ment funds enable that university to rise to a point of distinction and above
the level of the other public IHL. In contrast, in California, Berkeley
boasts of its higher unit costs than UCLA, and UCLA in turn presents
unit costs higher than the other branches of the University of California.
Though salary scales for all branches of the university are similar, Berkeley and Los Angeles are allowed to pay above the maximum of
$13,000 to $14,000 ( 1959). Moreover, general unit costs tend to be
higher in the universities than in the four-year colleges, and higher in the
latter than in the junior colleges. Teaching burdens also vary.
* * *
A committee of the American Council on Education ( President Pusey,
chairman) wisely pointed to the wastes of unnecessary duplication of programs associated with institutional imperialism and special-interest pressures. President Charles Odegaard of the University of Washington and
the president of the Land-Grant Colleges in 1955 also had some judicious
remarks. But the Pusey committee also wisely warns against oversimplified
use of unit cost studies. ". . . Society, however, must challenge those
who refuse, in the name of economy, to face the implications of such facts
as the urgent need for first-rate teachers and the present scarcity of good
libraries and laboratories required to futher the expansion of knowledge."23
See for example Moos and
Rourke, The Campus and the State, 1959, pp. 84-88; A Study of Methods Used in Unit-cost Studies in Higher Education, National
Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education Bulletin 3, 1932;
California State Department of Education, A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education, 1955, chap. 7; A Report of a Survey of the University
System in Georgia, 1949, chap. 7;
Board of Educational Finance, State of New
Mexico, Class Size, Teaching Loads . . . 1957-58.
Emory University, Pilot Study: Analysis of Expenditures, Medical Education
Program, 1954-55, December, 1956, p. 14. (Mimeographed.)
A Study of Methods Used in Unit-cost Studies in Higher Education, op cit., p. 2.
J. M. Evans, "Total Cost of Educational Program," College and University
Business, September, 1954, p. 41; also cf. E. R. Rand, "If Unit Cost Calculations
Are to be Valid,"ibid., August, 1955, p. 25.
P. K. Nance, "Unit Cost Analysis," College and University Business, March, 1952, pp. 24-25; Purdue University Cost Studies for Legislative Requests, 1956-57
Van Dyke and
Levine, "Allocating Indirect Expenditures," College and University Business, May, 1953, pp. 22-25.
H. R. Patton and
G. E. Gere (of Carnegie Institute of Technology), Final Report: Study of Educational Costs for the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Association of College and University Business Officers, December, 1951. (Mimeographed.)
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: 513.
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.