A Study of Higher

Education Instructional

Expenditures: 

The Delaware Study 

of Instructional Costs 

and Productivity

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003-161

Research and Development Report
A Study of Higher

Education Instructional

Expenditures:

The Delaware Study

of Instructional Costs

and Productivity

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003-161

Research and Development

Report

Michael F. Middaugh

Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Planning

University of Delaware

Rosalinda Graham

Project Manager

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

University of Delaware

Abdus Shahid

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

University of Delaware
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Val Plisko

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and

review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product

or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

June 2003

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. A Study of Higher Education

Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. NCES 2003-161,

by Michael F. Middaugh, Rosalinda Graham, and Abdus Shahid. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll.

Washington, DC: 2003.

Contact:

Aurora DíAmico

(202) 502-7334

Aurora.DíAmico@ed.gov
iii

Foreword

The Research and Development (R&D) series of reports at NCES has been initiated:

1. To share studies and research that are developmental in nature. The results of such studies may be

revised as the work continues and additional data become available.

2. To share the results of studies that are, to some extent, on the ìcutting edgeî of methodological

developments. Emerging analytical approaches and new computer software development often

permit new and sometimes controversial analyses to be done. By participating in ìfrontier research,î

we hope to contribute to the resolution of issues and improved analysis.

3. To participate in discussions of emerging issues of interest to educational researchers, statisticians,

and the federal statistical community in general. Such reports may document workshops and

symposia sponsored by NCES that address methodological and analytical issues or may share and

discuss issues regarding NCES practices, procedures, and standards.

The common theme in all three goals is that these reports present results or discussions that do not reach

definitive conclusions at this point in time, either because the data are tentative, the methodology is new

and developing, or the topic is one on which there are divergent views. Therefore, the techniques and

inferences made from the data are tentative and subject to revision. To facilitate the process of closure on

the issues, we invite comment, criticism, and alternatives to what we have done. Such responses should

be directed to:

Marilyn Seastrom

Chief Statistician

Statistical Standards Program

National Center for Education Statistics

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006ñ5654
iv
v

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed in important ways to development of this report. The Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and Productivity is the data source for the analyses that comprise this study of higher

education instructional expenditures. The Delaware Study would not exist were it not for the strong

institutional commitment and support received from University of Delaware President David Roselle,

Provost Daniel Rich, and most especially Executive Vice President David Hollowell. Larry Hotchkiss and

David Kaplan, from the University of Delaware, provided critical advice and support with respect to the

selection and use of statistical tests used in the analyses in this report.

Early drafts of the report benefited from extensive review and suggestions from Dennis Carroll, Associate

Commissioner for Postsecondary Education, and Paula Knepper, both at the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES), and from Michael Lance, consultant with NCES. Several other individuals

in Washington provided valuable feedback. They include Marilyn McMillen Seastrom, Chief Statistician

for NCES; Grover J. Whitehurst, Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education; Bernie Greene, Early Childhood, International and Crosscutting Studies Division, NCES;

Ilona Berkovits, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Longitudinal Studies, NCES; David Bergeron,

Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education; Dan Goldenberg, Office of the Under

Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; and Carol Fuller, National Association of Independent Colleges

and Universities.

Finally, special thanks to the staff in the Office of Institutional Research and Planning at the University of

Delaware, whose conscientious work on university institutional research projects allowed us time to

pursue this project. Those individuals include Dale Trusheim, Associate Director; Karen Bauer, Assistant

Director; Heather Isaacs, Institutional Research Analyst; Karen DeMonte, Institutional Research Analyst;

and Maggie Brumit, Records Analyst/Coordinator.
vi
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Study of Higher Education Instructional

Expenditures is an examination of higher

education costs undertaken by the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES). This study of

higher education costs was mandated by Congress

in the 1998 Higher Education Act. The NCES

response to the congressional mandate

encompassed three reports: the first, Study of

College Costs and Prices, 1988ñ89 to 1997ñ98;

followed by What Students Pay for College:

Changes in Net Price of College Attendance

Between 1992ñ93 and 1999ñ2000; and

culminating in this third and final report.

The first report in the congressionally mandated

study drew the distinction between sticker price,

i.e., the tuition that an institution charges for a

college education, and cost, i.e., the fiscal

resources expended by the institution to provide

that education. Additionally, researchers for the

first part of the study found that certain factors are

associated with tuition rates. Most notable at

state-supported institutions is importance of

annual budget appropriations. At private not-forprofit institutions, internal budget constraints, size

of endowments, and external market competition

were among factors associated with sticker price.

There was little evidence indicating that

expenditures for instruction were a major factor in

determining tuition rates.

This report focuses solely on the issue of direct

instructional expenditures, and the factors

associated with the comparative magnitude of

those expenditures at 4-year colleges and

universities in the United States. As evident in the

findings and conclusions, the factors associated

with instructional expenditures are different from

those associated with sticker price, as identified in

the first part of the congressionally mandated

study. Cost and price are not interchangeable

constructs, and a strong statistical relationship

between them has not been found.

The data source for this analysis is multiple cycles

of the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and

Productivity, henceforth called the Delaware

Study. Begun in 1992 by the Office of

Institutional Research and Planning at the

University of Delaware, the study has grown into a

national data-sharing consortium embracing over

300 4-year colleges and universities across the

United States. The foci of data-sharing activities

are detailed analyses of teaching loads by faculty

category, instructional costs, and externally funded

scholarly activity, all at the level of the academic

discipline.

Goals and Limitations of This

Study

The primary objective of this analysis of

instructional expenditures is the identification of

those factors that contribute to describing direct

instructional costs in the colleges and universities

that participate in the Delaware Study.

The study is characterized by the following

factors:

• Participation in the Delaware Study is

voluntary, and is restricted to 4-year Title IVeligible institutions only. The fact that the

data population used in this study is selfselected raises the issue of nonresponse bias.

For example, institutions that participate in the

Delaware Study typically have enrollments of

at least 5,000 students and are organizationally

complex, with discrete academic departments

or programs that correspond with the fourdigit codes assigned to disciplines within the

NCES Classification of Instructional

Programs (CIP) taxonomy. In contrast, single

purpose institutions with smaller enrollments

frequently have multiple disciplines grouped

within a given organizational structure, e.g.,
viii

Division of Social Sciences, or Department of

Education, etc., and participate in much

smaller numbers than their larger, more

complex counterparts. In addition, because

participation is restricted to 4-year institutions,

findings cannot be extended to the 2-year

college sector.

• Because the population for this study is selfselected, it is, by definition, not a random

sample. Descriptive statistics are applied to

data from responding institutions to describe

instructional expenditures for those

institutions, but the findings cannot be

inferentially generalized to the larger

population of all Title IV-eligible 4-year

colleges and universities in the United States.

However, this studyís findings nonetheless

yield valuable descriptive information about

expenditures in those institutions that

participate in the Delaware data-sharing

process.

• The Delaware Study expenditure data reflect

direct instructional expense, and therefore

cannot be used for a full cost model. There

are methodological pitfalls and inconsistencies

in full cost modeling in higher education,

especially with respect to allocating indirect

costs (as described in the full report).

Within the context of these characteristics, this

study yields information about factors that

contribute to direct instructional costs at an

institution, and these expenditures generally

compose the largest portion of the operating

budget at most colleges and universities.

Study Design and Methodology

This study utilized data from multiple data

collection cycles of the Delaware Study, focusing

primarily on data collected during 1998, 2000, and

2001. Data were collected using an established

survey instrument that requests detailed

information on fall semester teaching loads by

faculty category, and academic and fiscal year

student credit hour production and direct expenses

for instruction, research, and service activity.

Direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught is the focal dependent variable examined in

this study. Patterns of dispersion and difference in

cost across disciplines are examined through a

series of analytical lenses that are typically

assumed to be major cost factors in the literature.

These include institutional mission as

characterized by the Carnegie institutional

classification. The Delaware Study employs the

1995 Carnegie taxonomy1

óresearch, doctoral,

comprehensive, and baccalaureate institutions.

The study also examines the impact of other

variables such as highest degree offered within a

discipline, and the relative emphasis on

undergraduate versus graduate instruction within a

discipline.

Using appropriate statistical tools, the relationship

of cost to variables such as department size

(measured in terms of number of faculty),

proportion of faculty who are tenured, volume of

student credit hours taught, and personnel expense

as a percentage of total instructional costs is

examined and measured. Effects of highest degree

offered in the discipline, as well as Carnegie

institutional classification, are also examined.

Cost factors are determined by disciplines, or

where more appropriate, groups of disciplines.

Findings

The key finding from analysis of multiple years of

Delaware Study data is that most of the variance in

instructional cost across institutions, as measured

by direct expense per student credit hour taught, is

associated with the disciplinary mix within an

institution.

A secondary factor affecting cost is institutional

mission, as related to Carnegie institutional

classification. This result may be associated with

different faculty responsibilities at institutions

with different Carnegie classifications. For

example, faculty at research universities,

 

1

 The 1995 Carnegie Taxonomy is fully described in appendix C.
ix

extensively engaged in research activity, might be

expected to teach fewer student credit hours at

higher costs than faculty at comprehensive

institutions. However, Carnegie classification

accounts for less of the cost differential between

institutions than the disciplinary mix factor.

Figure A reflects actual academic year 2001

Delaware Study benchmarks2 for 5 of the 24

disciplines analyzed in this study. The

benchmarks are mean values for direct expense

per student credit hour taught, as reported by

participating institutions. They have been refined

to correct for outliers and influential cases, and as

such, are fair reflections of the average cost of

instruction in those disciplines.

 

2 The complete set of Delaware Study benchmarks for all of the

disciplines analyzed in this study is found in appendix tables D-1

through D-10.

In chemistry, average direct expense per student

credit hour taught ranged from $181 at

comprehensive institutions to $264 at research

universities, an $83 spread. The range in English

is $28, from a low of $112 at comprehensive

institutions to a high of $140 at research

universities. Foreign languages range from $131

at doctoral universities to $202 at baccalaureate

colleges, a $71 spread, while mechanical

engineering ranges from $316 at doctoral

universities to $379 at research universities, a

difference of $63. And sociology ranges from

$100 at comprehensive institutions to $138 at

baccalaureate colleges, a spread of $38. These

examples in figure A are typical of the ranges in

any given Delaware Study data collection cycle.

Figure A. Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Institution type within discipline, 2001

264

140

171

379

124

233

116

131

316

106

181

112

147

342

100

242

132

202

138

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Chemistry English Foreign Languages Mechanical

Engineering

Sociology

Dollars

Research

Doctoral

Comprehensive

Baccalaureate

NOTE: Data for mechanical engineering at baccalaureate institutions are not applicable.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
x

While the foregoing discussion demonstrates that

there is variation within a discipline across

institution types, figure B clearly illustrates there is

also considerable variation across the disciplines

within an institution. Using the same disciplinary

examples, at a research university, the difference

in direct expense per student credit hour taught

between English and mechanical engineering is

$239; the difference between sociology and

chemistry is $140. Comparable patterns are

apparent within the other Carnegie categories as

well.

These cost differentials within disciplines across

institutional types and between disciplines within

those types lead to an overarching question. In

describing the cost of instruction at higher

education institutions, which is the more important

factoróthe designation of the institution as

research, doctoral, comprehensive, or

baccalaureate, or the configuration of disciplines

that compose the institution?

Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)3 is a

statistical tool that provides the capability to

disaggregate total variance in cost by institution,

and by discipline within the institution. HLM

helps to explore and describe the dispersion of

instructional costs across institutions, and to

identify those factors that are associated with the

dispersion. The hierarchical linear model

constructed in this study demonstrates that most of

the variance in cost is at the discipline level within

an institution, ranging from 76.0 percent in the

1998 data collection cycle to 82.6 percent in the

2000 cycle.

It can be asserted that Carnegie institutional

classification, as a proxy for institutional mission,

is tied to at least some of the dispersion of costs at

the aggregate institutional level. When Carnegie

classification is taken into account in the

hierarchical linear model, the dispersion in cost

across institutions decreases, and the relative

 

3 A complete brief discussion of the statistical techniques used in

analyzing cost variance is found in the Technical Notes (appendix

E).

Figure B. Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Discipline within institution type, 2001

264

233

181

242

140 140

112

132

171

131

147

202

379

316

342

138

124

106 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Research Doctoral Comprehensive Baccalaureate

Dollars

Chemistry

English

Foreign Languages

Mechanical Engineering

Sociology

NOTE: Data for mechanical engineering at baccalaureate institutions are not applicable.

SOURCE: University of Delaware. The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
xi

variance due to disciplines within an institution

ranges from 81.0 to 88.0 percent.

This important finding underscores that the

disciplines that compose a college or universityís

curriculum, not its Carnegie designation, are

associated with most of the dispersion of costs

among institutions. This further highlights the

distinction between costs, i.e., instructional

expenditures, and price, i.e., tuition. Stated plainly,

price is a constant for all undergraduates at an

institution; chemistry and engineering majors pay

the same tuition rate as English and sociology

majors. However, the cost of delivering

instruction in those disciplines varies widely.

Finding that most of the variation in instructional

expenditures is associated with the mix of

disciplines within an institution is also important

in light of the issues raised in the first part of the

congressionally mandated study. Researchers

found no apparent relationship between the level

of instructional expenditures at an institution and

the tuition rate charged by that institution. Results

of this analysis of direct instructional expense

underscore the difficulty in relating price to cost at

the level of the academic discipline. While direct

instructional expense per student credit hour

taught in civil engineering is three times higher

than that for sociology, it is not practical for an

institution to charge engineering majors a tuition

rate three times that charged to sociology majors.

Indeed, the first report in the cost study found that

institutional tuition rates at public institutions are

determined largely by state appropriation levels,

while competitive market forces shape tuition at

private institutions. Neither of these external

factors has anything to do with what it costs to

deliver instruction in a discipline. Price (i.e.,

tuition) and cost (i.e., institution expenditures) are

not interchangeable constructs.

While the foregoing discussion described the

forces that are associated with instructional cost

within an institution, the study also focused on

those factors that impact expenditures within a

discipline. In The Economics of American

Universities,4 Paul Brinkman postulated that the

behavior of marginal and average costs can be

associated with four dimensions: size (i.e.,

quantity of activity or output), scope of services

offered, level of instruction (for instructional

costs), and discipline (for instructional costs).

The analyses in this study determined that 60 to 75

percent of the variation in cost within a discipline

or groups of disciplines is associated with specific

cost factors consistent with those identified by

Brinkman. While the association of a given

variable with cost, as measured by direct expense

per student credit hour taught, may vary from

discipline to discipline, the following general

patterns are consistently observed:

• The volume of teaching activity, as measured

by total student credit hours taught, is a major

cost factor. Cost decreases as volume

increases.

• Department size, as measured in terms of total

number of faculty, is a consistent cost

indicator. The larger the department, the

higher the cost.

• The proportion of faculty holding tenure is a

cost factor. The higher the proportion of

tenured faculty, the higher the cost.

• The presence of graduate instruction in a

discipline increases costs, although the

measured effect of this variable on direct

expense in this study is smaller than teaching

volume, department size, and faculty tenure

rate.

• Similarly, the extent to which expense is

associated with personnel costs, as opposed to

equipment costs, has less impact on total

direct instructional expenditures within a

discipline than do teaching volume,

department size, and tenure rate.

 

4 P.T. Brinkman, Higher Education Cost Functions, in S.A Hoenack

and E.L. Collins, Eds., The Economics of American Universities:

Management, Operations and Fiscal Environment. (Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press, 1990).
xii

Conclusions

While the first report in the congressionally

mandated study of expenditures in higher

education provided evidence that the price that

students pay for an education is largely associated

with factors external to the institution, the analyses

in this report suggest that the direct cost of

providing that education is more closely associated

with internal institutional decisions and priorities.

The mix of disciplines that compose an

institutionís overall curriculum is associated with

direct instructional expense at that institution and,

to a smaller extent, its designation as a research,

doctoral, comprehensive, or baccalaureate

institution. Costs vary more substantially across

disciplines within a given institution than they do

across institutions within a given discipline.

Within the individual disciplines at an institution,

economies of scale have the greatest impact on

instructional costs. When given a faculty of fixed

size, the more student credit hours taught, the

lower the unit cost. Increasing the size of that

faculty without a concomitant increase in student

credit hour production raises instructional expense.

Increasing the proportion of tenured facultyóthat

cadre of faculty that is better compensated and are

essentially a ìfixed costîówill increase

instructional expense. And to a lesser extent,

introducing or increasing the level of graduate

instruction raises instructional costs.

While the data analyzed in this study reflect cost

patterns for those 4-year colleges and universities

participating in the Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and Productivity only, they

nonetheless provide a clear and measurable

understanding of cost behaviors within those

institutions. These are fresh data, collected at the

academic discipline level of analysis, and lend

themselves to descriptive statistics that illuminate

and clarify cost patterns within those institutions

that elect to belong to this data-sharing

consortium.

A college or universityís tuition rate is tied to what

competing institutions charge, i.e., marketplace

conditions, and what state legislatures provide as

an operating subsidy. Instructional expenditures

are tied to more fixed-cost factors, i.e., the mix of

disciplines in place at the institution, and within

those disciplines, student credit hour production,

department size, and tenure rate. This study

suggests that depending upon their magnitude,

these variables constitute a baseline level for

instructional costs within a discipline, and these

costs vary less by discipline across institutions

than they do among disciplines within an

institution.

Most higher education institutions have multiple

revenue streams, tuition being but one, to cover

instructional costs. It is evident from this study

that the factors that are associated with

instructional costs are very different from the

factors that are associated with tuition prices.
xiii

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Foreword ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... vii

List of Text Tables ..................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Appendix Tables............................................................................................................. xiv

List of Figures............................................................................................................................. xvi

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

NCES Response to the Congressional Mandate................................................................ 1

The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity .......................................... 4

Analytical Framework ................................................................................................................ 9

Data Source: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity..................... 9

Bias Issues in the Data........................................................................................................ 10

Analysis of Nonresponse Bias............................................................................................ 11

Statistical Tools................................................................................................................... 13

Findings....................................................................................................................................... 17

Variation in Cost Across and Within Institutions ............................................................. 17

Differences in Costs Between and Across Disciplines .................................................... 19

Cost Factors ....................................................................................................................... 22

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 24

Conclusions and Discussion ...................................................................................................... 25

Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 25

Discussion........................................................................................................................... 26

References .................................................................................................................................. 29
xiv

Table of ContentsóContinued

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A Delaware Study Institutional Participant List ................................................................... A-1

B Data Collection Form ........................................................................................................ B-1

C Glossary ............................................................................................................................. C-1

D Appendix Tables ................................................................................................................ D-1

E Technical Notes ................................................................................................................. E-1

List of Text Tables

Text Table

1 Average faculty salary in selected disciplines, by rank..................................................... 6

2 Number of institutions participating in the Delaware Study, by Carnegie

institutional classification, by year: 1997ñ2001 ............................................................... 11

3 Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academic

disciplines, by Carnegie institution type: 1998, 2000, and 2001 ..................................... 14

4 Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academic

disciplines, by Carnegie institution type, by quartile: 2001............................................. 15

5 Study of variance components of cost per student credit hour based on hierarchical

linear modeling: 1998, 2000, and 2001 ............................................................................ 18

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Table

D-1 Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-5

D-2 Nonresponse bias for 2000 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-7

D-3 Nonresponse bias for 1999 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-9
xv

Table of ContentsóContinued

List of Appendix TablesóContinued

Appendix Table Page

D-4 Nonresponse bias for 1998 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-10

D-5 Nonresponse bias for 1997 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-12

D-6 Summary of ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction,

by discipline and Carnegie classification, by highest degree offered, and

undergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 2001, 2000, and 1998

Delaware Study ............................................................................................................... D-14

D-7 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-15

D-8 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-17

D-9 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-19

D-10 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-21

D-11 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-23

D-12 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-25

D-13 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................. D-27
xvi

Table of ContentsóContinued

List of Appendix TablesóContinued

Appendix Table Page

D-14 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 2000 Delaware Study .................................................. D-28

D-15 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 1998 Delaware Study .................................................. D-29

D-16 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-30

D-17 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 2000 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-35

D-18 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 1998 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-40

List of Figures

Figure

A Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Institution type within discipline,

2001 ................................................................................................................................. ix

B Direct expense per student credit hour taught: Discipline within institution type,

2001 ................................................................................................................................. x

1 Winston full cost model: Annotated formula for cost per student ............................... 3
1

INTRODUCTION

As a part of the Higher Education Amendments of

1998, Congress required that the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES) conduct a study of

expenditures in higher education. This legislation

specifically required that the study include

information concerning:

• The change in tuition and fees compared with

the Consumer Price Index and other

appropriate measures of inflation;

• Faculty salaries and benefits;

• Administrative salaries, benefits, and

expenses;

• Academic support services;

• Research;

• Operations and maintenance; and

• Institutional expenditures for construction and

technology, and the potential cost of replacing

instructional buildings and equipment.

The study was also to include an evaluation of

expenditure patterns over time, an evaluation of

the relationship of expenditures to the price

charged for a college education, and the impact of

tuition discounting and federal financial aid on

tuition-setting policy.

NCES Response to the

Congressional Mandate

NCES elected to respond to the congressional

mandate for a study of higher education costs

through a statistical analysis of factors that drive

tuition at higher education institutions,

supplemented by a series of commissioned expert

papers. Both the analysis and the papers defined

the conceptual framework for cost analysis, and

responded to several of the key congressional

concerns with respect to the relationship between

the price charged to students for a college

education and the cost of that education.

The commissioned papers included the following:

• Cost Analysis and the Formulation of Public

Policy, Dennis P. Jones, National Center for

Higher Education Management Systems

• Institutional Financial Health: Tuition

Discounting and Enrollment Management,

Lucie Lapovsky, Mercy College (New York)

• Higher Educationís Costs, Prices, and

Subsidies: Some Economic Facts and

Fundamentals, Gordon C. Winston, Williams

College (Massachusetts)

• Issues of Cost and Price in Higher Education:

Observations on Needed Data and Research,

Michael McPherson, Macalester College

(Minnesota), and Morton Owen Schapiro,

Williams College

• Higher Education and Those ìOut of Control

Costs,î D. Bruce Johnstone, University of

Buffalo (New York)

• An Essay on College Costs, David W.

Breneman, University of Virginia

• Measuring Higher Education Costs:

Considerations and Cautions, Michael F.

Middaugh, University of Delaware

Despite the disparate backgrounds and institutions

of the authors, certain consistent themes run

through the expert papers that speak specifically to

questions raised by Congress with respect to the

relationship between the cost and price of a

college education.
2

1 . There is not a pure cause-and-effect

relationship between price and cost. While

tuition revenues are associated with

expenditure patterns at an institution, they are

also associated with revenue streams available

to that institution. Tuition rates at public

institutions are clearly associated with the

level of state appropriations. On the other

hand, tuition rates at private institutions are

associated with competitive market place as

much as with expenditures.

2 . While tuition discounting is an issue at

colleges and universities, especially private

institutions, tuition rates are to a greater extent

tied to what neighboring institutions,

particularly public institutions, are charging.

3 .Expenditure/cost patterns represent

institutional choices, values, and priorities.

They reflect choices made within the

constraints of available resources, i.e., revenue

streams.

While Congress may have been looking for a

simple relationship between the price of a higher

education and the cost of delivering that education,

these papers deliver compelling arguments for

environmental factors that have little to do with

expenditure rates as the major determinants of

tuition levels. The study specifically cites

declining state appropriations as the major factor

associated with rising tuition rates at public

institutions, while competitive market pressures

and the availability of nontuition revenue streams

are tied to tuition increases at private, not-forprofit institutions. That said, the issue raised by

Congress as to how college and universities spend

money, i.e., for what purpose and with what

results, is deserving of a clear and credible

response.

In attempting to formulate a response over the

years, colleges and universities have developed

full cost models that look at total expenditures at

groups of institutions without regard to differences

between and among those institutions with respect

to mission and disciplinary mixóboth of which

have profound impacts on expenditure patterns.

The dialogue is further confounded when, in

attempting to distinguish between direct and

indirect costs in higher education, the full cost

model at one institution may use one battery of

indirect cost formulas while the model at another

uses an entirely different set of formulas. In each

case, the formulas are dependent upon funding

source and purpose of expenditure.

Full cost models of higher education expenditures

attempt to describe direct

expendituresóparticularly those for instruction

and student servicesóplus what are commonly

referred to as indirect costs, i.e., expenditures

associated with research and public service,

overhead associated with administrative costs, and

costs associated with the operation and

maintenance of the physical plant. One of the

oldest and most standard of full cost formulas was

developed by Kent Halstead of Research

Associates of Washington, and was used for years

in their publication Higher Education Revenues

and Expenditures. This annual volume computes,

for each institution in the country, a ìFull

Instructional Cost per Full Time Equivalent

Student,î using data entirely derived from the

Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System

(IPEDS) database. The formula for full

instructional cost is as follows:

Full Instructional Cost equals the sum of direct

costs for instruction and student services plus

indirect costs equal to total institutional and

academic support and institutional support

expenditures and plant expenditures less

overhead for funded research and public

service estimated at 33.3 percent of the

expenditures for these two activities.

The National Commission on the Cost of Higher

Education (1998), charged with responsibility for

determining the relationship between higher

education expenditures and tuition or ìsticker

price,î relied heavily on the work of Gordon

Winston of Williams College and the Williams

Project on the Economics of Higher Education.

The Winston model is predicated on the

assumption that some expenditures are clearly

related to instruction, while some are only partially

related, and to both of these must be added a

proportion of capital costs (figure 1).
3

++

Figure 1. Winston full cost model: Annotated formula for cost per student

Cost =

Clearly

instruction

Proportion

partially

instruction

Proportion

capital

costs

Current expenditures on:

Academic support

Institutional support

Operation of physical plan

Depreciation (2.5%):

Replacement value of buildings

Replacement value of equipment

plus

Opportunity cost (9.12%):

Replacement value of buildings

Replacement value of equipment

Replacement value of land

Where proportion equals

Current expenditures on:

Instruction

Student services

Current expenditures on instruction and student services

divided by

Total current fund expenditures less: current expenditures on academic support,

institutional support, operation of physical plan, scholarships and fellowships,

mandatory and non-mandatory transfers

Cost per student =

Cost divided by full-time-equivalent enrollment

SOURCE: National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Straight Talk College Costs and Prices. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1988.

The Halstead and Winston models illustrate the

difficulty in developing full cost models for higher

education. The allocation of indirect costs or

administrative overhead to the instructional

function is an issue of judgment. Why does

Halstead assume that the cost of overhead for

research and service activity is 33 percent? Why

not 25 percent or 40 percent? Halstead uses total

expenditures for academic and institutional

support plus operation and maintenance of

physical plant; Winston has developed a

proportional allocation for these costs. The

Halstead model excludes capital costs; Winston

includes them. Is one model superior to the other?

Brinkman (2000, pp. 11-12) put it best:

A problem in determining full costs

is that the schemes used to allocate

indirect costs are, if not arbitrary, at

least imprecise. This remains

stubbornly true even though the

problem has been worked on for

some time, including a national

effort in the 1970ís and early 1980ís

to develop appropriate procedures

for full costing. Despite such efforts,

making mistakes in allocating

indirect costs is still easy. For

example, it is a heroic assumption

that library usage correlates well

with student credit hour across all

disciplines or that one square foot of

space is necessarily worth as much

as another. The analyst who does

not accept these simplifying

assumptions is left with having to

actually measure the impact of a

particular organization or activity on

various support systems, a daunting

and expensive task that might at

some point still depend on arbitrary

valuation of some facet of the

production process. 

The difficulty in accurately and systematically

allocating indirect costs across disciplines and

institution types is not a recent roadblock in

developing full cost models. Jones (2000) pointed

out that full cost analyses start with accounting

data and rely on adjustments to, and allocations of
4

these financial data to arrive at answers, making

the analyses captives of the purposes, conventions

and limitations of such data. Hoenack (1990)

particularly focused on the need to develop

reliable means for accurately tracking overhead

associated with research and service activity as

well as instruction.

The foregoing complexities in describing and

allocating indirect costs have been further

exacerbated by a schism within the accounting

community between institutions governed by the

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB),

generally independent or privately chartered

colleges and universities, and those governed by

the Governmental Accounting Standards Board

(GASB), generally public, state-assisted

institutions. The differences in accounting

standards between the two groups are so

significant that IPEDS has been forced to develop

separate Finance surveys for FASB and GASB

institutions, and comparability of data is an issue.

In initially responding to Congress and others

seeking an assessment of major cost factors in

higher education, analytical vehicles should not be

encumbered with descriptors that are arbitrary or

imprecise. In developing the Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and Productivity, the data

source used in this study, Middaugh (2001,

pp. 73ñ74) stated:

It is important to underscore that for

each of the expenditure categories

[instruction, research, and service] only

direct costs are measured. In creating a

framework for productivity analysis, it

is important that the data be credible and

verifiable. The standard definitions are

clear and precise for identifying direct

expense by institutional functional

category. Measuring indirect costs, that

is, administrative costs, utilities costs,

capital costs, and so on, is less uniform

and precise. Indeed, on any given

campus there are multiple calculations

for indirect costs based upon the

academic disciplines for which costs are

being recovered. For the sake of clarity,

simplicity, and credibility, the

discussion of costs [in this analysis] will

in no way attempt to measure full costs,

only direct expenses.

Brinkman (2000) emphasizes that, ìThe cost

accounting data developed for the Delaware Study

of Instructional Costs and Productivity is a good

example of data suitable for subsequent statistical,

econometric type analyses.î

The Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and

Productivity

The evolution of the Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and Productivity4 is thoroughly

detailed in the book, Understanding Faculty

Productivity: Standards and Benchmarks for

Colleges and Universities (Middaugh, 2001), and

in articles in Planning for Higher Education, the

official journal of the Society for College and

University Planning (Middaugh 1996, 1999). The

following is a capsulization of the rationale that

underpins the conceptual framework for the study,

as well as a brief discussion of the methodology.

The Delaware Study is predicated on the operating

principle that any meaningful analysis of costs and

productivity in institutions of higher education

must take place at the academic discipline level of

analysis. Institutional aggregate data, while useful

in making broad, general statements about higher

education costs, may actually mask factors

associated with expenditures and lead to erroneous

conclusions when making policy related to

instructional costs and productivity. For example,

a commonly used measure of instructional costs is

one derived by taking total direct expenditures for

instruction, as reported on the IPEDS Finance

survey, and dividing that total by the number of

full-time-equivalent (FTE) students at the

institution. FTE students is a headcount measure

derived by taking the part-time headcount

 

4 The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity is a

data-sharing consortium of colleges and universities throughout the

United States. Access to Delaware Study data is restricted to

participating institutions. Questions concerning data access should

be directed to the Office of Institutional Research and Planning at

the University of Delaware, 325 Hullihen Hall, Newark DE 19716.
5

enrollment at a college or university, dividing it by

three, and adding the quotient to the full-time

headcount enrollment (Taylor and Massy 1996.)

While this measure of ìDirect Instructional

Expense per FTE Studentî might quite

appropriately be used to compare average

instructional cost between and among research

universities as a group, doctoral universities as a

group, or comprehensive or baccalaureate

institutions as a group, it should be used to

compare individual institutions with caution and

when much is known about the curricular

offerings at the institutions being compared.

Specifically, only institutions with similar

curricular mixes should be compared using

institution-wide metrics such as Direct

Instructional Expense per FTE Student. One

might wish to compare two research/doctoral

intensive universities, as defined under the 2000

Carnegie Institutional Classification convention.

Suppose one of the institutions is heavily oriented

toward the natural and physical sciences, with

significant emphasis on graduate education; the

other is steeped in the social sciences and

humanities with lesser emphasis on graduate

education. The former institution is weighted with

disciplines that are typically characterized by

small class instruction in equipment-intensive

laboratories, while the latter more typically uses

large classroom, lecture-based pedagogy in many

of its classes. Any institution-wide comparison of

costs without consideration of disciplines between

these universities will be totally misleading.

To appreciate the impact of academic discipline on

instructional cost, one need only consider faculty

salaries. Table 1 contains the average faculty

salary, by rank, for 24 disciplines typically found

at most 4-year institutions in the United States.

The data are taken from the annual survey of

faculty salaries by discipline conducted by

Oklahoma State University. While the data reflect

average salaries for flagship university members

of the National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges, this resource is a

frequently used benchmark for identifying

marketplace salaries for hiring purposes.

While it is obvious that there is disparity between

and across academic disciplines, even at the full

professor rank, the important information in table

1 is at the assistant professor and new assistant

professor rank. There are clear marketplace

differentials between entry-level salaries for new

faculty in quantitative disciplines such as

mathematics, engineering, computer science,

economics, and business, when compared with

arts, humanities, and social sciences. The

operating assumption in the Delaware Study is that

instructional expenditures are largely associated

with personnel costs, and that faculty salary

differentials will constitute a significant cost factor

across academic disciplines. This is consistent

with the finding from the first part of the

congressionally mandated study that instructional

expenditures reflect institutional choices and

priorities. Recruiting and retaining high-quality

faculty in a very competitive marketplace requires

competitive compensation, but the level of

competition and compensation clearly varies from

discipline to discipline. The differences among the

disciplines is further exacerbated by the fact that

programs in the sciences and engineering are more

equipment-intensive than other disciplines,

underscoring the need to examine instructional

expenditures at an institution as a function of

programmatic mix.

In order to better understand factors associated

with instructional expenditures in higher

education, the Office of Institutional Research and

Planning at the University of Delaware was asked

to analyze multiple data collection cycles from the

Delaware Study. The Delaware Study is a datasharing consortium embracing 4-year colleges and

universities running the full spectrum of the 1995

Carnegie Institutional Taxonomy, i.e., research,

doctoral, comprehensive, and baccalaureate.5

 The

consortium shares detailed information on faculty

teaching loads by instructor classification and

direct expenditures for instruction, research, and

public service activity. Data are collected and

analyzed by academic discipline.

 

5 The 1995 Carnegie Taxonomy is used throughout this report, as it is

analytically more meaningful for this analysis than the current

Carnegie taxonomy.
6

Table 1. Average faculty salary in selected disciplines,1

 by rank

Discipline Full

professor

Associate

professor

Assistant

professor

New assistant

professor

Communications............................................................................ $73,406 $54,126 $44,785 $43,458

Computer and information sciences............................................. 100,780 75,123 67,929 66,698

Education....................................................................................... 75,564 55,669 45,420 45,614

Engineering.................................................................................... 103,828 70,207 56,940 57,410

Foreign languages and literature .................................................. 67,335 50,005 41,240 40,763

English language and literature .................................................... 73,273 52,026 42,292 41,314

Biological sciences........................................................................ 78,506 56,951 47,279 47,900

Mathematics .................................................................................. 80,990 57,421 47,959 45,101

Philosophy ..................................................................................... 76,890 52,734 41,812 40,369

Chemistry....................................................................................... 89,245 58,527 49,292 46,726

Geology ......................................................................................... 77,266 56,946 48,552 47,026

Physics........................................................................................... 85,998 60,365 53,123 50,953

Psychology .................................................................................... 83,382 74,606 55,953 46,263

Anthropology................................................................................. 74,751 53,745 44,668 43,371

Economics..................................................................................... 99,447 67,945 60,565 62,635

Geography ..................................................................................... 75,415 56,597 45,306 43,527

History ........................................................................................... 77,849 53,859 42,800 41,491

Political science............................................................................. 82,480 56,306 45,960 45,025

Sociology....................................................................................... 78,900 54,793 45,753 45,294

Visual and performing arts........................................................... 65,645 50,349 39,979 37,530

Nursing .......................................................................................... 77,652 60,109 48,521 49,158

Business administration ................................................................ 110,753 83,558 81,615 83,835

Accounting .................................................................................... 110,424 87,610 83,553 88,854

Financial management .................................................................. 115,314 91,568 88,948 86,515

1

Disciplines reflect those organizational structures at land grant universities for which faculty salary data are collected by Oklahoma State

University.

SOURCE: 2000ñ2001 Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline, Office of Planning, Budget, and Institutional Research, Oklahoma State University.

Since its inception in 1992, nearly 350 colleges

and universities have participated in the Delaware

Study (see appendix A for the list of participants).

A substantial portion of the participant pool

submits data on an annual basis; other institutions

elect to participate on an alternate-year or less

regular interval cycle. It should be noted that this

is a voluntary data-sharing consortium.

Institutions elect to participate during any given

data cycle, and the data sample for that cycle is

therefore not random. The issue of a nonrandom

sample and potential nonresponse bias will be

addressed throughout this report.

The Delaware Study collects teaching load and

financial data at the academic discipline level of

analysis. The underlying assumption in this data

collection strategy is that there are very real

differences between and across disciplines with

respect to magnitude of teaching loads and cost.

To ensure comparability of data, disciplines are

defined using the NCES Classification of

Instructional Programs (CIP) taxonomy. Data are

typically collected at the four-digit CIP level,

although a number of participating institutions

request benchmarking at the six-digit CIP level,

and where sufficient cases exist (i.e., N equal to or

greater than 5), accommodation is made.

The Delaware Study Data Collection Form

comprises two parts (see appendix B). Part A is a

detailed collection of information on faculty

teaching loads during the fall term of the academic

year under analysis. Information is collected on

student credit hours and organized class sections

taught by each of four discrete categories of

faculty. The faculty categories include

tenured/tenure eligible; faculty on recurring

contracts at the institution but who are in nontenurable lines; supplemental and adjunct faculty;
7

and graduate teaching assistants. While student

credit hour generation is a fairly obvious measure

of teaching productivity, data on the number of

class sections taught is also collected, as not all

instructional activity is credit-bearing. It is not

uncommon to find associated with the creditbearing lecture portion of a course, organized class

sections (e.g., recitation and discussion sections,

laboratory sections, etc.), which themselves are

zero-credit, but which are required components of

the overall course of instruction. A complete

picture of total faculty teaching activityócredit

hours and course sectionsóis essential to any

discussion of a possible relationship between

teaching productivity and cost.

Cost data collected in Part B reflect direct

expenditures for instruction and separately

budgeted research and public service. The

decision to focus on direct costs is related to the

consistency in definitions as to what constitutes

instruction, research, and service expenditures.

Long-standing definitions and calculation

conventions for direct expenditures, as established

by the National Association of College and

University Business Officers (NACUBO) are used

to develop information on instructional costs.

These definitions are equally appropriate for, and

applicable to a complex research university or a

small baccalaureate liberal arts college.

The present study examines three cycles of

Delaware Study data (i.e., 1998, 2000, and 2001)

to identify those factors that are associated with

the variation in direct instructional costs between

and across academic disciplines, and to identify

those cost factors that are tied to the magnitude of

instructional expenditures in a given discipline.

This examination takes place within the context of

intervening variables such as Carnegie

classification (a proxy for mission), highest degree

offered in a discipline, and the relative emphasis

on undergraduate versus graduate instruction in

the discipline.
8
9

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Data Source: The Delaware

Study of Instructional Costs

and Productivity

The data analyzed in this study were collected

from multiple cycles of the Delaware Study of

Instructional Costs and Productivity, and reflect

information for the years 1997ñ98, 1999ñ2000,

and 2000ñ2001. Data are collected annually using

the template found in appendix B. The complete

set of data definitions associated with each

element in the template is found in the glossary

(appendix C).

The purpose of this study is to examine whether

instructional costs vary across disciplines within

an institution, and across disciplines when

institutions are arrayed by Carnegie classification.

The Delaware Study utilizes the 1995 Carnegie

taxonomy, which aggregates 4-year institutions

into research universities, doctoral universities,

comprehensive colleges and universities, and

baccalaureate colleges (see appendix C for

complete definitions). An institutionís

classification is based upon the volume and type of

degrees granted, and the volume of externally

funded research activity measured in terms of

federal research and development expenditures.

The study further assesses the extent to which

highest degree offered within a discipline

(bachelorís, masterís, or doctorate) and the relative

emphasis on undergraduate versus graduate

instruction in a discipline impacts cost patterns.

The model developed to analyze costs in this study

focuses on direct expenditures for instruction. The

instructional function is fully described and

defined in the glossary to this report, as are those

cost components that constitute direct

expenditures. Instructional expenditures include

salaries and wages, benefits, equipment, and other

support costs that are dedicated to the instructional

function, which embraces teaching, departmentally

supported research, and other support activity

designed to enhance the teaching process. Unit

cost for purposes of this study is measured in

terms of direct instructional expenditures per

student credit hour taught within each of the

disciplines under analysis.

A number of variables are considered in this study

as potential factors associated with instructional

costs. Faculty are classified into four faculty

categoriesótenured and tenure-track faculty, other

regular faculty, supplemental or adjunct faculty,

and graduate teaching assistants (see the glossary).

Faculty type may be a cost factor if tenured and

tenure-track faculty are more expensive than nontenurable full-time faculty and part-time adjuncts

or teaching assistants. The size of an academic

department or program faculty is measured by

total full-time equivalency for each of the four

faculty categories. The metric for calculating fulltime equivalency is described in the glossary.

Teaching activity is measured by student credit

hours taughtóin total, and within each faculty

category. Student credit hour generation is

measured at the lower division and upper division

levels within undergraduate instruction, and in

total at the graduate level. Within each discipline,

instructional activity is also characterized by the

highest degree awarded. Student credit hours and

other characteristics of faculty teaching load are

described in the glossary.

The cost model developed for this study examines

the relationship of individual variables, and

combinations of variables, with direct

expenditures for instruction. The techniques for

transforming collected data elements into specific

data variables are fully described in the Findings

section of this report. Specifically, the model

employs appropriate statistical tools to test the

following:

• The extent to which variation in instructional

costs is associated with discipline and with
10

institutional mission, as expressed by Carnegie

classification.

• The extent to which specific variables are

associated with direct instructional expense.

The rationale for including these variables is

described in the Technical Notes (appendix E).

These variables are as follows:

1. Economies of scales as measured by the

volume of student credit hours taught by a

faculty of fixed size.

2. Variation in the total size of a faculty.

3. The proportion of total faculty who hold

tenure. Tenured faculty tend to be better

compensated, and are essentially ìfixed

costsî until retirement.

4 . The proportion of total instructional

expense that is accounted for by personnel

expenditures.

5 . The relative emphasis on undergraduate

versus graduate instruction within a

departmentís student credit hour

production.

The apparent relationships between and across

these variables are fully described in the Findings

section of this report.

Bias Issues in the Data

Since its inception, participation in the Delaware

Study has been restricted exclusively to 4-year

colleges and universities. Although participating

institutions self-select and the participant pool is

not random, a general invitation to submit data is

sent annually to presidents, chief academic

officers, and institutional researchers through

professional organizations such as the National

Association of State Universities and Land Grant

Colleges (NASULGC), the American Association

of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the

Association for Institutional Research (AIR), and

the Society for College and University Planning

(SCUP). Working relationships have also been

established with the Association of American

Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE), the

Southern Universities Group (SUG), the Big 12

Universities, and the Higher Education Data

Sharing Consortium (HEDS), the latter embracing

125 private colleges and universities across the

United States. The Delaware Study is also the

official data collection vehicle for several state

entities, including the University of North

Carolina System, the Tennessee Board of Regents,

the Louisiana Board of Regents, the Mississippi

Board of Regents, and the South Dakota Board of

Regents, among others. Table 2 displays

institutional participation for the five most recent

data collection cycles.

One of the assumptions examined in this study is

that expenditure patterns and faculty workloads

are, at least in part, tied to the institutionís

mission, i.e., the range of program offerings, the

extent of commitment to graduate education, and

the priority given to research and public service.

The 1995 Carnegie classification category that

groups institutions according to these institutional

characteristics became the subpopulation that the

participating institutions were to represent.

Table 2 shows a steady annual participation in the

Delaware Study of roughly 150 institutions per

year, except in 1999 when participation was

restricted to research and doctoral universities

while a secure web site was tested for use for

online collection of data and dissemination of

benchmarks. This relatively stable participation

rate persists even though invitations to submit data

were sent in summer 2001 to all Title IV-eligible

4-year institutions in the United States.

This consistent group of roughly 150 institutions

over the years comprises about 4 in 10 research

universities and 1 in 4 doctoral universities. The

proportion of comprehensive and baccalaureate

institutions is lower, because the base number of

those institutions in the United States is much

larger than that for research and doctoral

universities. The 2000 data collection cycle, for

example, embraced 152 institutions and 5,140

secondary analysis units, i.e., all disciplines at the
11

Table 2. Number of institutions participating in the Delaware Study, by Carnegie institutional

classification, by year: 1997ñ2001

Data collection cycle Carnegie classification 1997 1998 19991 2000 2001

Total.................................................................................... 150 150 97 152 175

Research .................................................................................. 48 48 53 48 46

Doctoral................................................................................... 36 27 25 27 34

Comprehensive ....................................................................... 53 61 12 64 72

Baccalaureate .......................................................................... 13 14 7 13 23

1

In 1999, participation was restricted to research and doctoral institutions, except in cases where entire state higher education systems utilize the

Delaware Study.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.

4-digit CIP level. With the exception of a few

institutions every year, there is complete

enumeration of the discipline data by institution.

The primary and secondary analytical units are

generally similar for all data collection cycles.

Analysis of Nonresponse Bias

While numbers within the 1995 Carnegie

categories vary slightly from year to year,

institutional counts from the Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

indicate that the following numbers reflect the

total approximate size of each Carnegie grouping:

125 research universities, 110 doctoral

universities, 525 comprehensive institutions, and

630 baccalaureate colleges. The counts do not

include specialized 4-year institutions. The rate of

participation over the years in the Delaware Study

has been highest among research universities, with

roughly 4 in 10 participating nationally.

Approximately 1 in 4 doctoral universities

participate, and 10 to 13 percent of comprehensive

institutions submit data in any given year. The

lowest participation rate is among baccalaureate

institutions, with 2 percent participating prior to

the 2000 data collection, and just over 3 percent

submitting data in the most recent data collection

cycle. It should be noted that data are collected at

the academic discipline level of analysis, with

four-digit CIP codes being the identifying marker.

As a result, it is apparent that larger, more

complex institutions, with discrete departments

and disciplines, are more likely to participate than

smaller institutions that typically have multiplediscipline organizational structures.

In any survey data collection, the risk exists that

estimates derived from participating institutions

may differ from those that might have been

derived from nonparticipants. In such

circumstances, data derived from the study

participants alone could potentially be biased

estimates of the overall population of institutions.

This is a particular concern in instances where

participation rates are low, as in the case of

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions.

Moreover, as noted, participants are self-selected,

and the pool of institutions is not random.

To examine how different or similar the

participant pools are when compared with

nonparticipating institutions, selected institutional

characteristics were obtained from the IPEDS

database. Institutional characteristics pertaining to

faculty size, enrollment levels, degrees conferred,

and expenditures information are summarized in

appendix tables D-1 through D-5 for each data

collection cycle, 1997 through 2001 (although

some institutions had incomplete IPEDS

information, particularly in the area of institutional

finances). The difference between the average for

the selected variables for participants and

nonparticipants is displayed, along with an

estimate of the magnitude of bias. The difference

is also presented in terms of percent, with the

participant average as the base. The findings are

as follows:

• Among the research universities, institutions

participating in the Delaware Study are 9 to

13 percent larger than nonparticipants in terms

of the number of faculty that are tenured, and

are 6 to 11 percent larger in terms of total full-
12

time faculty. Full-time-equivalent (FTE)

enrollment at participating institutions is

higher by 16 to 22 percent. Participants also

tend to have a larger undergraduate enrollment

than nonparticipants and a correspondingly

larger number of baccalaureate degrees

awarded. Student/faculty ratio, measured in

terms of FTE enrollment per full-time faculty,

is slightly higher at participating institutions.

Research expenditures per FTE faculty are

lower by one-third at participating institutions,

but public service expenditures per FTE

faculty are higher. The average scholarship

and library expenditures per FTE enrollment

are approximately 20 percent higher among

participating institutions when averaged over

the years.

• Among doctoral universities, institutions

participating in the Delaware Study are larger,

both in terms of the number of tenure-track

and total faculty, and in terms of FTE

enrollment. The student/faculty ratio, as

measured in terms of FTE enrollment per fulltime faculty, is similar for participating

institutions and nonparticipants. Undergraduate enrollment as a percentage of total

enrollment is higher among participating

institutions by 12 to 16 percent. Average

instructional expenditures per FTE student are

higher among nonparticipants, while average

scholarship expenditures per FTE enrollment

are higher among participating institutions.

• Among comprehensive institutions, those that

participate in the Delaware Study have about

one-third more tenure-track and total full-time

faculty than nonparticipants. FTE enrollment

among participating institutions is larger than

among nonparticipants by 25 to 34 percent,

although undergraduate enrollment as a

proportion of the total is higher among

participating institutions by only 2 to 4

percentage points. The student/faculty ratio,

as measured in terms of FTE enrollment per

full-time faculty, is consistently smaller for

participating institutions by two to four

students per faculty. Participating institutions

vary by year in terms of instructional and

academic support expenditures per FTE

enrollment. In 1997, participants spent 8

percent less on instruction and 13 percent less

on academic support than did nonparticipants,

where in subsequent years they spent more.

• Among baccalaureate institutions, those that

participate in the Delaware Study are larger

than nonparticipants both in terms of tenuretrack faculty (17 to 53 percent) and total fulltime faculty (23 to 42 percent). FTE

enrollment at participating institutions is

higher than at nonparticipating institutions by

23 to 33 percent, although the average

student/faculty ratio, as measured by FTE

enrollment per full-time faculty, is similar for

both groups. The composition of the

participant pool varies from year to year in

terms of instructional expenditures per FTE

students, with spending higher than that of

nonparticipants in two of the years examined,

and less in two other years. Average

scholarship expenditures per FTE student at

participating institutions are substantially less

than at nonparticipating institutions in the

earlier data collection cycles.

The findings are consistent with the general

observation over the years that participants in the

Delaware Study are more likely to be larger, more

organizationally complex institutions that lend

themselves to a structure that largely embraces

discrete single CIP code academic department or

program structures. Smaller institutions, with

organization structures that involve high levels of

interdisciplinary instruction and multiple CIP

codes within a department or program (e.g.,

humanities department, social sciences

department, etc.) find it more difficult to

disaggregate teaching loads and expenditure

information into recommended reporting formats

and are less likely to participate. Consequently,

data analyses in this study cannot be used to

estimate cost patterns at the national level.

However, statistics can be applied to the

participant pool to describe cost patterns across

disciplines, and across institutions, and to describe

the association of those variables with direct

instructional expenditures. These findings, while

not generalizable to the larger universe of higher

education institutions, do provide a thorough

description of cost behaviors, by discipline, at
13

institutions participating in the Delaware Study

and yield a framework for discussion of strategic

approaches to cost analysis at other institutions.

It must be underscored that comparable cost and

teaching productivity data currently do not exist

for 2-year colleges, proprietary schools, and the

vast majority of small, interdisciplinary-oriented

liberal arts colleges. Consequently, the findings

from this study cannot be extended to those

institutions. However, by analyzing the data

available from the Delaware Study, we can draw

certain conclusions about differences that exist in

cost patterns at larger, complex, mostly public

4-year institutions. While the Delaware Study

participant pool represents a small proportion of

the universe of higher education institutions, it

also represents a substantial proportion of total

higher education enrollment.

Statistical Tools

This study of higher education instructional

expenditures is a descriptive analysis. Because the

population for the study is self-selected, any

generalization to the larger universe of 4-year

higher education institutions is not possible.

However, application of appropriate statistical

tools to the data from institutions that elect to

participate in the Delaware Study can yield rich

descriptive information about expenditure patterns

and cost factors for those institutions.

As noted earlier, the focal variable for this study is

unit cost, by academic discipline, as measured by

direct instructional expense per student credit hour

taught. Direct instructional expense per student

credit hour taught is one of the national

benchmarks produced annually. It is a calculated

mean value for the data submitted by participants

for two variables: total direct instructional

expenditures divided by total student credit hours

taught. However, as a national benchmark, this

mean statistic is ìrefinedî to correct for

idiosyncratic values that may be submitted by any

given institution. In analyzing the data within each

data set, national benchmarks are computed

through Windsorization. The initial step in the

computation is the inclusion of all institutional

responses with each Carnegie class for a given

variable. From those total responses, an initial

mean value is calculated. The responses are then

further analyzed to identify those cases that are

beyond two standard deviations above or below

the initial mean. These cases are then defined as

outliers and are excluded from the subsequent

calculation of the refined mean. This conservative

approach to benchmark construction was taken to

ensure that no single or set of idiosyncratic

responses exert undue influence on the calculation

of a mean value or benchmark. The

Windsorization process trims the tails of the

distribution by specified percentiles. For example,

in a normal distribution, a 5 percent trimmed mean

excludes the smallest 5 percent and the largest 5

percent observations. Benchmarks are calculated

only for those disciplines wherein a minimum of

five institutional responses were submitted.

Table 3 displays the refined means for direct

instructional expense per student credit hour

taught for each of the academic disciplines

examined in this study. The data are arrayed by

Carnegie institution type for the years 1998, 2000,

and 2001. The data demonstrate general stability

over time within each Carnegie class in each

discipline. It is evident that direct instructional

expense varies across Carnegie class within each

discipline, with research universities generally

costing more than doctoral universities, which, in

turn, are more expensive than comprehensive

institutions. Baccalaureate institutions that elect to

participate tend to be selective institutions that

offer small classes, and this is reflected in their

expense per credit hour data.

To further illuminate the dispersion of direct

expenditures per student credit hour taught among

participating institutions, benchmarks are

produced annually that display the refined means,

arrayed by quartile as well as Carnegie institution

type. Table 4 illustrates the dispersion of those

refined means for 2001 for the same academic

disciplines as in table 3. Comparable patterns in

all data collection cycles have been evident. The

values displayed for the quartiles represent the

point at which one-fourth, one-half, and three-
14

Table 3. Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academic

disciplines, by Carnegie institution type: 1998, 2000, and 2001

Discipline and institution type 1998 2000 2001 Discipline and institution type 1998 2000 2001

Communication Geology

Research............................................ $157 $164 $164 Research .......................................... $208 $223 $211

Doctoral ............................................ 132 143 130 Doctoral........................................... 159 201 197

Comprehensive................................. 125 134 138 Comprehensive................................ 143 160 144

Baccalaureate.................................... 118 126 151 Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Computer science Physics

Research............................................ 170 203 204 Research .......................................... 249 284 263

Doctoral ............................................ 141 165 142 Doctoral........................................... 178 191 203

Comprehensive................................. 119 135 155 Comprehensive................................ 159 165 167

Baccalaureate.................................... 203 160 135 Baccalaureate .................................. 235 --- 254

Education Psychology

Research............................................ 235 269 260 Research .......................................... 131 150 150

Doctoral ............................................ 167 184 198 Doctoral........................................... 124 135 131

Comprehensive................................. 143 185 180 Comprehensive................................ 101 113 115

Baccalaureate.................................... 156 161 175 Baccalaureate .................................. 126 113 131

Civil engineering Anthropology

Research............................................ 369 401 411 Research .......................................... 139 148 157

Doctoral ............................................ 328 367 379 Doctoral........................................... 118 127 126

Comprehensive................................. 262 362 339 Comprehensive................................ 106 106 132

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Electrical engineering Economics

Research............................................ 360 358 358 Research .......................................... 134 145 154

Doctoral ............................................ 273 318 276 Doctoral........................................... 142 139 144

Comprehensive................................. 255 278 301 Comprehensive................................ 102 112 126

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. 162 --- 194

Mechanical engineering Geography

Research............................................ 415 400 379 Research .......................................... 140 155 164

Doctoral ............................................ 321 353 316 Doctoral........................................... 119 137 125

Comprehensive................................. 264 333 342 Comprehensive................................ 95 121 103

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Foreign languages History

Research............................................ 165 169 171 Research .......................................... 129 142 149

Doctoral ............................................ 124 127 131 Doctoral........................................... 139 125 124

Comprehensive................................. 134 139 147 Comprehensive................................ 105 99 103

Baccalaureate.................................... 186 128 202 Baccalaureate .................................. 108 107 151

English Political science

Research............................................ 122 138 140 Research .......................................... 160 168 164

Doctoral ............................................ 111 118 116 Doctoral........................................... 172 151 152

Comprehensive................................. 101 109 112 Comprehensive................................ 120 129 131

Baccalaureate.................................... 135 120 132 Baccalaureate .................................. 160 --- 165

Biological sciences Sociology

Research............................................ 261 286 276 Research .......................................... 108 130 124

Doctoral ............................................ 167 201 191 Doctoral........................................... 122 105 106

Comprehensive................................. 120 135 149 Comprehensive................................ 96 99 100

Baccalaureate.................................... 151 173 186 Baccalaureate .................................. 130 110 138

Mathematics Visual and performing arts

Research............................................ 144 147 160 Research .......................................... 205 214 228

Doctoral ............................................ 113 122 116 Doctoral........................................... 193 200 199

Comprehensive................................. 104 105 106 Comprehensive................................ 175 174 180

Baccalaureate.................................... 97 111 112 Baccalaureate .................................. 207 174 226

Philosophy Nursing

Research............................................ 124 134 137 Research .......................................... 300 368 388

Doctoral ............................................ 138 130 125 Doctoral........................................... 270 354 332

Comprehensive................................. 108 112 119 Comprehensive................................ 247 316 318

Baccalaureate.................................... 124 105 146 Baccalaureate .................................. --- --- ---

Chemistry Business

Research............................................ 205 255 264 Research .......................................... 161 167 170

Doctoral ............................................ 197 229 233 Doctoral........................................... 149 164 157

Comprehensive................................. 157 168 181 Comprehensive................................ 150 151 156

Baccalaureate.................................... 189 190 242 Baccalaureate .................................. 138 118 119

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
15

Table 4. Direct instructional expense per student credit hour taught in selected academic

disciplines, by Carnegie institution type, by quartile: 2001

Discipline and institution type 25

percent

50

percent

75

percent Discipline and institution type 25

percent

50

percent

75

percent

Communication Geology

Research............................................ $107 $159 $214 Research........................................ $159 $209 $278

Doctoral ............................................ 96 118 161 Doctoral......................................... 113 176 254

Comprehensive................................. 97 137 169 Comprehensive ............................. 112 138 175

Baccalaureate.................................... 115 146 203 Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Computer Science Physics

Research............................................ 158 181 256 Research........................................ 189 254 340

Doctoral ............................................ 95 140 182 Doctoral......................................... 131 199 256

Comprehensive................................. 112 137 190 Comprehensive ............................. 115 163 208

Baccalaureate.................................... 103 120 176 Baccalaureate................................ 127 163 436

Education Psychology

Research............................................ 181 243 322 Research........................................ 106 150 185

Doctoral ............................................ 129 194 246 Doctoral......................................... 92 136 158

Comprehensive................................. 119 161 223 Comprehensive ............................. 88 112 131

Baccalaureate.................................... 125 161 322 Baccalaureate................................ 90 121 150

Civil engineering Anthropology

Research............................................ 273 403 485 Research........................................ 117 159 191

Doctoral ............................................ 316 394 468 Doctoral......................................... 72 122 154

Comprehensive................................. 281 336 412 Comprehensive ............................. 106 127 165

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ 105 136 260

Electrical engineering Economics

Research............................................ 307 338 437 Research........................................ 112 144 192

Doctoral ............................................ 204 252 334 Doctoral......................................... 112 150 170

Comprehensive................................. 230 292 391 Comprehensive ............................. 101 127 146

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ 134 199 232

Mechanical engineering Geography

Research............................................ 302 382 455 Research........................................ 122 140 229

Doctoral ............................................ 224 286 405 Doctoral......................................... 97 127 148

Comprehensive................................. 264 347 414 Comprehensive ............................. 75 110 133

Baccalaureate.................................... --- --- --- Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Foreign languages History

Research............................................ 115 146 207 Research........................................ 113 150 188

Doctoral ............................................ 97 124 149 Doctoral......................................... 81 125 163

Comprehensive................................. 118 146 172 Comprehensive ............................. 77 101 126

Baccalaureate.................................... 124 160 256 Baccalaureate................................ 93 114 243

English Political science

Research............................................ 109 131 169 Research........................................ 127 159 198

Doctoral ............................................ 86 115 144 Doctoral......................................... 97 152 209

Comprehensive................................. 88 105 128 Comprehensive ............................. 107 124 149

Baccalaureate.................................... 105 120 149 Baccalaureate................................ 103 186 211

Biological Sciences Sociology

Research............................................ 194 236 333 Research........................................ 105 119 153

Doctoral ............................................ 125 175 233 Doctoral......................................... 76 104 131

Comprehensive................................. 113 148 182 Comprehensive ............................. 74 95 125

Baccalaureate.................................... 150 165 205 Baccalaureate................................ 92 135 192

Mathematics Visual and performing arts

Research............................................ 103 137 195 Research........................................ 160 217 280

Doctoral ............................................ 83 120 136 Doctoral......................................... 141 189 253

Comprehensive................................. 83 113 128 Comprehensive ............................. 129 166 221

Baccalaureate.................................... 80 111 140 Baccalaureate................................ 176 201 283

Philosophy Nursing

Research............................................ 93 138 180 Research........................................ 309 403 468

Doctoral ............................................ 96 123 145 Doctoral......................................... 240 341 403

Comprehensive................................. 92 122 140 Comprehensive ............................. 242 291 373

Baccalaureate.................................... 78 140 203 Baccalaureate................................ --- --- ---

Chemistry Business

Research............................................ 208 244 324 Research........................................ 125 166 207

Doctoral ............................................ 164 241 266 Doctoral......................................... 122 154 185

Comprehensive................................. 128 171 221 Comprehensive ............................. 124 149 188

Baccalaureate.................................... 160 223 302 Baccalaureate................................ 95 110 146

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
16

quarters of participating institutions, respectively,

reported costs equal to or below those values.

The data in displayed table 3 indicate modest

variation across Carnegie institutional categories

within a discipline, but also indicate that larger

and more substantial differences exist between and

across the disciplines within institution types.

These patterns are consistent in examining the

dispersion of data points in table 4, thereby raising

one of the focal questions for this study: Which is

more central to understanding the variation of

instructional costs in higher

educationódifferences within disciplines

examined across institutions, or differences

between disciplines within institutions?

As important as describing the factors that are

associated with the dispersion of instructional

costs within and across institutions is an

understanding of those factors that are tied to

expenditures within academic disciplines. Multiple

regression techniques were applied to a full range

of variables that potentially are associated with the

magnitude of direct instructional expenditures.

Using direct expense per student credit hour taught

as the dependent variable, potential cost factors,

including but not limited to the following, were

examined:

• Volume of teaching load as measured in terms

of student credit hours taught;

• Size of instructional faculty, measured in

terms of full-time equivalency;

• The proportion of total FTE faculty that are

tenured or tenure track (predicated on the

assumption that tenured and tenure-track

faculty are better compensated than other

faculty);

• The relative emphasis of departmental

teaching on undergraduate versus graduate

instruction; and

• The extent to which an academic discipline is

personnel-intensive as compared to

equipment-intensive.

The application of multiple regression techniques

to the variables in this study is described in

appendix E. The Findings section of this study

describes the results of the application of both

HLM and multiple regression statistics to the data,

and clearly identifies those factors that are

associated with the dispersion of instructional

expenditures within and across institutions, and

those factors that are associated with the

magnitude of direct instructional expense in

academic disciplines.
17

FINDINGS

Two major issues are addressed in this Study of

Higher Education Instructional Expenditures. The

first is whether important differences in direct

instructional costs are evident between and across

the disciplines within an institution and across

institutions within Carnegie category. The second

issue is the identification of important cost factors

within the disciplines under analysis. This section

of the report details findings growing out of

analyses of three Delaware Study data collection

cycles that speak to those issues.

Variation in Cost Across and

Within Institutions

To establish the variance components of cost

through hierarchical linear modeling (HLM),

disciplines are considered the level 1 units and

institutions the level 2 units. Without taking into

account any institutional or discipline-related

variables, the hierarchical linear model is

equivalent to one-way ANOVA with random

effects. This approach provides information on

how much of the variation in cost lies across or

within institutions, a test of whether the

institutional average costs are the same, and a

measure of each institutionís calculated average

cost.

Results from the model are presented in table 5 for

three data collection cycles. The data indicate that

most of the variation occurs at the discipline level.

In the 1998 data collection cycle, disciplines

within institutions were tied to 76 percent of the

total variance. In 2000, disciplines were

associated with 82.6 percent of the variance. In

2001, disciplines within institutions were tied to

81.3 percent of the total variance, while

institutions were linked to 18.7 percent. The

results also show that there are mean differences in

cost by institution in all three data sets.

The last column in the table refers to reliability of

average cost by institution. If the data set used in

this study were a random sample, these numbers

would indicate whether or not the average cost for

each institution is reliable estimates of true

average cost. Since the data are not random, all

that can be said about these reliability estimates is

that the average cost of instruction estimated by

the hierarchical linear model for the three data

cycles can be deemed reliable for the participating

institutions. Within that context, the reliability

estimates are high, ranging from 86.3 percent in

the 1998 data set to 80.7 percent in 2000, and 81.3

percent in the 2001 data set.

The second panel in table 5 presents Delaware

Study results from the hierarchical linear model

after accounting for the Carnegie classification of

the institution (level 2). If it is assumed that

Carnegie classification is tied to some of the

variations in cost at the institutional level, then

incorporating it at level 2 of the model will reduce

the variance in cost due to institutions. As the

table indicates, Carnegie classification is tied to

some of the variation in cost at the institutional

level. While the one-way ANOVA model with

random effect indicated that in the 2001 data

collection cycle, institutions were tied to 18.7

percent of the variance, this second model reduces

this to 14.2 percent, meaning that the variance in

cost among schools within the same Carnegie

classification is 14.2 percent. This is equivalent to

a 28 percent reduction in the variance among

institutions after accounting for the Carnegie

groupings of those institutions. There is a 35.2

percent and 25.5 percent variance reduction in the

2000 and 1998 data collection cycles, respectively.

As the result of the variance reduction across

institutions, the variance within institutions in

relative terms increased from 81.0 percent in 1998

to 88.0 percent in 2000, and 85.8 percent in 2001.
18

Table 5. Study of variance components of cost per student credit hour based on hierarchical

linear modeling: 1998, 2000, and 2001

Data collection model Random effect

Variance

component df Chi-square P value

Variance

component

(percent)

Reliability

of

institution

average

cost

(percent)

I. One-way ANOVA model

1998 Institution.................................................... 2,144 126 1,031 * 24.0 86.3

Discipline within institution ...................... 6,807 76.0

2000 Institution.................................................... 1,787 133 779 * 17.4 80.7

Discipline within institution ...................... 8,460 82.6

2001 Institution.................................................... 1,737 157 969 * 18.7 81.3

Discipline within institution ...................... 7,540 81.3

II. With fixed effect of Carnegie classification of institution

1998 Institution.................................................... 1,597 123 783 * 19.0 82.6

Discipline within institution ...................... 6,810 81.0

2000 Institution.................................................... 1,158 130 560 * 12.0 73.5

Discipline within institution ...................... 8,459 88.0

2001 Institution.................................................... 1,251 154 748 * 14.2 76.1

Discipline within institution ...................... 7,540 85.8

III. With fixed effect of Carnegie class of institution and fixed effect of

the discipline groupings

1998 Institution.................................................... 1,788 123 1,484 * 32.8 90.6

Discipline within institution ...................... 3,669 67.2

2000 Institution.................................................... 1,352 130 1,094 * 23.7 85.7

Discipline within institution ...................... 4,361 76.3

2001 Institution.................................................... 1,569 154 1,478 * 28.5 87.9

Discipline within institution ...................... 3,939 71.5

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: Degrees of freedom for the variance component of discipline within institution are not generated from output for hierarchical linear

modeling. Similarly, since discipline within institution variance is the error term, there should be no entries in the Chi-square and p value

columns.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.

Examining cost by discipline over the three data

collection cycles consistently showed that there is

a general and reasonable grouping of disciplines

according to cost levels. Service departments such

as English and mathematics are among those with

the lowest instructional costs, and their costs are

comparable with those on the social sciences.

Instructional costs in the physical sciences are in

the next highest level and are comparable to those

in education, business, and art. Costs are highest

in engineering and nursing. These three groupings

were used as indicator variables for disciplines

(level 1) in the hierarchical linear model to

understand how much reduction in the variance

across disciplines is evident. In this model, the

fixed effect of Carnegie classification is retained.

The results are summarized in the bottom panel of

table 5.

Inclusion of the discipline grouping reduced the

variance among disciplines by 48 percent in the

2001 and 2000 data cycles, and by 46 percent in

the 1998 data set. In spite of the reduction,

however, the resulting variance among disciplines
19

in relative terms remained at high levels of over 70

percent in the 2001 and 2000 data cycles, and 67

percent in the 1998 data set.

While there are numerous variables that can be

considered in the model to reduce the variance

among disciplines (level 1), analysis was restricted

to the aforementioned discipline groupings.

Relationships between cost and other variables

that may be tied to expenditures are discussed in a

subsequent section of these Findings.

Differences in Costs Between

and Across Disciplines

Preliminary examination of the data suggested the

necessity of combining the data from

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions,

owing to very small participation rates for

baccalaureate colleges within the disciplines and

to eliminate the possibility of having unbalanced

factors. While differences in average cost between

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions may

exist for some disciplines, it can be argued from a

purely practical approach, this combination of

institutions is consistent with real-world practice at

colleges and universities. While some level of

graduate instruction is present in a few selected

disciplines at comprehensive institutions, the vast

majority of teaching activity and student credit

hour generation occurs at the undergraduate level.

It is, therefore, reasonable to group comprehensive

and baccalaureate institutions, given their common

primary undergraduate teaching mission.

Because of the nature of the data, there is large

variation in the number of cases in each of the

cells (i.e., combination of discipline and Carnegie

classification). Costs for some of the disciplines

are estimated from fewer than 10 courses, which

can result in failure to find differences in means

when differences, in fact, exist. In addition, the

Levene test, which is the standard test of

homogeneity of variance, indicated that the

variances among the cells are not equal. After

careful examination of the variances, the cost data

were transformed to logarithm for the ANOVA.

Although the variances remained unequal even

after the transformation, the Levene test indicated

that the inequality of the variances was

substantially reduced. Therefore, ANOVA was

used on the logarithm of cost.

The ANOVA showed that there are differences in

costs among the 25 disciplines under examination,

and among the now-three institutional

groupingsóresearch universities, doctoral

universities, and comprehensive/baccalaureate

institutions. Because there is strong interaction

between discipline and Carnegie classification, the

differences in cost across the disciplines are

examined separately by Carnegie classification,

and vice versa.

It should be noted that before ANOVA was

applied to the data, outliers were identified in each

of the cells, e.g., discipline by Carnegie

classification. Outliers were defined as data points

that lie beyond two standard deviations from the

mean for the cell, and were subsequently omitted.

The summary of the ANOVA to test for

differences in average cost of instruction by

discipline, and by Carnegie classification, by

highest degree offered, and by undergraduate/

graduate program mix in discipline for the 2001,

2000, and 1998 data collection cycles is found in

appendix table D-6.

The results of the ANOVA by discipline and

Carnegie classification are presented in appendix

table D-7 for the 2001 data collection cycle,

appendix table D-8 for the 2000 data collection

cycle, and appendix table D-9 for the 1998 data

collection cycle. The results of the pair-wise

multiple comparisons are based on the Bonferroni

procedure at the 5 percent level of significance. In

the tables, the disciplines are sorted in ascending

order of cost within each Carnegie classification.

Then, groupings of disciplines are presented

according to similarity in cost based on results

from the pair-wise multiple comparisons.

Disciplines that are defined as belonging to a

group are assigned similar letters. For example,

for research institutions in appendix table D-7,

sociology through business are members of the ìaî

group. As such, there are no two disciplines in

this group, regarding average cost of instruction,

where differences were detected through ANOVA,

even though the absolute values of those average

costs range from $124 to $177. Business belongs
20

to the ìbî group as well, meaning that with respect

to the cost of instruction, differences were not

found between business and the other disciplines

in group ìb.î Business, as a member of group ìc,î

also shows no differences between its cost and the

other disciplines in ìcî group. Since business

does not belong to the ìdî group, cost in business

is lower than that in education and the remaining

disciplines listed below education.

The strong interaction between discipline and

Carnegie groups, as expected, produced somewhat

different discipline groupings for each category.

The general findings are as follows:

• Among research institutions, differences were

not detected between and among ìserviceî

departments such as English and mathematics,

as well as disciplines in the social sciences,

with respect to direct instructional expense per

student credit hour taught. It costs as much to

teach art (with small studio courses and

individualized instruction) as it does to teach

education (with a clinical teacher education

component) and disciplines in the physical

sciences (with emphasis on equipment

intensive laboratory instruction). The high

cost of teaching nursing puts it at the same

levels as the engineering disciplines that have

the highest unit costs. In the two more recent

data sets, biology and physics have costs

comparable to nursing and the engineering

disciplines, with the exception of chemical

engineering. It should be noted that costs in

the engineering disciplines have the highest

variability among reporting institutions.

• Cost of instruction in service departments and

in the social sciences at doctoral universities

tends to be at the same levels. Differences

were not detected in the cost of instruction in

the physical sciences compared with several of

the social science disciplines. As at research

universities, art groups with the physical

sciences in cost, while nursing groups with

engineering. This is likely associated with

more expensive pedagogical delivery systems

in art and nursing.

• Instructional costs at comprehensive/

baccalaureate institutions generally follow the

patterns seen in the research and doctoral

universities. Nursing groups with engineering

with respect to instructional cost; education,

art, and foreign languages group with the

physical sciences. Again, this is likely tied to

more costly pedagogical delivery systems in

art, education, and nursing. English and

mathematics, the two large service disciplines,

group with the social sciences as the least

expensive disciplines from an instructional

cost perspective.

• Using the results from the same ANOVA,

differences in costs were not detected among

Carnegie groups for many disciplines. There

are, however, a few disciplines, notably

biology and education, wherein cost in

research universities is higher than in doctoral

and comprehensive institutions for all three

data sets, and in mathematics and physics for

the two more recent data sets. Costs in

research universities are also found to be

higher in the most recent data set in art,

chemistry, computer science, and geography.

The analysis was extended to summarize variation

in costs among the disciplines by highest degree

offered within the discipline. As was the case with

the preceding discipline analysis by Carnegie

institution type, ANOVA was used on the

logarithm of cost per student credit hour taught in

order to reduce inequality of variance among the

cells.

The results of the pair-wise multiple comparison

of average instructional cost by discipline, within

each highest degree offered category, are

displayed in appendix tables D-10 to D-12 for the

three data sets. Since the interaction between

discipline and degree level is substantial,

discipline groupings according to cost level are

shown independently by highest degree offered.

The results are as follows:

• Regardless of the highest degree offered, costs

of instruction are lowest among service

departments such as mathematics and English

and all disciplines in the social sciences.

Costs in art and education tend to be at similar

levels as those in the physical sciences.
21

• In general, physical science disciplines have

higher instructional costs than the social

sciences in those instances where the Ph.D. is

the highest degree offered. Where the

masterís or bachelorís is the highest degree

offered, no differences in instructional costs

were detected between the physical sciences

and social sciences disciplines.

• Differences were not found between the cost

of instruction in business and the social

sciences for programs where the Ph.D. is the

highest degree offered, whereas instructional

costs in business are more comparable to costs

in the physical sciences at the masterís and

bachelorís programs.

• Generally, all disciplines in engineering and

nursing have higher costs than all other

disciplines for all three degree-granting levels.

• In biology, cost of instruction is different at

each of the three degree-granting levels, and

the pattern remains consistent in each of the

three data sets examined. Differences in cost,

by degree level, are also found in all three data

sets in education, art, and geology, and in two

data sets in mathematics and psychology.

The relative undergraduate/graduate program mix

is measured by the number of bachelorís degrees

awarded in a discipline as a proportion of total

degrees awarded. The Delaware Study national

benchmarks are reported by 25-percentile ranges

for undergraduate/graduate program mix, as

defined. In the 2001 data collection cycle, those

institutions where the proportion of undergraduate

degrees is 75 percent or more of total degrees

awarded account for 60 percent of the sample.

With another 19 percent of the sample comprised

of institutions granting 50 to 75 percent of all

degrees at the undergraduate level, the sample

sizes for institutions granting fewer than 50

percent of total degrees at the undergraduate

levelóin other words, predominantly graduate

institutionsóis very small. As a result, the sample

size for many disciplines with predominantly

graduate programs is small, and within that group,

several disciplines were not represented at all.

This distribution is very similar for the two earlier

data collection cycles. Consequently, the entire

sample was grouped into only two categories: 1)

undergraduate degrees equivalent to 75 to 100

percent of total, and (2) undergraduate degrees

equivalent to 0 to less than 75 percent of total.

The interaction between the program mix

categories and discipline is both strong and

important. The pair-wise multiple comparisons by

discipline are, therefore, examined independently

for the two groups, the results of which are

presented in appendix Tables D-13 to D-15 for the

three data sets. The ranking and grouping of

instructional costs for these two groups follows the

general patterns seen in the analyses by Carnegie

institutional classification, and by highest degree

offered within the discipline.

• For both program mix categories, service

departments such as English and mathematics

have the lowest instructional costs, and these

costs are comparable to those in the social

science disciplines.

• Differences in instructional costs were not

detected between the physical sciences and

several disciplines in the social science for

both program mix categories.

• For the predominantly undergraduate

programs, instructional costs for nursing are

comparable to those in the engineering

disciplines, and all have costs higher than

other disciplines. Cost for biology at

institutions with larger graduate programs is

comparable to those in engineering

disciplines.

Worth noting is the variation in cost among

subdisciplines in education. The cost per student

credit hour in the foregoing analysis is that for all

education subdisciplines combined. A more indepth examination of cost within education

showed that there are indeed variations between

and among its subdisciplines (not shown in tables).

Based on the 2000 dataset, direct expense per

student credit hour taught ranged from $149 in

teacher education to $307 in educational

administration and supervision. Tests showed that

instructional costs were lowest in discipline-based
22

teacher education (e.g., social studies education,

mathematics education, science education, etc.),

while general teacher education and curriculum

and instruction cost more, at an average of $186

per student credit hour taught. As a group, teacher

education costs are lower than the instructional

cost for special education ($205), and general

education, educational research/evaluation/

statistics, educational psychology, student

counseling, and instructional media designóall of

which average $270 per student credit hour taught.

Educational administration and supervision at

$307 is more expensive than most other

subdisciplines. It should be noted that educational

administration and supervision is typically a

graduate-level discipline, often with a doctoral

component.

Cost Factors

The initial analytical step in A Study of Higher

Education Instructional Expenditures was to

identify factors associated with instructional

expenditures within each of these 25 academic

disciplines under examination. In examining the

25 disciplines within any given data collection

cycle, it is imperative to ensure that sufficient data

points are available to allow for reliable use of the

multiple regression methodology. In certain

instances, e.g., engineering, it is necessary to

collapse disciplines into larger, naturally affiliated

groupings in order to achieve sufficient data

points.

Appendix table D-16 displays cost factors for 20

disciplines or groups of disciplines under

examination from the 2001 data collection cycle.

Four of those disciplinesóchemical, civil,

electrical, and mechanical engineeringóhave been

collapsed into a single larger ìengineeringî

grouping. Three disciplinesóanthropology,

geography, and political scienceóhad insufficient

data points for discrete analysis, and since all three

are social science disciplines, they lend themselves

to a larger grouping called ìother social sciences.î

Similar groupings were done for the 2000 and the

1998 data collection cycles, the results of which

are presented in appendix tables D-17 and D-18,

respectively.

Cost factors, as listed in appendix table D-16, were

examined for modeling purposes, and fall

basically into four broad categories. The first

category is measures of department size. Size is

described in terms of the total FTE faculty, total

FTE tenured and tenure-track faculty, and FTE

instructional faculty (which adjusts for contractual

buyouts of faculty time for research and service

activity). The size of the tenured/tenure-track

faculty as a proportion of total faculty is also

considered as a cost indicator. Extensive use of

adjunct, part-time faculty, who tend to be paid less

well than regular faculty, may actually reduce total

instructional expense. Another aspect of

department size is the extent of the teaching

activity in the department, as measured in terms of

the academic year student credit hours taught at

the undergraduate level and graduate level

combined. The number of graduate student credit

hours taught and as proportion as of the total

student credit hours are also examined, as it is

generally assumed that graduate instruction is

more expensive than teaching undergraduates.

The second group of factors relate to teaching

workload. Workload is described in terms of the

average number of student credit hours taught per

FTE instructional faculty at the undergraduate

level and at the combined undergraduate and

graduate levels. Workload for tenured and tenuretrack faculty is also examined in terms of student

credit hours at each of the course levels as well as

in terms of the proportion of student credit hours

taught by them.

The proportion of total direct expenditures for

instruction that is attributable to personnel costs is

the third category of cost factors, while the fourth

comprises variables that further describe the

department in terms of highest degree offered in

the discipline. The 1995 Carnegie classification is

used to delineate types of institutions. Highest

degree offered and the institutionís Carnegie

classification are transformed into categorical

(dummy) variables for the analysis.

As described earlier, the analytical process for

each of the disciplines was kept as consistent as

possible. To recapitulate, the following protocols

were adopted for all equations:
23

• Cost per student credit hour taught is the

dependent variable. Cost is transformed to

logarithm in the analysis.

• Data points wherein unit cost is beyond two

standard deviations from the mean are omitted

at the onset of the analysis.

• Outliers are defined as those cases in which

the absolute value of the standardized residual

is three or higher, and are subsequently

omitted.

• Influential cases are identified as those with

relatively high values of Cookís Distance

and/or Mahalanobis Distance statistics. These

cases are omitted in the final analysis.

• The quadratic terms of all continuous

variables are tested for inclusion in the model

to account for possible nonlinear relationships

with cost.

• Interaction terms between selected continuous

variables and categorical variables (highest

degree offered and Carnegie institutional

classification) were tested for inclusion in the

model. Note, however, that no interaction

terms were important cost predictors in all

three data sets, hence they are not listed in the

summary.

• For disciplines that are a two-digit CIP

aggregate (e.g., Communication, 09.XX), data

points belonging to a four-digit subdiscipline

with two or fewer institutions reporting were

eliminated from the aggregation.

The tables display regression coefficients and their

corresponding standardized values (Beta

coefficients). Since the dependent variable was

transformed to logarithm, each regression

coefficient is the equivalent percent increase in

cost for every unit change in the corresponding

variable. The Beta coefficients allow direct

comparison of the relative contribution of each

variable in predicting cost. The adjusted R2 is the

proportion of the variation in cost that is

associated with the variables included in the

equation, and is a measure of the goodness of fit of

the equation. Some general observations are

apparent from the three sets of analyses:

• Across almost all disciplines, the level of the

departmentís teaching activity, as measured by

total undergraduate and graduate student credit

hours taught, is always associated with direct

instructional expense. In the majority of

disciplines, it has the highest or second highest

contribution in predicting cost. Cost decreases

as the volume of teaching increases. For many

disciplines with a strong quadratic term, cost

decreases at a faster rate at lower division

levels of instruction. For engineering, art,

business, and the combined political science/

anthropology/geography group, cost increases

as the proportion of student credit hours that

are offered at the graduate level increases.

• Departmental size (measured in terms of total

number of faculty, total number of

tenured/tenure-track faculty, or total number

of instructional tenured/tenure-track faculty) is

consistently associated with expense across

disciplines. The larger the faculty size, the

higher the cost. Its high explanatory power in

predicting cost is evident in almost all

disciplines.

• The proportion of faculty who are tenured or

who are on tenure track among all

instructional faculty, or among total faculty, is

associated with cost, but to a lesser extent than

the number of faculty. The higher this

proportion, the higher the cost.

• Among the variables that measure faculty

workload, the average student credit hours

taught per FTE faculty is the most common

cost factor among disciplines. The larger the

number of credit hours taught, the lower the

cost. Its relative contribution in describing cost

variation is very high, if not the highest, in

several disciplines. For some disciplines,

regardless of magnitude of faculty workload,

decrease in cost is constant. However, for

many disciplines with a strong quadratic term,

cost decreases at a faster rate when the

teaching load is at lower levels than at higher

levels.
24

• Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instructional expenditure is a cost factor in the

majority of disciplines. The higher the

percentage, the lower the cost. Its contribution

in describing cost, however, is relatively low

in equipment-intensive disciplines, such as

engineering and the physical sciences, where

there is a large added cost of instruction due to

nonpersonnel expenses.

• For many disciplines, cost differentials exist

depending on whether or not graduate degrees

are offered in the program. With the faculty

size and faculty workload being tied to much

of the variation in cost, most often the relative

contributions of the indicator variables for

highest degree are relatively small. It is worth

noting that in all three data collection cycles,

doctoral instruction in biology, chemistry, and

physics substantially increases cost by nearly

10 percent on average, which is not surprising

for disciplines in the physical sciences, given

the emphasis on small group laboratory and

research activity at the Ph.D. level.

Interestingly, doctoral instruction in

philosophy also increased cost by 10 percent,

likely associated with the faculty-intensive

nature of small group instruction at the Ph.D.

level, and because the other variables that

measure the contrast between undergraduate

and graduate instructional faculty workload

did not directly affect cost. Average increase

in cost for English is about 5 percent.

• The cost differential due to Carnegie

classification of the institution is usually more

evident in disciplines when the highest degree

offered is not a cost factor. In business,

Carnegie classification is a consistent cost

indicator with its effects being stronger than in

any other discipline. For example in the 2001

data collection cycle, costs are higher by 21

percent among research institutions,

18 percent higher among doctoral institutions,

and 12 percent higher among comprehensive

institutions than in baccalaureate institutions.

Costs in nursing in research institutions are

higher by almost 10 percent, on average, than

in any other group of institutions; in the

discipline of education, costs are higher by

almost 6 percent on average than in any other

group.

Summary

Two issues consistently emerge as the most crucial

findings in this analysis of multiple cycles of

Delaware Study data:

• Most of the variance in instructional costs

across institutions, as measured by direct

expense per student credit hour taught, is

associated with the disciplinary mix within an

institution. While there are differences in

instructional costs within a discipline when

examining cost per student credit hour taught

across Carnegie classification, they are less

important than the difference in instructional

costs between and across the disciplines that

compose the curriculum within an institution.

• The magnitude of instructional costs within a

discipline can be predicted based upon the

degree of presence or absence of certain

identifiable cost factors, specifically, volume

of teaching load as measured by student credit

hours taught is negatively associated with cost,

while size of a departmental faculty, tenure

rate within that faculty, and to a lesser extent,

the presence of graduate instruction are

positively associated with cost.
25

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Two central threads emerge from the analysis of

data from the Delaware Study. First, there are real

and important differences between instructional

expenditures within the disciplines at a given

institution. Second, it is possible to identify major

factors that are tied to instructional expenditures

across those disciplines.

Of foremost importance is the recognition that

there are differences in cost between and across

disciplines within an institution, and that these

differences are associated with most of the

variation when instructional costs are examined

across institutions. The Delaware Study data

collections have consistently revealed expenditure

differences between and across disciplines ranging

from a cost per student credit hour taught in the

low $100s in the social sciences to in excess of

$400 in engineering and certain physical sciences.

The following discussion will focus on the

identification of factors that are tied to important

differences among disciplines.

With certain exceptions, direct instructional

expenditures do not vary substantially within a

given discipline when viewed across Carnegie

institutional types. It is the differential in

expenditures between and across the disciplines

within an institution that is substantialóand

important. The data consistently demonstrate that

on average, whether it is a major research

university or a small baccalaureate college, certain

disciplines are less costly than other disciplines at

the same institutions. Service departments, i.e.,

those that satisfy general education requirements,

such as English, mathematics, and the social

sciences, are generally the least costly. Because

they satisfy general education requirements,

service departments are in high demand and tend

to be major student credit hour producers, one of

the primary factors associated with reducing

instructional expenditures.

Other disciplines have consistently higher costs.

Physical sciences and biology, especially where

the doctorate is offered, are expensive disciplines.

This also is not surprising, given the equipmentintensive nature of these disciplines and the need

to offer small group laboratory sections.

However, at nondoctoral institutions, some

physical science disciplines are only marginally

more expensive than social science departments.

This is likely associated with introductory, nonmajor sections of chemistry and biology that

frequently satisfy studentsí science requirements,

and are typically offered in large lecture format,

i.e., they are major student credit hour producers.

Three disciplinesóart, nursing, and

educationóare consistently comparable to the

physical sciences in terms of instructional

expenditures. These disciplines, by nature, require

intense individualized instruction, in addition to

lectures. Art courses often contain a studio

component with a faculty mentor guiding a small

number of students. Education and nursing both

have a practicum associated with instruction

wherein students are placed in apprentice roles at

clinical sites as part of their curriculum. This type

of instruction is typically more expensive than the

traditional large group lecture format found in

social sciences and humanities programs.

The important disciplinary differences are between

and across departments at an institution, regardless

of Carnegie institutional category. The differential

patterns generally hold, whether at a research

university or a liberal arts college. However,

certain disciplines, most notably business, display

distinctly different cost patterns depending upon

highest degree offered. At institutions that grant

the Ph.D., instructional expenditures in business

tend to group with the less expensive social

sciences, while grouping with the more expensive

physical sciences at the masterís and bachelorís

degree levels. Economies of scale may well be

tied to this phenomenon, as doctorate-granting
26

institutions in the Delaware Study tend to be large,

high-volume student credit hour programs.

The second important issue clarified by this study

is that within an academic discipline, there are

clear and measurable variables that are associated

with instructional expense. Brinkman (1990)

postulated that the behavior of marginal and

average costs can be associated with four

dimensions that are subsequently measured in the

Delaware Study. Those dimensions are size (i.e.,

quantity of activity or output), scope of services

offered, level of instruction (for instructional

costs), and discipline (for instructional costs).

While Brinkman ascribed two of these dimensions

specifically to instructional expenditures, all four,

as discussed below, are applicable.

Economies of scale are very much in evidence in

examining instructional expenditures across the

disciplines among institutions participating in the

Delaware Study. Student credit hour production,

magnitude of faculty workload, and faculty size

are the most important predictors of instructional

costs. Where faculty size is held relatively

constant, increasing student credit hour production

substantially reduces instructional expense. A

proxy variable, i.e., student credit hours taught per

FTE faculty, arrives at the same conclusion:

increase individual faculty workloads and costs are

reduced.

The data also suggest that increasing faculty size is

tied to increased instructional costs, even in

instances where less well paid, nontenurable fulltime faculty and adjuncts are used to increase

teaching activity. This finding is consistent with

the manner in which costs track Carnegie

institutional classification and highest degree

offered in a program. In general, research and

doctoral institutions tend to have the highest

instructional expenditures, as do programs that

offer the doctorate. Because research and public

service activity are expected of faculty at research

and doctoral institutions, and are components of

any reputable doctoral program, it is reasonable to

assume that faculty, particularly tenured and

tenure track, in these institutions and programs

will have research and public service obligations

as part of their administered workload. Because

they do things other than teach (i.e., increased

scope of services offered), additional faculty must

be secured to meet instructional demand, thereby

increasing instructional costs. It is also noteworthy

that in instances where the proportion of tenured

and tenure-track faculty is higher, costs are higher.

Other variables are clearly tied to instructional

costs, but less so than credit hour production,

faculty workload, and faculty size. The presence

of a graduate component in the department adds to

instructional expenditures. This is not surprising;

it is generally accepted that graduate education is

more costly, given the small classes and high

degree of individual instruction associated with

graduate teaching. The relative contribution of

this variable is small, compared with the three

aforementioned variables. However, it is worth

noting that over all three data collection cycles,

departments offering the doctorate in biology,

chemistry, physics, and philosophy increased costs

by an average of 10 percent, while English

departments offering the Ph.D. were, on average,

5 percent more expensive than non-doctorategranting departments.

Discussion

The data analyzed from three discrete cycles of the

Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and

Productivity lead to a number of clear and

consistent conclusions with respect to direct

instructional expenditures in higher education.

Foremost is that the disciplinary mix at an

institution has a profound impact on the overall

level of instructional expenditures at an institution.

Analysis of three cycles of Delaware Study data

consistently demonstrates that there are real and

substantial differences between and across

disciplines at an institution. With few exceptions,

the differences between the disciplines appear to

be more important than the Carnegie classification

of an institution. Simply put, it is possible to

examine two research universities, one with a

heavy curricular emphasis on physical sciences

and engineering, the other with emphasis on the

social sciences and humanities, and find

substantial differences between overall

instructional costs at the two institutions owing to
27

the disciplinary mix at each. Similarly, it is

possible to examine a research university and a

baccalaureate college, each focused on the social

sciences and humanities, and find no difference in

overall unit instructional costs, again owing to

disciplinary mix.

Finding that most of the variation in instructional

expenditures is associated with the mix of

disciplines within an institution is important in

light of the issues raised in the first part of the

congressionally mandated study. Researchers

found no apparent relationship between the level

of instructional expenditures at an institution and

the tuition rate charged by that institution. The

findings from this analysis of direct instructional

expense underscore the difficulty in relating price

to cost at the level of the academic discipline.

While direct instructional expense per student

credit hour taught in civil engineering is three

times more than that for sociology, it is not

practical for an institution to charge engineering

majors a tuition rate three times that charged to

sociology majors. Indeed, researchers for the first

report in the congressionally mandated study

found that institutional tuition rates at public

institutions are largely tied to state appropriation

levels, while competitive market forces are

associated with tuition levels at private

institutions. Neither of these external factors has

anything remotely to do with what it costs to

deliver instruction in a discipline. Price and cost

are not interchangeable constructs.

There are important factors that are associated

with direct expense at the academic discipline

level of analysis. Higher education is no different

from any other enterprise with respect to

economies of scaleóthe larger the volume of unit

output from a fixed workforce, the lower the unit

cost of production. Increasing the size of the

workforce in any substantial way without

concurrently adjusting productivity is tied to rises

in costs. The scope of services offered by a

department or program, i.e., the extent to which it

moves beyond instruction into areas of research

and public service, is tied to increases in direct

instructional expense for that unit. And finally, the

introduction of graduate education into a

department, while not as important a predictor of

cost as productivity and faculty size, nonetheless is

associated with increased instructional costs of a

unit. It must again be emphasized that these

internal cost factors are very different from the

external factors tied to price (i.e., state

appropriations, market forces, etc.) These are noninterchangeable constructs for which no strong

statistical relationship has been found.
28
29

References

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing

Undergraduate Education. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Brinkman, P.T. (2000). The Economics of Higher Education: Focus on Cost. In M.F. Middaugh (Ed.),

Analyzing Costs in Higher Education: What Institutional Researchers Need to Know, Vol. 106,

New Directions for Institutional Research Monograph Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Brinkman, P.T. (1990). Higher Education Cost Functions. In S.A. Hoenack and E.L. Collins (Eds.), The

Economics of American Universities: Management, Operations, and Fiscal Environments.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cunningham, A.F., Wellman, J.V., Clinedinst, M.E., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001). Study of College Costs

and Prices, 1988ñ89 to 1997ñ98 (NCES 2002ñ157). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,

D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hoenack, S.A. (1990). An Economistís Perspective on Costs Within Higher Education Institutions. In

S.A. Hoenack and E.L Collins (Eds.), The Economics of American Universities: Management,

Operations, and Fiscal Environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Jones, D.P. (2000). An Alternative Look at the Cost Question. In Higher Education Cost Measurement:

Public Policy Issues, Options, and Strategies. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education

Policy.

Middaugh, M.F. (1995ñ96). Closing in on Faculty Productivity Measures. In Planning for Higher

Education, 24 (2): 1ñ12.

Middaugh, M.F. (1998ñ99). How Much Do Faculty Really Teach? In Planning for Higher Education,

27 (2): 1ñ11.

Middaugh, M.F. (2001). Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards and Benchmarks for Colleges

and Universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. (1998). Straight Talk About College Costs and

Prices. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Research Associates of Washington. (Annually). Higher Education Revenues and Expenditures:

Institutional Data. Washington, DC: Research Associates of Washington.

Taylor, B.E., and Massy, W.F. (1996). Strategic Indicators for Higher Education: Vital Benchmarks and

Information to Help You Evaluate and Improve Your Institutionís Performance. Princeton, NJ:

Peterson Guides.
30

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Index of CIP-2000 Codes and Program Titles (NCES:

2002ñ165). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Zemsky, R., and Massy, W. (1990). Cost Containment: Committing to a New Economic Reality.

Change 22 (6): 16ñ22.
A-1

Appendix A

Delaware Study Institutional Participant List
A-2
A-3

Delaware Study Institutional Participant List

Appalachian State University

Arizona State University

Arizona State University - West

Arkansas State University

Asbury College

Auburn University - Main Campus

Auburn University - Montgomery

Augusta College

Averett College

Ball State University

Baylor University

Belmont University

Black Hills State University

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

Blufton College

Boston University

Bowling Green State University

Bradley University

Bridgewater State College

Brigham Young University

Butler University

Caldwell College

California State University - Fresno

California State University - Long Beach

California State University - San Marcos

Carleton College

Catholic University of America

Centenary College of Louisiana

Central Connecticut State University

Central Michigan University

Charleston Southern University

Christopher Newport University

Clarion University

Clarkson University

Clemson University

Cleveland State University

Coastal Carolina University

College of Charleston

College of Mount St. Joseph

College of New Rochelle

College of St. Mary

College of St. Elizabeth

College of the Holy Cross

Creighton University

Daemen College

Dakota State University

Davidson College

Delta State University

De Paul University

De Pauw University

Drew University

Drexel University

Drury University

Duquesne University

East Carolina University

East Tennessee University

Eastern Mennonite University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern New Mexico University

Eastern Washington University

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Elizabeth City State University

Fayetteville State University

Florida Institute of Technology

Florida International University

Florida State University

Furman University

George Washington University

Georgetown University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Georgia Southern University

Georgia State University

Georgian Court College

Gonzaga University

Goshen College

Grambling State University

Grand Valley State University

Grinnell College

Gwynedd-Mercy College

Hartwick College

Indiana State University

Indiana UniversityñPurdue University at

Indianapolis

Indiana UniversityñSouth Bend

Indiana University

Iowa State University

Ithaca College

Jackson State University

Jacksonville State University

James Madison University

Kansas State University

Keene State College
A-4

Kennesaw State College

Kent State University

La Salle University

Lake Superior State University

Lander University

Lebanon Valley College

Longwood College

Louisiana State UniversityñBaton Rouge

Louisiana State UniversityñShreveport

Louisiana Tech University

Loyola Marymount University

Lynchburg College

Marist College

Marshall University

Marygrove College

Marywood University

McNeese State University

Mercer University

Mesa State College

Miami University

Michigan State University

Michigan Technological University

Millikin University

Mississippi State University

Mississippi University For Women

Mississippi Valley State University

Montana State University - Billings

Montana State University - Bozeman

Montclair State University

Moravian College

Mount Saint Mary's College (Maryland)

Muhlenberg College

Nazareth College of Rochester

New York State College of Ceramics

Niagara University

Nicholls State University

North Carolina A&T State University

North Carolina Central University

North Carolina State University

North Dakota State University

Northeastern University

Northern Arizona University

Northern Illinois University

Northern Kentucky University

Northern State University

Northwestern State University of Louisiana

Oakland University

Oberlin College

Ohio Northern University

Ohio State University

Oklahoma City University

Oklahoma State University

Old Dominion University

Oregon State University

Pacific Lutheran University

Park University

Portland State University

Prairie View A & M University

Presbyterian College

Purdue University Calumet

Radford University

Ramapo College of New Jersey

Rhode Island College

Rider University

Rockhurst University

Rollins College

Rowan University

Saint Edward's University

Saint Louis University

St. Michaelís College

Saint Norbert College

St. Paulís College

Salisbury State University

Samford University

San Jose State University

Seattle University

Siena College

Slippery Rock University

Sonoma State University

South Dakota School of Mine & Technology

South Dakota State University

Southeast Missouri State University

Southeastern Louisiana University

Southern Illinois UniversityñCarbondale

Southern Methodist University

Southern University and A&M College

Southern University ñ Baton Rouge

Southern Utah University

Southwest Missouri State University

Southwest Texas University

St. Bonaventure University

St. Mary's University

State University of West Georgia

SUNYñAlbany

SUNYñBinghamton

SUNYñBrockport

SUNYñCortland

SUNYñGeneseo

SUNYñInstitute of TechnologyñUtica

SUNYñNew Paltz

SUNYñOneonta

SUNYñOswego
A-5

SUNYñPlattsburgh

SUNYñPotsdam

SUNYñPurchase College

SUNYñStony Brook

SUNY ñ University at Buffalo

SUNY ñ College at Fredonia

Sweet Briar College

Taylor University ñ Fort Wayne

Taylor University ñ Upland

Teachers College at Columbia University

Temple University

Tennessee State University

Tennessee Technological University

Texas A & M UniversityñMain Campus

Texas Tech University

Towson State University

Trinity College

Troy State University

Tulane University

University of Akron

University of AlabamañBirmingham

University of AlabamañHuntsville

University of AlabamañTuscaloosa

University of AlaskañAnchorage

University of Alaska ñ Fairbanks

University of AlaskañSoutheast

University of Arizona

University of ArkansasñLittle Rock

University of ArkansasñFayetteville

University of CaliforniañIrvine

University of Central Florida

University of Charleston

University of ColoradoñBoulder

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

University of Colorado at Denver

University of Connecticut

University of Dallas

University of Dayton

University of Delaware

University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Guam

University of Hartford

University of Hawaii at Manoa

University of HoustonñClear Lake

University of HoustonñMain Campus

University of HoustonñVictoria

University of Idaho

University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

University of Louisiana at Monroe

University of Maine

University of Maine at Machias

University of Maryland ñ Baltimore County

University of MarylandñCollege Park

University of MassachusettsñAmherst

University of Miami

University of MinnesotañDuluth

University of Minnesota ñ Morris

University of Minnesota ñ Twin Cities

University of Mississippi

University of MissouriñColumbia

University of MissouriñKansas City

University of MissouriñRolla

University of MissouriñSt. Louis

University of Montana

University of Montevallo

University of NebraskañKearney

University of NebraskañLincoln

University of NevadañLas Vegas

University of New Hampshire

University of New Haven

University of New Orleans

University of North Carolina ñ Asheville

University of North CarolinañChapel Hill

University of North CarolinañCharlotte

University of North CarolinañGreensboro

University of North CarolinañPembroke

University of North CarolinañWilmington

University of Northern Colorado

University of Northern Iowa

University of Notre Dame

University of Oklahoma

University of Oregon

University of Pittsburgh

University of PittsburghñBradford

University of Scranton

University of South Alabama

University of South CarolinañColumbia

University of South Dakota

University of South Florida

University of Southern Indiana

University of Southern Mississippi

University of TennesseeñChattanooga

University of TennesseeñKnoxville

University of Texas ñ Austin

University of TexasñBrownsville

University of TexasñEl Paso

University of the Rio GrandeñOhio

University of Utah

University of Vermont
A-6

University of VirginiañCharlottesville

University of Washington

University of West Alabama

University of West Florida

University of Wisconsin ñ Madison

University of WisconsinñMilwaukee

University of WisconsinñWhitewater

University of Wyoming

Utah State University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Wake Forest University

Washburn University

Washington College

Webster University

West Chester University

West Virginia University

Western Carolina University

Western Kentucky University

Western Michigan University

Western Washington University

Wichita State University

Wilkes University

William Paterson University

Winston-Salem State University

Wright State University

Xavier University of Louisiana

Youngstown State University
B-1

Appendix B

Data Collection Form
B-2
B-3

2002-03 Delaware Study of Instructional Cost and Productivity 

Institution: 

Department/Discipline: 

Associated CIP Identifier: 

Please indicate the average number of degrees awarded in this discipline at each degree level over the 

three year period from 1998-99 through 2000-01.

Place an "X" in the box below that

Bachelor's: Place an 'X' in the box below if this discipline is describes your academic calendar:

Master's : non-degree granting.

Doctorate: Semester 

Professional: Quarter

A. INSTRUCTIONAL COURSELOAD: FALL SEMESTER, 2001

Please complete the following matrix, displaying student credit hours and organized class sections taught, by type of faculty, and by level of instruction.

Be sure to consult definitions before proceeding. Do not input data in shaded cells except for those mentioned in the important note below that pertains to (G) and (J).

Faculty Student Credit Hours Organized Class Sections

FTE Faculty (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) Other Section Types 

Classification (A) (B) (C) Upper Div. Undergrad Total Graduate Total Total Lab/Dsc/ (Lecture, Seminar, etc.)

Separately Instruc- Lower Div. Indv. Undergrad Grad. Indv. Graduate Student Rec. (M) (N) (O) (P)

Total Budgeted tional OC*1 OC* 1 Instruct. SCH OC* 1 Instruct. SCH Credit Hours Sections Lower Div. Upper Div. Graduate Total

Regular faculty: 

-Tenured/Tenure Eligible

- Other Regular Faculty

Supplemental Faculty NA

Teaching Assistants: 

- Credit Bearing Courses NA

- Non-Credit Bearing Activity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

B. COST DATA: ACADEMIC AND FISCAL YEAR 2001-02

1. In the boxes below, enter the total number of student credit hours that were generated during Academic Year 2001-02 during 

terms that were supported by the department's instructional budget. (NOTE: Semester calendar institutions will typically report

fall and spring student credit hours; quarter calendar institutions will usually report fall, winter, and spring student credit hours.) 2

A. Undergraduate

 B. Graduate

2. In the boxes below, enter total directexpenditures for instruction in FY 2001-02

A. Salaries Are the benefits included in the number reported for salaries (Y/N)? 

B. Benefits If the dollar value is not available, what percent of salary do benefits constitute at your institution? 

C. Other than personnel expenditures.

D. Total

3. In the box below, enter total directexpenditures for separately budgeted research activity in FY 2001-02

4. In the box below, enter total directexpenditures for separately budgeted public service activity in FY 2001-02

Data Collection Form

______________________________________________

1

OC = organized classes

2

Summersemesters and quarters are not generally supported by the departmentís instructional budget.
B-4
C-1

Appendix C

Glossary
C-2
C-3

Glossary

Institution Type

The Delaware Study collects data on teaching

loads, instructional costs, and externally funded

scholarly activity from public and private 4-year

institutions throughout the United States. Data are

collected using the template in appendix B. The

data from these colleges and universities are

analyzed within the framework of the 1995

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher

Education. The institution types are as follows:

• Research Universities: Includes Research I

and Research II institutions. The minimum

criteria for inclusion in the research university

category are a full range of baccalaureate

programs, commitment to graduate education

through the doctorate, and a high priority

given to research. They award 50 or more

doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they

receive at least $15.5 million in federal

support.

• Doctoral Universities: Includes Doctoral I and

Doctoral II institutions. The minimum criteria

for inclusion in the doctoral university

category are a full range of baccalaureate

programs, and a commitment to graduate

education through the doctorate. They award

annually at least 10 doctorates in 3 or more

disciplines, or 20 or more doctoral degrees in

1 or more disciplines.

• Comprehensive Colleges and Universities:

Includes Comprehensive I and Comprehensive

II institutions. The minimum criteria for

inclusion in comprehensive college and

university category are a full range of

baccalaureate programs, and a commitment to

graduate education through the masterís

degree. They award 20 or more masterís

degrees in 1 or more disciplines.

• Baccalaureate Colleges: Includes

Baccalaureate I and Baccalaureate II

institutions. The minimum criteria for

inclusion in the baccalaureate college category

are that they award less than 40 percent of

their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts

fields.

Academic Department/Discipline

The disciplines selected for benchmarking in the

Delaware Study are found in the Classification of

Instructional Programs Taxonomy, developed by

the National Center for Education Statistics. The

data are typically benchmarked at the four-digit

CIP code level. Specifically, the Delaware Study

examines discrete disciplines within a broad

curricular field. For example, in Engineering (CIP

code 14.XX), data are collected for those

engineering disciplines at a given institution, e.g.,

14.03 (Agricultural Engineering), 14.07 (Chemical

Engineering), 14.08 (Civil Engineering), 14.10

(Electrical Engineering), 14.19 (Mechanical

Engineering), and so on. Institutions with different

engineering departments would report data for the

appropriate four-digit CIP code. The pattern

would be repeated across other curricular areas,

e.g., Education (CIP code 13.XX), Physical

Sciences (CIP code 40.XX), Social Sciences (CIP

code 45.XX), Visual and Performing Arts (CIP

code 50.XX), Business Management (CIP code

52.XX), etc.

Faculty

The Delaware Study collects detailed data on

teaching loads, arrayed by category of faculty.

Four discrete categories are examined:

• Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty: Those

individuals who either hold tenure at the

institution, or for whom tenure is an expected

outcome.

• Nontenure-track Faculty: Those individuals

who teach on a recurring contractual basis at

the institution, but whose academic title or

budget line render them ineligible for

academic tenure.
C-4

• Supplemental Faculty: Supplemental faculty

are characteristically paid from a pool of

temporary funds. Their appointment is

nonrecurring, although the same individual

might receive a temporary appointment in

successive terms. The key point is that

funding is temporary, and there is no

expectation of continuing appointment. This

category includes adjunct faculty,

administrators or professional personnel at the

institution who teach but whose primary job

responsibility is nonfaculty, contributed

service personnel, etc.

• Graduate Teaching Assistants: Teaching

assistants are those students at the institution

who receive a stipend strictly for teaching

activity. Includes teaching assistants who are

instructors of record, but also includes

teaching assistants who function as discussion

or recitation section leaders, laboratory section

leaders, and other types of organized class

sections in which instruction takes place, but

which may not carry credit and for which

there is no formal instructor of record.

Graduate research assistants are not included

in this category.

Faculty Full-Time Equivalency

(FTE)

The Delaware Study develops benchmark data for

teaching loads (student credit hours taught per

FTE faculty, FTE students taught per FTE faculty)

and cost measures (direct research expenditures

per FTE faculty). In converting full- and part-time

faculty to FTE faculty, the following conventions

are used:

• Tenured/Tenure-track and Nontenure-track

Faculty : The definition of full-time

equivalency begins with the total FTE value

for filled faculty positions as they appear in

the fall personnel file at an institution. A fulltime faculty member is 1.0 FTE. An

individual who works three-quarters time and

is paid accordingly is 0.75 FTE. Filled

positions are those that have salaries

associated with them. This includes paid

leaves such as sabbaticals wherein the

individual is receiving a salary, but excludes

unpaid leaves of absence. Institutions are

asked to subtract from the total FTE those

portions of faculty time that are externally

funded and contractually obligated for activity

other than teaching, e.g., research or service.

The remainder is instructional FTE, the value

used in teaching load benchmarks. For

example, suppose Professor Jones is a fulltime member of the Chemistry faculty. He

would initially be reported as 1.0 FTE.

Professor Jones has a research grant that

contractually obligates him to spend one-third

of his time in research. The externally

supported portion of his position is 0.33 FTE,

which would be subtracted from the total FTE.

As a result, 0.66 FTE is the instructional

portion of Professor Jonesí full-time

equivalency that is used in developing

Delaware Study teaching load benchmarks.

• Supplemental Faculty: Full-time equivalency

for supplemental faculty is calculated by

taking the total teaching credit hours (which

are generally equivalent to the credit value of

the course(s) taught) for each supplemental

faculty, and dividing by 12. Twelve hours is a

broadly accepted standard for a full-time

teaching load.

• Teaching Assistants: Full-time equivalency

for teaching assistants is either defined as the

value for the budget line on the institutionís

personnel file, or is calculated using the same

convention as with supplemental faculty.

Faculty Teaching Load

Teaching loads are measured in terms of student

credit hours and organized class sections taught in

both regularly scheduled and individualized

instruction courses. Courses are arrayed by lower

division and upper division levels within

undergraduate instruction, and by graduate level.

• Course: An instructional activity, identified by

academic discipline and number, in which
C-5

students enroll, typically to earn academic

credit applicable to a degree objective.

Excludes noncredit courses, but includes zero

credit course sections which are requirements

of or prerequisites to degree programs, and

that are scheduled, and consume institutional

or departmental resources in the same manner

as credit courses. Zero-credit course sections

are typically supplements to the credit-bearing

lecture portion of a course. Zero-credit

sections are frequently listed as laboratory,

discussion, or recitation sections in

conjunction with the credit-bearing lecture

portion of a course.

• Organized Class Course: A course that is

provided principally by means of regularly

scheduled classes meeting in classrooms or

similar facilities at stated times.

• Individual Instruction Course: A course in

which instruction is not conducted in regularly

scheduled class meetings. Includes readings

or special topics courses, problems or research

courses, including dissertation/thesis research,

and individual lesson courses (typically in

music and fine arts).

• Course Section: A unique group of students

that meets with one or more instructors.

• Course Credit: The academic credit value of a

course; the value recorded for a student who

successfully completes the course.

• Lower Division Instruction: Courses typically

associated with the first and second year of

college study.

• Upper Division Instruction: Courses typically

associated with the third and fourth year of

college study.

• Graduate Level Instruction: Courses typically

associated with post-baccalaureate study.

• Student Credit Hours: The credit value of a

course (typically three or four credits)

multiplied by the enrollment in the course.

Fiscal Data

The Delaware Study collects total direct

expenditure data in certain functional areas, i.e.,

instruction, research, and public service. Direct

expenditure data reflect costs incurred for

personnel compensation, supplies, and services

used in the conduct of each of these functional

areas. They include acquisition costs of capital

assets such as equipment and library books to the

extent that funds are budgeted for and used by

operating departments for instruction, research,

and public service. In developing the cost models

used in this study, direct expenditures for

instruction are the focus of analysis. It is therefore

important to have a clear understanding of what is

meant by ìinstruction,î and the components that

constitute instructional expenditures.

The instruction function, for purposes of this

study, includes general academic instruction,

occupational and vocational instruction,

community education, preparatory and adult basic

education, and remedial and tutorial instruction

conducted by the teaching faculty for the

institution's students. Departmental research and

service that are not separately budgeted are

included under instruction. In other words,

research that is externally funded is excluded from

instructional expenditures, as are any departmental

funds that are expended for the purpose of

matching external research funds as part of a

contractual or grant obligation. Also excluded are

expenditures for academic administration where

the primary function is administration. For

example, deans would be excluded, but

department chairs, whose primary function is

instructional support, would be included.

Direct instructional expenditures are disaggregated

into three categories:

1. Salaries: All wages paid to support the

instructional function in a given department

or program during the fiscal year. While

these will largely be faculty salaries, they

also include those for clerical (e.g.,

department secretary), professional (e.g., lab

technicians), graduate student (stipends but

not tuition waivers), and any other
C-6

personnel who support the teaching function

and whose salaries and wages are paid from

the department's/program's instructional

budget.

2. Benefits: Expenditures for benefits

associated with the personnel for whom

salaries and wages were reported on the

previous entry. Institutions that book

benefits centrally are asked to provide, in

concert with their business office, a

reasonable estimate for departmental

benefits. Where that cannot be done, the

University of Delaware imputes a cost

factor based upon the current benefit rate

for the institution, as published in the annual

salary issue of Academe. If no rate is

available, a default value of 28 percent is

used.

3. Other Than Personnel Costs: This category

includes nonpersonnel items such as travel,

supplies and expense, noncapital equipment

purchases, etc., that are typically part of a

department or program's cost of doing

business. Excluded from this category are

items such as central computing costs,

centrally allocated computing labs, graduate

student tuition remission and fee waivers,

etc.
D-1

Appendix D

Tables
D-2
D-3

Table of Contents

Table Page

D-1 Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-5

D-2 Nonresponse bias for 2000 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-7

D-3 Nonresponse bias for 1999 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-9

D-4 Nonresponse bias for 1998 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-10

D-5 Nonresponse bias for 1997 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classification.................................................................................................................... D-12

D-6 Summary of ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction,

by discipline and Carnegie classification, by highest degree offered, and

undergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 2001, 2000, and 1998

Delaware Study ............................................................................................................... D-14

D-7 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-15

D-8 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-17

D-9 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-19

D-10 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-21

D-11 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-23

D-12 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware Study ............................................................................... D-25

+
D-4

Table of ContentsóContinued

Table Page

D-13 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................. D-27

D-14 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 2000 Delaware Study .................................................. D-28

D-15 Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure at the

5 percent level of significance: 1998 Delaware Study .................................................. D-29

D-16 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 2001 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-30

D-17 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 2000 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-35

D-18 Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour

taught, by discipline: 1998 Delaware Study .................................................................. D-40
D-5

Table D-1. Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie classification

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Research

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 46 688 80 626 61 39 8.9

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 46 1,008 80 944 65 41 6.4

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 46 68 80 66 2 1 2.2

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 46 20,877 80 17,465 3,412 2,167 16.3

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 46 78 80 68 10 6 12.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 46 21 80 18 3 2 12.4

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 46 66 80 58 8 5 12.5

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 46 24 80 28 -4 -3 -16.6

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 46 10 80 14 -4 -3 -44.9

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 42 7,230 43 8,700 -1,470 -744 -20.3

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 42 136,842 43 189,807 -52,965 -26,794 -38.7

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 42 53,559 43 54,554 -995 -503 -1.9

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 42 1,807 43 3,458 -1,651 -835 -91.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 42 1,504 43 1,771 -267 -135 -17.8

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 42 605 43 699 -94 -47 -15.5

Doctoral

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 33 310 77 254 56 39 18.0

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 33 500 77 412 88 61 17.5

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 33 63 77 60 3 2 4.7

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 33 11,033 77 8,391 2,642 1,849 23.9

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 33 82 77 69 14 9 16.4

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 33 22 77 20 2 1 7.3

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 33 68 77 56 12 9 18.1

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 33 27 77 33 -6 -4 -22.7

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 33 5 77 11 -6 -4 -130.2

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 28 5,152 36 5,981 -829 -466 -16.1

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 28 46,500 36 62,394 -15,894 -8,940 -34.2

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 28 22,829 36 20,376 2,452 1,379 10.7

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 28 1,401 36 1,430 -29 -16 -2.1

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 28 1,292 36 1,253 39 22 3.0

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 28 506 36 475 31 17 6.1

See notes at the end of the table.
D-6

Table D-1. Nonresponse bias for 2001 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classificationóContinued

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Comprehensive

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 72 176 457 122 53 46 30.3

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 72 291 459 200 91 79 31.2

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 72 59 458 55 5 4 8.0

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 72 6,257 459 4,454 1,803 1,559 28.8

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 72 86 459 84 2 1 2.0

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 72 23 457 25 -2 -1 -7.1

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 72 75 459 72 3 3 4.2

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 72 23 459 27 -3 -3 -13.8

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 72 2 459 2 0 0 6.4

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 54 4,420 221 4,357 63 51 1.4

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 54 11,893 220 11,974 -81 -65 -0.7

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 54 12,876 220 13,721 -845 -679 -6.6

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 54 1,060 221 977 82 66 7.8

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 54 1,279 221 1,286 -7 -6 -0.6

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 54 354 221 363 -9 -7 -2.6

Baccalaureate

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 19 63 596 41 22 21 34.4

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 19 111 606 77 34 33 30.8

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 19 53 603 48 5 5 9.8

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 19 1,898 612 1,453 446 432 23.5

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 19 96 612 96 0 0 -0.3

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 19 18 602 20 -3 -3 -15.9

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 19 96 607 94 2 2 2.1

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 19 2 607 5 -4 -4 -240.1

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 7 4,126 76 3,759 366 335 8.9

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 7 6,076 74 6,918 -842 -769 -13.9

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 7 18,487 74 15,560 2,928 2,675 15.8

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 7 1,014 76 888 126 115 12.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 7 1,529 76 1,528 1 1 0.1

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 7 418 76 322 96 88 23.1

1

Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997ñ2001; U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,

1997ñ2001.
D-7

Table D-2. Nonresponse bias for 2000 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie classification

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Research

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 48 697 78 619 78 48 11.2

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 48 1,029 78 929 100 62 9.7

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 48 67 78 67 0 0 0.5

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 48 21,657 78 16,898 4,759 2,946 22.0

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 48 79 78 68 11 7 13.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 48 21 78 18 3 2 14.6

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 48 66 78 58 9 5 13.2

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 48 24 78 29 -5 -3 -19.5

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 48 10 78 14 -4 -3 -42.8

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 43 7,123 42 8,845 -1,722 -851 -24.2

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 43 139,892 42 187,945 -48,053 -23,744 -34.3

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 43 55,552 42 52,538 3,014 1,489 5.4

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 43 1,784 42 3,521 -1,737 -858 -97.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 43 1,484 42 1,798 -314 -155 -21.1

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 43 591 42 715 -124 -61 -20.9

Doctoral

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 26 306 84 260 46 35 15.0

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 26 494 84 421 72 55 14.7

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 26 63 84 60 3 2 4.4

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 26 10,917 84 8,647 2,270 1,734 20.8

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 26 82 84 70 12 9 14.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 26 22 84 20 1 1 5.7

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 26 68 84 57 11 8 16.4

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 26 26 84 33 -7 -5 -26.2

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 26 6 84 10 -4 -3 -72.7

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 23 5,655 41 5,598 58 37 1.0

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 23 64,282 41 50,481 13,802 8,842 21.5

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 23 26,859 41 18,414 8,445 5,410 31.4

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 23 1,527 41 1,356 170 109 11.2

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 23 1,331 41 1,236 95 61 7.1

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 23 553 41 452 100 64 18.1

See notes at the end of the table.
D-8

Table D-2. Nonresponse bias for 2000 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classificationóContinued

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Comprehensive

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 66 185 463 122 63 55 34.2

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 66 304 465 200 105 92 34.4

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 66 59 464 55 5 4 8.0

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 66 6,691 465 4,416 2,275 1,992 34.0

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 66 88 465 84 4 3 4.3

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 66 22 463 25 -3 -3 -13.6

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 66 76 465 72 4 4 5.4

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 66 23 465 27 -3 -3 -14.9

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 66 1 465 2 -1 -1 -60.0

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 57 4,462 218 4,345 116 92 2.6

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 57 14,951 217 11,171 3,780 2,994 25.3

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 57 16,416 217 12,803 3,613 2,861 22.0

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 57 1,047 218 979 67 53 6.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 57 1,145 218 1,321 -176 -139 -15.3

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 57 383 218 356 27 21 7.0

Baccalaureate

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 14 51 601 42 9 9 17.3

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 14 100 611 77 23 23 23.1

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 14 51 608 48 3 3 5.5

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 14 1,933 617 1,456 478 467 24.7

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 14 97 617 96 1 1 1.4

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 14 19 607 20 -1 -1 -5.5

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 14 98 612 94 4 4 4.4

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 14 2 612 5 -3 -3 -185.3

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 9 3,648 74 3,808 -159 -142 -4.4

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 9 4,729 72 7,110 -2,381 -2,117 -50.4

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 9 16,768 72 15,693 1,075 955 6.4

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 9 856 74 904 -48 -43 -5.6

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 9 1,302 74 1,556 -253 -226 -19.5

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 9 350 74 327 23 21 6.6

1

Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997ñ2001; U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,

1997ñ2001.
D-9

Table D-3. Nonresponse bias for 1999 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie classification

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Research

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 53 694 73 616 78 45 11.2

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 53 1,022 73 928 94 55 9.2

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 53 68 73 67 1 0 1.2

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 53 21,179 73 16,919 4,260 2,468 20.1

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 53 78 73 68 10 6 13.1

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 53 21 73 18 3 2 14.7

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 53 65 73 58 8 5 11.9

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 53 25 73 28 -3 -2 -13.6

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 53 10 73 14 -4 -3 -45.4

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 47 7,187 38 8,947 -1,760 -787 -24.5

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 47 144,026 38 187,891 -43,865 -19,610 -30.5

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 47 55,352 38 52,469 2,883 1,289 5.2

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 47 1,826 38 3,653 -1,827 -817 -100.1

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 47 1,479 38 1,837 -359 -160 -24.3

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 47 605 38 712 -107 -48 -17.7

Doctoral

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 24 298 86 263 36 28 12.0

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 24 476 86 428 48 37 10.1

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 24 64 86 60 4 3 6.6

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 24 9,979 86 8,962 1,017 795 10.2

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 24 81 86 71 10 8 12.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 24 20 86 21 0 0 -1.6

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 24 67 86 57 10 8 15.1

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 24 27 86 33 -6 -4 -20.9

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 24 6 86 10 -5 -4 -81.8

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 20 5,575 44 5,638 -63 -44 -1.1

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 20 51,429 44 57,264 -5,834 -4,011 -11.3

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 20 22,130 44 21,140 990 681 4.5

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 20 1,424 44 1,414 10 7 0.7

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 20 1,423 44 1,200 223 153 15.6

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 20 541 44 465 76 52 14.0

Comprehensive (not included in the survey)

Baccalaureate (not included in the survey)

1

Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997ñ2001; U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,

1997ñ2001.
D-10

Table D-4. Nonresponse bias for 1998 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie classification

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Research

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 49 703 77 614 89 54 12.6

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 49 1,034 77 925 109 67 10.6

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 49 67 77 67 1 0 0.7

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 49 21,154 77 17,156 3,998 2,443 18.9

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 49 79 77 68 11 7 13.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 49 20 77 18 2 1 10.7

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 49 67 77 57 9 6 14.0

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 49 24 77 29 -5 -3 -21.2

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 49 10 77 14 -4 -3 -44.6

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 44 7,052 41 8,962 -1,910 -921 -27.1

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 44 146,536 41 181,987 -35,451 -17,100 -24.2

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 44 55,827 41 52,169 3,658 1,764 6.6

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 44 1,871 41 3,470 -1,598 -771 -85.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 44 1,491 41 1,798 -307 -148 -20.6

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 44 591 41 719 -128 -62 -21.6

Doctoral

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 26 320 84 255 64 49 20.1

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 26 522 84 413 109 83 20.9

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 26 63 84 60 3 2 4.3

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 26 11,181 84 8,565 2,616 1,998 23.4

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 26 81 84 71 10 8 12.3

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 26 21 84 21 0 0 1.3

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 26 66 84 57 9 7 13.7

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 26 28 84 33 -4 -3 -14.7

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 26 5 84 10 -5 -4 -95.2

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 22 5,320 42 5,775 -455 -298 -8.5

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 22 43,563 42 61,662 -18,099 -11,878 -41.5

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 22 20,464 42 21,965 -1,501 -985 -7.3

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 22 1,425 42 1,414 12 8 0.8

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 22 1,246 42 1,282 -36 -24 -2.9

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 22 509 42 478 32 21 6.2

See notes at the end of the table.
D-11

Table D-4. Nonresponse bias for 1998 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classificationóContinued

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Comprehensive

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 63 179 466 123 56 49 31.2

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 63 286 468 203 83 73 28.9

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 63 61 467 54 7 6 11.3

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 63 5,995 468 4,524 1,471 1,296 24.5

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 63 87 468 84 2 2 2.9

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 63 21 466 25 -4 -3 -18.9

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 63 75 468 72 4 3 4.7

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 63 23 468 27 -4 -3 -17.3

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 63 2 468200 19.7

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 43 4,326 232 4,377 -52 -44 -1.2

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 43 13,306 231 11,707 1,599 1,348 12.0

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 43 15,923 231 13,114 2,810 2,369 17.6

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 43 1,022 232 988 35 29 3.4

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 43 1,090 232 1,320 -231 -195 -21.2

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 43 372 232 360 13 11 3.4

Baccalaureate

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 15 62 600 42 21 20 33.3

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 15 112 610 77 35 34 31.2

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 15 54 607 48 6 6 11.6

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 15 2,066 616 1,452 615 600 29.7

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 15 96 616 96 0 0 0.4

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 15 19 606 20 -1 -1 -6.1

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 15 96 611 94 2 2 2.1

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 15 4 611 5 -1 -1 -29.9

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 9 3,418 74 3,836 -418 -373 -12.2

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 9 1,900 72 7,464 -5,564 -4,945 -292.8

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 9 23,595 72 14,840 8,755 7,783 37.1

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 9 946 74 893 53 47 5.6

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 9 1,360 74 1,549 -188 -168 -13.8

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 9 305 74 333 -28 -25 -9.1

1

Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997ñ2001; U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,

1997ñ2001.
D-12

Table D-5. Nonresponse bias for 1997 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie classification

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Research

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 48 688 78 625 64 40 9.3

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 48 1,003 78 946 57 35 5.7

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 48 68 78 66 2 1 2.4

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 48 21,161 78 17,202 3,959 2,451 18.7

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 48 79 78 68 11 7 14.1

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 48 21 78 18 3 2 15.1

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 48 67 78 57 10 6 14.3

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 48 24 78 29 -5 -3 -19.8

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 48 9 78 14 -5 -3 -52.4

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 41 6,570 44 9,282 -2,712 -1,404 -41.3

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track ........

faculty .............................................................. 41 138,841 44 186,741 -47,900 -24,796 -34.5

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 41 58,345 44 50,073 8,272 4,282 14.2

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 41 1,753 44 3,471 -1,719 -890 -98.1

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 41 1,466 44 1,800 -334 -173 -22.8

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 41 568 44 732 -164 -85 -29.0

Doctoral

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 35 298 75 258 40 27 13.4

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 35 498 75 411 87 59 17.5

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 35 60 75 61 -1 -1 -2.3

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 35 10,762 75 8,447 2,316 1,579 21.5

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 35 81 75 69 12 8 14.8

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 35 21 75 21 0 0 2.3

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 35 67 75 56 10 7 15.6

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 35 28 75 33 -6 -4 -19.8

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 35 6 75 11 -5 -3 -84.5

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 27 5,476 37 5,723 -247 -143 -4.5

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 27 66,853 37 47,113 19,740 11,412 29.5

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 27 27,330 37 17,158 10,171 5,880 37.2

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 27 1,525 37 1,340 185 107 12.1

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 27 1,232 37 1,298 -66 -38 -5.3

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 27 488 37 489 0 0 0.0

See notes at the end of the table.
D-13

Table D-5. Nonresponse bias for 1997 Delaware Study, by institutionís Carnegie

classificationóContinued

Participants Nonparticipants Carnegie classification and

institutional characteristic

N1 Avg (Y1) N2 Avg (Y2)

Difference

(Y1-Y2)

Magnitude of

bias1

Percent

difference

Comprehensive

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 54 189 475 123 66 59 34.9

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 54 305 477 202 103 93 33.8

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 54 61 476 55 7 6 10.8

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 54 6,723 477 4,469 2,253 2,024 33.5

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 54 88 477 84 4 4 5.0

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 54 22 475 25 -3 -3 -13.6

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 54 77 477 72 5 5 6.7

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 54 22 477 27 -5 -5 -23.9

Doctorís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 54 2 477 2 0 0 2.4

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 39 4,089 236 4,416 -326 -280 -8.0

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 39 11,360 235 12,057 -696 -597 -6.1

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 39 13,550 235 13,555 -5 -4 0.0

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 39 895 236 1,009 -114 -98 -12.7

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 39 1,058 236 1,322 -264 -227 -25.0

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 39 350 236 363 -13 -11 -3.7

Baccalaureate

Total tenure-track faculty .................................... 13 88 602 41 47 46 53.2

Total full-time faculty.......................................... 13 132 612 76 56 55 42.2

Tenure-track faculty as percent of total fulltime faculty...................................................... 13 67 609 48 19 19 28.9

Total full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment...... 13 2,179 618 1,451 728 713 33.4

Undergraduate enrollment as percent of total .... 13 95 618 96 -1 -1 -1.2

FTE enrollment per full-time faculty.................. 13 17 608 20 -3 -3 -20.2

Bachelorís degrees awarded as percent of

total .................................................................. 13 90 613 94 -4 -4 -4.4

Masterís degrees awarded as percent of total..... 13 10 613554 46.8

Instructional expenditure per FTE enrollment ... 2 4,067 81 3,784 284 277 7.0

Research exp per tenured and tenure-track

faculty .............................................................. 2 6,839 79 6,846 -7 -6 -0.1

Public service exp per tenured and tenuretrack faculty..................................................... 2 18,473 79 15,745 2,728 2,661 14.8

Academic support expenditure per FTE

enrollment........................................................ 2 811 81 901 -89 -87 -11.0

Average scholarship per FTE enrollment........... 2 1,114 81 1,539 -425 -415 -38.2

Library expenditure per FTE enrollment............ 2 438 81 327 110 108 25.2

1

Calculated as (Y1-Y2) * (N2/(N1+N2)).

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1997ñ2001; U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Institutional Characteristics Surveys,

1997ñ2001.
D-14

Table D-6. Results of the ANOVA to test for differences in average cost of instruction, by

discipline and Carnegie classification of the institution, highest degree offered, and

undergraduate/graduate program mix in discipline: 1998, 2000, and 2001 Delaware

Study

Factor and data collection cycle Source of

variation

Degrees of

freedom

Sum of

squares Mean square F-value

Probability

of F

Carnegie class (CC) by discipline (CIP)

1998

CC 2 4.8861 2.4430 85.24 <.0001

CIP 24 32.1579 1.3399 46.75 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 3.8341 0.0799 2.79 <.0001

Error 3,099 88.8238 0.0287

2000

CC 2 5.3914 2.6957 102.42 <.0001

CIP 24 43.6920 1.8205 69.17 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 2.6104 0.0544 2.07 <.0001

Error 3,140 82.6453 0.0263

2001

CC 2 4.9285 2.4643 86.16 <.0001

CIP 24 48.5772 2.0241 70.77 <.0001

CC X CIP 48 2.7734 0.0578 2.02 <.0001

Error 3,653 104.4761 0.0286

Highest degree offered (HD) by discipline

(CIP)

1998

HD 2 6.0696 3.0348 113.4 <.0001

CIP 24 27.7793 1.1575 43.25 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 3.6752 0.0766 2.86 <.0001

Error 2,972 79.5361 0.0268

2000

HD 2 5.1815 2.5907 104.34 <.0001

CIP 24 34.8753 1.4531 58.52 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 3.8069 0.0793 3.19 <.0001

Error 3,067 76.1559 0.0248

2001

HD 2 5.2497 2.6248 98.88 <.0001

CIP 24 38.1435 1.5893 59.87 <.0001

HD X CIP 48 2.9195 0.0608 2.29 <.0001

Error 3,540 93.9682 0.0265

Undergraduate/graduate mix (UGG) by

discipline(CIP)

1998

UGG 1 2.4526 2.4526 77.9 <.0001

CIP 24 37.5560 1.5648 49.7 <.0001

UGG X CIP 24 2.5507 0.1063 3.38 <.0001

Error 3,004 94.5782 0.0315 

2000

UGG 1 2.1884 2.1884 78.62 <.0001

CIP 24 44.1356 1.8390 66.06 <.0001

UGG X CIP 24 2.1691 0.0904 3.25 <.0001

Error 3,033 84.4280 0.0278

2001

UGG 1 2.4208 2.4208 78.72 <.0001

CIP 24 43.8759 1.8282 59.45 <.0001

UGG X CIP 24 2.5170 0.1049 3.41 <.0001

Error 3,569 109.7507 0.0308

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-15

Table D-7. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent of level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study

Carnegie classification

and discipline

Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Research

Sociology.......................................... 33 124 a

Philosophy ........................................ 47 137 a

English .............................................. 50 140 a

History .............................................. 37 149 a b

Psychology ....................................... 39 150 a b

Economics........................................ 28 153 a b

Anthropology.................................... 27 157 a b

Mathematics ..................................... 53 160 a b

Political Science ............................... 33 164 a b c

Geography ........................................ 23 164 a b c

Communication ................................ 45 169 a b c

Foreign Languages........................... 84 171 a b c

Business............................................ 128 177 a b c

Computer Science ............................ 34 204 b c d

Geology ............................................ 30 211 b c d

Art ..................................................... 114 228 c d

Education.......................................... 96 260 d

Physics.............................................. 33 263 d e

Chemistry.......................................... 35 264 d e

Biology ............................................. 82 276 d e

Electrical Engineering...................... 24 359 e f

Mechanical Engineering .................. 26 379 e f

Nursing ............................................. 17 388 e f

Civil Engineering ............................. 27 411 e f

Chemical Engineering...................... 25 472 f

Doctoral

Sociology.......................................... 25 106 a

Mathematics ..................................... 34 116 a b

English .............................................. 37 116 a b

History .............................................. 29 124 a b

Philosophy ........................................ 34 125 a b

Geography ........................................ 16 125 a b

Anthropology.................................... 16 126 a b c

Communication ................................ 34 130 a b c

Foreign Languages........................... 37 131 a b c

Psychology ....................................... 34 131 a b c

Computer Science ............................ 28 142 a b c d

Economics........................................ 19 144 a b c d

Political Science ............................... 27 152 a b c d

Business............................................ 97 157 b c d

Biology ............................................. 41 191 b c d e

Geology ............................................ 22 197 b c d e

Education.......................................... 77 198 c d e

Art ..................................................... 84 199 d e

Physics.............................................. 29 203 d e f

Chemistry.......................................... 30 233 d e f g

Electrical Engineering...................... 17 276 e f g h

Mechanical Engineering .................. 17 315 f g h

Nursing ............................................. 21 332 g h

Civil Engineering ............................. 14 379 h

Chemical Engineering...................... 9 524 h

See notes at the end of the table.
D-16

Table D-7. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent of level of

significance: 2001 Delaware StudyóContinued

Carnegie classification

and discipline

Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Comprehensive and Baccalaureate 

Geography ........................................ 21 100 a

Mathematics ..................................... 80 106 a

Sociology.......................................... 53 106 a

History .............................................. 64 112 a

English .............................................. 94 116 a b

Psychology ....................................... 82 118 a b

Philosophy ........................................ 76 127 a b c

Political Science ............................... 54 136 a b c d

Economics........................................ 34 138 a b c d

Communications............................... 82 139 a b c d

Anthropology.................................... 16 145 a b c d

Geology ............................................ 22 147 a b c d

Computer Science ............................ 65 152 b c d

Business............................................ 229 153 c d

Biology ............................................. 83 155 c d

Foreign Languages........................... 85 161 c d

Education.......................................... 196 179 d

Physics.............................................. 49 181 d e

Art ..................................................... 196 190 d e

Chemistry.......................................... 63 193 d e

Electrical Engineering...................... 13 293 e f

Nursing ............................................. 46 314 f

Chemical Engineering...................... 3 321 f

Civil Engineering ............................. 10 322 f

Mechanical Engineering .................. 14 327 f

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-17

Table D-8. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:

2000 Delaware Study

Carnegie classification and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Research

Sociology......................................................... 35 130 a

Philosophy ....................................................... 48 134 a

English ............................................................. 56 138 a

History ............................................................. 37 142 a b

Economics....................................................... 31 145 a b

Mathematics .................................................... 54 147 a b

Anthropology................................................... 28 148 a b

Psychology ...................................................... 40 150 a b

Geography ....................................................... 25 155 a b

Communication ............................................... 49 164 a b

Political Science .............................................. 36 168 a b

Foreign Languages.......................................... 90 169 a b

Business........................................................... 132 172 a b

Computer Science ........................................... 36 203 b c

Art .................................................................... 115 214 c

Geology ........................................................... 35 223 c

Chemistry......................................................... 37 255 c d

Education......................................................... 104 269 c d

Physics............................................................. 38 284 c d e

Biology ............................................................ 99 286 c d e

Electrical Engineering..................................... 31 358 d e f

Nursing ............................................................ 19 368 d e f

Mechanical Engineering ................................. 30 400 e f

Civil Engineering ............................................ 30 401 e f

Chemical Engineering..................................... 27 484 f

Doctoral

Sociology......................................................... 14 104 a

English ............................................................. 29 113 a

Anthropology................................................... 10 121 a b

Mathematics .................................................... 26 123 a b

Philosophy ....................................................... 24 124 a b

Foreign Languages.......................................... 25 125 a b

Geography ....................................................... 10 126 a b

History ............................................................. 20 127 a b

Psychology ...................................................... 23 136 a b c

Economics....................................................... 14 139 a b c

Communication ............................................... 26 143 a b c

Political Science .............................................. 18 151 a b c

Business........................................................... 60 163 a b c

Computer Science ........................................... 18 167 a b c

Education......................................................... 54 183 b c

Physics............................................................. 21 191 b c d

Biology ............................................................ 27 200 b c d

Art .................................................................... 58 201 b c d

Geology ........................................................... 18 201 b c d

Chemistry......................................................... 22 221 c d e

Electrical Engineering..................................... 13 318 d e f

Mechanical Engineering ................................. 12 353 e f

Nursing ............................................................ 15 357 e f

Civil Engineering ............................................ 9 367 e f

Chemical Engineering..................................... 8 474 f

See notes at the end of the table.
D-18

Table D-8. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:

2000 Delaware StudyóContinued

Carnegie classification and discipline Sample

size

Average

Cost/SCH Groupings1

Comprehensive and Baccalaureate

Sociology......................................................... 46 100 a

History ............................................................. 52 100 a

Anthropology................................................... 13 103 a b

Mathematics .................................................... 65 106 a b

English ............................................................. 77 111 a b

Philosophy ....................................................... 50 111 a b

Psychology ...................................................... 64 113 a b

Economics....................................................... 21 117 a b c

Geography ....................................................... 19 121 a b c

Political Science .............................................. 40 129 a b c

Communication ............................................... 63 133 a b c

Foreign Languages.......................................... 54 137 a b c

Computer Science ........................................... 51 138 a b c d

Biology ............................................................ 66 141 b c d

Business........................................................... 193 150 b c d

Geology ........................................................... 20 158 b c d e

Physics............................................................. 39 168 c d e

Chemistry......................................................... 49 172 c d e

Art .................................................................... 155 174 c d e

Education......................................................... 168 183 d e

Electrical Engineering..................................... 10 278 e f

Nursing ............................................................ 42 323 f

Mechanical Engineering ................................. 10 333 f

Civil Engineering ............................................ 8 362 f

Chemical Engineering..................................... 4 460 f

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-19

Table D-9. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:

1998 Delaware Study

Carnegie classification and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Research

Sociology.......................................................... 34 108 a 

English.............................................................. 52 122 a b 

Philosophy........................................................ 49 124 a b 

History.............................................................. 37 129 a b 

Psychology....................................................... 34 131 a b 

Economics........................................................ 28 134 a b 

Anthropology ................................................... 24 139 a b 

Geography........................................................ 22 140 a b c 

Mathematics..................................................... 54 144 a b c 

Communication................................................ 50 157 a b c 

Political Science............................................... 36 160 a b c 

Business............................................................ 149 160 b c 

Foreign Languages........................................... 81 165 b c 

Computer Science............................................ 29 171 c d 

Chemistry ......................................................... 36 205 c d e 

Art..................................................................... 112 205 c d e 

Geology ............................................................ 33 208 c d e 

Education.......................................................... 115 235 d e 

Physics.............................................................. 35 249 d e 

Biology............................................................. 97 261 d e f 

Nursing............................................................. 19 300 e f g

Electrical Engineering ..................................... 31 360 f g

Civil Engineering............................................. 29 379 g

Mechanical Engineering.................................. 31 415 g

Chemical Engineering ..................................... 28 432 g

Doctoral 

English.............................................................. 28 111 a 

Mathematics..................................................... 25 113 a 

Anthropology ................................................... 12 118 a b 

Geography........................................................ 9 119 a b 

Sociology.......................................................... 18 122 a b 

Psychology....................................................... 24 124 a b 

Foreign Languages........................................... 26 124 a b 

Communication................................................ 22 132 a b 

Philosophy........................................................ 27 138 a b 

History.............................................................. 21 139 a b 

Computer Science............................................ 19 141 a b 

Economics........................................................ 14 142 a b c 

Business............................................................ 77 150 a b c 

Geology ............................................................ 15 159 a b c 

Education.......................................................... 60 167 a b c 

Biology............................................................. 23 167 a b c 

Political Science............................................... 20 172 a b c 

Physics.............................................................. 21 178 a b c 

Art..................................................................... 57 193 b c d 

Chemistry ......................................................... 22 197 b c d 

Nursing............................................................. 16 270 c d 

Electrical Engineering ..................................... 12 273 c d 

Mechanical Engineering.................................. 11 321 d 

Civil Engineering............................................. 8 329 d 

Chemical Engineering ..................................... 5 355 d 

See notes at the end of the table.
D-20

Table D-9. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within Carnegie

classification based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of significance:

1998 Delaware StudyóContinued

Carnegie classification and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Comprehensive and Baccalaureate 

Geography........................................................ 19 95 a 

Sociology.......................................................... 46 101 a 

Mathematics..................................................... 55 103 a 

Psychology....................................................... 63 105 a 

History.............................................................. 52 105 a 

English.............................................................. 74 107 a 

Philosophy........................................................ 62 111 a 

Anthropology ................................................... 14 112 a b 

Economics........................................................ 26 113 a b 

Communication................................................ 58 124 a b 

Political Science............................................... 42 126 a b 

Biology............................................................. 67 126 a b 

Computer Science............................................ 40 133 a b 

Education.......................................................... 149 145 a b 

Foreign Languages........................................... 61 147 a b 

Business............................................................ 178 148 a b 

Geology ............................................................ 24 156 a b c 

Chemistry ......................................................... 48 162 b c 

Physics.............................................................. 42 168 b c d 

Art..................................................................... 155 180 b c d 

Chemical Engineering ..................................... 6 251 c d 

Electrical Engineering ..................................... 10 255 c d 

Nursing............................................................. 31 257 d 

Civil Engineering............................................. 8 262 d 

Mechanical Engineering.................................. 7 264 d 

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-21

Table D-10. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware Study

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctorís

Sociology.......................................... 33 132 a

Communication ................................ 17 135 a

English .............................................. 47 140 a

History .............................................. 41 146 a

Psychology ....................................... 63 150 a

Mathematics ..................................... 66 151 a

Economics........................................ 28 153 a

Anthropology.................................... 19 154 a

Geography ........................................ 18 166 a b

Philosophy ........................................ 31 167 a b

Political Science ............................... 27 172 a b

Computer Science ............................ 44 182 a b

Foreign Languages........................... 45 184 a b

Business............................................ 59 188 a b

Education.......................................... 151 250 b c

Geology ............................................ 33 253 b c d

Art ..................................................... 44 253 b c d

Chemistry.......................................... 55 256 b c d

Biology ............................................. 104 266 c d

Physics.............................................. 42 266 c d

Electrical Engineering...................... 39 327 d e

Mechanical Engineering .................. 38 358 d e

Nursing ............................................. 10 399 e

Civil Engineering ............................. 33 423 e

Chemical Engineering...................... 30 487 e

Masterís 

Sociology.......................................... 29 101 a

English .............................................. 70 111 a b

Mathematics ..................................... 47 112 a b c

Psychology ....................................... 40 113 a b c

History .............................................. 47 115 a b c

Philosophy ........................................ 23 120 a b c d

Anthropology.................................... 14 133 a b c d

Geography ........................................ 18 140 a b c d

Biology ............................................. 45 145 a b c d

Economics........................................ 23 146 a b c d

Political Science ............................... 32 148 a b c d

Foreign Languages........................... 51 149 a b c d

Geology ............................................ 21 150 a b c d

Computer Science ............................ 31 154 b c d

Communication ................................ 59 158 c d

Business............................................ 201 159 d

Education.......................................... 172 166 d

Physics.............................................. 24 174 d e

Chemistry.......................................... 29 182 d e f

Art ..................................................... 145 213 e f

Mechanical Engineering .................. 11 296 e f g

Electrical Engineering...................... 10 313 e f g

Civil Engineering ............................. 12 314 f g

Nursing ............................................. 49 321 g

Chemical Engineering...................... 6 472 g

See notes at the end of the table.
D-22

Table D-10. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2001 Delaware StudyóContinued

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Bachelorís2 

Sociology.......................................... 47 100 a

History .............................................. 39 103 a

Mathematics ..................................... 53 106 a

Geography ........................................ 20 107 a b

Psychology ....................................... 51 114 a b

Philosophy ........................................ 92 121 a b

English .............................................. 57 122 a b

Communication ................................ 80 134 a b c

Economics........................................ 28 135 a b c d

Political Science ............................... 51 135 a b c d

Computer Science ............................ 46 136 a b c d

Anthropology.................................... 20 140 a b c d

Foreign Languages........................... 99 148 a b c d

Geology ............................................ 21 150 a b c d

Business............................................ 178 153 b c d

Biology ............................................. 57 163 b c d

Education.......................................... 31 170 b c d

Physics.............................................. 43 174 c d

Art ..................................................... 188 187 d

Chemistry.......................................... 41 190 d

Electrical Engineering...................... 7 269 e

Civil Engineering ............................. 7 301 e

Mechanical Engineering .................. 8 312 e

Nursing ............................................. 24 343 e

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

2

Chemical Engineering is not included in the analysis since it has only 1 data point.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-23

Table D-11. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware Study

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctor's

Sociology.................................................. 35 127 a

English ...................................................... 49 132 a

Mathematics ............................................. 68 140 a

History ...................................................... 38 142 a b

Economics................................................ 32 144 a b

Psychology 55 149 a b

Communication ........................................ 17 153 a b

Anthropology............................................ 21 158 a b

Geography ................................................ 18 160 a b

Philosophy ................................................ 27 163 a b

Business.................................................... 76 173 a b

Political Science ....................................... 27 174 a b c

Foreign Languages................................... 49 174 a b c

Computer Science .................................... 42 201 b c d

Art ............................................................. 50 249 c d e

Geology .................................................... 34 253 c d e

Education.................................................. 135 259 d e

Chemistry.................................................. 50 261 d e

Biology ..................................................... 113 279 d e

Physics...................................................... 44 287 e f

Electrical Engineering.............................. 42 334 e f g

Nursing ..................................................... 13 371 e f g

Mechanical Engineering .......................... 38 376 f g

Civil Engineering ..................................... 34 405 g

Chemical Engineering.............................. 31 481 g

Master's

Sociology.................................................. 25 102 a

Psychology ............................................... 40 106 a

Mathematics ............................................. 41 106 a

Philosophy ................................................ 17 110 a

History ...................................................... 42 111 a

English ...................................................... 66 113 a

Anthropology............................................ 14 121 a b

Biology ..................................................... 40 131 a b

Economics................................................ 16 133 a b

Geography ................................................ 22 134 a b

Political Science ....................................... 35 144 a b

Geology .................................................... 19 145 a b

Computer Science .................................... 26 149 a b

Foreign Languages................................... 52 149 a b

Communication ........................................ 58 153 b

Chemistry.................................................. 32 163 b c

Physics...................................................... 23 166 b c d

Business.................................................... 149 167 b c d

Education.................................................. 156 174 b c d

Art ............................................................. 126 201 c d

Electrical Engineering.............................. 7 327 d f

Nursing ..................................................... 40 335 f

Mechanical Engineering .......................... 11 373 f

Civil Engineering ..................................... 10 383 f

Chemical Engineering.............................. 6 462 f

See notes at the end of the table.
D-24

Table D-11. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 2000 Delaware StudyóContinued

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Bachelor's 

Sociology.................................................. 34 102 a

Mathematics ............................................. 32 108 a b

Geography ................................................ 13 108 a b

History ...................................................... 30 109 a b

Psychology ............................................... 30 113 a b

Philosophy ................................................ 70 113 a b

Anthropology............................................ 17 115 a b

Economics................................................ 16 115 a b

English ...................................................... 43 117 a b

Political Science ....................................... 32 130 a b

Computer Science .................................... 35 133 a b

Communication ........................................ 61 138 a b

Foreign Languages................................... 61 141 a b

Business.................................................... 155 145 a b

Education.................................................. 20 153 a b

Biology ..................................................... 37 153 a b c

Art ............................................................. 139 168 b c

Geology .................................................... 18 172 b c

Chemistry.................................................. 27 174 b c

Physics...................................................... 28 176 b c d

Electrical Engineering.............................. 4 286 c d

Mechanical Engineering .......................... 2 287 c d

Civil Engineering ..................................... 4 329 c d

Nursing ..................................................... 21 361 d

Chemical Engineering.............................. 2 496 d

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-25

Table D-12. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware Study

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Doctor's

Sociology.............................................. 31 115 a

English .................................................. 44 128 a

Economics............................................ 29 134 a

History .................................................. 34 136 a

Communication .................................... 16 138 a b

Mathematics ......................................... 61 145 a b

Psychology ........................................... 52 149 a b

Business................................................ 78 152 a b

Computer Science ................................ 29 170 a b c

Philosophy ............................................ 30 172 a b c

Geography ............................................ 15 174 a b c d

Computer Science ................................ 28 176 a b c d

Foreign Languages............................... 38 177 a b c d

Anthropology........................................ 19 192 a b c d

Education.............................................. 137 204 b c d

Chemistry.............................................. 47 208 b c d

Geology ................................................ 25 231 b c d e

Biology ................................................. 100 242 c d e

Physics.................................................. 40 249 c d e

Art ......................................................... 40 262 d e f

Nursing ................................................. 12 292 d e f g

Electrical Engineering.......................... 43 342 e f g

Civil Engineering ................................. 33 361 f g

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 39 413 g

Chemical Engineering.......................... 31 423 g

Master's

Psychology ........................................... 34 88 a

Mathematics ......................................... 36 95 a b

Sociology.............................................. 25 95 a b c

English .................................................. 57 101 a b c

Geography ............................................ 19 110 a b c d

Philosophy ............................................ 21 114 a b c d

History .................................................. 37 115 a b c d

Anthropology........................................ 16 119 a b c d

Biology ................................................. 40 125 a b c d

Computer Science ................................ 29 131 a b c d

Economics............................................ 17 133 a b c d e

Political Science ................................... 34 133 b c d e

Communication .................................... 55 137 c d e

Chemistry.............................................. 30 141 c d e

Foreign Languages............................... 44 143 c d e

Education.............................................. 141 145 d e

Geology ................................................ 24 153 d e

Business................................................ 137 157 d e

Physics.................................................. 20 160 d e f

Art ......................................................... 130 192 e f

Electrical Engineering.......................... 6 255 e f g

Nursing ................................................. 33 261 f g

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 10 285 f g

Chemical Engineering.......................... 7 291 f g

Civil Engineering ................................. 9 347 g

See notes at the end of the table.
D-26

Table D-12. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within highest

degree offered based on the Bonferroni procedure at the 5 percent level of

significance: 1998 Delaware StudyóContinued

Highest degree offered and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings1

Bachelor's 

Geography ............................................ 14 90 a

Mathematics ......................................... 35 104 a

History .................................................. 37 106 a

Sociology.............................................. 39 107 a

Psychology ........................................... 36 109 a

Philosophy ............................................ 70 113 a

Economics............................................ 20 116 a b

Anthropology........................................ 14 118 a b

English .................................................. 47 120 a b

Computer Science ................................ 29 129 a b

Communication .................................... 56 139 a b

Political Science ................................... 32 140 a b

Biology ................................................. 42 141 a b

Geology ................................................ 20 143 a b

Foreign Languages............................... 76 147 a b

Business................................................ 168 150 a b

Education.............................................. 24 157 a b

Physics.................................................. 31 172 b

Art ......................................................... 136 177 b

Chemistry.............................................. 28 178 b c

Civil Engineering ................................. 4 214 b c

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 2 258 b c

Electrical Engineering.......................... 5 274 b c

Nursing ................................................. 17 275 c

Chemical Engineering.......................... 3 410 c

1

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-27

Table D-13. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure

at the 5 percent level of significance: 2001 Delaware Study

Program mix1 and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%

Sociology.............................................. 100 108 a

Mathematics ......................................... 78 113 a b

Psychology ........................................... 128 121 a b c

Philosophy ............................................ 107 123 a b c

History .................................................. 107 124 a b c

English .................................................. 123 126 a b c

Geography ............................................ 36 130 a b c d

Economics............................................ 52 137 a b c d e

Anthropology........................................ 43 140 a b c d e

Communication .................................... 148 142 b c d e

Foreign Languages............................... 137 146 c d e

Political Science ................................... 90 147 c d e

Geology ................................................ 27 147 c d e f

Computer Science ................................ 61 151 c d e f

Education.............................................. 79 152 c d e f

Business................................................ 311 157 d e f

Physics.................................................. 48 174 d e f

Biology ................................................. 160 186 e f

Art ......................................................... 285 190 f

Chemistry.............................................. 66 196 f

Electrical Engineering.......................... 16 282 g

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 37 337 g

Nursing ................................................. 59 338 g

Civil Engineering ................................. 24 339 g

Chemical Engineering.......................... 22 449 g

Undergraduate degree: 0-75%

History .................................................. 22 117 a

Sociology.............................................. 8 130 a

English .................................................. 49 132 a

Political Science ................................... 20 149 a b

Philosophy ............................................ 38 153 a b

Geography ............................................ 21 154 a b c

Economics............................................ 25 155 a b c

Mathematics ......................................... 88 168 a b c

Computer Science ................................ 60 169 a b c

Anthropology........................................ 11 169 a b c d

Communication .................................... 8 175 a b c d

Foreign Languages............................... 58 183 a b c d

Business................................................ 128 186 a b c d

Psychology ........................................... 26 187 a b c d

Geology ................................................ 47 215 b c d e

Education.............................................. 283 236 c d e f

Physics.................................................. 60 236 c d e f

Chemistry.............................................. 60 246 d e f g

Art ......................................................... 93 260 e f g

Biology ................................................. 45 320 e f g h

Nursing ................................................. 23 322 f g h

Electrical Engineering.......................... 40 332 g h

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 21 358 g h

Civil Engineering ................................. 27 411 h

Chemical Engineering.......................... 14 473 h

1

Based on the number of bachelorís degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.

2

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-28

Table D-14. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure

at the 5 percent level of significance: 2000 Delaware Study

Program mix1 and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%

Mathematics.......................................... 61 111 a

Sociology .............................................. 87 112 a

Philosophy ............................................ 84 114 a

English .................................................. 104 117 a b

History .................................................. 90 121 a b

Anthropology........................................ 41 123 a b

Geography ............................................ 34 123 a b

Psychology............................................ 105 123 a b

Economics ............................................ 43 130 a b

Computer Science ................................ 46 142 a b c

Foreign Languages............................... 99 145 a b c

Political Science ................................... 74 148 a b c

Communication .................................... 132 148 a b c

Business................................................ 283 151 b c

Education .............................................. 66 157 b c

Geology................................................. 25 165 b c

Art ......................................................... 225 174 c

Physics.................................................. 31 175 c

Chemistry.............................................. 57 178 c

Biology.................................................. 141 193 c

Electrical Engineering.......................... 16 308 d

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 30 345 d

Nursing.................................................. 49 353 d

Civil Engineering ................................. 21 366 d

Chemical Engineering.......................... 26 472 d

Undergraduate degree: 0-75%

History .................................................. 20 122 a

Sociology .............................................. 9 122 a

English .................................................. 50 124 a

Mathematics.......................................... 83 137 a

Political Science ................................... 20 144 a

Economics ............................................ 22 144 a

Psychology............................................ 20 148 a b

Communication .................................... 6 148 a b

Geography ............................................ 19 158 a b

Philosophy ............................................ 33 165 a b

Foreign Languages............................... 66 174 a b

Anthropology........................................ 11 175 a b

Business................................................ 93 183 a b

Computer Science ................................ 57 192 a b

Education .............................................. 245 225 a b

Geology................................................. 49 233 a b c

Chemistry.............................................. 53 244 b c

Physics.................................................. 65 249 b c

Art ......................................................... 87 250 b c

Nursing.................................................. 24 320 c

Biology.................................................. 49 337 c d

Electrical Engineering.......................... 38 345 d

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 20 399 d

Civil Engineering ................................. 27 416 d

Chemical Engineering.......................... 12 454 d

1

Based on the number of bachelorís degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.

2

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-29

Table D-15. Pairwise multiple comparison of cost of instruction by discipline within

undergraduate/graduate program mix based on the Bonferroni procedure

at the 5 percent level of significance: 1998 Delaware Study

Program mix1 and discipline Sample

size

Average

cost/SCH Groupings2

Undergraduate degree: 75-100%

Sociology.............................................. 85 105 a

Mathematics ......................................... 54 105 a b

Geography ............................................ 31 109 a b

Psychology ........................................... 98 112 a b

Philosophy ............................................ 81 114 a b

English .................................................. 103 115 a b

History .................................................. 87 118 a b

Economics............................................ 43 124 a b c

Computer Science ................................ 40 127 a b c

Anthropology........................................ 32 129 a b c d

Political Science ................................... 74 139 a b c d

Foreign Languages............................... 100 140 a b c d

Geology ................................................ 27 143 a b c d

Communication .................................... 123 144 b c d

Education.............................................. 64 146 b c d

Business................................................ 276 151 c d

Biology ................................................. 117 153 c d

Physics.................................................. 33 171 c d e

Chemistry.............................................. 51 173 c d e

Art ......................................................... 223 178 d e

Nursing ................................................. 39 256 e

Electrical Engineering.......................... 16 261 e

Civil Engineering ................................. 15 289

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 24 350

Chemical Engineering.......................... 27 360

Undergraduate degree: 0-75% 

Communication .................................... 8 100 a

English .................................................. 43 110 a

Sociology.............................................. 10 119 a b

History .................................................. 22 123 a b

Geography ............................................ 15 128 a b

Economics............................................ 23 136 a b c

Mathematics ......................................... 82 141 a b c

Psychology ........................................... 23 156 a b c

Computer Science ................................ 48 168 a b c

Business................................................ 105 173 a b c

Political Science ................................... 18 174 a b c d

Foreign Languages............................... 58 178 a b c d

Philosophy ............................................ 39 178 a b c d

Anthropology........................................ 18 182 a b c d

Chemistry.............................................. 54 191 a b c d

Education.............................................. 248 195 b c d

Geology ................................................ 43 215 b c d e

Physics.................................................. 59 224 c d e

Art ......................................................... 84 240 d e

Nursing ................................................. 22 287 e

Biology ................................................. 63 336 e

Electrical Engineering.......................... 37 348

Civil Engineering ................................. 30 368

Mechanical Engineering ...................... 26 391

Chemical Engineering.......................... 13 448

1

Based on the number of bachelorís degrees as percent of total degrees granted in discipline.

2

Disciplines that are assigned the same letter are not different from each other with respect to instructional cost. It is possible for a discipline to

be in more than one group.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-30

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001

Delaware Study

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Communication

(CIP: 09.XX)

Computer Science

(CIP: 11.XX) Education (CIP: 13.XX) Engineering1

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.017064* 0.63 0.015616* 0.69 0.020877* 1.12

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 0.008097* 0.43 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.000980* 0.09 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.005581* 0.63 -0.001115* -0.12

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -3.164E-05* -1.14 -1.031E-05* -0.55 -2.378E-05* -0.82 -7.696E-05* -2.04

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 5.116E-10* 0.43 3.734E-10* 0.35 1.577E-09* 0.85

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.005778* 0.15 0.001164 0.09

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.005023* -0.64 -0.003010* -0.40 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 5.566E-05* 0.81 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000725* -0.32 -0.002261* -1.27 -0.002895* -0.97 -0.000615* -0.21

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.927E-06* 0.67 3.621E-06* 0.51 

Average undergraduate student credit hours

per faculty (fall data) .................................. 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall data).

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.000450* 0.11 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.004894* -0.22 -0.002839* -0.14 -0.002665* -0.08 -0.004149* -0.16

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.059237* 0.15 0.048115* 0.14

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.067736* 0.18 0.083602* 0.22 0.040180* 0.09 

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................

Constant........................................................... 2.850956 2.628626 2.827763 3.078780 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.64

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.093950 0.092600 0.108900 0.093280

Number of cases used in estimation............... 148 115 345 190

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 6 8 19 5

See notes at the end of the table.
D-31

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Foreign Languages (CIP:16.XX) English (CIP: 23.XX) Biology (CIP: 26.XX) Mathematics (CIP: 27.XX) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.002876* 0.25 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.014835* 0.76 0.007957* 0.72 0.013421* 0.89

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty..................

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001022* 0.14 0.001107* 0.14 0.002231* 0.19 0.001289* 0.12

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.944E-05* -1.48 -1.334E-05* -1.26 -7.501E-06* -0.28 -1.813E-05* -1.27

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 3.659E-10* 0.56 0.000000* 0.50 1.063E-10* 0.35

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.002682* -1.15 -0.002813* -1.06 -0.001056* -0.48 -0.000769* -0.34

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000004* 0.86 3.503E-06* 0.65 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000281* -0.17 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.004793* -0.10 -0.003555* -0.13 -0.007559* -0.16

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.065342* 0.17 0.052144* 0.16 0.103243* 0.25

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.120510* 0.31

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.080747* 0.18

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ -0.055899 -0.13 

Constant........................................................... 2.553016 2.946443 2.641794 2.914871 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.76

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.088600 0.081580 0.120020 0.087940

Number of cases used in estimation............... 193 174 193 164

Number of outliers and influential cases

 omitted in the analysis............................... 9 79 6

See notes at the end of the table.
D-32

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Philosophy (CIP: 38.XX) Chemistry (CIP: 40.05) Geology (CIP: 40.06) Physics (CIP: 40.08) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.025115* 0.75 0.013965* 0.72 0.025069* 0.55 0.012821* 0.69

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001704* 0.20 0.003395* 0.32

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.643E-05* -0.74 -3.682E-05* -1.52 -3.218E-05* -0.49 -1.646E-05* -0.53

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 0.000000* 0.79 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.004944* 0.18 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001631* -0.19

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000621* -0.33 -0.000683* -0.32 -0.000836* -0.49 -0.000999* -0.45

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.006938* -0.31 -0.004384* -0.13 -0.003954* -0.12

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.108603* 0.28 0.103160* 0.30 0.084066* 0.19 0.088786* 0.24

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 

Constant........................................................... 2.083707 3.060764 2.755820 2.673635 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.61 0.70 0.80 0.66

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.093460 0.092410 0.096530 0.105230

Number of cases used in estimation............... 142 121 71 102

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 10 3 2 8

See notes at the end of the table.
D-33

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Psychology (CIP: 42.XX) Economics (CIP: 45.06) History (CIP: 45.08) Sociology (CIP: 45.11) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.016073* 0.90 0.014877* 0.83 0.015384* 0.85 0.018182* 0.69

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001594* 0.20 

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.208E-05* -1.08 -2.077E-05* -1.22 -3.171E-05* -1.33 -2.070E-05* -0.81

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 2.419E-10* 0.37 0.000000* 0.49 3.519E-10* 0.41 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000659* -0.43 -0.000794* -0.48 -0.000453* -0.30 -0.000584* -0.39

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.002559* 0.16 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.007347* -0.17 -0.005066* -0.12

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.074566* 0.27 0.113616* 0.32 0.113024* 0.34

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.062445* 0.22 0.066900* 0.20 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 

Constant........................................................... 2.955874 2.228765 2.179921 2.673010 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.63 0.70 0.70 0.66

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.105130 0.072800 0.090730 0.087650

Number of cases used in estimation............... 148 77 126 104

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 4 13 3

See notes at end of table.
D-34

Table D-16. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2001

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Other social sciences2 Art (CIP: 50.XX) Nursing (CIP: 51.16) Business3

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.020065* 0.74 0.008687* 0.58 -0.003729* -0.23 0.010317* 0.59

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty..................

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.000621 0.07 0.001347 0.21 0.002416* 0.28

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.729E-05* -0.72 -1.558E-05* -0.53 -1.590E-05* -0.86

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 8.526E-11* 0.17

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.004912* 0.15 0.006699* 0.68

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000104* -0.74 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001223* -0.17

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000847* -0.46 -0.003032* -1.12 -0.005351* -1.49 -0.001035* -0.57

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 4.433E-06* 0.66 1.066E-05* 0.84 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.001857* 0.13 0.000337* 0.09

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005590* -0.17 -0.005562* -0.23 -0.008636* -0.38 -0.006722* -0.17

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.034275* 0.10 0.018645* 0.06

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.030539* 0.08 0.112895* 0.32 0.207096* 0.61

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.177990* 0.51

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ -0.038218* -0.11 0.124025* 0.43

Constant........................................................... 2.862103 3.099232 3.668123 2.883694 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.66 0.60 0.69 0.60

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.097100 0.102760 0.077750 0.091250

Number of cases used in estimation............... 222 337 81 392

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 10 12 5 23 

*p = 0.05

1

 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19). 2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).

3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management

(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).

NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-35

Table D-17. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2000

Delaware Study

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Communication

(CIP: 09.XX)

Computer Science

(CIP: 11.XX) Education (CIP: 13.XX) Engineering1

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.013160* 0.84 0.006121* 0.61 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.009967* 0.82

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 0.009921* 0.39 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002869* 0.31 0.002036* 0.24 0.002998* 0.26 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.002177* 0.25

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -4.731E-05* -1.51 -7.788E-06* -0.38 -2.385E-05* -0.88 -3.204E-05* -1.35

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 7.988E-10* 0.64 2.900E-10* 0.32 4.015E-10* 0.43

Academic year graduate student credit

hours -8.987E-06* -0.14 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.001822* 0.27 0.001625* 0.13

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 0.001286* 0.16 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -3.303E-04* -0.15 -0.001776* -0.57 -0.002835* -0.96

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.799E-06* 0.24 4.156E-06* 0.48

Average undergraduate student credit hours

per faculty (fall data) .................................. -0.002169* -1.15 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall data). 2.273E-06* 0.70 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.007065* -0.25 -0.004156* -0.21 -0.005644* -0.18 -0.004294* -0.24

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.048331* 0.13 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.080381* 0.21 0.094296* 0.27 0.050930* 0.12 0.054706* 0.20

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................

Constant........................................................... 2.656497 2.754042 2.824106 3.043519 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.70 0.65 0.73 0.69

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.097260 0.098060 0.103960 0.073790

Number of cases used in estimation............... 131 102 313 176

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 2065

See notes at end of table.
D-36

Table D-17. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2000

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Foreign Languages (CIP:16.XX) English (CIP: 23.XX) Biology (CIP: 26.XX) Mathematics (CIP: 27.XX) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.005452* 0.65 0.004457* 1.03 0.002877* 0.29 0.004685* 0.89

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002863* 0.32 0.002441* 0.30 0.005028* 0.44 0.003827* 0.38

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -1.954E-05* -0.99 -1.192E-05* -1.12 -7.813E-06* -0.35 -9.225E-06* -0.92

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 1.798E-10* 0.29 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.008210* 0.33 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000158* -0.22 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 0.004568* 0.41 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ -0.000043* -0.52 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -2.597E-03* -1.03 -0.000945* -0.40 -0.002521* -1.02 -0.002169* -0.96

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000003* 0.52 2.565E-06* 0.54 1.945E-06* 0.52

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.000907* 0.10 -0.000689* -0.11 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.002291 -0.09 -0.004081* -0.12 -0.008318* -0.28 -0.004609* -0.12

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.049759* 0.16 0.070691* 0.15 

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.137083* 0.30 0.133872* 0.40

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.060711 0.09 0.060669* 0.14

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 

Constant........................................................... 2.616554 2.542872 2.899395 2.675949 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.69 0.63 0.73 0.73

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.086520 0.086420 0.119310 0.084600

Number of cases used in estimation............... 159 158 182 139

Number of outliers and influential cases

 omitted in the analysis............................... 7 24 2

See notes at end of table.
D-37

Table D-17. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2000

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Philosophy (CIP: 38.XX) Chemistry (CIP: 40.05) Geology (CIP: 40.06) Physics (CIP: 40.08) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.002203* 0.35 0.011214* 0.53 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.015942* 0.50 0.008633* 0.61

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.003330* 0.37 0.004537* 0.33 0.002231* 0.19

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.002334* 0.26 

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -1.496E-05* -0.41 -6.118E-06* -0.34 -3.258E-05* -0.59 -1.058E-05* -0.44

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -1.042E-03* -0.48 -0.001146* -0.52 

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ -0.001237* -0.57 -0.001011* -0.50

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.002326* 0.34 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000291* -0.15 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005637* -0.26 -0.005903* -0.17 -0.004407* -0.18

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.086975* 0.23 0.150167* 0.44 0.148984* 0.35 0.096032* 0.27

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.070181* 0.15 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 0.041038 0.12 

Constant........................................................... 2.151888 2.775292 2.677000 2.675848 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.60 0.79 0.82 0.72

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.098600 0.077970 0.090290 0.095080

Number of cases used in estimation............... 118 108 71 95

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 5 01 1

See notes at end of table.
D-38

Table D-17. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2000

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Psychology (CIP: 42.XX) Economics (CIP: 45.06) History (CIP: 45.08) Sociology (CIP: 45.11) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.010358* 0.94 0.007239* 0.75 0.007299* 0.50

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.008768* 0.57

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty .........................................................

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.002742* 0.27 0.003163* 0.37 0.003105* 0.28 0.003664* 0.35

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty .................................................

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -8.009E-06* -0.51 -1.302E-05* -0.71 -1.048E-05* -0.67 -1.582E-05* -0.60

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours.....................................

Academic year graduate student credit

hours

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.005844* 0.11

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total ....

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ....

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -9.810E-04* -0.64 -0.002872* -1.69 -0.000794* -0.48 -0.000831* -0.56

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000003* 1.27

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data).....

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ....

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.006432* -0.27 -0.005718* -0.15 -0.005534 -0.12 -0.004354 -0.10

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.132799* 0.39

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.065330* 0.18

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................

Constant........................................................... 2.729795 2.943047 2.536328 2.433095

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.72

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.091180 0.072780 0.086900 0.086160

Number of cases used in estimation............... 122 61 107 0

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 1 22 1

See notes at end of table.
D-39

Table D-17. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 2000

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Other social sciences2 Art (CIP: 50.XX) Nursing (CIP: 51.16) Business3

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 0.006300* 0.67 0.007983* 0.80 0.005955* 0.75

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.021835* 0.88 

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 0.001393* 0.16 0.002784* 0.32

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001036 0.14 

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -5.436E-05* -1.77 -2.079E-05* -0.74 -7.642E-05* -1.92 -8.603E-06* -0.72

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 9.974E-10* 0.79 2.587E-09* 1.04 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.003747* 0.14 0.003744* 0.23

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000088 -0.19

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -5.237E-04* -0.30 -0.000935* -0.37 -0.004940* -1.31 -0.001947* -1.06

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.335E-05* 1.03 1.720E-06* 0.61

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 0.001772* 0.23 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.006040* -0.20 -0.006096* -0.24 -0.008306* -0.35 -0.009544* -0.25

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.084254* 0.24 0.040798* 0.09 

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.033355* 0.10 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.089910* 0.25 0.171006* 0.57

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.142389 0.38

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 0.118585 0.43

Constant........................................................... 2.911062 2.886270 3.648880 3.126610 

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.73 0.57 0.68 0.53

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.083540 0.103900 0.090560 0.095000

Number of cases used in estimation............... 191 318 76 334

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 8 4 1 14 

p = 0.05.

1

 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19). 2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).

3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management

(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).

NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
D-40

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 1998

Delaware Study

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Communication

(CIP: 09.XX)

Computer Science

(CIP: 11.XX) Education (CIP: 13.XX) Engineering1

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.018103* 0.59 0.015989* 0.66 0.013782* 0.73

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty..................

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.002538* 0.30 0.003493* 0.34 0.002107* 0.20

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.974E-05* -1.02 -2.273E-05* -1.17 -6.605E-05* -1.56

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 3.84344E-10 0.35 3.216E-10* 0.58 1.620E-09* 0.69

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.001459* 0.10

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001281* -0.11

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.003031* -1.18 -0.000830* -0.45 -0.003130* -0.93 -0.001352* -0.38

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 3.82917E-06* 0.78 3.811E-06* 0.44 

Average undergraduate student credit hours

per faculty (fall data) .................................. 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall data).

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data).....

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000564* -0.23 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.003600* -0.13 -0.003869* -0.15

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.069401* 0.21 0.081717* 0.22

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.082953* 0.20 0.060795* 0.19

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ -0.049760 -0.13 -0.056526 -0.18 

Constant........................................................... 2.629499 2.216186 2.785612 2.953509

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.64 0.63 0.66 0.78

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.115460 0.095990 0.116500 0.074620

Number of cases used in estimation............... 125 86 311 177

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 4176

See notes at end of table.
D-41

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 1998

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Foreign Languages (CIP:16.XX) English (CIP: 23.XX) Biology (CIP: 26.XX) Mathematics (CIP: 27.XX) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty .....................................

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.005714* 0.33 0.008952* 0.86 0.002298* 0.12 0.011278* 0.94

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty .........................................................

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty..................

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001976* 0.24 0.001016 0.12 0.005045* 0.43

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -1.126E-05* -0.59 -1.732E-05* -1.67 -1.928E-05* -1.76

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 1.368E-10* 0.66 1.438E-10* 0.72

Academic year graduate student credit

hours

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total .............................

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total ....

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 0.004206* 0.53

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ -0.000042* -0.60

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.001108* -0.42 -0.000625* -0.26 -0.002915* -1.12 -0.000437* -0.22

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 2.375E-06* 0.48

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data).....

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000313 -0.13 -0.000406* -0.22

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005052* -0.17

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.078670* 0.18 0.053231* 0.17 0.128692* 0.27 0.095089* 0.30

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ -0.036076 -0.10

Constant........................................................... 2.315728 2.242552 2.723573 2.099311

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.66 0.64 0.73 0.62

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.099790 0.085900 0.122070 0.098210

Number of cases used in estimation............... 158 149 177 134

Number of outliers and influential cases

 omitted in the analysis............................... 2 37 2

See notes at end of table.
D-42

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 1998

Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Philosophy (CIP: 38.XX) Chemistry (CIP: 40.05) Geology (CIP: 40.06) Physics (CIP: 40.08) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.020031* 0.62 0.017372* 0.92 0.029737* 0.67 0.013149* 0.88

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.001288* 0.15 0.002659* 0.31 0.003543* 0.35

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -2.957E-05* -0.74 -3.278E-05* -1.55 -0.000042* -0.69 -2.632E-05* -0.91

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 5.219E-10* 0.69 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.023113* 0.44 

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... -0.001486* -0.35 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.001373* -0.16 -0.001381* -0.18

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000583* -0.29 -0.002654* -1.22 -0.001332* -0.52 -0.002633* -1.18

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 0.000004* 0.84 0.000003* 0.77

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... 

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.128665* 0.33 0.137640* 0.44 0.075447* 0.21

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.057013* 0.13 0.053627* 0.13

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.097769* 0.27

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.057464* 0.14 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 

Constant........................................................... 2.097833 2.498669 2.410171 2.433530

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.54 0.61 0.75 0.77

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.107570 0.098170 0.107550 0.082670

Number of cases used in estimation............... 138 101 68 91

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 1 23 9

See notes at end of table.
D-43

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by discipline: 1998

Delaware Study,óContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Psychology (CIP: 42.XX) Economics (CIP: 45.06) History (CIP: 45.08) Sociology (CIP: 45.11) Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty ..................................... 

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.013415* 0.78 0.026493* 1.22 0.016643* 1.01 0.019270* 0.87

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty ......................................................... 

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.002333* 0.24 -0.001537 -0.17 

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -1.220E-05* -0.63 -2.715E-05* -1.28 -0.000022* -1.00 -1.999E-05* -0.86

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours 

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.005987* 0.14

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... 

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................ 

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.000844* -0.51 -0.000471* -0.28 -0.000508* -0.29 -0.000698* -0.40

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................ 

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data)............................................................. 

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data)..... 

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... 

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.005459* -0.12 

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.063119* 0.18 0.072955* 0.23 

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.061792* 0.16 

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................ 

Constant........................................................... 2.553967 2.308420 2.156370 2.174525

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.74 0.71 0.67 0.70

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.088120 0.076790 0.085710 0.085580

Number of cases used in estimation............... 116 61 103 91

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 5 43 5

See notes at end of table.
D-44

Table D-18. Summary of determinants of direct instructional cost per student credit hour, by

discipline: 1998 Delaware StudyóContinued

[Dependent variable=Log10(Direct instructional cost per student credit hour)]

Other social sciences2 Art (CIP: 50.XX) Nursing (CIP: 51.16) Business3

Cost determinant

b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta b-coeff. Beta

Total FTE faculty .....................................

Total FTE tenured/tenure-track faculty .. 0.020257* 0.78 0.011807* 0.67 0.010937* 0.70

FTE instructional tenured/tenure-track

faculty .........................................................

Tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty

as percent of total instr. faculty.................. -0.002937* -0.39

Tenured/tenure-track faculty as percent of

total faculty ................................................. 0.002116* 0.24 0.001298* 0.18

Academic year total student credit hours

(undergrad+ graduate)................................ -3.891E-05* -1.11 -0.000057* -1.76 -2.363E-05* -1.37

Quadratic term of academic year total

student credit hours..................................... 3.83631E-10 0.25 0.000000* 0.76 2.582E-10* 0.52

Academic year graduate student credit

hours

Academic year graduate student credit

hours as percent of total ............................. 0.013120* 0.40 0.002057 0.08 0.005712* 0.54

Quadratic term of academic year graduate

student credit hours as percent of total .... -0.000684* -0.39 -0.000085* -0.40

Percent student credit hours taught by

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) ....

Quadratic term of percent student credit

hours taught by tenured/tenure-track

faculty (fall data) ........................................

Average student credit hours per faculty

(fall data) .................................................... -0.001635* -0.86 -0.004566* -1.57 -0.000490* -0.28

Quadratic term of average student credit

hours per faculty (fall data) ....................... 1.58506E-06* 0.50 0.000009* 1.12

Average undergraduate student credit

hours per faculty (fall data)........................

Quadratic term of average undergraduate

student credit hours per faculty (fall

data).............................................................

Average graduate student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data).....

Average undergrad student credit hours per

tenured/ tenure-track faculty (fall data) .... -0.000570* -0.22 -0.001214* -0.34

Personnel expenditure as percent of total

instr. expenditure ....................................... -0.003035* -0.08 -0.005282* -0.19 -0.007596* -0.29 -0.003029* -0.10

Highest degree offered: Doctorís (1:yes;

0:no) ........................................................... 0.052548* 0.14 0.241347* 0.44

Highest degree offered: Master's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.154270* 0.45

Highest degree offered: Bachelor's (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.037228* 0.10 0.125685* 0.37

Carnegie Classification: Research (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.082685* 0.23 0.087599* 0.32

Carnegie Classification: Doctoral (1:yes;

0:no) ............................................................ 0.069840* 0.21

Carnegie Classification: Comprehensive

(1:yes; 0:no)................................................

Constant........................................................... 2.689135 3.012843 3.546854 2.461617

Adjusted R2...................................................... 0.76 0.58 0.72 0.52

Standard error of estimate .............................. 0.084720 0.109170 0.081090 0.090350

Number of cases used in estimation............... 186 306 62 341

Number of outliers and influential cases

omitted in the analysis................................ 5 8 4 14

p = 0.05

1

 Includes Chemical Engineering (14.07), Civil Engineering ( 14.08), Electrical Engineering (14.10), and Mechanical Engineering (14.19). 2 Includes Political Science (45.10), Anthropology (45.02), and Geography (45.07).

3 Includes Business General (52.01), Business Administration and Management (52.02), Accounting (52.03), Business Economics (52.06), Financial Management

(52.08), International Business (52.11), Business Information (52.12), Business Quantitative Methods (52.13) & Marketing (52.14).

NOTE: Cost determinant is included in equation if coefficient is significant at the 10 percent level.

SOURCE: University of Delaware, The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, 1998ñ2001.
E-1

Appendix E

Technical Notes
E-2
E-3

Technical Notes

General Approach to Data

Analysis

Data analysis in this study focuses on 25

disciplines that are typically found at 4-year

institutions, regardless of complexity or

institutional mission. The examination focused on

four-digit CIP wherever possible, or two-digit CIP

as appropriate. Those disciplines and their

associated CIP codes follow.

Table E-1. Classification by instructional

program (CIP) codes

CIP Discipline

09.xx Communication

11.xx Computer/Info Science

13.xx Education

14.07 Chemical Engineering

14.08 Civil Engineering

14.10 Electrical Engineering

14.19 Mechanical Engineering

16.xx Foreign Languages

23.xx English

26.xx Biological Sciences

27.xx Mathematics

38.xx Philosophy

40.05 Chemistry

40.06 Geology

40.08 Physics

42.xx Psychology

45.02 Anthropology

45.06 Economics

45.07 Geography

45.08 History

45.10 Political Science

45.11 Sociology

50.xx Visual/Performing Arts

51.16 Nursing

52.xx Business

The total number of analytical units for these 25

disciplines ranges from 2,700 in the 1999 data

collection cycle to 4,240 in the 2001 cycle.

Developing National Benchmarks

In analyzing the Delaware Study data within each

data set, national benchmarks are computed. The

initial step in the computation is the inclusion of

all institutional responses with each Carnegie class

for a given variable. From those total responses,

an initial mean value is calculated. The responses

are then further analyzed to identify those cases

that are beyond two standard deviations above or

below the initial mean. These cases are then

defined as outliers and are excluded from the

subsequent calculation of the refined mean. This

conservative approach to benchmark construction

was taken to ensure that no single or set of

idiosyncratic responses exert undue influence on

the calculation of a mean value or benchmark.

This process is known as Windsorization, and

theoretically excludes 2.5 percent of the data

points at the low and high end of the range. In

effect, refined means are calculated from the

middle 95 percent of the data points.

Each of the calculated variables described in the

Glossary is analyzed to determine whether specific

institutional characteristics at the academic

discipline level impact upon teaching loads and

expenditures. Those characteristics include:

• Carnegie institutional classification,

• highest degree offered within the discipline,

and

• relative emphasis on undergraduate versus

graduate instruction within discipline.

The Carnegie institutional classification, as an

instructional workload/cost factor, is predicated on

a series of assumptions. The expectation is that

research universities teach less and cost more than

doctoral universities, which in turn teach less and

cost more than comprehensive and baccalaureate

institutions. This will be examined for each
E-4

discipline, and if and where the assumption is

negated, the issue of sample dependency is

examined.

Two other institutional characteristics lend

themselves to analysis. The assumed impact of

highest degree offered is straightforward, i.e.,

doctorate-granting disciplines will teach less and

cost more than masterís-granting disciplines,

which in turn will teach less and cost more than

baccalaureate-only disciplines. This is an

important consideration in looking at the overall

disciplinary mix at an institution. The higher the

concentration of doctorate and masterís degree

programs, the higher would be the expected

instructional costs.

It is also important to examine the relative

emphasis on undergraduate versus graduate

instruction. One might look at two chemical

engineering departments, both offering the

doctorate. One teaches only 20 percent of its total

student credit hours at the graduate level, while the

other teaches over half of its student credit hours

at the graduate level. Consideration of this factor

enables distinguishing of cost differentials that are

not so directly captured by either Carnegie

institutional classification or highest degree

awarded in the discipline. The Delaware Study

benchmarks assess undergraduate versus graduate

program mix within a discipline by examining the

distribution of degrees awarded at the

undergraduate versus graduate levels.

Variation in Cost

National benchmark cost data derived from annual

Delaware Study data collection cycles repeatedly

and consistently show variations in cost by

discipline. Direct instructional expense per

student credit hour taught ranges from the low

$100s for some disciplines in the social sciences to

well over $400 in disciplines in engineering and

the physical sciences. It is important to

understand the nature of these cost differentials.

At the very basic level, historical data from the

Delaware Study indicate that costs vary among

disciplines regardless of institutional mission. The

data further show that within a given discipline,

there is variation in cost among the pool of

institutions participating in the Delaware Study in

any year. This leads to the question as to where

important cost differentials occur. Are variations

in cost predominantly occurring among disciplines

within institutions, or are they mostly due to

categorical differences among the institutions

themselves? These sources of variance are

examined and described using hierarchical linear

modeling.

The data gathered in the Delaware Study follow a

classical hierarchical data structure. Variables

such as cost of instruction and faculty workload

are collected at the discipline level and may be

grouped by institution. Part of the variance in cost

can be attributed to disciplines within institution.

However, cost may in turn be affected by the type

of institution such as that based on Carnegie

classification. Hierarchical linear modeling allows

variance decomposition into within-institution and

between-institution components.

In the two-level hierarchical data structure,

disciplines are considered the level 1 units and

institutions the level 2 units. The one-way

analysis of variance, which is the simplest possible

hierarchical model, is applied to cost where no

explanatory variables are used in either discipline

or institution. This provides the ìbaselineî

measure of the variation in cost. In subsequent

models, the effect of Carnegie classification and

broad discipline grouping according to cost levels

are disaggregated from the variance.

While no inferences on population cost estimates

are possible, similarities or nonsimilarities of cost

among the 25 disciplines under examination are

analyzed and described. An in-depth test of

difference in cost by discipline is applied to the

data using analysis of variance (ANOVA). How

costs vary by discipline in conjunction with

institutional mission, highest degree awarded in

the discipline, and the relative emphasis on

undergraduate versus graduate instruction in the

discipline is examined. It is important to replicate

the analysis over multiple data cycles for

validation of the findings; hence data from the

1998, 2000, and 2001 Delaware Study data

collections are analyzed and described.
E-5

Cost Factors

Prior analysis of Delaware Study data (Middaugh

and Graham 1998) suggests that there is

substantial variation in the unit cost of instruction

between and among individual disciplines and

groupings of disciplines. Based upon that analysis,

it can also be postulated that determinants of

instructional cost may also vary by discipline.

Consequently, data from the 1998, 2000, and 2001

Delaware Study data collection cycles are

systematically examined to determine factors that

directly impact instructional expenditures within

each discrete data collection cycle. The data are

further examined to determine if there is a pattern

in cost determinants over time, i.e., across multiple

data collection cycles. Specifically, the following

variables, each of which is a Delaware Study

benchmark, are examined through multiple

regression analysis with respect to their

significance in predicting the direct cost of

instruction.

• Department size, as measured by total FTE

faculty and by FTE instructional faculty. (The

latter is the former, net of any contractual

buyouts for activity other than instruction.)

• Proportion of faculty who are tenured or who

are on tenure track. Tenured and tenure-track

faculty are, on average, better compensated

than other categories of faculty. Moreover,

tenure makes this group largely a fixed cost.

Consequently, the larger this proportion, the

higher the unit cost of instruction.

• Total student credit hours taught in an

academic year. Typically, the unit cost of an

itemóin this instance, a student credit

hourówould be expected to decrease as the

number of units being produced increases.

• Graduate student credit hours as a proportion

of total student credit hours taught. Graduate

level instruction is more expensive than

undergraduate instruction. Classes are

typically smaller; interactions with faculty,

particularly tenured and tenure-track faculty,

are more frequent and individualized, etc. It

would therefore be reasonable to expect that

the more graduate oriented a department, the

more expensive the instruction.

• Faculty teaching load during an academic year

as measured by the number of student credit

hours taught per FTE faculty, and/or the

number of FTE students taught (a derivative of

student credit hours that is sensitive to level of

instruction) per FTE faculty. It is assumed

that the heavier the teaching load per FTE

faculty, the lower the cost of instruction.

• Personnel expenditures as a percentage of total

instructional expenditures. For some

disciplines, most notably equipment-intensive

disciplines such as the natural and physical

sciences and engineering, a large added cost of

instruction is due to nonpersonnel expenses,

i.e., expenditures not associated with

employee salaries and benefits. It is assumed

that the unit cost of instruction will be lower in

disciplines where most of the instructional

expense is personnel related.

• Highest degree offered. It is hypothesized that

the expected cost of instruction in a

department or discipline that offers only the

bachelorís degree will be lower than those

offering graduate degrees as well.

• Institutional control, i.e., publicly versus

privately supported institutions. There are

those who argue that private institutions

typically feature smaller class sizes, more

individual attention to students, etc. If this is

in fact the case, it should impact direct

instructional expenditures at those institutions.

The feasibility of using this variable was

examined in 1998, and again in the present

study, and in both instances was eliminated

due to the comparatively low participation

rate among private institutions, which resulted

in too few data points at the academic

discipline level to yield meaningful and valid

analysis.

• Institutional mission, as inferred from the

1995 Carnegie institutional taxonomy. It is

hypothesized that baccalaureate and

comprehensive institutions intrinsically teach

more in terms of student credit hour volume
E-6

and faculty teaching loads than doctoral

universities, which in turn teach more than

research universities. If true, this impacts

direct instructional expense.

Highest degree offered and institutional mission,

as previously defined, have been translated into

indicator variables for multiple regression

analysis. These variables take on a value of either

zero or one, where a value of one signifies a class

membership.

Comprehensive cost models were sought for each

discipline, using multiple regression analysis. In

addition to analyzing and describing the linear

relationship of cost and the continuous

variablesósuch as academic year student credit

hours taught, academic year graduate student

credit hours as a proportion of total student credit

hours taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty,

etc.óthe quadratic term for each of these variables

was also tested in the model to account for

possible nonlinear relationships with cost.

Likewise, the interaction terms between the

dummy variables for Carnegie classification and

highest degree offered and the same continuous

variables were analyzed and described.

In order to conform to the assumptions underlying

regression analysis, data points wherein the unit

cost is beyond two standard deviations from the

mean were eliminated at the onset of analysis.

These cases were omitted from analysis, as they

are idiosyncratic and potentially exert undue

impact on developing equations. Outliers and

influential cases were identified by examining the

residuals obtained from initial regression analyses

and were subsequently omitted. The majority of

the outliers have unit cost per student credit hours

that are grossly high, i.e., standardized residual of

three or higher. Influential cases were identified

as those with relatively large values for Cookís

Distance. The study of the residuals from the

initial analysis repeatedly showed that the

assumption of constant variance or

homoscedasticity is violated. To correct for this,

the dependent variable, cost per student credit

hour, was transformed to logarithm.

Inclusion of the independent variables in the

equation is a function of how strongly the

variables independently or jointly affect

instructional cost. The predictor variables that are

included in these equations have regression

coefficients that are significant at the 10 percent

level. In a few instances, however, some variables

were retained in order to have more meaningful

and complete cost models. In part, inclusion of

the variables depends upon the magnitude of the

colinearity among these variables. Care was taken

to ensure that multicolinearity was minimized.

The analytical strategy employed is to identify

major cost drivers within each of the 25 academic

disciplines under examination, to then determine

whether these cost drivers vary among disciplines,

and ultimately to examine if the identified cost

drivers are consistent over multiple data collection

cycles. In examining the 25 disciplines within any

given data collection cycle, it is imperative to

ensure that sufficient data points are present to

allow for reliable use of multiple regression

methodology. The question of insufficient data

points occurred in disciplines at the four-digit CIP

grouping. In certain instances, it was necessary to

collapse some disciplines at the four-digit CIP into

larger naturally affiliated groupings in order to

achieve sufficient data points as well as to increase

the predictive power of the model. Such is the

case for the four engineering disciplines where

combining them yielded a more highly predictive

cost model. Similarly, combining political science

with anthropology and geography produced more

reliable cost models than when each is taken

individually.

The analytical process for each of the disciplines

under examination was kept as consistent as

possible. Specifically, the following protocols

were adopted for all equations:

• Cost per student credit hour taught is the

dependent variable. Cost is transformed to

logarithm in the analysis.

• Data points wherein unit cost is beyond two

standard deviations from the mean are omitted

at the onset of the analysis.
E-7

• Outliers are defined as those cases in which

the absolute value of the standardized residual

is three or higher, and are subsequently

omitted.

• Influential cases are identified as those with

relatively high values of Cookís Distance

and/or Mahalanobis Distance statistics. These

cases are omitted in the final analysis.

• The quadratic term of all continuous variables

are tested for inclusion in the model to account

for possible nonlinear relationships with cost.

• Interaction terms between selected continuous

variables and categorical variables (highest

degree offered and Carnegie institutional

classification) were tested for inclusion in the

model.

• Variables are retained in the equation only if

their regression coefficients are statistically

significant at the 10 percent level.

For disciplines that are a two-digit CIP

aggregation, data points belonging to a four-digit

subdiscipline with two or fewer institutions

reporting were eliminated from the aggregation.
E-8
U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

U.S. POSTAGE PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION

PERMIT NO. G-17