STUDENTS

 

by

 

Jerry D. Saye and Katherine M. Wisser

 

 

                Part Two of the ALISE statistical questionnaire requested schools to provide data dealing with student enrollment and characteristics, class size, degrees awarded, financial aid, and tuition and fees.  This part of the questionnaire collected primarily aggregated data reported on 11 data input tables.  These data input tables were used to generate the tables that constitute the core of this chapter.

 

            In working with the data reported by the schools, some incomplete or inconsistent data were encountered.  In a few cases, errors were recognized by schools soon after mailing the data and revised figures were submitted.  In the later stages of data entry and analysis, schools were contacted by email, fax and phone to resolve what appeared to be either inconsistencies or reporting errors.  In some cases, data requested were not in the possession of schools (this is particularly true for the program categories “Other Undergraduate” and “Other Graduate”) or the schools elected not to provide the requested data for a variety of reasons.  As a result, row totals in some tables are greater than the separate counts of cells in that row and for the total of a column.  Footnotes have been provided whenever possible to explain inconsistencies.  Although no guarantee can be made that all errors have been identified and corrected, it is believed that the accuracy of the data reported by the schools as reflected in the tables that follow is high.

 

            All 56 schools participated in the survey (7 Canadian and 49 US).  Because data for similar data elements, e.g., enrollment by program level or degree, international student enrollment, etc., were submitted by schools on separate tables, it is possible that some subtotals and totals vary slightly from table to table due to differences in data supplied.  To minimize this problem every effort has been made to make these data agree, but it is recognized that inconsistencies have not been totally removed from the tables.  In a few cases, editorial changes were made to tables to obtain agreement among them.  These editorial changes have been footnoted.  This inconsistency should not cause major problems in that the numbers usually vary only slightly.

 

            In all but a few instances, all schools that reported enrollment for a specific program level or degree are listed in all tables for that program level regardless of whether data were reported.  In those situations where data were not reported, a footnote to the table has been used to indicate the schools with enrollment not reporting data.  Also, footnotes have been supplied indicating schools not included in totals and means.  Schools which offer a particular program that had no enrollment in that program this year are not included in any tables for that program level.

 

            One major change has been made this year in the data collection and tables.   Other than for Table II-1, which addresses enrollment (both number and FTE), all other tables have been limited to collecting and reporting data related to the six degrees offered by the 56 schools.  In previous years these tables also reported on two program levels -- Other Undergraduate and Other Graduate.   It has been noted by the editors, and others commenting on the Report, that detailing the racial and ethnic, age distribution, representation of international students, etc. for these two program levels is somewhat uninformative in that these students are not part of a degree program offered by the schools.   Rather they are merely enrolled in one or more courses offered by the school while pursuing a degree program in another unit of the university.   Accordingly, with this Report Table II-1 will continue to provide information on Other Undergraduate and Other Graduate students while the remaining tables will be limited to giving that information for only the six degrees.

 

            All data submitted by the schools are represented in the relevant tables unless the data were clearly inconsistent with the data requested.  In these latter cases, a footnote is provided explaining the situation and giving the data reported by the school.  A dash “-----” has been used throughout this chapter to indicate no response.  In a number of cases no data were reported by a school when a “0” would have been the more appropriate response; conversely, in other situations a “0” was reported when no input would have been appropriate.  In preparing the tables, the context of the data to be reported was evaluated against the data schools submitted and, in some cases, zeros were changed to “-----“ and “-----“ changed to zeros.

 

            Consideration has been given to the meaning conveyed by the numbers in the tables.  Totals for rows and columns were calculated and checked against the totals provided by the schools.  When a discrepancy was encountered, the person reporting that data for the school was contacted to try to resolve the difference.  In a number of cases the total number of schools reporting will be different from the number used to calculate the mean.  For example, if it is known that not all schools provided ethnic data, then in calculating the mean for any ethnic group, the number of students in any particular ethnic category was divided by the number of schools reporting ethnic data rather than dividing by all 56 schools.  When totals and means are calculated, the number of schools included in the calculation is stated, and a footnote is provided indicating which schools were excluded, or in some cases included.

 

            In order to make data in the tables understandable, particularly when a school felt the need to explain data that differs slightly from the data requested, footnotes have been provided liberally with the tables.  Additionally, some general comments have been made at the beginning of a section of tables if those comments are pertinent to all tables in that section.

 

 

Enrollment by Program and Gender  (Table II-1)

 

            Enrollment figures for the 2001 Fall term were requested for each of eight program levels:

 

·         Bachelor’s

·         ALA-Accredited Master’s - Library Science

·         Master’s - Information Science

·         Other Master’s

·         Post-Master’s

·         Doctoral

·         Other Undergraduate

·         Other Graduate

 

To ensure that each school interpreted the program levels the same way, the following program definitions and instructions for their use were provided:

 

Bachelor's:  Include here only those students who are working toward a bachelor's degree in library and information science, regardless of whether offered on or off campus.  Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Undergraduate.”

 

ALA-Accredited Master's - Library Science:  Include here only those students working towards a separate master's degree in library science or a combined library and information science degree accredited by ALA, regardless of whether offered on or off campus. Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Graduate.”

 

Master's - Information Science:  Include here only those students working towards a separate master's degree in information on or off campus.  Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Graduate.”

 

Other Master’s:  Include here those students working towards a master's degree other than information science not accredited by ALA offered by your school, regardless of whether offered on or off campus.  Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Graduate.”

 

Post-Master's:  Include here only those students who are working toward a post-master's degree or certificate in library and information science, regardless of whether offered on or off campus.  Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Graduate.”

 

Doctoral:  Include here only those students who are working toward a doctoral degree in library and information science, regardless of whether offered on or off campus. Do not include students taking courses as cognate or service courses.  Report them as “Other Graduate.”

 

Other Graduate:  Include here students taking library and information science courses as cognate or service courses or for professional development, regardless of whether offered on or off campus.

 

Other Undergraduate:  Include here students taking library and information science courses as cognate or service courses for undergraduate credit, regardless of whether offered on or off campus.  Do not include students who are in an established undergraduate program in library and information science.

 

            For the first time this year the questionnaire sought information on information science master's degrees as a separate data element irrespective of whether that degree with accredited by the ALA or not. Previously, data for any ALA-accredited master's degree, whether LS or IS, were reported under ALA accredited master's degree.   IS master'sdegrees that did not have ALA-accreditation were reported under "other master's" degrees.   With this report, the ALA-accredited master's degree in library science or a combination of library and information science are reported as "ALA-Accredited Master's -- Library Science".  Separate IS master's degrees are reported as "Master's -- Information Science".   Data within this category will be grouped by the ALA-accreditation status of the program.   All other master's degrees offered by schools other than LS or IS are reported as "other master's".

 

            Schools were requested to provide separate counts for full-time and part-time students, differentiated by gender.  For part-time students, FTE (Full Time Equivalent) figures were also requested as well as the total FTE enrollment.  The directions instructed each school to use its institution’s method for computation of FTE or, if no such method existed, to use the following formula:

 

Consider a student full-time if the course load will enable requirements for the degree to be completed within the normal length of time.  For example, if the normal time to complete the degree is 12 courses in 4 quarters, a student carrying 3 courses during the quarter should be counted as 1.00 FTE; a student carrying 2 courses during the quarter should be counted as 0.67 FTE (2/3 = .67).  Students carrying an overload should be counted as only 1.00 FTE.

 

Although on-campus and off-campus students were to be included in the data submitted, the questionnaire also asked for separate FTE data for off-campus students.

 

            Table II-1-a-1 is a summary table that presents total enrollment figures for Fall 2001 as well as the number and percentage of full-time and part-time students, divided by gender, for each of the eight program levels.   The total enrollment of 22,883 is up 8.8 percent from the 21,040 reported last year.   Total enrollment in Fall 2001 for the 6 degree programs was 20,033.   This represents an enrollment increase of 12.8 percent increase over the 17,759 reported for Fall 2000.   ALA-accredited master's-LS programs account for the majority (61.4 percent) of total degree program enrollment.   Master's-IS enrollment represents 5 percent of total enrollment while "other master's" is 3.4 percent.   Bachelor's degree programs continue to rise in the percentage their students constitute of total enrollment - 13.8 percent this year.   The 28 schools reporting doctoral enrollment indicate of 753 students are seeking that degree.   They constitute or 3.3 percent of total degree enrollment.   Post-master's students comprise less than 1 percent (0.9).

 

            All degree levels, except bachelor's and doctoral degrees, continue to have the majority of their students in a part-time status.   At the bachelor's degree level, 81.7 percent of the students are full-time.   Doctoral programs increased their percentage of full-time students to 55 percent, up from the 51 percent reported last year.   Nearly three-fourths (71.4 percent) of all ALA-accredited master's-LS students are part time as are 58.3 percent of Master's-IS and 64.2 percent of "other master's" degree students.

 

            When distribution by gender is examined, female students are found to comprise 80.5 percent of ALA-accredited master's-LS enrollment.   Gender distribution becomes more equal for the Master's-IS degree, where males constitute 51.4 percent of students.   Female doctoral students are in the majority at 56.4 percent as they are for "other master's" degrees where they constitute 55.3 percent.

 

            Fifteen of the 56 schools (26.8 percent) currently offer a bachelor's degree.   Table II-1-c-1a provides school-by-school enrollment figures.   It reveals that 3,121 students were pursuing a bachelor's degree in Fall 2001, a 34 percent increase over the number of students enrolled for that degree in Fall 2000.   This change is due to increasing enrollments at most other schools and the addition of new bachelor's degree programs at Oklahoma and Rutgers.   A large percentage of enrollment is concentrated at three schools.   The bachelor's enrollment at Drexel (825), Florida State (609), and Syracuse (568) comprise 61.4 percent of all enrollment for that degree.   While this is a large percentage, bachelor's enrollment at other schools is growing.   Four other schools, Pittsburgh (269), Albany (169), Wisconsin - Milwaukee (158), and Southern Connecticut (128) have enrollments over 100.   This figure is down from the 89.2 percent of enrollment these programs constituted last year.

 

            Table II-1-c-2a-LS reports ALA-accredited master's-LS enrollment for each of the 55 [1] schools offering that program.   It illustrates the wide range of program sizes across the schools - from the five largest programs, San Jose (869), Southern Connecticut (607), Dominican (590), Kent State (562), and Simmons (501) to the three schools with less than 75 students: St. John's (73), Clark Atlanta and Southern Mississippi (65 each).   Nine schools (16.4 percent) have ALA-accredited master's-LS enrollment of fewer than 100 students.

 

            The distribution of full-time to part-time students reported for the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree shows wide variation among the schools.   Five schools (9.1 percent) have more than three fourths of their ALA-accredited master's-LS students in a full-time status: (North Carolina - Chapel Hill (87 percent), McGill (82.4 percent), Michigan (81.8 percent), Western Ontario (79 percent), and Dalhousie (76.6 percent).   Two other schools approach that level: Alberta (74.4 percent) and California - Los Angeles (73.1 percent).   It is of note that these seven schools with the highest percentage of full-time enrollment have two-year master's programs, although they do not represent all the schools with such programs.   Twenty schools (36.4 percent) have 80 percent or more of their ALA-accredited master's enrollment as part-time.   The schools with the highest percentages of part-time enrollment are Long Island (96.4), Queens (94.8), Drexel (91.5), Pratt (91.2), North Carolina - Greensboro (90.6), and Simmons (90.2).   Other than North Carolina - Greensboro these six schools with the largest percentage of part-time enrollment are located in major metropolitan areas.

 

            The variation in full-time versus part-time enrollment can have a considerable impact on a school’s enrollment figures when enrollment is viewed in terms of FTE (Full-Time Equivalent).  From that perspective who the largest schools are changes somewhat.  The programs with the largest ALA accredited master's–LS enrollment in terms of FTE are San Jose (573), Kent State (370), Florida State (345.5), and Illinois (333.6).   The five smallest programs in terms of FTE enrollment are Clark Atlanta (49.8), Southern Mississippi (38.3), and St. John’s (33.8). A total of 11 schools (20 percent) have ALA-accredited master’s–LS FTE enrollments of under 75 students.

 

            Table II-1-c-2a-IS reports Master's-IS enrollment for the 7 schools (12.5 percent) that offer these degrees -- four that are accredited by ALA and three that are not. All but o ne school, Albany (27), had sizeable enrollments for this degree ranging from 98 at North Carolina - Chapel Hill to 313 at Drexel. The three non-ALA accredited programs, Drexel, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse have the largest enrollments. A major factor for this is likely the longer period in which these programs have offered a separate IS master's degree.

 

            The distribution of full-time to part-time students reported for the Master's-IS shows wide variation among the schools as was seen for the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree. Three of the schools have the majority of their Master's-IS students in a full-time status -- Montréal, Albany, and North Carolina - Chapel Hill (90.5, 77.7, and 73.5 percent respectively). Conversely, Drexel, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh have most of their IS -- Master's students in a part-time status -- 83.4, 77.2 and 64.2 percent respectively. Indiana's IS -- Master's students are divided evenly between full and part-time status. The variation in full-time versus part-time enrollment has some impact on the school enrollment figures when enrollment is viewed in terms of FTE (Full-Time Equivalent). From that perspective Drexel continues to have the largest program with 168.3 FTE, followed by Montréal (136 FTE), Indiana (126.2 FTE), Syracuse (124 FTE), and Pittsburgh (115 FTE).

 

            Fifteen schools (26.8 percent) reported enrollment for “other master’s” degrees (Table II-1-c-3a) for Fall 2001 in addition to their ALA-accredited constitutemaster’s–LS and or Master’s–IS enrollments. Missouri has by far the largest “other master’s” program with 151 students followed by Rutgers (90), Pittsburgh (89), Syracuse (82), North Carolina Central and North Texas (72 each). A number of “other master’s” programs are relatively small. Five schools have enrollments of 20 or fewer fewer students for this degree -- Wayne State (20), Drexel (15), Alabama (13), North Carolina – Greensboro (4), and St. John’s (1).

 

            Post-master's programs historically have had comparatively low enrollments. Table II-1-c-4a confirms that this continued. Of the 28 schools (50 percent) reporting Fall 2001 enrollment data for their post-master's program only six, (Puerto Rico (43), Missouri (26), South Carolina (23), Florida State (20), Drexel 15), and Buffalo (11)) had more than 10 students in their programs. The high percentage of part-time students in post-master's programs (83.9 percent) results in a low mean FTE (4.2) (Table II-1-c-4b) compared to the mean head count 7.5.

 

            Half (28)of the 56 schools offer a doctoral program (Table II-1-c-5a). As has been characteristic of the other degree programs, the 753 doctoral students enrolled in Fall 2001 are distributed quite unevenly across the schools. The doctoral program at Pittsburgh is the largest (77 students) followed by North Texas (63). No other school has more than 50 doctoral students. Twelve schools (42.9 percent) have enrollments of fewer than 20 students. Six schools have enrollments of 10 or fewer doctoral students -- McGill (10), Montréal and Simmons (8 each), Tennessee (6), Arizona (3), and Alabama (2). Although the distribution of full-time vs. part-time doctoral students is rather evenly divided at 55 vs. 45 percent respectively, the distribution varies widely from school to school. Indeed, four schools (McGill, Michigan, Montréal, and Washington) report that all their doctoral students are full-time. Conversely, four schools (Alabama, Drexel, Long Island, and Simmons) report all their doctoral enrollment as part-time. This distribution can be easily skewed by schools with only a few doctoral students.

 

            Table II-1-e provides the number of FTE off-campus students each school had registered for the 2001 Fall term. Thirty-seven or nearly two-thirds (66.1 percent) of the 56 schools had off campus enrollment. This number compares closely with the 36 schools who reported off campus enrollment for Fall 2000. At several schools off-campus FTE enrollment was very sizeable. By far the largest off-campus enrollments are at San Jose (334 FTE) and Florida State (322.9 FTE). Six other schools have FTE enrollments exceeding 100 students: South Florida (199), Missouri (187.6), Emporia (165), Kent State (149.3), North Carolina - Greensboro (110), and Illinois (105.2). All these enrollments are in terms of FTE. It should be commented upon that some schools which have had sizeable off campus enrollments in the past, e.g., South Carolina, did not report those data this year. Nine schools had off-campus enrollment of ten or fewer FTE students. Nineteen schools either reported they had no off-campus students or elected not to report these data. The total FTE off-campus enrollment of 2423.7 represents an increase of 26.4 percent. This follows upon a 14.1 percent increase in Fall 2000. Clearly there is a trend, at least among a sizeable subset of schools toward off-campus instruction. When a mean enrollment is calculated limited to those schools with off-campus enrollment (37), the mean enrollment is 65.5 FTE students up from the mean 58.2 FTE of Fall 2000.

 

 

Course Enrollments  (Table II-2)

 

            Schools were requested to report the number of students enrolled in courses or sections of courses during the 2001 Fall term.  Enrollments were reported in increments of five students.  Independent study and reading courses were not to be included in these counts.

 

            Table II-2-a-1 reports course and section enrollment distributed across the 11 enrollment groups for courses offered in Fall 2001 by each ALA school.  The number of courses/sections offered that term ranged from 10 (Dalhousie) to 106 (Missouri) with a mean of 41.1 courses/sections offered per school.  Eleven schools (19.6 percent) offered fewer than 20 courses courses/sections that Fall.  That is up from the nine schools which offered courses/sections at that level in Fall 2000 and five in Fall 1999.  At the other end of the spectrum, 15 schools (26.8 percent) offered more than 50 courses in Fall 2000. This compares to 17 schools at that level in Fall 2000.

 

            The majority of courses/sections offered in Fall 2001 have enrollments of 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 and 21-25 students. These four course/section enrollment groups account for 61 percent of all courses offered. The course/section size with the highest frequency was 11-15 students. The total number of courses/sections offered with large enrollments, i.e., 36-40, 41-45 and 46-50 students, was relatively small (85, 52, and 30 respectively) in comparison to the frequencies of the other enrollment groups. Courses/sections offered in these three larger enrollment groups accounted for only 7.3 percent of all courses offered. The number of courses/sections offered with more than 50 students in Fall 2001 was 66. This is the same number reported for Fall 2000. The questionnaire requested schools to comment on courses with enrollments over 50 students. From these comments (Table II-2-a-2), it is apparent that courses with enrollments over 50 students continue to be used primarily to present core material, distance education or undergraduate courses.

 

            Schools were asked not to include independent studies or individual reading courses in their submission of course enrollment data. Rather they were requested to report separately the total number of students enrolled in those courses. Table II-2-a-3 shows the number of independent study or reading courses reported by each school. This table reveals the wide variation in the number offered from none at Clarion, North Carolina Central, Pratt, and Puerto Rico to 199 at Florida State and 125 at Syracuse. The mean number of independent study or reading courses offered by the 56 schools in Fall 2001 was 27.4.

 

 

Degrees and Certificates Awarded  (Table II-3)

 

            For Table II-3 schools were asked to report the total number of degrees and certificates awarded during the 2000-2001 academic year, including summer sessions, for the sixdegree categories:

 

·         Bachelor’s

·         ALA-Accredited Master’s-- Library Science

·         Master's -- Information Science

·         Other Master’s

·         Post-Master’s

·         Doctoral

 

                In supplying these data, schools were requested to report the number of degrees and certificates aggregated by the gender and ethnic origin of their graduates.  In reporting ethnic origin the following five categories, as defined by the US Department of Labor, were to be used. [2]

 

AI           American Indian or Alaskan Native -- a person having origin in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

 

AP          Asian or Pacific Islander -- a person having origin in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.  This area includes, for example, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa, and Taiwan.  The Indian subcontinent includes the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan.

 

B             Black, not of Hispanic Origin -- a person having origin in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

 

H             Hispanic -- a person of Cuban, Central or South American, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.  Only those persons from Central and South American countries who are of Spanish origin, descent, or culture should be included in this category.  Persons from Brazil, Guyana, Surinam, or Trinidad, for example, would be classified according to their race and would not necessarily be included in the Hispanic category.  In addition, the category does not include persons from Portugal, who would be classified according to race.

 

W            White, not of Hispanic origin -- a person having origin in any of the original peoples of Europe, North America, or the Middle East.

 

 

Additionally, two other reporting categories were also used:

 

I               International students -- all students who are not U. S. (or Canadian, for Canadian schools) citizens, permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

 

NA          Information not available.  Please use this category sparingly.  Where at all possible, report ethnicity.

 

Canadian schools were not required to provide ethnic data, although they could elect to do so.  They were required, however, to provide totals.

 

            Table II-3-a reports the number of degrees awarded for each of the six degrees distributed by gender and ethnic origin. Table II-3-a-1 reports these same data by school. A total of 6,450 bachelor's, ALA-accredited master's -- LS, Master's--IS, "other master's", post-master's, and doctoral degrees were awarded by schools during 2000 2001. An increase of 7.5 percent over the previous year. Female graduates accounted for 71.4 percent of all degrees awarded. The male/female distribution varies considerably among the different degree programs. Females are in the majority for five of the six degree programs. This ranges from highs of 82 percent for the post-master's and 79.3 percent for ALA-accredited master's-LS degree to 53.2 and 51.2 percent for "other master's" and Master's -- Information science degrees respectively. The only degree with males in the majority of its graduates is the bachelor's degree (67.6 percent). It is of note that this degree is closely associated with information science . Similarly the degree that has the smallest female majority is Master's-IS.

 

            Table II-3-a also reveals that graduates continue to be predominately White (69.9 percent). Blacks are the most represented non-White ethnic group (5.2 percent). Asian or Pacific Islanders represented 3.1 percent of graduates in 2000-2001 followed by Hispanics at 2.6 percent. Native Americans constitute one-half percent (0.5) of all graduates of the six degree programs.

 

            Black graduates accounted for 11.5 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in 2000-2001. They were 6.8 percent of graduates of the "other master's" degrees, and 4.7 percent of both ALA-accredited master's-LS and doctoral degree graduates in 2000-2001. The degree in which Black graduates have the their lowest representation is Master's-IS where they account for only 2.1 percent of degrees awarded.

 

            Hispanic representation is lower than that of Blacks for each of the six degree fields. Hispanics have their highest representation (4.3 percent) as recipients of the bachelor's degree. Their percentage of graduates drops to 2.6 for the ALA-accredited master's-LS and only 1.2 percent for the Master's-IS. Post-master's degrees respectively. Persons of Hispanic origin constitute 2 percent of post-master's degree recipients, 1.3 percent of "other master's" degree graduates and a mere 1.2 percent of those receiving the doctoral degree.

 

            International students represent a considerable percentage of graduates of three degree programs. They received nearly a third (32.8 percent) of "other master's" degrees and 29.1 percent of the Master's-IS degrees awarded in 2000-2001. Their representation as graduates of doctoral programs follows at 20 percent. These figures are in marked contrast to international student graduation figures for the bachelor's degree and ALA-accredited master's-LS degrees. For these programs international students represent only 3.4 and 2.3 percent of graduates respectively.

 

            For each degree program the number of degrees and certificates awarded varied widely from school-to-school. Ten of the 15 schools that reported bachelor's degree enrollment for Fall 2001 awarded that degree in 2000-2001 (Table II-3-c-1). Syracuse (155), Florida State (139), Pittsburgh (137) and Drexel (108) awarded 88.2 percent of the 611 degrees conferred. No other school approached the number of graduates of these four schools. Of the remaining six schools only Albany (39) had more than 20 baccalaureate graduates. Three schools (Clarion, Long Island, and North Texas) had fewer than 5 graduates.

 

            At the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree level (Table II-3-c-2-LS) 4,953 degrees were awarded in 2000-2001. Two schools stand out for the number of graduates: San Jose (299) and Simmons (238). Five schools had graduating ALA-accredited master's-LS classes in the 151-200 range: Dominican (174), Wayne State (169), South Carolina (168), Illinois (166), and Kent State (163). This past academic year nine schools conferred fewer than 40 degrees. Four of these nine schools awarded fewer than 30 ALA-accredited master's-LS degrees - Clark Atlanta (24), St. John's (23), Iowa (22), and Puerto Rico (20). This compares with six schools in the under 30 category last year.

 

           This is the first year in which the Statistical Report is able to provide graduation figures for students who have completed a separate master’s degree in information science (Table II-3-c-2-IS). In 2000-2001 a total of 516 of these degrees were awarded by seven schools -- 153 by the four schools with ALA-accredited IS master’s degree (Albany, Indiana, Montréal, and North Carolina – Chapel Hill) and 363 by the three schools (Drexel, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse) that did not seek that accreditation. The number of degrees vary widely from 128 and 122 awarded by Syracuse and Pittsburgh respectively to 6 conferred by Albany. The number of Master’s degrees -- Information science awarded by those schools with ALA-accreditation for the degree is, on average, noticeably lower (38.3) than the average number of graduates of the schools without that accreditation (121). Those latter schools have had for a longer period these separate degrees as a part of the offerings of their schools.

 

            Ten schools awarded 235 "other master's" degrees in 2000-2001 (Table II-3-c-3). When comparing data in this table with that reported in previous years one should note that this year the Master's-IS graduation figures for schools that did not seek ALA accreditation for those degrees would have been recorded in this table. Syracuse awarded the highest number of "other master's" degrees (59) followed by Western Ontario (42), and Pittsburgh (31). Two schools conferred fewer than ten "other master's" degrees: Alabama (5) and Drexel (3).

 

            Fifteen of the 28 schools (53.6 percent) having enrollment in a post-master's program in Fall 2000 had graduates of their programs in 2000-2001. The 50 post-master's degrees conferred in 1999-2000 (Table II-3-c-4) is in marked contrast to the 85 reported for 1999-2000. This can be accounted for by the unusual number of post-master's degrees awarded that year by Syracuse (47). South Carolina awarded the largest number of post-master's degrees (12) followed by Florida State (7), Missouri (6), and Rutgers (5). The remaining 11 schools conferred from one to three post-master's degrees.

 

            Eighty-five doctoral degrees were conferred by 23 of the 28 schools (82.1 percent) having enrollment in a doctoral program in Fall 2001 (Table II-3-c-5). Two schools, Pittsburgh (18) and Rutgers (17) account for 41.2 percent of all doctoral graduates this year. The long duration of doctoral programs in can account for uneven graduation rates for any given school in any single year. For example, for 1999-2000 Rutgers reported on 3 doctoral graduates compared to its 17 this year.

 

 

Enrollment by Gender and Ethnic Origin  (Table II-4)

 

            Enrollment figures for the 2001 Fall term were requested for each of the degrees defined for Table II-1 divided by gender and ethnic origin using the ethnic origin classifications used for Table II-3. Table II-4 is similar to Table II-3 in that both deal with distributions by gender and ethnic origin. However, Table II-3 addressed these distributions for graduates of degree programs while Table II-4 reports enrolled students.

 

            Table II-4-a indicates the number of students enrolled in schools for each degree level distributed by gender and ethnic origin categories. These figures show that enrollments remain predominately White (73.7 percent) [3] .  The 1,109 Black students represent the next largest ethnic group (5.8 percent). Hispanic enrollment remains low at 3.4 percent as does Asian or Pacific Islander representation at 4.1 percent. The 80 American Indian students constitute 0.4 percent of total enrollment.

 

            Table II-4-a-1 reports student enrollment by ethnic origin for all degrees by school. In viewing these data one can observe that Florida State (143) has by far the highest Black student enrollment of the 56 schools. Three schools constitute the next tier of schools and have very similar Black enrollments: North Carolina Central (84), Drexel (81), and Syracuse (80). Of these four schools with the largest Black enrollments North Carolina Central is the only one that is a Historically Black University (HBU). No other school reports more than 47 Black students. Hispanic enrollment is greatest, as one might expect, at Puerto Rico (124). It is followed by schools, all but one of which, are located in states with notable Hispanic populations: Florida State (65), San Jose (54), Syracuse (43), North Texas and Texas (33 each), and South Florida (32). Drexel reports by far the highest Asian or Pacific Islander enrollment with 202 students. San Jose has the next largest Asian or Pacific Islander representation with 68 students followed by Pittsburgh (46), Hawaii and Syracuse (44 each). No school reports double digit American Indian enrollment. The largest Native American enrollment is reported by Florida State (9) followed by Oklahoma and Wisconsin - Milwaukee (8 each) and San Jose (7).

 

            While these raw numbers are interesting it is perhaps more informative and meaningful to look at what percentage students of a particular ethnic group constitute of a school's total enrollment. This might more effectively indicate how a school is meeting its obligation to provide diversity in its student enrollment. When viewed as a percentage of total enrollment, the two HBUs, Clark Atlanta and North Carolina Central, are found to have the largest percentage of Black students at 59.2 and 37.5 percent respectively. Southern Mississippi follows distantly at 17.8 percent Black enrollment followed by Pratt (16.9 percent), Louisiana State (15.2 percent), Alabama (14.2 percent), and Florida State (12.4 percent). These are the only schools whose Black enrollment exceeds, meets, or comes close to the 2000 population data of the US Census Bureau of Blacks (12.3 percent). [4]   Only two other schools (Long Island and Catholic ) have Black enrollments at 10 percent or higher.

 

            The 2000 census data of the Hispanic population in the US (12.5 percent) is nearly equaled by no school other than Puerto Rico (96.9 percent). The schools that come closest to this level are Texas (10.8 percent), California – Los Angeles (9.9 percent, Arizona (9.6 percent), and South Florida (9.4 percent). No other school has a Hispanic enrollment above 7 percent. Eighteen schools, in addition to Hawaii (47.8 percent), have Asian or Pacific Islander student enrollment that exceeds the 2000 US Census Bureau data for Asian or Pacific Islanders (3.7 percent). The American Indian census data of 0.9 percent is equaled or exceeded by nine schools. The school with the greatest percentage of American Indian students is Oklahoma (4.4 percent) followed by North Carolina Central (2.7 percent) and Wisconsin – Milwaukee (2.1 percent).

 

            Enrollment at the bachelor's degree level (Table II-4-c-1) represents the most even distribution of students across the different ethnic categories in terms of their percentages in the 2000 US population. At the 14 schools offering a bachelor's degree that reported ethnic data, White students constitute 65.3 percent of the enrollment. [5]   Asian or Pacific Islander students are 10.7 percent of enrollment for the bachelor’s degree, followed closely by Black students comprising 9.7 percent. Hispanic enrollment remained in single digits at 4 percent.

 

            The ethnic distribution of students pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree in Fall 2001 is presented for each school in Table II-4-c-2-LS. For the 50 schools reporting ethnic data, the 10,478 White students constitute 79.1 percent of the students in those programs. [6]   Black students comprise 4.9 percent of that enrollment, roughly two-fifths of their 12.3 percent of the 2000 US population determined by the US Census Bureau to be Black. Hispanic students and Asian or Pacific Islanders comprise 3.3 and 2.7 percent respectively of ALA-accredited master’s–LS enrollment compared to their 12.5 and 3.7 percents respectively of the 2000 US population. Based on the comparison of their percentage of the population to enrollment in ALA-accredited master’s–LS programs, students of Hispanic origin continue to be the most under-represented ethnic group, followed by Blacks.

 

            When the ethnic composition of each school's ALA-accredited master's-LS enrollment is examined (Table II-4-c-2-LS), some interesting distributions become evident. Schools with a higher number of Black students (more than 25) are primarily programs located at historically Black universities and at universities situated in large metropolitan areas. Florida State is the notable exception. It and Pratt have the highest Black enrollment (42 each) followed by Wayne State (40). Three schools have Black enrollments numbering in the 30s -- Long Island (38), North Carolina Central (37), and Clark Atlanta (36). There are six schools in the next tier of Black enrollment (20-29 students). Five of the 49 schools (10.2 percent) reporting ethnic data indicated their Black student enrollment was either zero or one student. This is down from the 17.3 percent of schools reporting zero or one Black student enrolled in Fall 2000.

 

            The two HBUs that have ALA-accredited master's programs (Clark Atlanta and North Carolina Central) also have the highest percentage of Black students in their student body (55.4 and 24.3 percent respectively). It is interesting to note that, although an HBU, North Carolina Central has a White student enrollment of 64.5 percent. In terms of Black students constituting a percentage of total enrollment, following the two HBUs, the next highest percentages are presents at Southern Mississippi (20 percent), Pratt (16.9 percent) Louisiana State (15 percent), Long Island (11.4 percent) and Catholic (10 percent).

 

            Figures for the 353 Hispanic students pursuing the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree reveal that Puerto Rico (82) has the largest number of Hispanic students. San Jose has 54 Hispanic students followed by South Florida (32), Texas (29), Florida State and North Texas (26 each). No other school reports more than 16 Hispanic students pursuing this degree. Four schools reporting ethnic data indicate they have no Hispanic students while seven others report only one each. Taken together these 11 schools constitute 22.4 percent of schools reporting ethnic data at the ALA-accredited master's-LS level. While disappointing this percentage is down greatly from the 32.7 percent of schools reporting zero or one Hispanic student enrolled in Fall 2000.

 

            When viewed in terms of percentage of total ALA accredited master's-LS enrollment, Puerto Rico also has by far the highest percentage of Hispanic students (93.2 percent). Only two other schools have Hispanic enrollments that exceed 10 percent -- California - Los Angeles (11 percent) and Texas (10.6 percent ). All three schools are located in parts of the country with high Hispanic populations. Schools with a percentage of Hispanic enrollment exceeding 6 percent also possess this same characteristic -- South Florida (9.4 percent), Arizona (8.5 percent), Pratt (6.4 percent), and San Jose (6.2 percent).

 

            The distribution of the percentage of White students enrolled for the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree at the 49 schools reporting ethnic data ranges from 97.3 percent (Kentucky) to 0 percent (Puerto Rico). Two schools besides Kentucky have White enrollments exceeding 95 percent -- Clarion (94.9 percent) and Rhode Island (94.8 percent). A total of 11 schools (22.4 percent) have White enrollment exceeding 90 percent. Conversely, four schools, in addition to Puerto Rico, report White enrollment of less than 50 percent -- Long Island (46.4 percent), Hawaii (40.4 percent), Queens (34.3 percent), and Clark Atlanta (33.8 percent).

 

            All seven schools offering the Master's-IS degree, including the one Canadian school, Montréal, reported ethnic data (Table II-4-c-2-IS). The percentage that Whites and Blacks constitute of the student population for this degree is lower than it is for the ALA-accredited master's-LS, 59.2 and 4.2 percent respectively. This variation is attributable to the very low Hispanic representation of students seeking this degree, 1.1 percent, combined with a higher Asian/Pacific Islander percentage (6 percent) and a larger international student presence. Except for the Hispanic percentage and the role of international students seeking this degree its pattern is similar to the percentage pattern of students enrolled at schools offering the bachelor's degree.

 

            White students constitute 50.7 percent of doctoral student enrollment (Table II-4-c-5) at the schools reporting ethnic data. [7] The lower percentage of White student enrollment for this degree is not accounted for by increased enrollment of other US ethnic groups, but rather by the higher percent of international doctoral students. The 36 Black students comprise 5.2 percent of doctoral enrollment, while Hispanics are 1.9 percent and Asian or Pacific Islanders 1.7 percent and Hispanics 1.5 percent. Overall, the involvement of all non-White ethnic groups at the doctoral level is minimal (9.2 percent). As was the case with the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree, the distribution of non-white ethnic groups among the 26 schools with doctoral programs reporting ethnic enrollment data is uneven. Long Island, with seven students, has the largest enrollment of Black doctoral students. The schools with the next highest Black doctoral enrollment are Florida State and Rutgers (4 each), North Carolina - Chapel Hill and Pittsburgh (3 students each). Three schools report enrollment of only one Black doctoral student and eleven (44 percent) report having none. Texas indicates that it has four Hispanic doctoral students while North Texas has two. Seven schools (Albany, Arizona, California - Los Angeles, Illinois, Long Island, Michigan, and North Carolina - Chapel Hill) report having one Hispanic doctoral student each. Sixteen schools (61.5 percent) reporting ethnic data indicate that they have no Hispanic doctoral students. The representation by Asian or Pacific Islanders is also low at most programs. Four schools (California - Los Angeles, North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin - Madison) each have two Asian or Pacific Islander doctoral students. Four other schools indicate they have one student each from that ethnic group. Seventeen schools (65.3 percent) report having no Asian or Pacific Islander doctoral students.

 

            Considerable caution must be exercised when evaluating the percentages of ethnic minority doctoral students given the number of doctoral programs that are relatively small in size. In smaller programs the presence of one or two students within an ethnic minority can greatly change a school's ethnic distribution. Limiting examination to schools with ten or more doctoral students, Long Island has the highest percentage of Black doctoral students with 18.4 percent followed by Washington (16.7 percent) and Texas Woman's (12.5 percent). No other school has more than 10 percent of its doctoral enrollment as Black. Again, limiting the review to schools with doctoral enrollment of ten or more students, only one school, Texas (12.9 percent), reports having more than 10 percent of their doctoral enrollment as Hispanic. In fact no other schools report Hispanic doctoral enrollment above 4 percent. One school, Wisconsin - Madison (11.8 percent), indicates having an Asian or Pacific Islander doctoral enrollment exceeding 10 percent. Three additional schools have Asian or Pacific Islander enrollment exceeding 5 percent -- California - Los Angeles (8.0 percent), Maryland (5.9 percent), and North Carolina - Chapel Hill (5.6 percent).

 

 

In-State/In-Province and Out-of-State/Out-of-Province Students  (Table II-5)

 

            For Table II-5 schools were requested to report the number of students officially enrolled in the Fall 2001 term relative to the students' in-state/in-province and out-of-state/out-of-province status for each degree defined for Table II-1.

 

            Tables II-5-c-1 to II-5-c-5 report enrollments for each degree on a school-by-school basis. The information for the bachelor's degree (Table II-5-c-1) is less than ideal because, as has been the case in the past, several of the larger programs did not identify the status of their bachelor's degree students. Not reporting were Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Southern Connecticut and Dalhousie, the 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 8th largest bachelors degree programs respectively. The students in these four programs, number 1,094 and account for 35.1 percent of students in bachelor's programs at the 15 schools. For the reporting 11 schools, enrollment at the bachelor's level reflects what is believed to be typical of enrollment at the level -- a large proportion of students from in-state (77.2 percent). This pattern of the majority of student having in-state/in-province status is true for the nine public universities and two private universities reporting these data.

 

            At the ALA-accredited master’s–LS level (Table II-5-c-2-LS) the data reveal the local or regional nature of enrollments at most schools. For the 51 schools that reported the requested data, a mean 80 percent of their students from in-state/in-province. Only two schools (Emporia (56.5 percent) and Michigan (55.6 percent)) report more than half of their ALA-accredited master’s–LS students were from out-of-state/out-of-province. Four additional schools (Dalhousie (45.5 percent), Rhode Island (43.5 percent), Illinois (42.5 percent), and Catholic (40 percent)) indicated that at least 40 percent of their students pursuing that degree were from out-of-state/out-of-province. Eighteen schools have less than 10 percent of their ALA-accredited master’s–LS enrollment from out-of-state/out-of-province. San Jose and Kent State reported 1.7 and 1.1 percent respectively. Puerto Rico indicated that it had no out of state/out of province students enrolled for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree.

 

            Two schools offering the Master’s–IS degree (Pittsburgh and Syracuse) did not report in state/out-of-state data for their students seeking that degree (Table II-5-c-2-IS). The enrollments at these two schools totals 384 or 33.9 percent of the enrollment of the seven schools offering this degree. For the remaining 5 schools the mean percentage of out-of-state/out-of-province was 29.8 percent. The distribution, however, ranged widely from 63 and 45 percent at Albany and Drexel to 4.8 percent at Montréal.

 

            Table II-5-c-5 reports the in-state/in-province status of doctoral students. As has been true for other degrees three schools Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Western Ontario did not report the in state/in province status of their students. The doctoral student enrollment at these three schools totals 129 students and represents 17.3 percent of all doctoral student enrollment. The data for the remaining 25 schools reflects what one might expect of a research degree -- the willingness of students to travel out-of-state/out-of-province to pursue their education. Two-fifths (40.6 percent) of doctoral students are pursuing their education out-of-state/out-of-province. One should note that this figure, in fact, may be low given that it can be affected by the ability at some schools of students to change their residency status while enrolled in a program. Eleven schools (Arizona, Florida State, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montréal, Rutgers, Washington, and Wisconsin – Madison) have at least 50 percent of their enrollment from out-of-state. This ranges from 82.4 percent at Maryland to 50 percent at Missouri. Three schools have out-of-state/out-of-province doctoral enrollment at less than 10 percent (Long Island (7.9 percent), North Texas (6.3 percent), and Alabama (0 percent)).

 

 

International Students  (Table II-6)

 

            For Table II-6 schools were requested to indicate the number and gender of their international students officially enrolled in the Fall 2001 term for each degree defined for Table II-1.

 

            The 1,284 international students seeking any of the six degrees, when compared with the enrollment figures reported in Table II-1, constitute 6.4 percent of all students enrolled in the six degree levels at the 56 schools. This year the number of international students remained essentially the same as it had been since Fall 1999 (1,119). Although international students have their highest enrollment at the ALA accredited master’s–LS degree level, they constitute only 3.2 percent of its total enrollment. By contrast, international students are a very notable component of Master’s–IS, “other master’s” and doctoral degree programs. The 266 international students pursuing the Master’s–IS and the 158 “other master’s” international students constitute 23.5 and 20.5 percent respectively of the total enrollments for those degrees. The presence of international students is even more pronounced at the doctoral level where the 256 international students comprise more than a third (34 percent) of doctoral student enrollment. This is an increase from the 29.9 percent reported for Fall 2000. International student enrollment in bachelor’s degree programs remains minimal at 4.6 percent. International student participation in post-master's programs is similarly low at 5.2 percent.

 

            Several schools stand out for the number of international students enrolled in their degree programs (Table II-6-a-1) -- Syracuse (214), Pittsburgh (173), and Drexel (140). Other than Florida State (81) no other school has more than 60 international students. Missouri (58), Michigan (55) comprise the next tier of schools while the remaining 50 schools have a wide range of international students -- from 48 at Missouri to none at Alabama, Long Island, Southern Connecticut, and Southern Mississippi. Thirty one schools (55.4 percent) have fewer than ten international students. Sixteen of the 31 school have fewer than five international students.

 

            When examined at the degree level, some noticeable differences in international student representation exist. International student bachelor's degree enrollment is highest at Drexel (79) (Table II-6-c-1). Of the remaining 14 schools only Florida State (27) and Syracuse (24) have more than 10 international students in their bachelor’s degree program.

 

            For the ALA-accredited master’s–LS (Table II-6-c-2-LS) Michigan has the highest international student enrollment (43) followed by Illinois (32), Florida State and McGill (30). Seven other schools have ten or more international students in their ALA-accredited master's–LS program.

 

            The three non-ALA accredited Master’s–IS programs (Table II-6-c-2-IS) have by far the largest international student enrollment -- Syracuse (99), Drexel (2), Pittsburgh (49). This is likely due to their longer established programs being better known internationally. By comparison, Indiana (24) and North Carolina – Chapel Hill (20) have the largest international student population of the ALA-accredited IS master’s programs.

 

            Syracuse and Pittsburgh have by far the highest international student enrollment for an “other master’s” program with 51 and 44 students respectively (Table II-6-c-3). Missouri has the next highest international student enrollment with 29 students. No other school has more than 11 international “other master’s” students.

 

            Historically, and understandably given the relative small size of their post-master’s programs, schools have had very modest representation in them by international students. This continues to be the case in Fall 2001 (Table II-6-c-4). None of the eight schools reporting international enrollment for this degree had more than 3 international students. Six reported having one international student and 20 schools had none.

 

            Pittsburgh, however, continues its strong international student presence at the doctoral level with 53 international students (Table II-6-c-5). Florida State (23), Rutgers and Syracuse (21) are the only other doctoral programs with more than 20 international students. Six schools report that their doctoral programs have five or fewer international students. This is in contrast to the eight schools in that status in Fall 2000 and the 17 in Fall 1999.

 

 

International Students’ Country of Origin  (Table II-7)

 

            For Table II-7 schools were asked to report the country of origin of their international student enrollment for the 2001 Fall term for each of the six degrees defined for Table II-1. The data in Table II-7-a are arranged first by continent, then sub-arranged alphabetically by country name. Asia, which covers a wide area of the world ranging from the Middle East to the Far East, has been further sub-divided into four regions to allow for more detailed analysis.

 

            As might be expected, international students represent all continents except Antarctica. Asia is the continent that accounts for the majority of international students, providing nearly two-thirds (64.8 percent) or 833 of all 1,285 international students. When the regions of Asia are examined, the region of East Asia is found to contribute the greatest percentage of international students (47.8 percent -- 614 students). South Asia is a distant second with 12.1 percent (155 students). European countries contribute a only 8.2 percent (106 students) of international student enrollment, while South America continues to have minimal representation in LIS programs at 3 percent (38 students). Equally low is Africa with 4.1 percent (53 students). Australia has the lowest level of international students representation with 0.1 percent (1 student).

 

            When the number of students from individual countries is examined, it becomes readily apparent that China, South Korea, and India are the countries contributing the greatest number of international students (228, 144, and 136 respectively). Together these three countries provide 39.5 percent of all international students seeking LIS degrees in the US and Canada. Two other Asian countries, Taiwan (84) and Thailand (65), form the next tier of countries contributing the most students. These five countries have provided a strong student presence for a number of years. Overall, combined enrollments for these five countries contribute half (51.1 percent) of all international student enrollment. A figure similar to that for both 1999 and 2000.

 

            Given the relatively small international student enrollment in bachelor's degree programs (150), it is not surprising that no country has a large number of students represented in these programs. In fact, no country has more than 8 students enrolled. It should be recognized, however, that the 150 students represent an increase of 150 percent over the 60 students reported for Fall 2000. Similarly, in Fall 2000 no country has more than 2 students enrolled in the bachelor’s programs. It further should be noted that over half (52.7 percent) of the bachelor’s degree students (79) are categorized as “unknown” in terms of country of origin. A similar percentage of unknowns was reported last year. This may very likely be due to student record access limitations by schools for their undergraduate students.

 

            China provided by far the greatest number of international students (96) pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree in Fall 2001. South Korea (51), Japan (33) and India (30) have the next largest representation. When US enrollment in Canadian schools and Canadian enrollment in US schools is discounted no other country provides more than 16 students for this degree. India (57) provided the largest number of students enrolled for the Master’s–IS degree followed by China (51). Only one country, Taiwan (21), provided more than 20 students for this degree in Fall 2001. India (33), Taiwan (26), Thailand (20), South Korea (19), and China (13) provide 70.3 percent of all international students enrolled for a “other master’s” degree. No other country provides more the 8 students. International doctoral student enrollment is led by China (61) and South Korea (46) distantly followed by Thailand with 25. Together these three countries provide slightly over half (51.6 percent) of all international doctoral student enrollment. No other country sends more than 17 doctoral students to US or Canadian schools.

 

 

Enrollment by Age and Gender  (Table II-8)

 

            For Table II-8 schools were asked to report Fall 2001 enrollment divided by gender across nine age groups for each of the degree levels defined for Table II-1.

 

            Table II-8-a-1 provides a summary for all degree levels by age group and gender. For the ALA-accredited master’s–LS, the Master’s–IS, and “other master’s” programs, the 25-29 age group had by far the greatest percentage of students (22.4, 32.3, and 25.4 percent respectively). As one might expect for a program that is focused on the further education of practicing professionals, the post-master’s age group with the highest frequency of students was for a higher age, 40-44 (19.3 percent). Overall, doctoral students are rather evenly divided among the four age groups 25-44. These four age groups have percentages of students ranging from 14.3 to 19.3. The age group with the highest frequency of doctoral students is the 30-34 group.

 

 

Students by Gender and Highest Degree Held  (Table II-9)

 

            This table is not currently in use.  The table was last used in 1980.

 

 

Students by Undergraduate Major, Gender and Program Level  (Table II-10)

 

            This table is not currently in use.  The table was last used in 1980.

 

 

Scholarship and Fellowship Aid  (Table II-11)

 

            Data for the number and amount of scholarship or other non-work-related financial aid awarded in fiscal year 2000-2001 were requested for each of the six degrees as defined for Table II-1. Each school was asked to separate the data by the gender of awardee. The instructions for compiling the data stated that awards directly administered by the school (regardless of whether the funds were from the school, the parent institution, federal or non-federal external sources) were to be included in the report, but awards (including assistantships and work/study) made by outside sources directly to the student were to be excluded. Additionally, schools were asked to indicate whether they offered scholarship and fellowship aid to part-time students.

 

            Given the difference in the value of Canadian and US dollars, separate means are provided for Canadian and US schools. In comparing Canadian and US figures it may be convenient to use the exchange rate given in the footnote below. [8] Similarly, with the costs associated with attending a public university generally being quite different from those at a private university, it is reasonable to suspect that the amount of financial aid awarded by these different types of schools would also differ. Accordingly, for US schools, separate means are reported for public and private universities as well as a combined mean. [9]

 

            Table II-11-a provides a summary of aid awarded for each of the six degrees for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. The total value of awards, $6,646,893, represents a 4.5 percent increase in funding over 1999 2000 and follows upon a 2.9 percent increase in 1998-99. The total value of awards for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree funding increased 5.1 percent. There are no data for previous years against which to compare Master’s–IS funding. The amount of money invested in doctoral students this year ($926,850) represents a 12.2 percent decrease. That decrease appears to continue an annual decline in doctoral funding first observed in 1997 1998. The only year in which this downward trend was broken was in 1999-2000 which witnessed a 2.9 percent increase.

 

            Schools were asked whether they provided scholarship and fellowship aid to part-time students. This was a general question not limited to any specific degree. Thirty-one of the 50 schools (60.4 percent) that responded to this question indicated that such aid is available for part-time students (Table-II-11-a-2). Three of the 7 Canadian schools (42.9 percent) provide this type of aid compared to 63 percent of US schools. Private US universities make scholarships and fellowship aid available to part-time students to a greater degree than do US public universities (87.5 vs. 57.9 percent respectively).

 

            Table II-11-c-2-LS reports scholarship and fellowship aid for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree. The mean number of awards given by Canadian and US schools was 35 vs. 29.9 respectively. The mean number of awards given by school represents an increase of 7 per Canadian school and 6.1 for schools in the US. The mean amount awarded was $3,068 per Canadian school ($1,962 USD). This compares to $3,166 per US public university and $2,496 per US private university.

 

            Five of the seven schools (71.4 percent) offering the Master’s–IS degree reported that they had provided scholarship and fellowship aid to the students seeking that degree in 2000-2001 (Table II-11-c-2-IS). The size of the mean award at the one Canadian school was $1,818 ($1,163 USD) compared to a mean of $4,774 at the two US public universities and $4,773 at the two US private universities.

 

            The figures in Table II-11-c-3 for “other master’s” is informative in seven of the 15 schools (46.7 percent) did not report any scholarship or fellowship aid for students pursuing these degrees. That form of assistance is even more scarce for students pursuing the post-master’s degree (Table II-11-c-4). Only two of the 28 schools (7.1 percent) that have post-master’s enrollment indicate that they provided scholarship or fellowship aid to students in this degree program in 2000-2001.

 

            Table II-11-c-5 reports on scholarship and fellowship aid for doctoral students for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. On average the scholarship and fellowships aid for a doctoral student at Canadian and US schools is very similar. At a Canadian university the mean award is $11,389 ($7,285 USD) compared to $7,153 for the mean doctoral award at a US university. The average size of a scholarship or fellowship award from a private US university is $11,778 compared to a similar average award at a public university of $6,630. There has been a noticeable decline in the average size of a doctoral award over the past five years. The average awards were: $12,326 in 1996-97, $9,174 in 1997-98, $7,812 in 1998-99, $6,888 in 1999-2000. 2000-2001 witnessed a very slight upturn to $7,153. This represents a 42 percent reduction over that four year period. This decline is most likely attributable to the withdrawal of much US federal support for doctoral students in library and information science.

 

 

Assistantships  (Table II-12)

 

                Data were requested for the number and value of assistantships awarded by each school, divided by the gender of the awardee, using the degree definitions of Table II-1 for students enrolled in Fall 2001. Similar to the reporting for Table II-11 the presentations of Table-II-12 include a calculation of separate means for Canadian and US schools, with a further division of US schools into public and private institutions. In comparing Canadian and US figures it may be convenient to use the exchange rate given in the footnote below. [10]

 

            Table II-12-a provides a summary of assistantships awarded for each of the six degrees for students enrolled in Fall 2001. The total value of awards, $15,046,596, represents a 21.2 percent increase in funding over that reported for Fall 2000. Although the total value of assistantship awards increased 21.5 percent this increase in awards is attributable to the 203.7 percent increase in the value of assistantships awarded to doctoral students. Awards to bachelor’s students declined by 48.1 percent, ALA-accredited master’s–LS by 17.2 percent, and post-master’s 14.3 percent. There are no data for previous years against which to compare Master’s–IS funding. The increase in doctoral student funding for assistantships is the inverse to the decline in scholarship and fellowship funding for students seeking that degree.

 

            As was the case for scholarships and fellowship aid, schools were asked whether they provided assistantships to part-time students. This was a general question not limited to any specific degree. Eighteen of the 51 schools (35.3 percent) that responded to this question indicated that assistantships were available for part-time students (Table-II-12-a-2). The availability of assistantships for part-time students is not nearly as plentiful as it is for scholarship and fellowship aid for those students (60.4 percent) noted previously (Table II-11-a-2). The awarding of assistantships to part-time students at US private and public universities varies (55.6 vs. 30.6 percent respectively). [11]   Although the pattern is the same, there is a notable contrast in the percentage of scholarship and fellowship aid available to part-time students at these two types of US universities (87.5 vs. 57.9 respectively).

 

            Table II-12-c-2-LS reports assistantships awarded to students in ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree programs. The mean number of awards given by Canadian and US schools continues to be quite different (5.8 vs. 17.1 respectively). While scholarships and fellowships on average were awarded in far greater numbers at US private universities (50.5) compared to US public universities (25.2), that relationship was reversed for assistantships. US public universities awarded an average of 19.8 assistantships per school compared to 5.9 by US private schools. The great difference in the mean amount of assistantships awarded by a Canadian school versus a US school continues: $2,541 ($1,625 USD) compared to $10,348 ($10,408 public, $9,700 private).

 

            All seven schools offering the Master’s–IS degree reported that they had provided assistantship aid to the students seeking that degree in Fall 2001 (Table II-12-c-2-IS). The size of the mean award at the one Canadian school was $1,093 ($699 USD) compared to a mean of $8,429 at the four US public universities and $17,641 at the two US private universities.

 

            The figures in Table II-12-c-3 for “other master’s” is informative in that six of the 15 schools (40 percent) did not report any assistantship aid for students pursuing these degrees. That form of assistance is even more scarce for students pursuing the post-master’s degree. Only five of the 28 schools (17.9 percent) that have post-master’s enrollment (Table II-12-c-4) indicate that they provided assistantship aid to these students in Fall 2001. This low percentage of assistantship aid for post-master’s students is identical to that report for Fall 2000.

 

            Table II-12-c-5 reports the number and value of assistantships awarded doctoral students enrolled in Fall 2001. There continues to be a difference in the mean number of assistantships awarded by Canadian versus US universities (7.5 and 10.2 respectively) although the number for both increase over that reported for Fall 2000. That difference is more extreme in terms of the average size of an assistantship award -- $3,423 Canadian ($2,190 USD) vs. $27,044 for the US. There are differences in the average number of assistantships awarded to doctoral students at US public and private universities (10.5 vs. 7.5 respectively). There is also a $2,100 difference in the value of an average award between the two types of universities -- $27,792 public vs. $17,618 private. Overall US public universities witnessed a tremendous increase (144 percent) in the amount of funds allocated to assistantships for doctoral students. This compares to an increase of 15.2 percent for US private universities 24.9 percent for Canadian. These increases in assistantship funding by US universities helps offset the decline in fellowship and scholarship aid available to doctoral students.

 

Tuition and Fees  (Table II-13)

 

            Tuition and fee data for the 2001 fall term were requested.  These data included

 

·         Total cost of a degree obtained without transfer credit

·         Cost of tuition only for one credit

 

In reporting fees schools were asked not to include those fees associated with individual courses or labs. Data were requested separately for in-state/in-province and out-of-state/out-of-province students for each of the six degrees defined for Table II-1.

 

            Given the difference in the value of the Canadian and US dollars, separate means are provided for Canadian and US schools. In comparing Canadian and US figures it may be convenient to use the exchange rate given in the footnote below. [12]   Differences between in-state and out-of-state charges are valid only for public universities in the United States. Private universities charge the same fee regardless of residency status. [13]

 

            Table II-13-c-2-LS presents the full degree costs and tuition for one-credit for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree. As expected, the cost for the full degree in the US is generally higher at private schools with a mean cost of $23,382 [14] compared to $8,140 for in-state and $19,231 for out-of-state students at public universities The least expensive ALA-accredited master’s–LS programs at private universities are provided by Clark Atlanta ($17,896), Dominican ($18,720), and Long Island ($20,592). The most expensive are offered by Drexel ($29,580) and Catholic ($28,860). One might expect that the cost of obtaining an ALA-accredited master's degree at a private US university would be higher than at any of the 41 US public schools at an in-state tuition level. This expectation is true except in the case of Michigan where in state tuition and fees ($23,047) is very near the mean cost of a degree at a private university ($23,382).

 

            One public US university, Puerto Rico ($2,990), is able to offer the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree to its in-state students for under $4,000 in 2001. This compares to four schools that were able to do so in 2000. Seven schools can provide this degree to in-state residents for less than $5,000. In 2000 ten schools were able to do so. The most expensive programs for in-state students is at Michigan ($23,047). Pittsburgh follows at $15,564) but more than $7,400 less that Michigan. Rhode Island begins the next tier of higher cost in-state programs at $12,223.

 

            The cost of obtaining the Master’s–IS degree at Albany, Drexel, North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and Pittsburgh (Table II-13-c-2-IS) are identical with those for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS. However, at Indiana and Syracuse tuition and fees for the Master’s–IS are higher. Indiana’s cost for in state students of $8,016 is $1,145 higher than for the ALA-accredited master’s–LS while for out of state students the cost of $23,348 is $3,336 higher. At Syracuse the differential between the Master’s–IS and the ALA-accredited master’s–LS is $3,882.

 

            Out-of-state students are able to obtain the ALA-accredited master’s–LS degree for under $11,000 at three public US universities: Puerto Rico ($2,990), San Jose ($9,030), and Southern Mississippi ($10,303). Fourteen US public universities have out-of-state tuition and fees exceeding $20,000. Of these by far the highest costs are at Wisconsin – Madison ($38,437), and Michigan ($46,327). A total of five schools, Michigan, Wisconsin – Madison, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin – Milwaukee, and Washington have the cost of tuition and fees for out-of-state students that exceed $31,000. A figure well above the mean cost of this degree for both out-of-state students at public universities ($19,231) and students at private universities ($23,282). Viewed from the financial aspect only, it appears that private universities continue to be competitive for out-of-state students in their costs to degree with a number of public universities.

 

            Table II-13-c-5 provides tuition and fee information for the doctoral degree. Schools were requested to report only the cost for course work. The mean cost to an in-state doctoral student at a US public university is $13,307. The least expensive US public university programs for in-state doctoral students are provided by Florida State ($3,914), California – Los Angeles ($4,550), Texas Woman’s and Emporia ($6,069). In-state doctoral students encounter the highest cost to degree is at Illinois ($27,216). For out-of-state students, the doctoral programs with the lowest degree costs are at Florida State ($13,686), Emporia ($14,790) and California – Los Angeles ($15,440). Four other schools have doctoral programs with cost to degree under $20,000: Texas, Rutgers, Texas Woman’s, and Albany. The most expensive programs for out-of-state doctoral students is at Washington ($59,064) followed closely by Illinois ($58,752) and Tennessee ($57,942). The costs at these three schools are well above the out-of-state mean for US public universities ($32,495).

 

            Doctoral programs at private US schools are considerably more expensive than similar programs at most public universities. Only four of the 28 doctoral programs in the US are offered by private universities (Drexel, Long Island, Simmons, and Syracuse). Their mean cost to degree is $35,879, with a range from $23,868 (Simmons) to $50,466 (Syracuse).

 


| Table of Contents | List of Tables |Previous Chapter | Next Chapter |

 

 

 



[1]   55 of the 56 schools offer the ALA-accredited master's - LS. Montréal offers only the Master's - IS at the master's degree level.

[2]   For ease of reading the following terms are used in this chapter: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian.

[3]   The total enrollment figure of 20,033 in Table II-4-a includes data reported by the 6 of the 7 Canadian schools that did not report ethnic data. Only Montréal elected to provide those data. In calculating percentages in this paragraph the data of the other 6 schools were not included. Thus a divisor of 18,969 was used in the calculation rather than the total enrollment of 20,033.

[4]   U. S. Census Bureau. United States Census 2000. Population and Housing Tables (PHC-T Series). Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/tablist.html

[5]   The total enrollment figure of 3,121 in Table II-4-c-1 includes data reported by the 1 Canadian school offering the bachelor's degree, Dalhousie. It did not, however, report ethnic data. In calculating percentages in this paragraph its data were not included. Thus a divisor of 2,993 was used in the calculation rather than the total bachelor's enrollment of 3,121.

[6]   The total enrollment figure of 14,043 in Table II-4-c-2 includes data reported by all 6 Canadian schools offering the ALA-accredited master's-LS degree. Those schools, however, did not report ethnic data. In calculating percentages in this paragraph those data were not included. Thus a divisor of 13,254 was used in the calculation rather than the total ALA-accredited master's-LS degree enrollment of 14,043.

[7]   The total enrollment figure of 753 in Table II-4-c-5 includes data reported by all 4 Canadian schools offering the doctoral degree. Three of these 4 , however, did not report ethnic data. Montréal was the sole school electing to report these data. In calculating percentages in this paragraph the data for the 2 schools not reporting were not included. Thus a divisor of 698 was used in the calculation rather than the total doctoral enrollment of 753.

[8]   Exchange Rate October 15, 2001: 1 US Dollar (USD) = 1.56340 Canadian Dollar (CAD) 

                                                 1 Canadian Dollar = 0.63963 US Dollar

[9]   The following nine universities were defined as private: Catholic, Clark Atlanta, Dominican, Drexel, Long Island, Pratt, St. John's, Simmons, and Syracuse. Some schools treated as public have a quasi public/private relationship. For the purposes of this report, if such a school had different tuition levels for in-state versus out-of-state students it was classified as a public university. When viewing this definition against the tuition and fee tables it would appear that one exception had been made for Catholic, which is clearly a private school but which does have a different tuition structure in the tables for "in-state" and "out-of-state." Although recorded this way in the tables those figures, as reported by Catholic, actually represent a difference in tuition structure for "on campus" and "off campus."

[10]   Exchange Rate October 15, 2001: 1 US Dollar (USD) = 1.56340 Canadian Dollar (CAD)  

                                                 1 Canadian Dollar = 0.63963 US Dollar

[11]   The following nine universities were defined as private: Catholic, Clark Atlanta, Dominican, Drexel, Long Island, Pratt, St. John's, Simmons, and Syracuse. Some schools treated as public have a quasi public/private relationship. For the purposes of this report, if such a school had different tuition levels for in-state versus out-of-state students it was classified as a public university. When viewing this definition against the tuition and fee tables it would appear that one exception had been made for Catholic, which is clearly a private school but which does have a different tuition structure in the tables for "in-state" and "out-of-state." Although recorded this way in the tables those figures, as reported by Catholic, actually represent a difference in tuition structure for "on campus" and "off campus."

[12]   Exchange Rate October 15, 2001: 1 US Dollar (USD) = 1.56340 Canadian Dollar (CAD)

                                                 1 Canadian Dollar = 0.63963 US Dollar

[13]   The following nine universities were defined as private: Catholic, Clark Atlanta, Dominican, Drexel, Long Island, Pratt, St. John's, Simmons, and Syracuse. Some schools treated as public have a quasi public/private relationship. For the purposes of this report, if such a school had different tuition levels for in-state versus out-of-state students it was classified as a public university. When viewing this definition against the tuition and fee tables it would appear that one exception had been made for Catholic, which is clearly a private school but which does have a different tuition structure in the tables for "in-state" and "out-of-state." Although recorded this way in the tables those figures, as reported by Catholic, actually represent a difference in tuition structure for "on campus" and "off campus."

[14]   The difference in the total and mean for private US universities is attributable to Catholic having different tuition and fees rate for on and off campus status which the school reports each year as in-state and out-of-state.