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.