(e.g. Pennsylvania), and relatively higher per enrollee, that is small expenditures per enrollee: small resources in states without traditions in
public higher education for public higher education depress the indices per
CAP, but small enrollments tend to raise them per enrollee. But these
states perform better on the basis of total taxes (columns 17 and 18).
Dexter M. Keezer (ed.), Financing Higher Education, 1960-70, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959, p. 63. In col. 10 there is one serious mistake: California should
be 73.36, not 32.36, and the rank 6, not 42; col. 2 heading should read "Current Expenditures State IHL vs. Personal Income."
S. H. Mushkin and
E. P. McLoone, Student Higher Education: Expenditures and Sources of Income in 16 Selected States, 1960. (Mimeographed.)
Excludes " . . . expenditures for organized research and overhead connected
with research, expenditures related to organized activities and sales services of educational departments, expenditures of auxiliary enterprises and expenditures for
student aid." (I would not exclude the item italicized, for this is part of the educational process.)
Cf. columns 2 and 3 and 6 and 7 of my Master Table.
Cf. columns 16, 17 and 19, 20 of my Master Table.
I am especially indebted to Daniel Khazzoom for summarizing the results of
this questionnaire and the relevant state budgets.
Many struggles have persisted on the control of special income, e.g., gifts,
endowment income, tuition. The public IHL want control in order to perform functions for which the Legislatures provide inadequately. The government is fearful
of assumption of programs not approved. In general, state universities are frequently
under less control in these matters than other public IHL. Even when the public
IHL presumably control tuition, the government exercises pressures through the
threat of reduction of appropriations if tuition is not increased. See L. A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges, 1959, chap. 5; and Moos and
Rourke, The Campus
and the States, 1959, pp. 93-95, 188-191.
Cf. H. K. Allen, The Federal Government and Financing Education, 1950, p. 137, where it is estimated that in the last 2 decades ( 1930s and 1940s) about fourfifths of the plant of public IHL were added and only one-third of the value of the
privately controlled plant.
The complications of state versus local finance are revealed by the conditions in California. In 1953-54 the state provided 33 per cent for junior colleges, 72 per
cent for state colleges, 68 per cent for the University of California, and 59 per
cent for all public IHL. The county provided 18 per cent of the income of junior
colleges; the district, 44 per cent of income of junior colleges. A Study of The Need for Additional Centers of Public Higher Education in California, 1957, p. 32.
U. S. Census, Compendium of State Government Finances in 1959, pp. 49-50, 58.
HEW, Opening (Fall) Enrollment in Higher Education, 1959: Analytic Report,
My comparisons are subject to a few other reservations. One series is for 1957
and for state expenditures; the other series is for 1957-58 and includes adjusted
expenditures for all public IHL.
Material from American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers, Home State and Migration of American College Students, Fall 1958, 1959.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Book title: Higher Education:Resources and Finance.
Contributors: Seymour E. Harris - Author.
Place of publication: New York.
Publication year: 1962.
Page number: 375.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.