Federal grants, as disclosed in the table, represent a substantial part of the total receipts of some of the land-grant colleges. In others they make up a comparatively insignificant portion. Of the 52 institutions, the New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts secures the largest proportion of its total income from Federal funds, the percentage being 39.7. The Alaska Agricultural College receives the second largest proportion with a percentage of 34. Third on the list is the Georgia State Agricultural College, Federal receipts comprising 30.7 per cent of its total income.

The proportion of receipts from Federal funds ranged from 25 to 27 per cent in the case of 3 institutions, from 20 to 25 per cent in 5 institutions, from 15 to 20 per cent in 10 institutions, from 10 to 15 per cent in 11 institutions, from 5 to 10 per cent in 11 institutions, and less than 5 per cent in the remaining 6 institutions.

It is patent from this brief review that a number of the colleges are depending to a great extent upon Federal appropriations for their support. When an institution receives 25 per cent or more of its total receipts from the Federal Government steps should be taken to secure increased revenues from other sources. It was never contemplated that the annual subsidies of the Federal Government should provide a large proportion of the operating costs of the landgrant colleges after the impetus to development had been given. Federal funds are designed to stimulate local support of the institutions.

Being States owned, State controlled, and State operated, landgrant colleges and State universities should receive the major portion of their support from State appropriations. According to the data presented in the tabulation, the principle has been recognized in the case of many of the institutions. In others, so considerable a proportion of their receipts is secured from other sources as to constitute a problem worthy of the serious consideration of their governing boards and executive officers. The institution receiving the greater part of its support for the fiscal year of 1928 from public sources was the University of Porto Rico, the percentage being 82.1. In the case of the University of Hawaii, the proportion of public income to total income was 75 per cent. There were nine other institutions where the States provided a larger percentage of the total income, the percentages ranging from as high as 73.4 per cent to 61.3 per cent.

Of the remaining colleges, the table shows 11 which receive from 55 to 60 per cent of their total income from State appropriations, 7 from 50 to 55 per cent, 7 from 45 to 50 per cent, 5 from 40 to 45 per cent, 5 from 35 to 40 per cent, 2 from 30 to 35 per cent, 1 from 25 to 30 per cent, and 1 from 20 to 25 per cent.

Only 10.6 per cent of the total income of the University of Vermont is derived from State appropriations. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology receives no State appropriations whatever for its support.

Revenues from private gifts comprise a minor proportion of the income of most of the institutions. The table indicates that 16 landgrant colleges received no income in 1928 from this source. While 36 others were the recipients of private gifts, the amounts were not generally large, although in a few instances the proportion of the income was substantial. The University of Vermont in 1928 received from private gifts 28 per cent of its total income, the highest of any of the land-grant colleges. Revenues from this source exceeded State appropriations for its support by approximately 20 per cent. The institution with the second largest proportion of its income from private gifts was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the percentage being 27.7.

Rutgers University received 15.6 per cent of its total income from this source, University of California 14.6 per cent, Pennsylvania State College 8.9 per cent, University of Maine 7.9 per cent, and University of Delaware 5.9 per cent. In the remainder the proportion of total receipts from private gifts ranged from 4.3 per cent down to 0.05 per cent, comparatively insignificant amounts when other sources of income are considered.

A number of the institutions with large annual revenues from private gifts were founded as private schools and later were made the land-grant colleges of their States.

The land-grant colleges are not free institutions of higher education, as is quite frequently supposed. There are no institutions which did not receive some income from student fees in 1928. As the entire subject of student fees will be taken up in detail in a later part of the survey of finances, it will be sufficient at this point to indicate the percentages of the total receipts derived from this source. The institution with the greatest proportion of receipts derived from student fees is the University of Vermont, the percentage amounting to 27.1. The University of Maryland was next highest with revenues from student fees amounting to 24.6 per cent of its total receipts. In view of the fact that both of these institutions are State universities, the situation is unusual. Student fees comprise 22.4 per cent of the total receipts of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is in reality a private institution, and in 6 other colleges it varies from 20.3 to 13 per cent.

As shown in the table, there were 6 institutions where the revenues from student fees make up from 10 to 12 per cent of the total income; 20 in which they amounted to from 5 to 9 per cent; and 11 in which they were less than 5 per cent.

Among the colleges with very small proportion of their receipts derived from student fees were the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, and Clemson Agricultural College. The Alaska Agricultural College realized but 0.7 per cent of its total revenues from this source. Income from other institutional sources, such as interest on endowment, trust funds, bank deposits, rentals, hospital and athletic receipts, constitute varying percentages of the total receipts of the institutions. With the exception of interest on endowment and trust funds, only a small portion of such resources are actually available for general institutional expenses. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology secured from other institutional revenues the largest proportion of its total receipts of any of the land-grant colleges in 1928. It amounted to 41.4 per cent and consisted almost entirely of interest on endowment. Other institutions derived a much smaller proportion from this source. In the case of the University of Maryland, the next highest on the list, the proportion was 19.9 per cent. Cornell University secured 16.2 per cent of its total income from other institutional revenues, University of Wisconsin 16 per cent, Ohio State University 14.3 per cent, Alabama Polytechnic Institute 10.9 per cent, and University of New Hampshire 10.8 per cent. In the remainder, the percentage of revenues from other institutional sources was less than 10 per cent, and in 29 of these it was less than 5 per cent. Four institutions reported no revenues from other institutional sources.

Under the title of "earnings" are included the gross receipts of all institutional activities of an income-producing type, such as residence and dining halls, creameries, hospitals, bookstores, farms, etc. In the case of the Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College, these receipts represented more than one-third of its total receipts, the percentage being 34.3. The Connecticut Agricultural College also recorded a proportion of 32.1 per cent. At Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College they amounted to 31.8 per cent, at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas 29.8 per cent, and at the Rhode Island State College 25.5 per cent, all being in excess of one-fourth of the income from all sources.

The proportion of these receipts to total receipts of the University of Nebraska was 21.5 per cent and of the University of New Hampshire 20.8 per cent. Eight other colleges had percentages ranging from 15 to 20 per cent. In the remainder the proportion was between 10 and 15 per cent in 21 institutions, between 5 and 10 per cent in 11, and below 5 per cent in 5.

A more detailed review of these "earnings" will be taken up in another part of this report.

!

Miscellaneous receipts consist principally of income expendable for limited purposes. The main items are county and other funds for agricultural and home economics extension and donations for specific research. Miscellaneous receipts of the South Dakota State College represented 17.6 per cent of its total revenues, being the greatest proportion. Purdue University had the second largest proportion with 16.2 per cent, while the University of Arkansas and the University of Minnesota were next on the list with 14.9 per cent and 14.3 per cent, respectively.

Income from miscellaneous sources of the University of Missouri was 11.6 per cent and of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas 10.6 per cent. In 12 other institutions the proportion of income from this source was between 5 and 10 per cent, in 21 between 1 and 5 per cent, and in 6 less than 1 per cent. There were 7 land-grant colleges that reported no miscellaneous receipts in 1928. The preceding discussion has been confined to the general system of financing the land-grant colleges. The income, however, is secured from a wide variety of specific sources. Upon the source from which particular revenues are derived depends the purpose for which they shall be expended. The fact that an institution has a large total income does not necessarily indicate that it possesses resources for the development of a general educational program. On the contrary, a considerable proportion of the income may be subject to limitations as to expenditure and use. Some of the land-grant institutions have ample funds for the support of certain branches or divisions while at the same time they lack funds to maintain other colleges or departments on an adequate basis.

Support given the land-grant colleges by the Federal Government consists of six different funds. None may be utilized for general institutional purposes. Federal funds are based on the Land Grant Act of 1862 constituting an endowment, the annual interest from which is available for the teaching of agriculture and mechanic arts and for the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes; the Morrill Act of 1890 and the Nelson Amendment of 1907, providing direct appropriations for instruction in agriculture, mechanic arts, the English language, and branches of mathematical, physical,

natural, and economic sciences; the Smith-Hughes Act, providing funds for vocational teacher training; the Hatch-Adams Acts, providing funds for agricultural experimentation; the Purnell Act, providing additional funds for agricultural research; and the SmithLever Act, providing funds for agriculture and home economics extension. Table 8 presents a compilation of the revenues classified according to the different Federal funds for 1928.