« PrejšnjaNaprej »
its revenues from student fees and the gains recorded in many individual colleges were greatly in excess of the percentage of increase just given. Of the entire list there were 28 colleges or more than a majority that made gains in amounts ranging from $100,000 up to $1,200,000. The largest gain in revenues from student fees was made by the University of California, the amount being $1,209,634 between 1915 and 1928. There were seven other institutions, most of which were the larger State universities, that increased their receipts between $577,276 and $815,729.
The increases in 2 colleges were between $150,000 and $500,000, in 2 between $350,000 and $400,000, in 3 between $300,000 and $350,000, in 1 between $200,000 and $300,000, in 5 between $200.000 and $250,000, in 2 between $150,000 and $200,000, in 5 between $100.000 and $150,000, in 12 between $50,000 and $100,000, and in 12 less than $50,000.
The enormous advances in revenues from student fees are generally attributed to heavy gains in student enrollment. In view of the fact that the number of fees assessed has been considerably multiplied and the rates of the different fees raised almost universally, it is evident that a large proportion of the increases is due to the adoption of definite financial policies designed to secure additional income for the institutions from this source.
Considering the large annual revenues from student fees, the variety of fees assessed, and great number of students paying them, their collection involves a complicated process. It is found that in five of the land-grant institutions the fees are collected annually. The students of 23 colleges pay the fees each semester and in 14 they are collected every quarter. The chief business officer should be responsible for the collection of the fees. This is the case in all the land-grant colleges with one exception where the fees are paid direct to the registrar. Another arrangement that has the effect of materially reducing the work of collecting the fees is to permit registration and payment prior to the fixed day of registration either by mail or in person. The returns show that 10 institutions follow the plan of allowing payment of fees by mail and that 11 allow their payment in person prior to the date of registration. The most efficacious method of enforcing payment is to deny the privilege of class attendance. Students are permitted to defer payment of their fees or a portion of them under certain circumstances in 23 institutions.
That a rather strict policy has been adopted generally in the land-grant college group to assure the complete collection of fees assessed against the students is exemplified by the limited number of exemptions from their payment. Thirty-one institutions allow no exemptions whatever. In the other 21 colleges the exemptions are
so restricted in their application that comparatively few students profit by them. On the basis of the data submitted, it is found that either members of the faculty or their families are exempted from payment of student fees in 14 institutions; students in the graduate school in 2; ex-service men in 3; and high-school honor graduates in 2. The governing board has authority to exempt a student from paying fees in the case of another college, but specific approval is necessary and a sufficiently sound reason must be advanced. Still another institution reports that members of the instructional staff are relieved of laboratory fees in their own departments.
One of the perplexing problems connected with the collection of tuition assessed in the colleges is the determination of whether the student is a resident or nonresident of the State. As already shown, tuition fees levied against nonresident students are far higher than the charge against resident students. It is necessary, therefore, that a definite regulation be adopted, otherwise nonresident students will enjoy the same rate of tuition as resident students. In practically all the institutions charging tuition such a regulation is in force, but the definitions of the nonresident student differ widely. Where the student is a minor, 6 colleges provide that the parents of the student must be residents of the State at the time of registration if he is to be permitted to pay a resident tuition; 10 stipulate that his parents must have lived within the State for 12 consecutive months prior to registration; 1 fixes the time limit of the residence of parents at six months; and 6 decide the question on the voting place of the parents at the previous election. The determination of a nonresident student, who is of age, is based on the place of his registration as a voter in 9 cases, whether he had lived within the State for a year in 10 and for six months in 1, and whether he has been a voter of the State and self-supporting in 1. A number of colleges in defining a nonresident student make no discrimination on the question of his minority. There are 12 institutions which provide that the parents or the guardian of a student, irrespective of age, must be legal residents of the State if he is to pay the resident tuition fee.
In another instance it is required that the parents of the student actually be taxpayers of the State.
The student fees after being collected are retained by the institution or deposited in the State treasury. In either case they should be available for use in defraying current expenses. In 23 institutions the yield from student fees is kept by the college and deposited in the institutional treasury. In 20 other cases the moneys are deposited with the State treasury as collected. One college did not report on this point.
The administration of trust funds has developed into an important responsibility in the financial management of the land-grant colleges. In their early history the institutions were in the experimental stage and doubt existed as to their permanence. Under these circumstances it was natural that they were the recipients of few private donations.
With their recent tremendous expansion, with the growth of their educational establishments, and with the large gains in their student bodies, a number of the land-grant colleges are now regarded as the leading higher educational institutions of the country. Public confidence has been created in them and in their ability to administer private benefactions with full assurance of permanence and satisfaction. The result has been a steady increase in gifts and donations from private sources for their maintenance and support.
Trust funds administered by the institutions consist of four general classes-gifts for current expenses, gifts for capital outlays, permanent endowments, and annuity funds. With the exception of annuity funds, data on the amounts of the various private gifts, and the values of permanent endowments have been presented in detail by institutions in the previous discussions dealing with income, capital outlays, and properties. Annuity funds are trust funds, the complete ownership of which will come to the institution at a future time, the income in the meantime being paid to a beneficiary designated by the donor. According to the reports received there are eight land-grant colleges having such funds, their total estimated value being $1,309,000. Although the number is limited in most of the individual institutions, one college reports as many as 41 different annuity funds.
Control of the trust funds including permanent endowments is vested in the governing bodies of 21 of the colleges. In 10 others the State governments through their constituted officers administer them. Where the boards of trustees exercise responsibility, a committee of the board is especially empowered to invest the funds in 12 cases, the chief business officer is delegated to handle the investments with the approval of the board in 5, and the board assumes complete jurisdiction in 4. Where the State governments have retained control of the trust funds, the State treasurer is charged with the duty of administering them in 6 institutions, the State legislature in 2, the commissioner of schools and public lands in 1, and the State superintendent of public investments in 1.
In the administration of trust funds, particularly permanent endowments, the most vital problem is the sound and advantageous investment of the funds. High-class and long-time securities are preferable to any other type. In the case of a number of the institutions, however, the authorities administering the endowments, whether they be officers of the colleges or State officials are restricted by State laws in the investments and, therefore, have no discretion. According to the reports received, this situation is applicable to eight colleges. The law of one State limits the investment of permanent endowment funds to United States Government bonds, of another to municipal bonds, of a third to Federal and State bonds, of a fourth to municipal and Government bonds, of a fifth to first mortgages and bonds, of a sixth to first mortgages on farm lands, of a seventh to municipal school district, county, or State bonds, and of the eighth to first mortgages on farm lands or State, county, school, and municipal bonds. In 13 other States no restrictions whatever are imposed by statute on the administrators and they are at liberty to invest the funds in such securities as they may select. Eight colleges failed to report on whether restrictions were placed by law on the investment of their permanent endowments. The classes of securities in which the trust funds and permanent endowments are generally invested include mortgages, bonds, stocks, and real estate, although a few colleges have made investments in certificates of deposit, cash bank deposits, and tax certificates. One institution reported that a minor part of its permanent endowment was placed out at call loan. A tabulation of the investment of the trust funds and permanent endowments showing percentages in the different classes of securities is presented in Table 20. The data are based on reports of the colleges,
TABLE 20.- Investment of permanent endowments and trust funds of land-grant
colleges showing percentages in different classes of securities
University of Arizona.
There are 16 colleges with investments in mortgages. Of this number, one institution has all of its trust funds invested in mortgages, another 97 per cent, a third 86 per cent, and a fourth 52 per cent. The proportion in the remainder ranges from 28 to 0.2 per cent. By far the great majority of the funds have been invested in bonds, 20 institutions having from 100 to 50 per cent and 8 less than 50 per cent. The returns show 10 colleges with 100 per cent of their trust funds invested in bonds, 3 from 90 to 100 per cent, 2 from 80 to 90 per cent, 3 from 70 to 80 per cent, 1 from 60 to 70 per cent, and 3 from 50 to 60 per cent. The institutions with smaller proportions of bond investments include 1 with 46.3 per cent, 1 with 30.5 per cent, 1 with 26.8 per cent, 2 between 14 and 15 per cent, and 2 less than 5 per cent. Only 10 colleges have invested part of their trust funds in stocks, none of which exceeds a proportion of 53.1 per cent found in one instance. The others vary from 40 per cent to 2 per cent, there being 2 with percentages between 30 and 40, 1 between 20 and 30, 1 between 10 and 20, and 4 less than