extensive in the future.

IV. RELATIONS WITH GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The Ohio Board of Regents is not an institu-tion of higher education. The Board of Regentsseeks to provide a professional and a consideredjudgment as advice to the Governor and the Gen-eral Assembly of Ohio on desirable public policyin the field of higher education.

The basic and important decisions about highereducation are not made by the Board of Regents.The vital decisions are made by the Governor inhis budget and legislative recommendations tothe General Assembly and by the General Assem-bly in its action upon appropriations and othermeasures considered by it. Necessarily, these de-cisions are political in nature, political in terms oftheir concept of the public welfare to be pro-moted and in their interpretation of what thecitizenry of Ohio needs and wants.

Necessarily, in the formulation and determina-tion of public policy affecting higher education,there must be an interplay between professionaland board judgment on the one hand and politicaljudgment on the other hand. This interplay canbe formal or informal, cooperative or suspicious,effective or ineffective.

The Board of Regents has had the unfailingsupport of Governor James A. Rhodes during itsfour years of activity, as well as the fullest pos-sible assistance from the Department of Financeand other executive officers. The leadership andthe committees of the General Assembly havegiven careful and sympathetic consideration tothe recommendations of the Board of Regents.Without this continuing cooperation, the Boardof Regents might well be reporting a very dif-ferent record of accomplishment.

Indeed, the accomplishments in legislation ad-vancing the best interests of public higher educa-tion in Ohio are not accomplishments of theBoard of Regents. They are accomplishments ofthe political leadership of the State of Ohio.

The Ohio Board of Regents has sought to pro-vide through various public documents informa-

37

tion to the Governor and the General Assemblyand to others about the work and the needs ofpublic higher education in Ohio The publicationof a provisional Master Plan in April, 1965, andof the Master Plan in June, 1966, has alreadybeen mentioned. The Board has published threeannual reports, a summary of the Master Planentitled New Responses to Vital Issues in PublicHigher Education (1966), a pamphlet entitledHigher Education and Jobs (1966), a pamphleton higher education developments (1967), currentoperating budget recommendations in 1965 and1967, and capital improvement programs in 1965and 1967.

The Board of Regents believes that it has pro-vided more extensive information about publichigher education in Ohio than has ever been avail-able before. The Board has sought to make publicall information it has had about the institutionsof higher education in Ohio. It has been Board pol-icy to encourage interested groups to learn allthey are willing to absorb about the service andthe problems of public higher education.

Higher education has never been organized andhas never sought to operate as a pressure group.In terms of an interested constituency faculty,staff, students, and alumni higher educationmay well reach only a small proportion of thecitizens of any state. The impact of higher educa-tion upon the economy and upon the welfare ofsociety is quite disproportionate to the directnumbers involved. The benefits of higher educa-tion are enjoyed far beyond the numbers of stu-dents who graduate.

The responsibility of the university graduate inhis professional work is to bring knowledge andskill to the service of others. This the graduatesof higher education have done, generally withoutany limitations imposed upon their efforts. It isthe public benefit from higher education whichconstitutes higher education's claim to publicsupport.

_-

APPENDICES

APPENDIX AENROLLMENT

Table 1 Student Enrollments, Head Count, Autumn, 1966

Table 2 Student Enrollments, Full-Time Equivalent,Academic Year 1966-67

APPENDIX BCURRENT FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

Table 3 Summary of Total Operating Income and Expenditures,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 4 Summary of Total Operating Income and Expenditures,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 5 Summary of Current General Income,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 6 Summary of Current General Income,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 7 Allocation of Current General Income,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 8 Allocation of Current General Income,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 9 Instruction and General Expenditures,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 10 Instruction and General Expenditures,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 11 Income and Expenditures for Research,State Universities, 1966-67

39

APPENDIX C

Table 12 Income and Expenditures for Research,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 13 Income and Expenditures for Public Service Programs,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 14 Income and Expenditures for Public Service Programs,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 15 Income and Expenditures for Auxiliary Enterprises,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 16 Income and Expenditures for Auxiliary Enterprises,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 17 Income and Expenditures for Student Aid,State Universities, 1966-67

Table 18 Income and Expenditures for Student Aid,Municipal Universities and Community Colleges,1966-67

Table 19 Instructional and General Expenditures Per Student,1966-67

Table 20 Financial Report of the Ohio Board of Regents, 1966-67

APPENDIX DADVISORY COMMITTEES TO THE OHIO BOARD OFREGENTS

40

APPENDIX A

Table 1Student Enrollments

Autumn 1966 Head CountsState-Assisted Institutions of Higher Education

University of AkronMain Campus

11,865

Branches andAcademic Centers Total

11,865

Bowling Green State University 11,304 1,274 12,578

Central State University 2,211 108 2,319

Cleveland State University 6,954 933 7,887

University of Cincinnati 24,584 24,584

Kent State University 17,225 5,691 22,916

Miami University 10,620 2,720 13,340

Ohio State University 37,270 3,937 41,207

Ohio University 15,088 4,236 19,324

University of Toledo 11,493 11,493

Wright State Campus 4,694 4,694

Cuyahoga Community College 10,239 10,239

Lorain County Community College 2,750 2,750

Sinclair Community College 2,122 2,122

Totals 168,419 18,899 187,318

Table 2Student Enrollments

Full-Time Equivalents Eligible for Subsidy Support,Academic Year 1966-67

State-Assisted Institutions of Higher Education

University of AkronBowling Green State UniversityCentral State UniversityCleveland State UniversityUniversity of Cincinnati

Main Campus4,748*

12,3532,4195,5268,393*

Branches andAcademic Centers

77830

649

Total4,748

13,1312,4496,1758,393

Kent State University 18,217 2,910 21,127

Miami University 11,969 1,091 13,060

Ohio State University 41,161 2,781 43,942

Ohio University 16,135 2,849 18,984

University of Toledo 5,275* 5,275

Wright State Campus 3,208 3,208Cuyahoga Community College 6,075 6,075

Lorain County Community College 1,983 1,983

Sinclair Community College 1,006 1,006

Totals 138,468 11,088 149,556

*lower division only41

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

3

Sum

mar

y of

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

sSt

ate

Uni

vers

ities

, Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1966

-67

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Inco

me

BG

SI.;

Cen

tral

Cle

v.K

ent

Mia

mi U

.0.

S.U

.O

hio

U.

Wri

ght

Stat

e

Cur

r. G

en. I

nc.

15,1

58,2

613,

236,

591

6,52

5,85

523

,714

,924

15,2

30,5

5275

,588

,247

21,5

08,3

753,

385,

427

Per

Cen

t59

.561

.087

.569

.165

.153

.263

.699

.9

Res

earc

h22

3,13

115

,304

-0-

586,

441

185,

133

17,6

34,6

9944

2,51

1Pe

r C

ent

.9.3

1.7

.812

.41.

3

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

921,

636

131,

614

5,74

31,

100,

222

267,

791

27,1

51,0

603,

192,

047

Per

Cen

t3.

62.

5.1

3.2

1.2

19.1

9.4

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

es9,

178,

825

1,79

0,04

478

4,55

28,

557,

579

7,53

9,95

316

,922

,109

8,04

2,26

82,

456

Per

Cen

t36

.033

.810

.524

.932

.211

.923

.8.1

Stud

ent A

id-0

-12

9,93

613

8,24

636

8,42

916

4,78

74,

807,

510

638,

051

Per

Cen

t2.

41.

91.

1.7

3.4

1.9

Tot

al25

,481

,853

5,30

3,48

97,

454,

396

34,3

27,5

9523

,388

,216

142,

103,

625

33,8

23,2

523,

387,

883

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Exp

end.

Inst

ruct

ion

& G

en.

13,7

84,9

903,

115,

842

6,13

7,73

821

,461

,416

13,1

31,4

3269

,969

,038

22,2

77,5

663,

204,

177

Per

Cen

t55

.664

.584

.865

.562

.749

.764

.798

.4

Res

earc

h29

0,92

329

,945

-0-

641,

534

215,

764

20,3

53,6

2761

0,18

4Pe

r C

ent

1.2

.62.

01.

014

.51.

8

Publ

ic S

ervi

ce87

6,04

813

3,06

11,

256,

338

311,

208

27,3

09,9

433,

428,

572

Per

Cen

t3.

52.

83.

81.

519

.49.

9

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

es9,

524,

452

1,34

0,43

993

1,45

98,

672,

741

6,74

2,03

815

,558

,798

6,99

8,68

125

,426

Per

Cen

t38

.427

.712

.926

.532

.211

.120

.3.8

Stud

ent A

id33

3,69

521

4,59

216

5,41

374

3,94

755

9,03

07,

495,

686

1,12

0,58

527

,456

Per

Cen

t1.

34.

42.

32.

22.

65.

33.

3.8

Tot

al24

,810

,108

4,83

3,87

97,

234,

610

32,7

75,9

7620

,959

,472

140,

687,

092

34,4

35,5

883,

257,

059

42

APP

EN

DIX

B

Tab

le 4

Sum

mar

y of

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

sM

unic

ipal

Uni

vers

ities

and

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ges,

Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1966

-67

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Inco

me

U. o

fA

kron

U. o

fC

in.

U. o

fT

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll.

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

oll.

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

8,70

2,86

125

,517

,035

10,1

27,7

185,

450,

116

1,85

9,90

2

Per

Cen

t75

.949

.682

.189

.990

.0

Res

earc

h35

8,51

96,

242,

250

-0-

-0-

-0-

Per

Cen

t3.

112

.2

Publ

ic S

ervi

ce11

1,35

811

,442

,168

143,

553

40,1

78

Per

Cen

t1.

022

.31.

2a

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

es1,

952,

827

7,62

5,97

82,

067,

294

503,

851

164,

383

Per

Cen

t17

.014

.816

.78.

38.

0

Stud

ent A

id33

6,76

858

4,12

0-0

-69

,901

40,7

60

Per

Cen

t3.

01.

11.

12.

0

Tot

al11

,462

,333

51,4

11,5

5112

,338

,565

6,06

4,04

62,

065,

045

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Exp

endi

ture

sIn

stru

ctio

n an

d G

ener

al7,

720,

753

24,3

62,5

489,

383,

697

5,39

0,56

01,

820,

221

Per

Cen

t75

.247

.579

.589

.190

.7

Res

earc

h35

8,51

96,

693,

141

-0-

Per

Cen

t3.

513

.1

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

135,

729

10,8

04,7

5919

0,16

867

,869

Per

Cen

t1.

321

.11.

61.

1

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

es1,

749,

603

7,33

2,61

01,

964,

334

511,

322

152,

588

Per

Cen

t17

.014

.316

.68.

57.

6

Stud

ent A

id30

4,24

62,

023,

677

272,

981

77,8

9634

,573

Per

Cen

t3.

04.

02.

31.

31.

7

Tot

al10

,268

,850

51,2

16,7

3511

,811

,180

6,04

7,64

72,

007,

382

43

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

5

Sum

mar

y of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

Stat

e U

nive

rsiti

es, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

Gov

't A

ppro

pria

tions

BG

SUC

entr

alC

lev.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

O.S

.U.

Ohi

o U

.W

righ

tSt

ate

Stat

eC

ampu

s6,

595,

250

1,90

0,15

82,

900,

001

9,69

3,50

06,

440,

545

36,5

37,4

858,

800,

000

1,62

0,10

0

Bra

nch

155,

600

6,00

012

9,79

969

5,00

032

6,20

074

2,80

061

6,00

0

Tot

al S

tate

App

ropr

.6,

750,

850

1,90

6,15

83,

029,

800

10,3

88,5

006,

766,

745

37,2

80,2

859,

416,

000

1,62

0,10

0

Per

Cen

t44

.658

.946

.443

.844

.449

.343

.847

.9

Stud

ent F

ees

Cam

pus:

Inst

r. &

Gen

5,90

6,32

466

6,61

81,

369,

803

7,54

1,63

64,

621,

635

16,1

00,0

885,

827,

558

1,67

0,98

3

Tui

tion

(out

-of-

stat

e)48

8,28

523

6,34

578

,363

1,03

0,17

81,

069,

016

2,89

1,36

81,

269,

017

12,1

29

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

593,

315

322,

238

1,22

9,44

31,

139,

229

1,50

9,35

32,

207,

300

2,06

8,86

140

,666

Subt

otal

6,98

7,92

41,

225,

201

2,67

7,59

99,

711,

043

7,20

0,00

421

,198

,756

9,16

5,43

61,

723,

778

Per

Cen

t46

.137

.841

.040

.947

.328

.142

.650

.9

Bra

nch:

Inst

r. &

Gen

429,

761

5,91

314

5,07

82,

245,

831

684,

932

1,32

8,73

61,

549,

709

Tui

tion

(out

-of-

stat

e)4,

915

4,35

213

,391

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

130,

214

42,0

0035

,510

103,

507

Subt

otal

429,

761

5,91

327

5,29

22,

292,

746

689,

284

1,37

7,63

71,

653,

216

Per

Cen

t2.

8.2

4.2

9.7

4.5

1.8

7.7

Tot

al S

tude

nt F

ees

7,41

7,68

51,

231,

114

2,95

2,89

112

,003

,789

7,88

9,28

822

,576

,393

10,8

18,6

521,

723,

778

Per

Cen

t48

.938

.045

.250

.651

.829

.950

.350

.9

End

owm

ent I

ncom

e7,

778

68,3

3444

,959

Per

Cen

t.1

.1.2

Priv

ate

Gif

ts a

nd G

rant

s5,

100

49,6

3120

067

,000

857,

357

120,

117

Per

Cen

t.8

.41.

1.5

Gov

ernm

ent G

rant

s24

0,60

917

,165

84,0

9713

9,42

43,

408,

639

699,

470

Per

Cen

t1.

6.4

.94.

53.

3

Dep

artm

enta

l Sal

es15

4,46

311

,591

165,

630

258,

461

21,5

817,

879,

165

6,98

8

Per

Cen

t1.

0.4

2.5

1.1

.210

.4

Oth

er58

9,55

487

,728

310,

738

979,

877

338,

736

3,51

8,07

440

2,18

941

,549

Per

Cen

t3.

92.

74.

84.

12.

24.

71.

91.

2

Tot

al C

urr.

Gen

. Inc

ome

15,1

58,2

613,

236,

591

6,52

5,87

523

,714

,924

15,2

30,5

5275

,588

,247

21,5

08,3

753,

385,

427

44

APP

EN

DIX

B

Tab

le 6

Sum

mar

y of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

Mun

icip

al U

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

Gov

ernm

ent A

ppro

pria

tions

U. o

fA

kron

U. o

fC

in.

U. o

fT

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll.

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

olL

Stat

e91

4,70

01,

641,

800

1,02

6,70

01,

058,

4 4

396,

600

Per

Cen

t10

.56.

410

.119

.421

.3L

ocal

1,59

6,91

13,

838,

586

2,37

2,54

12,

436,

415

589,

445

18.4

15.1

23.5

44.7

31.7

Tot

al G

over

mne

nt A

ppro

pr.

2,51

1,61

15,

480,

386

3,39

9,24

13,

494,

899

986,

045

Per

Cen

t28

.921

.533

.664

.153

.0

Stud

ent F

ees:

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

eral

5,13

8,18

112

,303

,956

4,55

7,61

21,

710,

028

663,

242

Tui

tion

(Out

of

Cou

nty)

53,6

9138

9,27

11,

325,

253

137,

800

6,13

2St

uden

t Ser

vice

s34

3,93

726

8,06

250

8,35

1-0

-29

,164

Tot

al S

tude

nt F

ees

5,53

5,80

912

,961

,289

6,39

1,21

61,

847,

828

698,

538

Per

Cen

t63

.650

.863

.133

.937

.6

End

owm

ent I

ncom

e9,

913

1,54

2,98

3Pe

r C

ent

.16.

0Pr

ivat

e G

ifts

and

Gra

nts

330,

437

1,58

2,78

77,

477

Per

Cen

t3.

86.

2A

Gov

ernm

ent G

rant

s55

,932

2,96

5,66

774

,024

56,3

4813

4,52

8Pe

r C

ent

.611

.6.7

1.0

7.2

Dep

artm

enta

l Sal

es14

3,80

23,

453

Per

Cen

t.6

.2O

ther

250,

159

840,

121

263,

237

51,0

4129

,861

Per

Cen

t3.

03.

32.

61.

01.

6T

otal

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

onie

8,70

2,86

125

,517

,035

10,1

27,7

185,

450,

116

1,85

9,90

2

45

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

7

Allo

catio

n of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

Stat

e U

nive

rsiti

es,

Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1966

-67

Ava

ilabl

e fo

r A

lloca

.

BG

SUC

entr

alC

lev.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

O.S

.U.

Ohi

o U

.W

righ

tSt

ate

Tot

al C

urr.

Gen

. Inc

ome

15,1

58,2

613,

236,

591

6,52

5,85

523

,714

,924

15,2

30,5

5275

,588

,247

21,5

08,3

753,

385,

427

Add

: Tra

nsfe

rs53

1,57

043

7,97

61,

029,

569

5,86

9,66

72,

623,

428

196,

147

Ded

uct:

Stu.

Ser

v.fe

es d

edic

ated

tode

bt r

etir

emen

t59

3,31

515

8,51

123

0,04

614

9,96

041

9,89

252

,793

Cur

r. G

en. I

ncom

eav

aila

ble

for

allo

ca15

,096

,516

3,51

6,05

17,

555,

424

23,4

84,8

7816

,230

,552

81,3

07,9

5423

,711

,911

3,52

8,78

1

Allo

ca. o

f C

urr.

Gen

. Inc

ome:

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

.13

,784

,990

3,11

5,84

26,

137,

738

21,4

61,4

1613

,131

,432

G9,

969,

038

22,2

77,5

663,

204,

177

Per

Cen

t91

.388

.681

.291

.485

.586

.193

.990

.8

Res

earc

h67

,792

41,4

0030

,631

2,71

8,92

816

7,67

3

Per

Cen

t.4

.2.2

3.3

.7

Publ

ic S

ervi

ce56

,347

1,44

715

2,24

543

,417

1,24

3,18

323

6,52

5

Per

Cen

t.4

.6.3

1.5

1.0

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

es36

8,58

420

,437

931,

459

587,

639

599,

684

133,

000

672,

726

25,4

26

Per

Cen

t2.

5.6

12.3

2.5

3.9

.22.

8.7

Stud

ent A

id33

3,69

5S

4,65

616

5,41

337

5,51

839

4,24

32,

688,

176

482,

534

27,4

56

Per

Cen

t2.

22.

42.

21.

62.

63.

32.

0.8

Tra

ns. t

o Pl

ant F

unds

123,

428

544,

921

569,

851

1,14

1,38

232

9,38

3

Per

Cen

t3.

52.

33.

71.

41.

4

Oth

er T

rans

fers

15,0

3732

0,81

427

6,09

313

5,38

3

Per

Cen

t.4

4.3

1.2

.6

Una

lloca

ted

485,

108

155,

204

45,6

4646

1,29

43,

414,

247

(589

,879

)27

1,72

2

Per

Cen

t3.

24.

5.2

3.8

4.2

(2.4

)7.

7

Tot

al A

lloca

tion

15,0

96,5

163,

516,

051

7,55

5424

23,4

84,8

7815

,230

,552

81,3

07,9

5423

,711

,911

3,52

8,78

1

46

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

8

Allo

catio

n of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

Mun

icip

al U

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

Ava

ilabl

e fo

r A

lloca

tion:

U. o

fA

kron

U. o

fC

ht.

U. o

fT

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

oll

Tot

al C

urre

nt G

ener

al I

ncom

e8,

702,

861

25,5

17,0

3510

,127

,718

5,45

0,11

61,

859,

902

Add

: Tra

nsfe

rs1,

094,

618

1,44

9,03

123

5,17

412

,823

Ded

uct:

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

Fees

ded

icat

ed to

deb

tre

tirem

ent

343,

937

-0-

98,2

50C

uere

nt G

ener

al I

ncom

eav

aila

ble

for

allo

catio

n9,

453,

542

26,9

66,0

6610

,264

,642

Allo

catio

n of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inco

me

5,45

0,11

61,

872,

725

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

eral

7,72

0,25

324

,362

,548

9,38

E,6

975,

390,

560

1,82

0,22

1Pe

r C

ent

81.7

90.3

91.4

98.9

97.2

Res

earc

h45

0,89

1Pe

r C

ent

1.7

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

121,

626

96,8

4046

,615

27,6

91Pe

r C

ent

1.2

.4.4

.5A

uxili

ary

Ent

erpr

ises

371,

597

132,

214

23,8

703,

205

Per

Cen

t1.

41.

3.4

.2St

uden

t Aid

1,43

9,55

727

2,98

17,

995

6,75

9Pe

r C

ent

5.3

2.7

.2.4

Tra

nsfe

r to

Pla

nt F

unds

161,

500

29,0

00Pe

r C

ent

.6.3

Oth

er T

rans

fers

83,1

335,

940

Per

Cen

t.3

.3U

nallo

cate

d1,

611,

673

-0-

400,

135

36,6

00Pe

r C

ent

17.1

3.9

1.9

Tot

al A

lloca

tion

9,45

3,54

226

,966

,066

10,2

64,6

425,

450,

116

1,87

2,72

5

47

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

9

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

eral

Exp

endi

ture

sSt

ate

Uni

vers

ities

, Aca

dem

icY

ear

1966

-67

BG

SUC

entr

alC

lev.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

O.S

.U.

Ohi

o U

.W

righ

tSt

ate

Dep

artm

enta

l Ins

truc

tion*

7,90

6,24

01,

396,

339

3,17

9,50

811

,792

,175

7,80

7,11

049

,123

,938

12,1

09,5

472,

131,

260

Per

Cen

t57

.444

.851

.854

.959

.570

.254

.466

.5

Off

-Cam

pus

Inst

ruc.

459,

888

10,9

3037

3,77

12,

747,

260

938,

875

1,71

3,68

02,

123,

924

Per

Cen

t3.

3.4

6.1

12.8

7.1

2.4

9.5

Inst

ruct

iona

l Ser

vice

361,

860

52,6

1135

,950

615,

651

366,

960

1,47

8,92

886

3,03

528

,629

Per

Cen

t2.

61.

7.6

2.4

2.8

2.1

3.9

.9

Lib

rari

es55

7,27

214

7,69

836

2,59

092

7,24

362

7,28

32,

578,

081

949,

617

302,

155

Per

Cen

t4.

04.

75.

94.

34.

83.

74.

39.

4

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

1,22

2,52

031

9,79

440

4,53

21,

457,

429

1,07

7,23

12,

354,

187

1,63

0,26

814

0,54

4

Per

Cen

t8.

910

.36.

66.

88.

23.

47.

34.

4

Gen

eral

Exp

ense

724,

919

165,

546

318,

977

899,

963

502,

996

2,02

5,19

31,

005,

280

93,1

24

Per

Cen

t5.

35.

35.

24.

23.

82.

94.

52.

9

Plan

t Ope

ratio

n1,

905,

839

744,

102

1,01

0,72

72,

103,

956

1,35

2,67

68,

279,

163

2,42

7,31

031

6,46

1

Per

Cen

t13

.823

.916

.59.

810

.311

.810

.99.

9

Gen

eral

Adm

inis

trat

ion

646,

452

278,

822

451,

683

1,01

7,73

945

8,30

12,

415,

868

1,16

8,58

519

2,00

4

Per

Cen

t4.

78.

97.

34.

83.

53.

55.

26.

0

Tot

al13

,784

,990

3,11

5,84

26,

137,

738

21,4

61,4

1613

,131

,432

69,9

69,0

3822

,277

,566

3,20

4,17

7

*Dep

t. In

stru

ctio

n:Fa

culty

Sal

arie

s5,

219,

048

1,07

2,41

82,

398,

928

7,28

1,03

25,

357,

304

24,6

72,0

998,

353,

472

1,83

8,32

7

Per

Cen

t66

.076

.875

.461

.968

.650

.269

.086

.3

Oth

er S

alar

ies

1,28

8,78

893

,549

234,

155

2,26

9,23

41,

171,

203

13,1

82,8

7497

8,26

730

,722

Per

Cen

t16

.36.

77.

419

.115

.026

.88.

11.

4

Oth

er E

xpen

ditu

res

1,39

8,40

423

0,37

254

6,42

52,

241,

909

1,27

8,60

311

,268

,965

2,77

7,80

826

2,21

1

Per

Cen

t17

.716

.517

.219

.016

.423

.022

.912

.3

Tot

al7,

906,

240

1,39

6,33

93,

179,

508

11,7

92,1

757,

807,

110

49,1

23,9

3812

,109

,547

2,13

1,24

0

APP

EN

DIX

B

Tab

le 1

0

Mun

icip

al 0

:rsi

ties

U. o

fA

kron

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

eral

Exp

endi

ture

san

d C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

U. o

fU

. of

Cin

.T

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll.

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

oll.

Dep

artm

enta

l Ins

truc

tion*

4,47

5,28

417

,195

,020

6,30

3,94

32,

919,

815

1,03

9,69

3Pe

r C

ent

58.0

70.6

67.2

54.2

57.1

Inst

ruct

iona

l Ser

vice

243,

637

270,

232

85,7

8314

8,12

5Pe

r C

ent

3.2

1.1

.92.

7L

ibra

ries

191,

272

776.

673

398,

077

2082

0978

,205

Per

Cen

t2.

53.

24.

23.

94.

3St

uden

t Ser

vice

s53

9,22

11,

154,

934

578,

475

628,

843

189,

429

Per

Cen

t6.

84.

76.

211

.710

.5G

ener

al E

xpen

se85

3,78

41,

348,

886

565,

123

344,

842

182,

077

Per

Cen

t11

.15.

56.

06.

410

.0Pl

ant O

pera

tion

832,

145

2,59

9,50

01,

035,

500

778,

967

223,

724

Per

Cen

t10

.810

.711

.014

.512

.3G

ener

al A

dmin

istr

atin

on5S

q,96

01,

017,

253

416,

796

361,

759

107,

093

Per

Cen

t7.

64.

24.

56.

65.

8T

otal

7,72

0,26

24,3

62,5

489,

383,

697

5,39

0,56

01,

820,

221

*Dep

artm

mta

l Ins

truc

tion

Facu

lty S

alar

ies

3,21

5,33

512

,157

,886

4,52

0,52

22,

007,

894

377,

884

Per

Cen

t71

.8'Y

0.7

71.7

68.8

84.4

Oth

er S

alar

ies

338,

208

2,03

,,tIA

687,

756

384,

898

105,

520

Per

Cen

t7.

611

.810

.913

.210

.2O

ther

Exp

endi

ture

s92

1,74

13,

004,

640

1,09

5,66

552

7,02

356

,289

Per

Cen

t20

.617

.517

.418

.05.

4T

otal

r.:

4,47

5,28

417

,195

,020

6,30

3,94

32,

919,

815

1,03

9,69

3

49

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

11

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s Fo

rR

esea

rch

Stat

e U

nive

rsiti

es, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

Inco

me:

BG

SUC

entr

alC

lev.

Ken

tM

iam

iO

.S.U

.W

righ

tO

hio

U.

Stat

e

Stat

e A

ppro

pria

tions

1,25

0,00

0

End

owm

ents

17,0

2266

,182

Gov

't. G

rant

s an

d C

ontr

acts

223,

131

15,:.

509,

670

144,

568

15,8

06,1

1438

0,18

4

Oth

er76

,771

23,5

4351

2,40

362

,327

Tot

al22

3,13

115

5304

586,

441

185,

133

17,6

34,6

9944

2,51

1

Exp

endi

ture

s:29

0,92

329

,945

641,

534

215,

764

20,3

53,6

2761

0,18

4

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

(67,

792)

(14,

641)

(55,

093)

(30,

631)

(2,7

18,9

28)

(167

,673

)

Allo

catio

ns:

Supp

orte

d by

pre

y. b

al14

,641

13,6

93

Supp

orte

d ou

t of

curr

. gen

eral

inco

me

67,7

9241

,400

30,6

312,

718,

928

167,

673

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

12

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s Fo

rR

esea

rch

Mun

icip

al U

nive

rsiti

esan

d C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s,A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

U. o

fA

kron

U. o

fC

in.

Inco

me:

Stat

e A

ppro

pria

tions

End

owm

ents

190,

041

Gov

ernr

gent

Gra

nts

& C

ontr

acts

264,

379

3,69

7,38

7

Oth

er94

,140

2,35

4,82

2

Tot

al I

ncom

e35

8,51

96,

242,

250

Exp

endi

ture

s35

8,51

96,

693,

141

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

-0-

(450

,891

)

Allo

catio

n:Su

ppor

ted

by P

rey.

Bal

.Su

ppor

ted

out o

fC

urre

ntG

ener

al I

ncom

e45

0,89

1

50

U. o

fT

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll.

Len

in C

o.C

omm

. Col

l.

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

13

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s -

Publ

ic S

ervi

ce P

rogr

ams

Stat

e U

nive

rsiti

es, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7W

righ

t

Inst

itute

s an

d W

orks

hops

BG

SUC

entr

alC

ley.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

0.S.

U.

Ohi

o U

.St

ate

Inco

me

921,

636

131,

614

5,74

383

6,00

522

3,19

911

3,54

31,

763,

286

Exp

ense

858,

776

133,

061

836,

005

239,

459

164,

115

1,76

9,49

3

Dif

fere

nce

62,8

60(1

,447

)5,

743

-0-

(16,

260)

(50,

572)

(6,2

07)

Ove

rsea

s Pr

ojec

tsIn

com

e23

,073

1,19

6,79

11,

353,

490

Exp

ense

23,0

731,

196,

791

1,41

5,96

6

Dif

fere

nce

-0-

-0-

(62,

476)

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ion

Cen

ter

Inco

me

16,4

18

Exp

ense

774,

006

Dif

fere

nce

(757

,588

)

Uni

vers

ity P

ress

Inco

me

9,38

15.

163

41,0

61

Exp

ense

60,1

5318

8,51

311

9,51

0

Dif

fere

nce

(50,

772)

(183

,350

)(7

8,44

9)

Med

ical

Cen

ter

Inco

me

18,1

03,6

49

Exp

ense

17,0

28,3

35

Dif

fere

nce

1,07

5,31

4

Coo

p E

xten

sion

Inco

n, e

6,54

9,00

0

Exp

ense

6,54

9,00

0

Dif

fere

nce

-0-

Oth

er Inco

me

-0-

231,

763

44,5

921,

166,

496

34,2

10

Exp

ense

17,2

7233

7,10

771

,749

1,40

9,18

312

3,60

3

Dif

fere

nce

(17,

272)

(105

,344

)(2

7,15

7)(2

42,6

87)

(89,

393)

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

45,5

88(1

,447

)5,

743

(156

,116

)(4

3,41

7)(1

58,8

83)

(236

,525

)

Allo

catio

nsT

o ex

istin

g ba

l. or

res

erve

101,

935

5,74

3Su

ppor

t out

of

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inco

me

56,3

4715

2,24

543

,417

158,

883

236,

525

Out

of

prev

ious

bal

ance

1,44

73,

871

51

Inst

itutio

ns a

nd W

orks

hops

Inco

me

Exp

ense

Dif

fere

nce

Ove

rsea

s Pr

ojec

tsIn

com

eE

xpen

seD

iffe

renc

e

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ions

Cen

ter

Inco

me

Exp

ense

Dif

fere

nce

Uni

vers

ity P

ress

Inco

me

Exp

ense

E:f

fere

nce

Med

ical

Cen

ter

Inco

me

Exp

ense

Dif

fere

nce

Coo

pera

tive

Ext

ensi

onIn

com

ekx

pens

eD

iffe

renc

e

Oth

erIn

com

eE

xpen

seD

iffe

renc

e

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

Allo

catio

nsT

o ex

istin

g ba

l. or

res

erve

sSu

ppor

t out

of

curr

. gen

. inc

ome

1111

1111

1111

112=

err

kr

APP

EN

DIX

BT

AB

LE

14

Inco

me

and

Mun

icip

al U

nive

rsiti

esU

. of

Akr

on

Exp

endi

ture

sPu

blic

Ser

vice

Pro

gram

and

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ges,

Aca

dem

icY

ear

1966

-67

U. o

fU

. of

Cin

.T

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

oll.

Com

m. C

oll.

111,

358

25,6

3414

3,55

3

14,1

1330

,618

190,

16P

97,2

45(4

,984

)(4

6,61

5)

4,48

295

,855

(91,

373)

11,4

12,0

5210

,677

,803

734,

249

40,1

78

121,

616

483

67,8

69

(121

,616

)(4

83)

(27,

691)

(24,

371)

637,

409

(46,

615)

(27,

691)

734,

249

24,3

7196

,840

46,6

1527

,691

52

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

15

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s -A

uxili

ary

Ent

erpr

ises

Stat

e U

nive

rsiti

es, A

cade

mic

Yea

r 19

66-6

7

Res

iden

ce a

nd D

inin

gB

GSU

Cen

tral

Cle

ve.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

O.S

.U.

Ohi

o U

.W

righ

tSt

ate

Inco

me

6,09

4,03

71,

339,

643

106,

741

5,65

9,54

25,

746,

087

8,33

4,32

17,

734,

142

Exp

ense

5,94

6,38

993

6,22

513

3,29

75,

293,

995

4,43

3,13

17,

683,

565

6,02

1,78

7

Dif

fere

nce

147,

648

403,

418

(26,

556)

362,

547

1,31

2,95

665

0,75

61,

712,

355

Stud

ent U

nion

Inco

me

992,

041

193,

410

718,

505

1,41

0,41

41,

344,

114

1,12

0

Exp

ense

1,15

0,29

915

6,52

125

,078

853,

577

1,42

5,56

11,

552,

810

76,1

46

Dif

fere

nce

(158

,258

)36

,889

(25,

078)

(135

,072

)(1

5,14

7)(2

08,6

96)

(75,

026)

Boo

ksto

reIn

com

e80

4,37

914

0,34

054

7,82

01,

386,

172

1,90

1,91

613

,388

-0-

Exp

ense

796,

674

137,

947

590,

848

1,27

8,23

71,

816,

253

9,43

025

,426

Dif

fere

nce

7,70

52,

393

(43,

028)

107,

935

85,6

633,

958

(25,

426)

Inte

rco

ll. A

thle

tics

Inco

me

204,

399

87,4

4519

6,08

118

5,66

12,

977,

519

210,

653

Exp

ense

442,

953

91,3

6370

,348

649,

748

585,

345

2,55

6,15

076

2,12

4

Dif

fere

nce

(238

,554

)(3

,918

)(7

0,34

8)(4

53,6

67)

(399

,684

)42

1,36

9(5

51,4

71)

Air

port

Inco

me

53,8

2654

,043

489,

258

61,0

66

Exp

ense

66,2

6660

,354

504,

750

103,

181

Dif

fere

nce

(12,

440)

(6,3

11)

(15,

492)

(42,

115)

Oth

erIn

com

e1,

083,

969

29,2

0612

9,99

154

3,45

314

3,74

81,

874,

981'

21,8

992,

456

Exp

ense

1,18

8,13

718

,383

308,

888

527,

918

102,

647

1,44

5,27

026

,013

-0-

Dif

fere

nce

(104

,168

)10

,823

(178

,897

)15

,535

41,1

0142

9,71

1(4

,114

)2,

456

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

i345

,627

)44

9,60

4(3

43,9

07)

(115

,162

)92

2,91

51,

363,

311

1,04

3,58

7(2

2,97

0)

Allo

catio

ns:

Surp

lus:

to C

urr.

Gen

. Inc

.2,

456

To

prey

. bal

. or

othe

r ac

ct.

186,

523

453,

522

84,9

4248

6,01

71,

538,

910

1,58

7,49

91,

716,

313

Def

icie

ncy

supp

orte

d ou

t of

prey

. bal

. or

bytw

anbi

er85

,766

41,1

9613

,540

6,31

191

,188

Cur

rent

Gen

eral

Inc

ome

446,

384

3,91

838

7,65

358

7,63

959

9,68

413

3,00

067

2,72

625

,426

53

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

16

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s -

Aux

iliar

y E

nter

pris

esM

unic

ipal

Uni

vers

ities

and

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ges,

Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1966

-67

Res

iden

ce a

nd D

inin

g

U. o

fA

kron

U. o

fC

in.

U. o

fT

oled

oC

uyah

oga

Com

m. C

oll

Lor

ain

Co.

Com

m. C

oll

Inco

me

802,

632

2,63

6,49

950

3,45

3

Exp

ense

402,

593

2,20

7,20

939

2,78

3

Dif

fere

nce

400,

039

429,

290

110,

670

Stud

ent U

nion

Inco

me

299,

242

323,

847

202,

600

2,88

2

Exp

ense

508,

b63

402,

766

164,

280

816

Dif

fere

nce

(209

,611

)(7

8,91

9)38

,320

2,06

6

Boo

ksto

reIn

com

e70

9,43

41,

068,

797

896,

727

500,

540

155,

058

Exp

ense

683,

278

1,04

1,77

381

0,54

348

6,20

714

0,05

8

Dif

fere

nce

26,1

5627

,024

86,1

8414

,333

15,0

00

Inte

rcol

legi

ate

Ath

letic

sIn

com

e14

1,51

940

1,24

046

4,51

442

99,

325

Exp

ense

154,

879

693,

918

596,

728

24,2

9912

,530

Dif

fere

nce

(13,

360)

(292

,678

)(1

32,2

14)

(23,

870)

(3,2

05)

Air

port

Inco

me

Exp

ense

Dif

fere

nce

Oth

erIn

com

e3,

195,

595

Exp

ense

2,98

6,94

4D

iffe

renc

e20

8,65

1

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

203,

224

293,

368

102,

960

(7,4

71)

(11,

795)

Allo

catio

n:T

o ex

istin

g ba

lanc

e or

res

erve

426,

195

664,

965

235,

174

16,3

9815

,000

Supp

ort o

ut o

f cu

rren

tge

nera

l inc

ome

371,

597

132,

214

23,8

703,

205

Supp

ort o

ut o

f pr

evio

us b

al.

in s

ame

acco

unt

222,

971

54

APP

EN

DIX

B

Tab

le 1

7In

com

e an

d E

xpen

ditu

res

-St

ate

Uni

vers

ities

, Aca

dem

icSt

uden

t Aid

Yea

r 19

66-6

7W

righ

t

Inco

me

BG

SUC

entr

alC

lev.

Ken

tM

iam

i U.

O.S

.U.

Ohi

o U

.St

ate

End

owm

ent

1,08

733

,117

185,

931

50,0

33

Priv

ate

3,24

422

,693

35,6

3678

,609

974,

202

3,29

2

Gov

ernm

enta

l12

5,39

270

,784

332,

793

52,9

113,

361,

610

208,

956

Oth

er S

ourc

es21

344

,769

-0-

150

285,

767

375,

770

Tot

al I

ncom

e12

9,93

613

8,24

636

8,42

916

4,78

74,

807,

510

638,

051

Exp

endi

ture

sSc

hola

rshi

ps20

053

,261

368,

429

136,

533

4,43

2,43

233

8,69

5

Fees

Wai

ved

333,

695

88,9

5535

,773

375,

518

383,

247

2,93

1,43

638

7,79

021

,339

Oth

er12

5,43

776

,379

39,2

5013

1,81

839

4,10

06,

117

Tot

al E

xpen

ditu

res

333,

695

214,

592

165,

413

743,

947

559,

030

7,49

5,68

61,

120,

585

27,4

56

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

(333

,695

)(8

4,65

6)(2

7,16

7)(3

75,5

18)

(394

,243

)(2

,688

,176

)(4

82,5

34)

(27,

456)

Allo

catio

n:T

o ex

istin

g ba

lanc

e or

res

erve

Supp

ort o

ut o

f cu

rren

t gen

eral

inco

me

.33

3,69

584

,656

27,1

6737

5,51

839

4,24

32,

688,

176

482,

534

27,4

56

APP

EN

DIX

BT

able

18

Inco

me

and

Exp

endi

ture

s -

Stud

ent

Aid

Mun

icip

al U

nive

rsiti

es a

nd C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s, A

cade

mic

Yea

r19

66-6

7

U. o

fU

. of

U. o

fC

uyah

oga

Lor

ain

Co.

Inco

me

Akr

onC

in.

Tol

edo

Com

m. C

oll.

Com

m. C

oll.

End

owm

ent

33,6

1416

6,42

234

,599

Priv

ate

303,

154

202,

281

35,3

0255

0

Gov

erm

nent

al21

5,41

740

,210

Oth

er S

ourc

esT

otal

Inc

ome

336,

768

584,

120

69,9

0140

,760

Exp

endi

ture

sSc

hola

rshi

ps20

7,90

091

7,09

210

6,00

669

,901

300

Fees

Wai

ved

96,3

461,

077,

991

166,

975

7,99

53,

059

Oth

er28

,594

31,2

14

Tot

al E

xpen

ditu

res

304,

246

2,02

3,67

727

2,98

177

,896

34,5

73

Exc

ess

or (

Def

icie

ncy)

32,5

22(1

,439

,557

)(2

72,9

81)

(7,9

95)

6,18

7

Allo

catio

n:T

o ex

istin

g ba

l. or

res

erve

32,5

226,

187

Supp

ort o

ut o

f cu

rren

tge

nera

l inc

ome

1,43

9,55

727

2,98

17,

995

Tra

nsfe

r fr

om o

ther

acc

ount

s

APP

EN

DIX

B

Tab

le 1

9

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Gen

eral

Exp

endi

ture

s Pe

r St

uden

tM

ain

Cam

pus,

Aca

dem

ic Y

ear

1966

-67

Inst

ruct

ion

and

Gen

eral

Bow

ling

Gre

enC

entr

alSt

ate

Cle

vela

ndSt

ate

Ken

tSt

ate

Mia

mi

U.

Ohi

o St

ate

Ohi

o U

.W

righ

tSt

ate

Cuy

ahog

aC

omm

. Col

l.L

orai

n C

o.C

omm

. Col

l.

Exp

endi

ture

s$1

3,32

5,10

2$3

,104

,912

$5,7

63,9

67$1

8,71

4,15

6$1

2,19

2,55

7$6

8,25

5,35

8$2

0,15

3,64

2$2

04,1

77$5

,390

,560

$1,8

20,2

21(o

ff-c

ampu

s ex

clud

ed)

On-

Cam

pus

Full-

Tim

eE

quiv

alen

t Stu

dent

s12

,353

2,41

95,

554

18,2

1711

,969

41,9

6916

,135

3,20

86,

075

1,98

3

Tot

al E

xpen

ditu

res

p-.r

FT

E1,

079

1,28

41,

038

1,02

71,

019

1,65

81,

249

999

887

918

____

__

Dep

artm

enta

lInrdnmaion

640

577

573

647

652

1,194

751

664

481

524

Inst

ruct

iona

l Ser

vice

2922

728

3136

539

24-

Lib

rari

es45

6165

5153

6359

9434

39

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces

9813

273

8090

5710

144

104

96

Gen

eral

Exp

ense

5969

5749

4249

6229

57IA

Plan

t Ope

ratio

n15

530

818

211

611

320

015

099

127

118

Gen

eral

Adm

inis

trat

ion

5311

581

5638

5978

6060

54

56

APPENDIX CTable 20

Financial Report of the Ohio Boma of RegentsFiscal Year Ending June 30, 1267

General Revenue FundAvailable for Expenditure:

Appropr. in H. B. 200Transferred from 1966

Total Available

Less Encumbrances:Personal Service

Staff $92,356.77Consultants 11,239.82

$383,250.0025,000.00

$408,250.00

MaintenanceEquipmentRegents' ProfessorshipsUniv. Res. Center StudiesTransferred to Lakeland Comm. Coll.

$103,596.5957,874.88

484.89200,000.0025,000.0020,000.00

Total Encumbrances 406,956.36

Unencumbered Balance, June 30, 1967 $ 1,293.64

Rotary - Higher Education Facilities ActAvailable for Expenditure:

Allocation from Federal Government $ 38,400.00

Carried forward from 1966 1,616.57

Total Available $ 40,016.57

Less Encumbrances:Personal Service and Related Benefits $ 31,966.39

Maintenance 7,284.92

Equipment 561.81

Total Encumbrances 39,813.12

Unencumbered Balance, June 30, 1967 $ 203.45

57

APPENDIX CTable 20 (continued)

Rotary - Community Service and Continuing Education

Available for Expenditure:Allocation from Federal Government $350,080.00

Less Encumbrances:Personal Service and Related Benefits $ 15,332.77

Maintenance 2,619.64

Program Grants 330,932.27

Total Encumbrances 348,884.68

Unencumbered Balance, June 30, 1967 $ 1,195.32

Rotary - Technical Services Act

Available for Expenditure:Allocation from Federal Government $ 52,924.50

Carried forward from 1966 3,444.28

Total Available$ 56,368.78

Less Encumbrances:Personal Service

Staff and Related Benefits . . . $1,907.96

Consultants 15,194.51$ 17,102.47

Maintenance 2,364.53

Program Grants 32,809.50

Total Encumbrances52,276.50

Unencumbered Balance, June 30, 1967 $ 4,092.28

Improvements FundAvailable for Expenditure:

Carried forward from 1966 $ 8,494.14

Less Encumbrances:Modular Construction - Newark 6,780.34

Unencumbered Balance, June 30, 1967 $ 1,713.80

58

APPENDIX DADVISORY COMMITTEESTO THE OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS

Private Institutions Advisory Committee

President Frank E. Duddy, Jr.Marietta College

V. Rev. Raymond A. RoeschUniversity of Dayton

President Elden T. SmithOhio Wesleyan University

President John N. StaufferWittenberg University

President Herrick B. YoungWestern College for Women

State and Municipal Universities Advisory Commntee

President Vernon R. AldenOhio University

President Norman P. AuburnThe University of Akron

President William S. CarlsonThe University of Toledo

President Harold L. EnarsonCleveland State University

President Novice G. FawcettThe Ohio State University

President-Elect Brage GoldingWright State Campus

President Harry E. GrovesCentral State University

President Wm. Travers Jerome IIIBowling Green State University

President Walter C. LangsamUniversity of Cincinnati

President A. L. Pugs leyThe Youngstown University

President Phillip R. ShriverMiami University

President Robert I. WhiteKent State University

Community Colleges Advisory Committee

President Charles E. ChapmanCuyahoga Community College

President Marvin C. KnudsonSinclair Community College

Science Advisory

Dr. William BittenbenderThe Sherwin-Williams Company

Mr. Robert ChollarNational Cash Register Company

Dr. Karl L. FettersYoungstown Sheet and Tube Company

59

President Max J. LernerLorain County Community College

President Wayne RodehorstLakeland Community College

Committee

Dr. Hoke S. GreeneUniversity of Cincinnati

Mr. James W. HackettOwens-Illinois Glass Company

Dr. John A. HronesCase Institute of Technology

Dr. Alfred B. GarrettThe Ohio State University

Mr. George GehrkensNorth American Aviation, Inc.

APPENDIX D (Cont.)

Dean Robert SavageOhio University

Dr. Frank K. SchoenfeldThe B. F. Goodrich Company

Advisory Committee on Graduate Study

Dr. Paul F. LeedyBowling Green State University

Dean W. J. LydaCentral State University

Dean Richard ArmitageThe Ohio State University

Dr. Arthur K. BrintnallThe University of Akron

Dean Campbell CrockettUniversity of Cincinnati

Dean Taylor CulbertOhio University

Dr. William H. LeckieThe University of Toledo

Advisory

Dean H. Kenneth BarkerThe University of Akron

Dean C. Neale BognerMiami University

Dean William L. CarterUniversity of Cincinnati

Dean Donald P. CottrellThe Ohio State University

Dean Gilford W. CrowellOhio University

Dean George E. DicksonThe University of Toledo

Mr. George BowersMiami University

Dr. Robert P. MilheimWright State Campus

Dean Martin NurmiKent State University

Dr. William A. PattersonThe Cleveland State University

Dean H. Bunker WrightMiami University

Committee on Teacher Education

Dr. Harold H. EiblingColumbus Public Schools

Dr. Martin EssexOhio Department of Education

Dean Ruth T. HargraveCentral State University

Dean Theodore J. JensonBowling Green State University

Dean Clayton SchindlerKent State University

Dean Sam P. WigginsCleveland State University

Advisory Committee on Technical Education

Mr. R. 0. BrinkmanClark County Technical Institute

60

President Max J. LernerLorain County Community College

Mr. James L. McGrawUniversity of Dayton

Dr. W. W. CulpOhio College of Applied Science

Mr. Charles W. KeithKent State University

APPENDIX D (Cont.)

Dean Newton C. RochteThe University of Toledo

Dr. Byrl R. ShoemakerOhio Department of Education

Mr. C. E. TatschColumbus Technical Institute

Advisory Committee on Higher Education Facilities Act

President Vernon R. AldenOhio University

President Norman P. AuburnThe University of Akron

President Charles E. ChapmanCuyahoga Community College

Dr. Glenn BrownKent State University

President Frank E. Duddy, Jr.Marietta College

V. Rev. Paul L. O'ConnorXavier University

President James M. ReadWilmington College

State Technical Services Advisory Council

Dr. Arthur D. Lynn, Jr.The Ohio State University

Mr. Roy ChopeIndustrial Nucleonics Corporation

Mr. Joseph DuncanBattelle Memorial Institute

Dr. Maurice MannFederal 7teserve Bank of Cleveland

Dr. Stapley MichotaUniversit Circle Research Center

Mr. Charles W. Ingler Mr. William PapierNational Cash Register Company Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

Mr. Tom Johnson Mr. Philip K. ReilyOhio Manufacturers Association Chemical Abstracts Service

Mr. Donald BeattyOhio Office of Opportunity

Mr. John ColemanOhio Municipal League

Mr. E. Ralph SimsE. Ralph Sims and Associates

Community Services Advisory Council

Dr. Ralph GeerBowling Green State University

Mr. Frank J. GroschelleOhio Department of Development

Dr. Arthur D. Lynn, Jr.The Ohio State University

Professor Albert N. CousinsCleveland State University

Miss Nora DuffyUniversity of Dayton

61

Dr. Edward PensonOhio University

President Ivan FrickFindlay College

APPENDIX D (Cont.)

Mr. Kline RobertsColumbus Area Chamber of Commerce

Dr. Gail A. NelcampUniversity of Cincinnati

Advisory Committee

Mr. Dante N. Biel loCuyahoga Community College

Mr. Thomas D. BowenLorain County Community College

Mr. John W. BunnKent State University

Mr. Ralph C. BursiekUniversity of Cincinnati

Dr. Gordon B. CarsonThe Ohio State University

Mr. Waverly GloverCentral State University

on Higher Education Finance

Mr. Lloyd GogginMiami University

Mr. Carl L. HallThe University of Akron

Mr. Gordon L. HansenCleveland State University

Mr. John MilarOhio University

Mr. Paul E. MoyerBowling Green State University

Mr. Willard W. SmithThe University of Toledo

Mr. Fred WhiteWright State Campus

Advisory Committee on Space Utilization and Plant Planning

Dr. ,T Philip DalbyCuyahoga Community College

Mr. Thomas DierkersUniversity of Cincinnati

Dr. Kenneth L. GlassMiami University

Mr. Wade HatchThe University of Akron

Dr. Thomas HooverThe Ohio State University

Dr. George LuchtKent State University

Mr. Robert MarlowWright State Campus

Mr. John W. PayneCentral State University

Mr. Richard PerryThe University of Toledo

Mr. William RobertsOhio University

Mr. Eugene SchmiedlLorain County Community College

Mr. Richard N. SchwartzCleveland State University

Mr. Keith TrowbridgeBowling Green State University

62

APPENDIX D (Cont.)

Advisory Committee of Admissions Officers

Mr. Thomas J. ColanerBowling Green State University

Mr. Joseph CosentinoLorain County Community College

Dr. V. Richard GulbenkianCleveland State University

Mr. Howard D. HaynesThe University of Akron

Mr. James E. LorionCuyahoga Community College

Dr. John T. MountThe Ohio State University

Advisory

Mr. Clark BigginsCuyahoga Community College

Mr. Luther M. BivinsBowling Green State University

Mr. Roger S. CooperCleveland State University

Mr. Donald CordermanOhio University

Mr. Robert A. DillonThe University of Toledo

Mr. Wayne R. DuffThe University of Akron

Mr. Arch I. Carson, Jr.University of Cincinnati

Dr. Garland G. ParkerUniversity of Cincinnati

Dr. Richard R. PerryThe University of Toledo

Mr. Jerry ReeseOhio University

Mr. Charles R. SchulerMiami University

Mr. Walt-T G. SellersCentral State University

Mr. Rex W. SimondsKent State University

Committee of Personnel Ofqcers

Mr. Edward A. JacksonMiami University

Miss Ruth Mc CantsCentral State University

Mr. L. C. StephensThe Ohio State University

Dean Wayne J. Van Der WeeleLorain County Community College

Mr. Thomas L. Whitaker, Jr.University of Cincinnati

Mr. Donald R. ZimmermanKent State University

Advisory Committee of Purchasing Officers

Mr. D. Glenn ChristianBowling Green State University

Mr. Vernon H. DavisCleveland State University

Mr. William H. HerbertOhio University

68

Mr. L. J. PowerThe University of Akron

Mr. Charles N. RiniCuyahoga Community College

Mr. Gordon SpelmanKent State University

Mr. Steve SpringerLorain County Community College

Mr. Thomas E. KellyCentral State University

Mr. Joseph F. MedleyThe Ohio State University

APPENDIX D (Cont.)

Advisory

Dr. Dean 0. ClarkThe Ohio State University

Mr. Joseph CosentinoLorain County Community College

Mr. Thomas DunlapOhio University

Dr. V. Richard GulbenkianCleveland State University

Mr. Gordon A. HagermanThe University of Akron

Mr. Donald E. HalterKent State University

Mr. Henry J. TaylorThe University of Toledo

Mr. Russell G. YoungMiami University

Committee of Registrars

Advisory Committee

Dean Harold A. Bo lzThe Ohio State University

Mr. L. J. CharnockWright-Patterson Air Force Base

Mr. Carl K. GieringerCincinnati Time Recorder Co.

Mr. W. H. HasselbachLibbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company

Mr. John L. JonesOhio Bell Telephone Company

Mrs. Frances HawkinsCentral State University

Mr. James E. LorionCuyahoga Community College

Dr. Garland G. ParkerUniversity of Cincinnati

Dr. Richard R. PerryThe University of Toledo

Mr. Max B. RosselotMiami University

Mr. Glenn I. Van WormerBowling Green State Universit:7

on Engineering Education

64

Mr. Robert A. KrausRepublic Steel Corporation

Mr. J. W. KrausserThe Procter & Gamble Company

Dean Cornelius WandmacherUniversity of Cincinnati

Dean Otto ZmeskalThe University of Toledo

Mr. P. ZweierWestern Electric Company, Inc.