THE COST OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 95-769

Findings from

THE CONDITION OF EDUCATION 1995

NO.

6


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Jeanne E. Griffith

Acting Commissioner

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

The purpose of the Center is to collect and report “. . . statistics and

information showing the condition and progress of education in

the United States and other nations in order to promote and accelerate the improvement of American education.”—Section 402(b) of

the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9001).

March 1996

The text in this booklet was written by Nabeel Alsalam of the Data

Development Division of NCES and appears in The Condition of

Education, 1995. Steven G. Klein of MPR Associates, Inc. adapted the

content to this format, Andrea Livingston edited the text, and Leslie

Retallick and Lynn Sally designed the graphics and layout.
1

THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Many important questions about higher education are related to

its cost. Is higher education a good investment for students? Is

higher education affordable to students from middle income

families? Is higher education accessible to students from low

income families? Is higher education a good value? How are

the costs of higher education shared between students, their

families, and government? 

These questions are interrelated with some highly publicized

issues. For instance, reports of tuition charges of $20,000 or

more have raised fears that college has become unaffordable.

Some believe that federal financial aid policy should help more

people finance their education. Others argue that too much federal financial aid is provided in the form of loans as opposed to

grants. Further, as governments face increased pressure on their

budgets, public higher education institutions have had to cope

with smaller appropriations and are relying more on tuition as a

source of revenue. Finally, average faculty salaries have recently been rising faster than inflation, but only after much of their

purchasing power was eroded during the high inflation years of

the 1970s.

Some of the statistical evidence concerning these questions and

issues is summarized in this sixth publication in the series of

Findings from The Condition of Education. Outlined below is a

discussion of how changes in higher education revenue and

expenditure are related to institutional enrollments, tuition and

fee charges, and student financial aid, as well as the overall

value of a higher education degree. 
• Tuition and fees have increased at all types of

higher education institutions over the last

decade.

The cost of higher education to students has a direct impact on

access, so that increases in cost are understandably of great concern to students, parents, and education policymakers. In the

1970s, tuition and fee charges remained relatively stable.

Between 1980 and 1990, tuition charges increased at all types of

higher education institutions. 

Average undergraduate tuition and fee charges at 

colleges and universities: 1964 to 1993

SOURCE: Institutional Characteristics Survey.

Tuition and fees in constant dollars grew at a rate of 3.1 to 5.6

percent per year between 1980 and 1990, depending on the type of

institution. On the other hand, median family income did not keep

pace with inflation. It fell in constant dollars from $42,500 in 

1980 to $40,500 in 1993.1 Since 1990 the rate of increase at public

2

Private universities

Other private 4-year colleges

Public universities

Public 2-year colleges 0

2,000

4,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

$14,000

Tuition and fees

(in constant 1994 dollars)

6,000

’64 ’67 ’70 ’73 ’76 ’79 ’82 ’85 ’88 ’91 ’93

Other public 4-year colleges
3

institutions has been greater than that at private institutions or than

it was previously. For example, at public universities, the annual

rate of increase was 4.3 percent between 1980 and 1990, but 6.2 percent between 1990 and 1993. 

Average annual rate of increase in tuition and fees 

(in constant dollars)

Academic years beginning

Type and control

of institution 1980–90 1990–93 1980–93

Public (percent)

Universities 4.3 6.2 4.7

Other 4-year colleges 4.3 8.3 5.2

2-year colleges 3.1 7.4 4.1

Private

Universities 5.6 3.6 5.1

Other 4-year colleges 4.8 3.5 4.5

2-year colleges 4.1 1.4 3.5

SOURCE: NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey.

When considering the possible effects of rising tuition charges on

student access to higher education, it is important to keep in mind

which types of institutions most students attend. In the fall of

1993, four out of five students in higher education were attending

public institutions, which tend to have much lower tuition than

private institutions. Also, only one in four of the students attending private institutions were attending universities where charges

tend to be higher than those at other private 4-year colleges.

2

Although college costs have escalated, in the 1992–93 academic

year, most full-time, full-year undergraduates faced relatively

low tuition and fee charges. Nearly one-half (47 percent) of

undergraduates attending 4-year colleges and universities faced

tuition and fee charges of less than $3,000 per year, and nearly

three-fourths (73 percent) paid less than $8,000 per year.

However, approximately one in five undergraduates did pay

tuition of $10,000 or more.3
4

Distribution of tuition and fee charges 

to full-time, full-year undergraduate students

attending 4-year colleges and universities: 1992–93

SOURCE: NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey.

• Rising tuition charges appear to have little

impact on students’ higher education enrollment decisions. 

Despite increasing tuition charges, college-going rates have continued to rise. Overall the rates of recent high school graduates

continuing on to higher education immediately following high

school have climbed from 49 percent in 1980 to nearly 62 percent

in 1993. Moreover, there is no evidence that students are switching to lower cost 2-year colleges. Between 1980 and 1993, the

0 5 10 15 20 25

Less than $1,000

$2,000–$2,999

$4,000–$4,999

$6,000–$6,999

$8,000–$8,999

$10,000–$10,999

$12,000–$12,999

$14,000–$14,999

$16,000–$16,999

$19,000 or more

Percent

Tuition and fees

$17,000–$17,999

$18,000–$18,999

$1,000–$1,999

$3,000–$3,999

$5,000–$5,999

$7,000–$7,999

$9,000–$9,999

$11,000–$11,999

$13,000–$13,999

$15,000–$15,999
5

percentage who enrolled in 2-year colleges did not rise very

much: it climbed from 19 percent in 1980 to 20 percent in 1990 to

22 percent in 1993. Enrollment rates among low income families, who may be more affected by rising college tuition, also

increased over the period, rising from 33 percent in 1980

(including both 4-year and 2-year colleges) to 47 percent in 1990,

and 50 percent in 1993. However, only 50 percent of high school

graduates from low income families went directly to college

compared with 79 percent of graduates from high income families in 1993.

Percentage of high school graduates enrolling 

in college immediately after high school: 1972 to 1993

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys.

’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’93

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’93

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

By family income

By type of college

High

Middle

Low

Total

4-year

2-year

Percent

Percent
• Tuition and fee income has increased as a

source of revenue in most types of higher

education institutions.

With the exception of public 2-year colleges, average revenue

per FTE student (in constant dollars) increased at all types of

higher education institutions between 1980 and 1992. At private

institutions, the increase was particularly dramatic. Over the

period, revenue per FTE student increased from almost $22,000

to $30,500 at private universities, and from $11,000 to $14,200 at

private 4-year colleges. 

Revenue per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student

(in constant 1994 dollars)

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS Finance Surveys.

While revenue per FTE student increased or remained stable,

government appropriations per FTE student fell (in constant

dollars and as a percentage of total revenue). For public institutions, which rely heavily on government appropriations, the

6

$30,459

$21,930

$15,081

$16,931

$11,015

$14,230

$11,373

$11,785

$5,790

$5,743

1980

1992

Public

universities

Private

universities

Other private

4-year colleges

Other public

4-year colleges

Public 2-year

colleges

HIGHER EDUCATION REVENUE
7

decline was particularly large. For example, between 1980 and

1992, government resources fell in public 4-year colleges from

$7,600 to $6,500 per FTE student, and from 67 percent to 55

percent of total revenue. Even with significant declines in

government appropriations per FTE student, increases in

tuition and other revenues meant that total revenue per FTE

student in public institutions increased or remained stable.

The result of increasing tuition charges and declining government appropriations is that between 1980 and 1992 the share of

revenue from tuition and fees increased at all types of institutions. Tuition and fees at public universities, expressed as a percentage of total revenue, increased from 16 percent in 1980 to 22

percent in 1992. At private institutions, which rely more heavily

on tuition revenue, the share of revenue also increased. For

example, at private universities, tuition and fee revenue climbed

from 40 percent of total revenue in 1980 to 45 percent in 1992.4

Tuition revenue as a percentage of total revenue

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS Finance Surveys.

Public

universities

Private

universities

Other private

4-year colleges

Other public

4-year colleges

Public 2-year

colleges

1980

1992

40%

45%

16%

15%

61%

16%

22%

69%

22%

22%
• Student financial aid, particularly from federal

sources, defrays some of the cost to students of

attending college.

During the 1992–93 academic year, the average amount of grant

aid given to dependent full-time students attending public 4-

year institutions was 29 percent of the average tuition charged

them.5 In effect, students received, on average, a 29 percent discount on tuition charges. Because the amount of grant aid is

larger for students from low income families, this percentage

was higher for students from such families (80 percent) than for

students from high income families (10 percent). 

Average grant aid as a percentage of average tuition charged

for dependent full-time undergraduates: 1992–93

SOURCE: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 1992–93.

For those attending private 4-year colleges and universities, the

patterns were similar. However, for students from low income

families attending private 4-year institutions, the average

8

Low

Lower middle

Upper middle

High

Family income

Private 4-year

Public 4-year

80%

35%

18%

10%

14%

38%

46%

64%

STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
9

amount of grant aid received was a smaller percentage of their

average tuition charges than for their counterparts attending

public 4-year institutions (64 percent versus 80 percent).

• Most types of higher education institutions

have increased the amounts they spend on

scholarships and fellowships. 

Institutions may use scholarship and fellowship awards to offset

tuition and fee charges for students who might not attend without a reduction in tuition. Since 1980, private universities and

other private 4-year colleges have at least doubled the amount

of institutional aid awarded to students. While the amounts

awarded at public institutions were lower, institutional support

from public universities increased substantially. 

Institutional expenditure per FTE student 

for scholarships and fellowships 

(in constant 1994 dollars)

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS Finance Surveys.

1980

1992

Other public

4-year colleges $474

$359

Public

universities $851

$520

Other private

4-year colleges $2,363

$1,103

Private 4-year

universities $3,578

$1,783
• Expenditures per FTE student increased at

most types of higher education institutions,

but the percentage they increased varies

widely.

Expenditures per FTE student increased only moderately

between 1980 and 1992 at public institutions. For example, per

student expenditures increased from about $14,800 to about

$17,200 in constant dollars (about 16 percent) at public universities. At public 2-year colleges, expenditures rose and fell during

the 1980s, but were at a similar level in 1992 as in 1980—about

$5,700. In contrast, expenditures rose substantially at private

institutions, increasing from $22,500 to $32,200 (about 43 percent) at private universities, and from $11,200 to $15,000 (about

34 percent) at other private 4-year colleges.

Expenditures per FTE in higher education

(in constant 1994 dollars)

Type and control Percent change

of institution 1980 1992 since 1980

Private universities $22,529 $32,242 43

Public universities 14,829 17,246 16

Other private 4-year 

colleges 11,213 15,029 34

Other public 4-year

colleges 11,002 11,654 6

Public 2-year colleges 5,759 5,686 -1

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS Finance Surveys.

10

EXPENDITURES BY

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
• Expenditures for instruction per FTE student

rose more slowly than total expenditures at

most types of institutions.

Instruction is the largest category of expenditure for higher education institutions, but only at 2-year colleges does it reach half

of all expenditures. Instructional costs per FTE student rose

more slowly than total expenditures at most types of institutions. The exceptions were private universities and public 2-

year colleges, where instruction was a similar share of total

expenditures in both 1980 and 1992.

Instructional spending as a percentage of total

institutional expenditures

Type and control Change in share

of institution 1980 1992 since 1980

Private universities 37.9 38.2 0.3

Public universities 38.8 36.0 -2.8

Other private 4-year colleges 36.7 33.1 -3.6

Other public 4-year colleges 44.9 43.2 -1.7

Public 2-year colleges 50.3 50.3 0

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS Finance Surveys.

• Expenditures per FTE student are related to

complex interactions among demographic,

institutional, and economic factors.

As the large baby boom cohorts finished college, the size of high

school graduating classes fell from 3.2 million in 1977 to 2.5 million in the early 1990s. While graduating classes were getting

smaller, enrollments at higher education institutions only leveled off during the first half of the 1980s and then continued

increasing. Universities were the exception, where enrollment

grew very little between 1980 and 1992.6

11
Total fall enrollment in 

institutions of higher education: 1975 to 1992

SOURCE: NCES, Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities and IPEDS, Fall

Enrollment surveys.

Although student enrollment growth slowed during the 1980s,

the number of staff employed in higher education increased.

The result of the two trends was that the number of FTE staff

per 100 FTE students, which had remained relatively constant

between 1977 to 1983, climbed from 18 to 20 FTE staff members

between 1983 and 1987 before stabilizing between 1987 to 1989.7

In 1991, there were approximately six FTE faculty, both

instructional and research, six other professional staff, and

eight other nonprofessional staff for every 100 FTE students in

higher education.8 In public elementary and secondary

schools, there were six classroom teachers and another five

staff for every 100 students.9 Despite the similar number of

faculty per 100 FTE students in higher education and elementary/secondary schools, many of the classes at colleges and

universities were quite large. For example, in 1992, 30 percent

of the undergraduate lower division classes at research universities had 50 or more students. At liberal arts institutions,

12

Universities

2-year colleges

'75 '78 '81 '84 '87 '90 '92

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Other 4-year colleges

Number

enrolled
13

however, only 5 percent of such classes were this large.

Between 1987 and 1992, there was little change in the percentage of undergraduate classes with more than 50 students.

Percentage of classes in 4-year colleges and universities where

class size is above 50 students: 1987 and 1992

Level Research Doctoral Compre- Liberal 

of hensive arts

class 1987 1992 1987 1992 1987 1992 1987 1992

Undergraduate

Lower division 32 30 20 21 9 10 4 5

Upper division 16 14 8 8 4 5 2 1

Graduate 7 9 4 9 2 4 1 1

SOURCE: NCES, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 1988 and 1993.

A factor that could contribute to rising expenditures in some

sectors of higher education is the rising price of resources used

by institutions of higher education. When resource prices rise

faster than inflation and institutions do not change the quantity

of resources employed per FTE staff, then expenditures per FTE

student rise. For example, if average faculty salaries rise faster

than inflation, but institutions maintain a stable number of faculty per 100 students, then expenditures per FTE student would

be expected to rise—barring a reduction in the price or utilization of some other resource such as equipment, buildings, or

staff benefits. It is worthwhile to focus some attention on faculty salaries, because it is likely that most expenditures at higher

education institutions are for staff, as opposed to buildings and

equipment, and one in three staff are faculty.

Although average faculty salaries fell in constant dollars during

the high inflation period of the 1970s, the trend reversed and

average faculty salaries rose significantly during the 1980s.
For example, the average salary of full professors at public institutions fell from $64,200 in 1972 to $49,500 in 1981 (in constant

1993 dollars), and then rose during the 1980s to $58,300 in

1992.10 At private institutions, the patterns were similar.

However, as noted above, expenditures for instruction, which

include expenditures for all faculty time except the portion paid

for by research grants and contracts, rose more slowly than total

expenditures. This suggests that increased utilization or prices

of other resources, including nonfaculty staff, had a larger effect

on expenditures than increased faculty salaries.

Average salaries of full-time faculty in institutions 

of higher education: 1973 to 1992

(in constant 1994 dollars)

SOURCE: NCES, HEGIS and IPEDS surveys of faculty salaries, various years.

Finally, a possible reason for the rise in the cost of higher education over the long term is a lack of increase in productivity in

higher education. Whereas many sectors of the U.S. economy,

particularly manufacturing and agriculture, have used technology

and innovation to either increase the quantity or quality of goods

provided with no corresponding increases in resources used,

higher education is still provided in largely the same way it was

when the nation was founded. When productivity growth in a

particular sector of the economy lags behind that in the rest of the

economy, the cost of providing that good or service increases.11

14

$65,000

’72

Professor

Associate professor

Assistant professor

60,000

55,000

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

0

’73 ’75 ’76 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’85 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’91 ’92
15

• A higher education degree confers a 

substantial economic advantage to college

graduates.

College graduates hold a relative advantage over high school

graduates in the labor market. For example, unemployment

rates for 25- to 29-year-olds in 1994 were lower for college graduates and those with some college than for individuals holding

a high school diploma or less. 

Percentage of the population aged 25 to 29 years old 

who are unemployed: 1994

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey, 1994.

• The earnings advantage of completing college

increased between 1970 and 1993 for both

male and female graduates.

LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

Grades

9–11

High

school

diploma

Some

college

Bachelor’s

degree

20%

17%

9%

9%

6%

6%

3%

3%

Females

Males

Highest education

completed
16

While tuition rose substantially between 1980 and 1993, so did college enrollment rates. Perhaps these seemingly paradoxical trends

are due to the increasing premium for completing college. Since

1970, the earnings advantage for 25- to 34-year-olds with a college

degree has been consistently higher than for individuals completing some college (13–15 years of school), a high school degree, or

less than a high school degree. Furthermore, the earnings premium for graduating from college was also rising, and may have outweighed any negative effect of rising tuition on enrollment rates. 

Ratio of median annual earnings of 25- to 34-year-old workers 

to those with 12 years of schooling: 1970 to 1993

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Surveys.

‘70 ‘72 ‘74 ‘76 ‘80 ‘82 ‘78 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘93

Male

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

0.75

2.00

0.50

Ratio

9–11 years of school

16 or more years of school

13–15 years of school

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

0.50

‘70 ‘72 ‘74 ‘76 ‘80 ‘82 ‘78 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘93

9–11 years of school

16 or more years of school

13–15 years of school

Ratio Female

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

0.75

2.00

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

0.50
17

Among male workers, the earnings premium for completing

college increased from 19 to 57 percent between 1980 and 1993;

for female workers, it increased from 52 to 99 percent.

However, these increases were largely due to a decrease in the

average earnings of high school graduates, rather than an

increase in the average earnings of college graduates. For

example, the average earnings of male college graduates were

about $33,000 in both 1980 and 1993; however, the average

earnings of male high school graduates fell from about $28,000

to $21,000 over the same period. Thus, young people today may

need to acquire a college education as protection from a deteriorating labor market for workers who have only a high school

education.

Note that females have generally realized a greater earnings

advantage than males for completing college; that is, the percentage difference between the earnings of females with a college degree and the earnings of female high school graduates

was greater than the corresponding percentage difference for

males. 

Despite the large increase in average tuition charges, higher

education costs to students remain well below their total expenditures per student. At public institutions, average tuition

charges are lower than expenditures for instruction per FTE

student, i.e., excluding expenditures for administration, operation/maintenance of plant, libraries, and student services. At

private universities, average tuition charges are similar to

instructional expenditures per FTE student ($13,700 versus

$12,300); however, at other private 4-year institutions, average

tuition charges are higher than instructional expenditures per

SUMMARY
FTE student ($9,800 versus $5,000), but less than total expenditures per FTE student ($15,000). In most sectors of higher education, students are charged less on average than institutions

spend for instruction, and some research suggests that students

prefer to attend high spending institutions, particularly those

where the difference between expenditures and tuition is the

greatest.12

The cost of college for students includes more than the expenditures for tuition; it also includes forgone earnings. The earnings

and experience given up to continue education are significant,

possibly greater than the tuition that must be paid.13 Even if the

earnings of high school graduates between the ages of 18 and 23

are relatively low, they are nevertheless high when compared to

average tuition charges, particularly those at public institutions.

Thus, falling labor market opportunities for high school graduates may have reduced the cost of enrolling in higher education

as much as rising tuition has increased it.

On the benefit side, large economic benefits, including lower

rates of unemployment, higher earnings, better working conditions, and more generous fringe benefits appear to accrue to

those who participate in higher education. In addition, at

least one of these benefits—earnings—not only has been

increasing in recent years but also appears to grow larger with

age. In short, higher education still appears to be a good

investment for students.

18
1U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60.

2Digest of Education Statistics, 1995, table 168.

3NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 1993.

4NCES, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS),

Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Education, and Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Finance Survey.

5NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 1993.

6Digest of Education Statistics, 1994, table 170.

7The Condition of Education, 1992, tables 54-2 and 54-3, and Fall Staff in

Postsecondary Institutions, 1991.

8Digest of Education Statistics, 1994, tables 216 and 196.

9Digest of Education Statistics, 1994, table 82, or The Condition of Education,

1992, Indicator 53.

10The Condition of Education, 1994, table 57-1.

11 This phenomenon is widely known in the economics profession as

“Baumol’s disease.” See William J. Baumol, “Macroeconomics of

Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis.” American Economic

Review, 57 (June 1967), and W. J. Baumol and W. G. Bowen, Performing

Arts: The Economic Dilemma, 1967. The “disease” is the inevitable rise as

the economy grows and incomes increase in the cost of some goods or

services that meet three criteria: 1) slower productivity growth than in

the rest of the economy, 2) increasing (relative) demand as incomes

grow, and 3) lack of good alternatives to the good or service. (Higher

education may be in this category, but there are also plausible arguments for why it may not be included.) If these three criteria hold for

higher education, then its cost is likely to increase over time without a

commensurate increase in quality or quantity.

12Ralph M. Bradburn, Duncan P. Mann, Michael S. McPherson, and

Morton Owen Shapiro. “Understanding the ‘Quality’ Issue in U.S.

Higher Education.” Washington, D.C.: Pelavin Associates, Inc. (paper

prepared for Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, U.S.

Department of Education), October 1991. 

13 Most analysis of the rate of return to education by economists builds

on this fact. See, for example, Jacob Mincer. Schooling, Experience, and

Earnings. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau for Economic Research,

1974.

19

REFERENCES
For more information, see the following NCES publications:

The Condition of Education, 1994. Washington, D.C.: 1994.

The Condition of Education, 1995. Washington, D.C.: 1995.

Digest of Education Statistics, 1994. Washington, D.C.: 1994.

Digest of Education Statistics, 1995. Washington, D.C.: 1995.

Other Findings from The Condition of Education:

No. 1: High School Students Ten Years After A Nation At Risk

No. 2: The Educational Progress of Black Students

No. 3: America’s Teachers Ten Years After A Nation At Risk

No. 4: The Educational Progress of Hispanic Students

No. 5: The Educational Progress of Women

20
NCES constituents with access to the Internet can tap a rich collection of education-related information at the U.S. Department of

Education’s (ED) public Gopher/FTP/World Wide Web site,

including:

• announcements of new publications and data sets

• descriptions of NCES and ED programs

• statistical tables, charts, and data sets

• press releases

• general information about the Department

• searchable ED staff directory

• funding opportunities

• event calendars

• directories of effective programs

• directory of education-related information centers

• research findings and syntheses

• full-text publications for teachers, parents, and researchers

• pointers to public Internet resources at R&D Centers, 

Regional Laboratories, ERIC Clearinghouses, and other 

ED-funded institutions.

They can access the information by using:

A Gopher client, gopher.ed.gov or select North America-->U.S.

Department of Education. From the main Gopher menu, NCES

produced information is available under Educational Research,

Improvement and Statistics (OERI & NCES)/National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES)/.

An FTP client, ftp to ftp.ed.gov, log-on anonymous.

21

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO

NCES AND OTHER ED INFORMATION
A World Wide Web client such as NCSA Mosaic or Lynx point to 

URL = http://www.ed.gov/ or http://www.ed.gov/NCES

Dial-in users can access much of the same information through the

OERI Toll-Free Electronic Bulletin Board, which provides on-line

access to statistical data, research findings, information about

Department of Education programs, and, in some cases, full texts of

departmental documents. Computer users can retrieve this information at any hour using a modem (at speeds up to 14,400 baud)

and calling (800) 222-4922. Local direct, call (202) 219-1511. 

22