Jerry D. Saye
with the assistance of Wen-Chin Lan

[Editor's note]: For a complete listing of schools that submitted data for this year's report, please click the list of schools.  Also, for a complete listing of all the Student tables, please click the list of tables.  Note that the hot links in the text are to specific tables but that the hot link at the start of each section leads to the tables for that part.  One can then progress from one table to another in that part using the "Next Table" link.


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 Graduate" and "Other Undergraduate") 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.

Because data for similar data elements, e.g., enrollment by program level, international student enrollment, etc., were submitted by schools on separate tables, it is possible that some subtotals and totals may vary slightly from table to table due to differences in data supplied. To minimize this problem efforts were made to make these data agree, but it is recognized that it has not been totally removed from the tables that follow. In a few cases, editorial changes were made to tables to get agreement among tables. These editorial changes have been footnoted. This inconsistency should not cause major problems in that the numbers usually vary only slightly.

All schools that reported enrollment for a specific program level are included in all tables for that program regardless of whether data were reported. This approach was taken to make the tables more consistent and informative. Footnotes have been supplied indicating schools not included in totals and means.

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 more 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 school’s representative 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 ALA 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 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 might differ slightly from the data requested, footnotes have been liberally provided 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 1997 Fall term were requested for each of seven program levels:

  • ALA-Accredited Master’s
  • Other Master’s
  • Post-Master’s
  • Doctoral
  • Other Graduate
  • Bachelor’s
  • Other Undergraduate

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

ALA-Accredited Master's:  Include here only those students working toward a master's degree (library science or information science) 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."

Other Master's:  Include here those students working towards a master’s degree not accredited by ALA that are offered by the school, regardless of whether 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 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 on or off campus.

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

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

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

Schools were asked to provide separate counts for full-time and part-time students, differentiated by gender, as well as totals. For part-time students, FTE (Full Time Equivalent) figures were also requested as well as total FTE enrollment. The directions called for 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 four quarters, a student carrying three courses during the quarter should be counted as 1.00 FTE; a student carrying two courses during the quarter should be counted as 0.67 FTE (2/3 = 0.67). 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, an additional line on the questionnaire also asked for separate FTE data for off-campus students.

Table II-1-a-1 is a summary table presenting the number and percentage of full-time and part-time students, divided by gender, for each of the seven program levels as well as total enrollment figures. Additionally, the percentage of full-time versus part-time students is presented. ALA-accredited master’s programs account for the majority (66 percent) of ALA School enrollment. The total enrollment of 18,901 is down 1.6 percent from the 19,206 reported last year. Students in "other master’s" degree programs account for 6.6 percent of total enrollment. The growing number of schools offering a doctoral degree (27) report a total enrollment for those programs of 651 students or 3.4 percent. Post-master’s students comprise less than 1 percent of total enrollment while bachelor’s degree students are 4.3 percent.

All degree levels, except the bachelor’s degree, have the majority of students in a part-time status including about two-thirds of ALA-accredited master’s and "other master’s" degree students.

When distribution by gender is examined, females are found to comprise over three-quarters (79.1 percent) of ALA-accredited master’s enrollment. Gender distribution becomes more even for students in "other master’s" degree programs with 54.1 percent male enrollment. At the doctoral level the gender division shows females in the majority by slightly more than 15 percentage points.

Ten of the 56 ALA schools offer a bachelor’s degree. Table II-1-c-1a provides school-by-school enrollment figures. It shows that of the 809 students pursuing a bachelor’s degree 75.2 percent are enrolled in one of two schools: Syracuse (468) or Pittsburgh (140).

Table II-1-c-2a reports ALA-accredited master’s enrollment for each school. It illustrates the wide range of program sizes across the 56 ALA schools – from the four largest programs, San Jose (735), Kent State (485), Simmons (454), and Wayne State (445) to the five schools with fewer than 90 students: British Columbia (87), Clark Atlanta (82), St John’s (80), Southern Mississippi (78), and Dalhousie (75).

The distribution of full-time to part-time students also shows wide variation. Seven schools have more than three-fourths of their students in a full-time status (British Columbia, California – Los Angeles, Dalhousie, McGill, Montréal, North Carolina – Chapel Hill, Washington) with the highest percentage reported by McGill (93 percent). It is of note that all seven schools have two-year master’s programs. Twelve schools have more than 80 percent of their enrollment part-time (Catholic, Dominican, Drexel, Emporia, Long Island, North Carolina Central, North Carolina – Greensboro, Pratt, Queens, St. John’s, Simmons, , and Texas Woman’s). More than half of these schools are located in or near large metropolitan areas. The school with the highest percentage of part-time students is Queens (95.4 percent).

Seventeen ALA schools offer "other master’s" degrees in addition to the ALA-accredited master’s (Table II-1-c-3a). The mean enrollment figure of 73.8 students per school is heavily skewed by the large enrollments of three schools: Drexel (293), Pittsburgh (279), and Syracuse (219). The enrollment of these three schools is 63 percent of all "other master’s" enrollment. The other 14 schools have enrollments under 100 students with six schools having fewer than 20 students in their second master’s program.

Post-master’s programs historically have had relatively low enrollments and Table II-1-c-4a confirms that this trend continues. Of the 26 schools with a post-master’s program only two schools (Drexel (24) and Pittsburgh (16)) had more than 15 students in their program. The high percentage of part-time students in these programs (87.2 percent (Table II-1-c-4a)) brings the mean FTE for these programs (2.6) to very low levels (Table II-1-c-4b).

Nearly half (27) of the 56 ALA schools offer a doctoral program (Table II-1-c-5a). The 651 doctoral students are distributed unevenly across these schools. The doctoral program at Pittsburgh is by far the largest with 87 students followed by the programs at North Texas (65) and Rutgers (51). No other school has more than 37 students. Nearly half the schools have enrollments of less than 20. Although nearly half (44.9 percent) of all doctoral students are full-time, the distribution of full-time to part-time varies widely from school to school. Indeed, a few schools report all, or most, of their doctoral enrollment as full-time while for others the reverse is true. In some cases, individual school percentages are heavily impacted by small enrollments.

Table II-1-e provides the number of FTE off-campus students each ALA school had registered for the 1997 Fall term. Nearly two-thirds (36) of the schools had off-campus enrollment with several schools having a very sizeable off-campus student body. By far the largest off-campus program is at San Jose (258) followed by Indiana (134.4), Emporia (124), and Kent State (106.5). No other program had an off-campus FTE enrollment over 60. Five schools had off-campus enrollment of under ten FTE students. Twenty schools had no off-campus students. The total FTE off-campus enrollment is 1,450.9, a 16.8 percent decline from the 1,744.6 reported last year. The mean FTE is 25.9 students per school. When the mean is recalculated to include only those schools with some off-campus enrollment, the mean FTE figure rises to 40.3 students although this figure is skewed by the few schools with high off-campus enrollments.


Course Enrollments (Table II-2)

Schools were requested to report the number of students enrolled in courses or sections of courses during the 1997 Fall term. Enrollments were aggregated into increments of five students. Individual study and reading courses were not to be included in these counts.

Table II-2-a-1 reports course and section enrollment distributed across 11 enrollment groups for courses offered in Fall 1997 by each ALA school. The number of courses offered at schools ranged from 11 (Arizona) to 86 (Indiana) with a mean of 34 courses per school. Twelve schools (21.8 percent) offered fewer than 20 courses while ten schools (18.2 percent) offered more than 50 courses.

The majority of courses have enrollments of 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 students. These three course enrollment groups account for 50.8 percent of all courses offered. The total number of courses with enrollments of 41-45 and 46-50 students was relatively small (31 and 20 respectively) compared to the frequencies of other enrollment groups. Courses in these two enrollment groups accounted for only 2.8 percent of all courses offered. There are more courses (60) offered with a class size of more than 50 students compared to the number offered with 41-50 students (51). The questionnaire requested schools to comment on courses with enrollments over 50 students. From these comments (Table II-2-a-2) it becomes apparent that larger courses are often used to present core material.

As mentioned above, schools were asked not to include independent studies or individual reading courses in their submission of course enrollment data. Instead, they were asked 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 ALA school.


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 1996-97 academic year, including summer sessions, for five degree categories:

  • ALA-Accredited Master’s
  • Other Master’s
  • Post-Master’s
  • Doctoral
  • Bachelor’s

In supplying these data, schools were requested to report the number of degrees and certificates aggregated by 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.

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 were to be included in this category. Persons from Brazil, Guyana, Surinam, or Trinidad, for example, were to be classified according to their race and not necessarily included in the Hispanic category. Additionally, this category did not include persons from Portugal. These individuals 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 were not US (or Canadian for Canadian schools) citizens, permanent residents, or landed immigrants.


NA Students for whom ethnic information was not available.

Table II-3-a reports the number of degrees awarded at each program level distributed by gender and ethnic origin. A total of 5,710 bachelor’s, master’s, post-master’s, and doctoral degrees were awarded by ALA schools during 1996-97. Female graduates accounted for 74.7 percent of all degrees awarded. This male/female distribution varies considerably among the different degree programs. From a high of 88.2 percent of post-master’s degrees and 78.2 percent of ALA-accredited master’s degrees awarded to females, the percentage drops to 61.5, 44.2, and 40.4 percent for doctoral, "other master’s," and bachelor’s degrees respectively. It appears that the two degrees that have males as the majority of graduates ("other master’s" and bachelor’s) are those most likely to be associated with information science.

The figures in Table II-3-a also show that the graduates of programs offered by ALA schools continue to be predominately White (76.2 percent). Blacks are the next most represented ethnic group (4 percent) followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders (2.6 percent). Blacks accounted for 5.8 percent of the recipients of doctoral degrees and 5.0, 3.8 and 2.0 percent of "other master’s," ALA-accredited master’s, and post-master’s degrees respectively granted in 1996-97.

For each degree program the number of degrees and certificates awarded varied widely from school to school. For the nine schools that awarded bachelor’s degrees in 1996-97 (Table II-3-c-1) Syracuse (78) and Pittsburgh (76) conferred the majority (70.6 percent) of the 218 degrees conferred. Only Drexel (38) approached that level.

At the ALA-accredited master’s degree level (Table II-3-c-2) 5,068 degrees were awarded in 1996-97 compared to 5,271 in 1995-96, a 3.9 percent decline. Only one school awarded more than 200 degrees -- South Carolina (240). This contrasts with four schools awarding more than 200 degrees the previous year. Eight of the 56 schools awarded more than 150 degrees. Four schools conferred fewer than 40 degrees (Puerto Rico (12), Dalhousie (24), Alberta (29), and Clark Atlanta (39)) while 11 schools granter fewer than 50 degrees.

The 12 schools that awarded "other master’s" degrees varied widely in number of graduates (Table II-3-c-3). Pittsburgh (110), Syracuse (79), and Drexel (49) offered the majority (74.1 percent) of these "other master’s" degrees.

Post-master’s degree numbers (Table II-3-c-4) reflect the limited enrollment in these programs at the 16 schools offering them. The number of degrees awarded varied only slightly from school to school. Only four schools (North Carolina – Greensboro (10), Pittsburgh (8), Florida State (7), and South Carolina (6)) conferred more than three post-master’s degrees.

The number of doctoral degrees awarded ranged from 11 by Pittsburgh and 6 by Florida State to one at seven schools (Table II-3-c-5). The 52 doctoral degrees awarded by 18 schools in 1996-97 compares to 66 awarded by 14 schools in 1995-96.


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

Enrollment figures for the Fall 1997 term were requested for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1 divided by gender and ethnic origin using the ethnic origin classifications 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 addresses enrolled students. Table II-4-a reports on the number of students enrolled in ALA schools for each program level distributed by gender and ethnic categories. These figures show that students are predominately White (68 percent) with the 873 Blacks representing the next largest ethnic group (4.6 percent). It is uncertain whether the large number of students for whom no ethnic information was provided (3,415) had any effect on these percentages. That would depend upon whether the ethnic distribution of students at those schools that did not provide ethnic data is similar to those that did.

The ethnic distribution of students pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s degree is given for each school in Table II-4-c-2. For the 51 schools that reported ethnic data, the 9,759 White students constitute 83 percent of the students in those programs. Black (non-Hispanic) students make up 4.8 percent of that enrollment, roughly a third of the 12.1 percent of the 1998 US population estimated by the US Census Bureau to be Black. Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islanders (non-Hispanic) comprise 3 and 2.7 percent respectively of ALA-accredited master’s enrollment compared to their 11.1 and 3.6 percents respectively of the estimated 1998 US population. Based on the comparison of their percentage of the population to enrollment in ALA-accredited master’s programs, students of Hispanic origin are the most under-represented, followed by Blacks.

When the ethnic composition of each school’s ALA-accredited master’s enrollment is examined, some interesting distributions are evident. Schools with a higher number of Black students (more than 25) are limited to programs located in historically Black universities (Clark Atlanta and North Carolina Central) and in some, but not all, of the universities situated in large metropolitan areas (Catholic, Pratt, and Wayne State). Of these five schools Pratt has the highest Black enrollment (52) comprising 21.1 percent of its enrollment. There are four schools in the next tier of Black enrollment (between 20 and 30 Black students) -- Florida State, Louisiana State, Queens, and South Carolina. Seven of the 51 ALA schools (13.7 percent) reporting ethnic data indicated their Black student enrollment was either zero or one student. This is an improvement over the 21.6 percent reported last year. Figures for the 358 Hispanic students pursuing the ALA master’s degree are heavily skewed in that 33.8 percent (121) of those students are enrolled at Puerto Rico which reports having only Hispanic students. Following Puerto Rico, Texas (36) and San Jose (33) are the schools that have the largest Hispanic enrollments. Three other schools (Pratt, Queens, and South Florida) have more than 15 Hispanic students each. Only one other school (Florida State with 11) reports having more than 7 Hispanic students. There are 12 schools with no Hispanic enrollment and another 11 with only one Hispanic student each. Taken together these 23 schools are 45.1 percent of the schools reporting ethnic data.

Obtaining a meaningful analysis of the ethnic distribution of "other master’s" students (Table II-4-c-3 ) is difficult due to the high percentage of students for whom ethnic data are not available for this degree level. Although both ALA-accredited master’s enrollment figures and doctoral enrollment are influenced slightly by "NA" figures (8.5 percent and 6 percent respectively), these "NA" "other master’s" students are 29.1 percent of the students in this degree program. Accordingly, any percentages for "other master’s" ethnic groups would be greatly influenced by whether the "NA" students are, in fact, distributed at the same proportions as those for whom ethnic data has been reported.

The ethnic distribution of post-master’s students (Table II-4-c-4) parallels that of the ALA-accredited master’s degree students with 79.2 percent of the post-master’s students White.

At the doctoral level (Table II-4-c-5) the 378 White students constitute 58.1 percent of doctoral student enrollment. The lower percentage of White student enrollment at this level is not accounted for by increased enrollment of other US ethnic groups, but rather by the 24.6 percent of doctoral students who are international students. The 35 Black students comprise 5.4 percent of doctoral enrollment, Asian or Pacific Islanders 2.8 percent, and Hispanics 2.6 percent. Overall, the involvement of non-White ethnic groups is minimal at the doctoral level. As was the case with the ALA-accredited master’s degree, the distribution of non-white ethnic groups among the 23 schools with doctoral programs reporting ethnic enrollment data is uneven. Pittsburgh with nine students has the largest enrollment of Black doctoral students. The schools with the next highest Black doctoral enrollment are Rutgers (6) and Florida State (5) . No other school had more than two Black doctoral students. Seven schools report enrollment of only one Black doctoral student while nine schools report none. North Texas enrolls 41.2 percent of the 17 Hispanic doctoral students at ALA schools. Two other schools (Texas and Arizona) have two Hispanic doctoral students with the remaining 20 schools reporting either zero or one student.


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 1997 term according to their in-state/in-province and out-of-state/out-of-province status for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1.

Tables II-5-c-1 to II-5-c-7 report enrollments for each program level on a school-by-school basis. At the bachelor’s degree level (Table II-5-c-1) information is less than ideal because one of the two schools with the largest bachelor’s programs (Syracuse) did not identify the geographic origin of their bachelor’s students. Those students account for 56.7 percent of all students in bachelor’s programs at the ten schools. For the remaining eight schools reporting residency status, 93.5 percent of their bachelor’s degree students are from in-state.

At the ALA-accredited master’s degree level (Table II-5-c-2) the data reveal the local or regional nature of the enrollment at most schools. For the 51 schools that reported the requested data, 80.4 percent of their students are from in-state/in-province. Only two schools report more than half of their ALA-accredited master’s students are from out-of-state (Rhode Island, 55.5 percent and Emporia, 51.2 percent). Three additional schools (Dalhousie, Kentucky, and Tennessee) indicate that at least 40 percent of their students are from out-of-state/out-of-province. Thirteen schools have less than 10 percent of their ALA-accredited master’s enrollment from out-of-state including Puerto Rico, and St. John’s who report no out-of-state students.

A similar high percentage of in-state/in-province enrollment (86.2 percent) exists for post-master’s degree programs (Table II-5-c-4). The percentage of in-state "other master’s" students is lower (69.1 percent) than it is for either ALA-accredited master’s or post-master’s (Table II-5-c-3).

At the doctoral level (Table II-5-c-5) the percentage of students in an in-state/in-province status is also somewhat lower (59.1 percent). For the doctoral degree, of the 22 schools that provided data, six schools (Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin – Madison) have at least 50 percent of their enrollment from out-of-state while a total of 10 schools have at least 40 percent of their doctoral students in that status. Five schools report less than 20 percent of their doctoral students are from out-of-state/out-of-province with three (British Columbia, Tennessee, and Wisconsin – Milwaukee) having no students in that category.


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 1997 term for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1.

The 714 international students at all program levels, when compared against the enrollment figures reported in Table II-1, constitute 3.6 percent of students attending the 56 ALA schools. These 714 students represent a 15.1 percent decline from the 841 international students reported for 1996. When individual program levels are examined, ALA-accredited master’s programs are found to have 2.5 percent of their students from other countries. A major change in international student demographics occurs with other program levels. The 143 international students pursuing "other master’s" degrees constitute 11.4 percent of that enrollment. This increased presence of international students is even more pronounced at the doctoral level where the 160 international students comprise nearly a quarter (24.6 percent) of doctoral student enrollment. It is only at the doctoral level where international student enrollment decline does not occur. In 1997 both the number of international doctoral students and their percentage of doctoral student enrollment actually rose from that of 1996. In contrast the post-master’s program experienced the greatest decline. In 1996 there were 38 international students in these programs compared to 7 in 1997, an 81.6 percent decline, resulting in those student now constituting only 4.7 percent of post-master’s enrollment compared to 19 percent last year. To date, international participation in the limited number of LIS bachelor’s degree programs is almost non-existent with only 5 international students enrolled in them.


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

For Table II-7 schools were asked to report the country of origin of their international students enrollment for the 1997 Fall term for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1.

These data are arranged first by continent then sub-arranged alphabetically by name of the country (Table II-7-a). Asia, covering 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 at ALA schools represent all continents except Antarctica. Asia is the continent that accounts for the majority of international students, providing nearly three-fourths (71.4 percent). When the regions of Asia are examined, the Far East/Southeast Asia region is found to contribute the greatest percentage of international students (50.7 percent). South Asia is a distant second with 13.9 percent. South America continues to have minimal representation in LIS programs with only 2.4 percent. Equally small is Africa with 3.9 percent.

While some variation in enrollment of individual countries is always expected, the rather precipitous decline in international student enrollment from that of 1996 seems unusual. An examination of the 1997 enrollment data with that of 1996 reveals that the decline is not uniform. While enrollment from all continents declined, the change in enrollments from Asian countries overall is most noticeable -- declining 13.9 percent in this one year period. This change can be accounted for primarily by enrollment from several Asian countries. The number of students from Hong Kong decreased by 76.5 percent; Malaysia, 62.5 percent; and Taiwan, 35.3 percent. While the decrease in Taiwanese enrollment isn’t as severe in its percentage as that of Hong Kong and Malaysia, the large number of students from Taiwan results in that country contributing 43.9 percent of the total reduction in Asian student enrollment. While other countries also saw dramatic percentage declines, including Singapore (75 percent), Germany and the United Kingdom (53.3 percent), their enrollment numbers are relatively small thus not contributing much to the total decline. India was an exception this year seeing the number of international students from that country rising 16.7 percent.

When the number of students from individual countries is examined, it becomes readily apparent that China and India are the countries providing the greatest number of students (132 and 84 respectively). Two other countries, South Korea and Taiwan with 67 and 66 students from each, form the next tier of countries of origin. Combined these four countries contribute nearly half (48.9 percent) of all international student enrollment. Although China provides by far the most students pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s degree (63), China and Taiwan are nearly equal in the number of students of their students enrolled in "other master’s" programs (33 and 31 respectively). South Korea provides more doctoral students (35) followed closely by China (31). No other country sends more than 14 doctoral students.


Enrollment by Age and Gender (Table II-8)

For Table II-8 schools were asked to report Fall 1997 enrollment divided by gender across nine age groups for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1.

Table II-8-a provides a summary for all program levels by age group and gender. Although the data in this table are incomplete due to the rather large number of schools that were unable to provide age data (21.6 percent of the students could not be classified by age), they nonetheless provide some insight into the age distribution of students at ALA schools. For the ALA-accredited master’s (Table II-8-c-2) and "other master’s" (Table II-8-c-3) programs, the 25-29 age group by far has the greatest number of students. The 40-44 and 45-49 age groups have the most post-master’s students (Table II-8-c-4), although these students are distributed rather evenly across the 30-54 age range. There are differences, however, when the age group frequencies are examined by gender.

Overall, doctoral students (Table II-8-c-5) are quite evenly divided among the four age groups for ages 30-49 with the highest frequency in the 35-39 age group. When viewed by gender, however, male doctoral students appear to be generally younger. The 35-39 age group has the highest frequency for female doctoral students followed closely by the 45-49 and 40-44 age groups. Males, however, have their highest frequency in the 30-34 age group followed by the 35-39 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 1996-97 were requested for each of the seven program levels 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 but awards (including assistantships and work/study) made by outside sources directly to the student were to be excluded.

Given the difference in the value of the Canadian and US dollars, separate means are provided for Canadian and US schools. Similarly, with the costs associated with enrolling in 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 be different. Accordingly, for US schools, separate means are reported for public and private universities as well as a combined mean.

Table II-11-a provides a summary of aid awarded for each of the seven program levels for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The total value of awards, $6,463,060, represents a 12.5 percent increase in funding over that reported last year. Given the heavy investment schools make in their doctoral programs, it should come as no surprise that nearly a third (30.1 percent) of all aid awarded goes to doctoral students even though they account for a far lower percentage of students in ALA schools (3.3 percent of all students; 4.2 percent of all degree seeking students). The average doctoral award is $12,326, up 19.4 percent from last year. This compares to an average $3,602 for ALA-accredited master’s program students and $1938 for "other master’s" students. The ALA-accredited master’s average increased 6.6% over last year while the average award to "other master’s" students declined a precipitous 59.3 percent. This latter decline is not due to a decrease in total dollars awarded, that actually rose 23.3 percent, but rather a tripling of the number of students receiving awards (37 vs. 112). The nearly $1,664 difference in size of the average awards for the two master’s programs is notable.

Table II-11-c-2 reports scholarship and fellowship aid for the ALA-accredited master’s degree. The mean number of awards given by Canadian and US schools is very similar (24.8 vs. 20.8 respectively). The mean amount awarded is $11.334 more per Canadian school. This is a reversal from 1995-96 when U.S. awarded on average $2,500 more than Canadian schools. The most notable difference in the mean figures on this table is the mean number of awards given by private US universities (33.3) versus public (18.3). The higher cost of private school education likely necessitates funding a greater number of students per school. Although the mean number of dollars used to fund scholarships and fellowships is $22,096 more per private school, when evaluated against the number awarded per school, the value of an average award at a US private university is $1,098 less than at a US public university ($2,812 versus $3,910).

The figures in Table II-11-c-3 for Other Master’s is perhaps most informative for the number of schools that did not report any scholarship or fellowship aid for students pursuing these degrees. Only seven of 17 schools reporting enrollment in these programs (41.2 percent) indicate any funding for these students.

Financial support of post-master students appears to be even more severely limited than that given to "other master’s" student with only five of the 26 schools (19.2 percent) with a post-masters program indicating that they provide scholarship or fellowship support (Table II-11-c-4).

Table II-11-c-5 reports on scholarship and fellowship aid for doctoral students. The most notable difference in the mean figures on this table is the mean number of awards given by Canadian universities (11) versus US (8.5) despite. Although the average number of awards given by Canadian universities is higher, the value of the average Canadian award is $5,607 less than that given by a US university. A doctoral student at a Canadian university receives an average award of $9,382 compared to $12,801 for the average doctoral award at a US university. The average size of an scholarship or fellowship award from a private US university is slightly higher ($700) than a similar award at a public university, a difference likely greatly offset by the higher average cost of the degree from a private university.


Assistantships (Table II-12)

Fall 1997 data were requested for the number and value of assistantships awarded by each school, divided by the gender of the awardee, using the program level definitions of Table II-1.

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.

Table II-12-a provides a summary of assistantships awarded for each of the seven program levels. The total value of awards, $9,296,103, represents a 29.5 percent increase in funding over that reported last year. Unlike scholarship and fellowship aid where doctoral students received nearly a third of that aid, doctoral students account for only 15.8 percent of assistantship funding. Also, unlike scholarship and fellowship aid where the average size of a doctoral award is more than three times the size of the average award made to an student in an ALA-accredited master’s program, the average doctoral assistantship is only $3,236 more than the average ALA-accredited master’s program assistantship ($11,879 versus $8,643 respectively). This would appear to indicate a pattern of making more sizeable awards to doctoral students in the form of scholarships and fellowships rather than through assistantships. It is also noteworthy that the mean value of an assistantship given to an "other master’s" student is $10,031-- $1.388 more than the value of an average award given to the ALA–accredited master’s program student, although a far smaller difference than the $5,917 reported last year. A similar mean figure ($15,237) exists for post-master’s students. These two figures may be heavily skewed, however, given the number of schools that did not report Other Master’s (9 of 17) or Post-Master’s (22 of 26) assistantship funding but did report enrollments in these programs.

Table II-12-c-2 reports assistantships awarded to students in ALA-accredited master’s degree programs. The mean number of awards given by Canadian and US schools is quite different (7.7 vs. 19.3 respectively), unlike the nearly equal mean number of awards for scholarships and fellowships (24.8 vs. 20.8 respectively). Table II-11-c-2 reported that scholarships and fellowships were awarded at a far higher number by US private schools compared to US public schools (mean 33.3 vs. 18.3). The reverse is true for assistantships where US public universities awarded an average of 21.6 assistantships per school compared to 8.4 by US private schools. Although the mean figures for scholarships/fellowships and assistantships is higher this year than last, this pattern has been present both years. The mean value of an assistantship awarded by a Canadian school is $1,855 compared to $8,992 for US schools ($8,918 public; $9,632 private).

The figures in Table II-12-c-3 for "other master’s" degrees, as was the case with scholarship and fellowship aid, is perhaps informative for the number of schools that did not report any assistantship funding. Only eight of 17 schools (47 percent) that reported enrollment for this degree indicated any funding for these students.

Similarly, as was the case for scholarship and fellowship aid, assistantship support of post-master students is extremely limited with only four of the 26 schools (15.4 percent) that have a post-master’s program indicating they provide assistantships (Table II-12-c-4).

Table II-12-c-5 reports the number and value of assistantships awarded doctoral students. Although the mean number of assistantships awarded by Canadian and US universities is nearly equal (6.0 and 6.2 respectively), the value of the average assistantship at a Canadian school is considerably lower -- $2,682 compared to $12,911 at US schools. This is a considerable difference compared to that of 1996 of $3,925 for Canadian and $9,272 for US schools. There is also a sizeable difference in the value of assistantships between US public and private universities. Doctoral assistantships at US public universities average $12,530 contrasted with similar awards at private universities averaging $19,610. This difference between public and private assistantship funding is similar to that observed for doctoral scholarships and fellowships.


Tuition and Fees (Table II-13)

Tuition and fee data for the 1997 Fall term were requested. These data included

  • total cost of a degree obtained without transfer credit
  • cost of tuition for only one credit

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

Table II-13-c-2 presents the full degree and one-credit costs for the ALA-accredited master’s degree. 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. As expected, the cost for the degree in the US is generally higher at private schools with a mean cost of $19,569 compared to $5,820 for in-state and $14,324 for out-of-state students at public universities The least expensive ALA-accredited master’s programs at private universities are provided by Clark Atlanta ($13,752), Dominican ($16,020), and Long Island ($16,452). The most expensive are offered by Drexel ($24,360) and Catholic ($24,682).

Eight schools (Arizona, North Carolina Central, North Carolina – Greensboro, Puerto Rico, Southern Mississippi, Texas Woman’s, Washington, and Wisconsin – Madison,) are able to offer the ALA-accredited master’s degree to in-state students for under $3,500. All eight are well below the mean in-state cost for that degree at a public US university ($5,820). The most expensive programs for in-state students are at Michigan ($19,264), Pittsburgh ($12,128), and Maryland ($10,378).

Out-of-state students are able to obtain the ALA-accredited master’s degree for under $10,000 at seven schools (Buffalo, North Carolina Central, Oklahoma, Queens, Southern Mississippi, Washington, and Wisconsin – Madison). Public universities that have out-of-state tuition and fees exceeding $20,000 are California – Los Angeles, Michigan, North Carolina – Chapel Hill, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin – Milwaukee. Of these, Michigan’s cost of $39,076 is more than $12,000 higher than the next most expensive – and well above the mean cost of this degree for both out-of-state students at public universities ($14,324) and students at private universities ($19,569).

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 $10,495. The least expensive programs for in-state doctoral students are provided by Arizona ($3,087) and Texas Woman’s ($4,043). In-state doctoral students encounter the highest cost to degree is at Michigan ($35,124). That figure is more than $12,000 higher than the cost at the next most expensive program (Pittsburgh, $22,246). For out-of-state students, the doctoral program with the lowest degree costs are at Emporia ($12,750) and Texas (12,708). Three other schools (Alabama, Arizona and Texas Woman’s) have degree costs in the $13,000 range. The most expensive programs for out-of-state doctoral students are at Michigan (64,842) and Pittsburgh ($62,078). These costs are well above the out-of-state mean for US public universities ($25,849) and more than $23,000 higher than the next most expensive doctoral program (Indiana, $38,543).

Again, 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. Their mean cost is $28,322, with a range from $20,247 at Simmons to $41,262 at Syracuse.