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. To view the questionnaire used to gather data for this chapter, please click the questionnaire.

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.

This year's report includes several tables that are new.  Previously, most tables were specific to individual educational program and then reported school-by-school. The new tables provide school-by-school data across the different educational programs within the context of the focus of that particular table, i.e., enrollment figures, racial and ethnic distribution, scholarships awards, etc. 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.

All 56 ALA schools participated in the survey (7 Canadian and 49 US).  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 in all but a few instances. In the latter situations a footnote to the table has been used to indicate the schools with enrollment who did not report data. Also, 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 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 1998 Fall term were requested for each of eight program levels:

  • Bachelor’s
  • ALA-Accredited Master’s -- Library Science
  • ALA-Accredited Master’s -- Information Science
  • Other Master’s
  • Post-Master’s
  • Doctoral
  • Other Graduate
  • 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:

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.”

ALA-Accredited Master's -- Information Science: Include here only those students working towards a separate master's degree in information science accredited by ALA, regardless of whether offered on or off campus. Students workings towards an information science degree not accredited by ALA should be reported as “Other Master’s.” 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 offered by the 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.

Although the questionnaire was designed to collect data separately for ALA-accredited master's in library science and ALA-accredited master's in information science degrees, only one school provided data that could be used. Several schools did report data for ALA-accredited master's -- information science but later changed their data submission when they found that those data had been reported erroneously. This resulted in the one school reporting for the accredited IS master's category. Accordingly, in the interest of simplicity of reporting, all ALA-accredited master's data, whether LS or IS, were reported under "ALA Accredited Master's" rather than differentiated. In subsequent sections of the report mention will be made of data being requested for five program levels in order to have that statement agree with the tables that follow, although in reality data for six program levels had been originally sought.

Schools were requested to provide totals as well as 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 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. The total enrollment of 19,984 is up 5.7 percent over the 18,901 reported last year and 4.1 percent over the 19,206 reported for Fall 1996. ALA-accredited master’s programs account for the majority (64.1 percent) of ALA School enrollment. Students in “other master’s” degree programs account for 6.9 percent of total enrollment.  The growing number of schools offering a doctoral degree (27) report a total enrollment for those programs of 693 students or 3.5 percent of total enrollment. Post-master’s students comprise less than 0.6 percent of total enrollment while bachelor’s degree students comprise 7.6 percent. The sizable change in enrollment for the bachelor's degree in 1998 (1,516) compared to the 809 students reported for 1997 is due in part to an increase in the number of students in these programs but is also attributable to a reporting error for 1997 and 1996.  In those years the bachelor's enrollment at Drexel had been erroneously reported under "other undergraduate."  When this error became known Drexel later reported a correction for those years.  Drexel's enrollment for 1997 of 367 bachelor's students when added to the previously reported total resulted in a corrected total enrollment of 1,176.  Using this corrected figure the 1998 enrollment still represents a 28.9 percent increase.  Much of this increase is the result of the 112.5 percent rise in the bachelor's degree program at Florida State.

All degree levels, except the bachelor’s degree, have the majority of their students in a part-time status.  This includes more than two-thirds of all ALA-accredited master’s (69.9 percent) and “other master’s” (69.1 percent) degree students. Doctoral programs come closest to an even distribution between full-time and part-time with 53.4 percent in a part-time status.

When distribution by gender is examined, females are found to comprise over three-quarters (78.6 percent) of ALA-accredited master’s enrollment.  Gender distribution becomes more even for students in “other master’s” degree programs with 52 percent male enrollment. At the doctoral level the gender division shows females continue in the majority by 13.4 percentage points.

Eleven 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 1,516 students pursuing a bachelor’s degree 64.8 percent are enrolled at one of two schools: Syracuse (528) or Drexel (455). The four schools with the highest enrollments for the bachelor's degree (Syracuse, Drexel, Florida State, and Pittsburgh) account for 90.2 percent of all enrollment at this level.

Table II-1-c-2a reports ALA-accredited master’s enrollment (number) for each school. It illustrates the wide range of program sizes across the 56 ALA schools – from the five largest programs, San Jose (562), Kent State (512), Dominican (465), Florida State (455), and Simmons (452) to the six schools with fewer than 90 students: Hawaii (89), British Columbia (88), St. John’s (84), Clark Atlanta (69), Dalhousie (59) and, Southern Mississippi (56).

The distribution of full-time to part-time students reported in that table also shows wide variation among the schools. Four schools have more than three-fourths of their students in a full-time status (Montréal (90.4), Dalhousie (84.7), McGill (82.9), and, North Carolina – Chapel Hill (78.4) Four others schools approach that level Western Ontario (73.7), California – Los Angeles (71.7), British Columbia (69.3), and Michigan (69.0). It is of note that all eight schools with the highest percentage of full-time enrollment have two-year master’s programs although they do not represent all schools with two year programs. Nineteen schools (33.9 percent) have more than 80 percent of their ALA-accredited master's enrollment as part-time. The schools with the highest percentage of part-time enrollment are Queens (95.1), Long Island (94.8), San Jose (94.7), St. John's (92.9), North Carolina – Greensboro (92.8), and Missouri (91.4).

The variation in full-time versus part-time enrollment can have a noticeable impact on the size of enrollment when that enrollment is viewed in terms of FTE (Full-Time Equivalent). When viewed from that perspective who the largest schools are changes considerably. The program with the largest ALA-accredited master's enrollment in terms of FTE is Kent State (324.5) followed by Texas (314.9), South Carolina (258.6), San Jose (255) and Indiana (251.3). The six smallest programs in terms of FTE reside at Clarion (59.8), Hawaii (56.3), Clark Atlanta (53.7), Dalhousie (53), Southern Mississippi (41.4), and St. John's (41.1).

Fifteen ALA schools report enrollment for “other master’s” degrees in addition to their ALA-accredited master’s (Table II-1-c-3a).  The mean enrollment figure of 91.8 students per school is heavily skewed by the large enrollments of three schools: Drexel (327), Pittsburgh (286), and Syracuse (232).  The enrollment of these three schools constitutes 61.4 percent of all “other master’s” enrollment. Except for Indiana (121) the other 11 ALA schools offering the "other master's" have enrollments under 100 students with four schools reporting fewer than 20 students (Albany (18), Southern Connecticut (15), Alabama (9), and Southern Mississippi (8)).

Post-master’s programs historically have had relatively low enrollments and Table II-1-c-4a confirms that this continues.  Of the 26 schools reporting enrollment in a post-master’s program only two schools (Florida State (21) and (Drexel (14)) had more than 10 students in their programs. The high percentage of part-time students in these programs (77.1 percent (Table II-1-c-4a)) results in the mean FTE for these programs (2.3) being very low (Table II-1-c-4b). Nearly half (27) of the 56 ALA schools offer a doctoral program (Table II-1-c-5a). The 693 doctoral students enrolled in these programs in Fall 1998 represent a 6.5 percent increase in doctoral student enrollment in Fall 1997. These doctoral students are distributed quite unevenly across these schools. The doctoral program at Pittsburgh is by far the largest with 90 students followed by the programs at North Texas (68) and Florida State (55). No other school has more than 50 doctoral students. Nearly half the schools (12) have enrollments of less than 20 students.Although nearly half (46.6 percent) of all doctoral students are full-time, this 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 influenced by small enrollments.

Table II-1-e provides the number of FTE off-campus students each ALA school had registered for the 1998 Fall term. Nearly two-thirds (36) of the schools had off-campus enrollment with several schools having a very sizable off-campus enrollment. By far the largest off-campus program is at South Carolina (198.4) followed by Emporia (137), Indiana (119.5), South Florida (111) Arizona (102.9), Florida State (100), and Wayne State (97). No other program had an off-campus FTE enrollment over 60. Seven schools had off-campus enrollment of less than ten FTE students. Twenty schools reported they had no off-campus students or elected not to report these data. The total FTE off-campus enrollment of 1612.6 represents an increase of 11.1 percent over Fall 1997 enrollment and offsets considerably the decline in enrollment from the 1744.6 reported for Fall 1996. When the mean is calculated to include only those schools with some off-campus enrollment, the mean enrollment is 44.8 FTE students although that 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 1998 Fall term. Enrollments were reported in increments of five students. It was requested that individual study and reading courses 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 1998 by each ALA school.  The number of courses offered that term ranged from 10 (Arizona) to 84 (Indiana) with a mean of 34.6 courses offered per school. Ten schools (17.9 percent) offered less than 20 courses that term while nine schools (16.1 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 50.9 percent of all courses offered. The total number of courses with enrollments of 36-40, 41-45 and 46-50 students was relatively small (44, 40 and 29 respectively) when compared to the frequencies of other enrollment groups, although these numbers do reflect approximately a 30 percent increase in the number of courses offered in these larger enrollment ranges.  Despite this increases courses offered in these two larger enrollment groups accounted for only 5.8 percent of all courses offered. This compares to 57 courses offered with a class size of more than 50 students. 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, distance education or undergraduate courses.

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. This table reveals the wide variation in the number offered from one each at Clarion, Dominican and Pratt to 108 at San Jose.

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 1997-98 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.

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

Table II-3-a reports the number of degrees awarded at each program level distributed by gender and ethnic origin. A total of 5,835 bachelor’s, master’s, post-master’s, and doctoral degrees were awarded by ALA schools during 1997-98. Female graduates accounted for 73.7 percent of all degrees awarded. This male/female distribution varies considerably among the different degree programs by percentage, with females in the majority for three of the five degree programs.  From a high of 78.2 percent of ALA-accredited master’s degrees awarded to females, their percentage drops to 74.6 and 73.5 percent for the doctoral and post-master's degrees respectively.  The two degrees that have males as the majority of their graduates (“other master’s” (57.8) and bachelor’s (58.9)) are those most likely to be associated with information science content.

The figures in Table II-3-a also demonstrate that the graduates of programs offered by ALA schools continue to be predominately White (76.3 percent).  Blacks are the next most represented ethnic group (4.4 percent) followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders (3.0 percent) and persons of Hispanic origin (2.1). Blacks accounted for 11.1 percent of the recipients of doctoral degrees and 5.9, 5.1, and 4.0 percent of post-master’s, “other master’s,” and ALA-accredited master’s degrees respectively granted in 1997-98.

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 1997-98 (Table II-3-c-1) Syracuse (87) and Pittsburgh (76) conferred more than half (58.2 percent) of the 280 degrees conferred.  Only Drexel (58) and Florida State (31) approached that level.  None of the other schools had more than seven graduates of their bachelor's program.

At the ALA-accredited master’s degree level (Table II-3-c-2) 5,024 degrees were awarded in 1997-98 compared to 5,068 in 1996-97, continuing the decline previously noted for 1995-96.  Only one school awarded 200 degrees -- Simmons (200). This contrasts with one school (South Carolina) awarding 240 degrees in 1996-97 and four schools awarding more than 200 degrees in 1995-96. In 1997-98 an additional four schools awarded more than 150 degrees: Florida State (161), Indiana (158), Texas (156) and Kent State (153). Five schools conferred less than 40 degrees (British Columbia (38), Alberta (36), Dalhousie (35), St. John's (35), and Puerto Rico (18)) while an additional nine granted between 40 and 50 degrees.

The 13 schools that awarded the 434 “other master’s” degrees varied widely in the number of graduates (Table II-3-c-3). Pittsburgh (123) had by far the most graduates followed by Syracuse (87), and Drexel (81). These three schools conferred the majority (67.1 percent) of the “other master’s” degrees. Five schools conferred less than ten "other master's" degrees (NC Central (8), NC Greensboro (6), Alabama (3), Southern Connecticut (3), and Albany (1)).

Post-master’s degree numbers (Table II-3-c-4) reflect the limited enrollment in these programs at the 15 schools offering them. The number of degrees awarded varied only slightly from school to school.   Only two schools (South Carolina (6) and Pittsburgh (5)) conferred more than three post-master’s degrees. Sixty-three doctoral degrees were conferred by twenty schools during 1997-98. This figure is up from the 52 doctoral degrees awarded in 1996-97. The number of degrees awarded ranged from 6 by Florida State and Rutgers to one at three schools (Table II-3-c-5).

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

Enrollment figures for the 1998 Fall 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 origin categories. These figures show that students are predominately White (69.6 percent) with the 1057 Black students representing the next largest ethnic group (5.3 percent) which compares to 4.6 percent in Fall 1997. While a relatively small percentage increase it is sizable for one year and reflects the 21.1 percent increase in Black enrollment in Fall 1998. It is uncertain whether the large number of students for whom no ethnic information was provided (2,971) 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.

Enrollment at the bachelor's degree (Table II-4-c-1) represents the most even distribution of students across the different ethnic categories.  At the 11 schools offering a bachelor's degree White students constitute 67.7 percent of the enrollment followed by Black students with 11.1 percent. Asian or Pacific Islanders comprise an additional 7.2 percent of enrollment for this degree with Hispanic students 3.6 percent. Except for Hispanic enrollment these percentages come the closets to reflecting the distributions of these different ethnic groups in the US population. Those estimated figures are presented in the next paragraph which addresses ALA-accredited master's enrollment.

The ethnic distribution of students pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s degree is presented for each school in Table II-4-c-2. For the 5150 schools that reported ethnic data, the 9,682 White (non Hispanic) students constitute 79.9 percent of the students in those programs1. Black (non-Hispanic) students make up 4.9 percent of that enrollment, roughly a two-fifths of their 12.1 percent of the November 1, 1998 US population estimated by the US Census Bureau2 to be Black. Hispanic students of any race and Asian or Pacific Islanders (non-Hispanic) comprise 3.2 and 2.3 percent respectively of ALA-accredited master’s enrollment compared to their 11.4 and 3.7 percents respectively of the estimated November 1, 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 continue to be 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 at historically Black universities and in, a number of instances, at  universities situated in large metropolitan areas .  (Pratt has the highest Black enrollment (67) comprising 24.5 percent of its ALA-accredited master's population. There are seven schools in the next tier of Black enrollment (more than 25 Black students) -- Clark Atlanta (49), North Carolina Central (45), Florida State (38), Wayne State (38), Catholic (30), Queens (29), and Louisiana State (28). The notable school here is Florida State which increased its enrollment of Black students by 65.2 percent. Seven of the 51 ALA schools (13.7) reporting ethnic data indicated their Black student enrollment was either zero or one student.

This is an improvement over the 13.7 percent of schools at this level for Fall 1997 and the 21.6 percent reported for Fall 1996.

Figures for the 382 Hispanic students pursuing the ALA master’s degree are heavily skewed in that 29.6 percent (113) of those students are enrolled at Puerto Rico which reports having only Hispanic students among it's non-international student body. Following Puerto Rico, Texas (40) and San Jose (32) are the schools having the largest Hispanic enrollments. Three schools (South Florida (22), Florida State (19), and Pratt (15) have at least 15 Hispanic students. Three other schools (North Texas, Queens, and Texas Woman's) report having from 10 to 14 Hispanic students. There are twelve schools with no Hispanic enrollment and another eight with only one Hispanic student each. Taken together these 20 schools represent 39.2 percent of the schools reporting ethnic data.

For the 13 of 15 schools that reported ethic data, White students constitute 61.5 percent of total enrollment.3 Black students account for 5.9 percent of the "other master's" student body with Asian or Pacific Islanders accounting for a surprising 5.1 percent of enrollment given their much lower percentage for the ALA-accredited master's. Hispanic students are under-represented in "other master's" program even more severely than they were for the ALA-accredited degree representing only 1.5 percent of total enrollment. This is primarily accounted for by none of the five schools with the largest Hispanic enrollments for the ALA-accredited master's degree offering the "other master's" degree. Drexel reports the largest Black enrollment with 23 students followed closely by North Carolina Central with 21. Pittsburgh has the largest Asian or Pacific Islanders enrollment with 29 students. Drexel follows with 25.

The ethnic distribution of post-master’s students parallels that of the ALA-accredited master’s degree students with 80.3 percent of the post-master’s students White.

At the doctoral level (Table II-4-c-5) the 651 students at schools reporting ethnicity White students constitute 58.3 percent of student enrollment.4 The lower percentage of White student enrollment at this program level is not accounted for by increased enrollment of other US ethnic groups, but rather by the 28.4 percent of doctoral students who are international students. The 38 Black students comprise 5.9 percent of doctoral enrollment while Asian or Pacific Islanders are 2.3 percent, and Hispanics 2 percent. Overall, the involvement of non-White ethnic groups is minimal (10.8 percent) 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 ten students has the largest enrollment of Black doctoral students. The schools with the next highest Black doctoral enrollment are Florida State and Rutgers with six students each. Except for North Texas (4) no other school had more than two Black doctoral students. Eight schools report enrollment of only one Black doctoral student while nine schools report none.  No school reports having more than two Hispanic doctoral students with three schools reporting two students each (California - Los Angeles, Florida State, and Texas). The remaining 20 schools reporting ethnic data have either one or no Hispanic doctoral students.

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 1998 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 Syracuse students account for 34.8 percent of all students in bachelor’s programs at the 11 schools. For the remaining ten schools reporting residency status enrollment at the bachelor's level reflect the believed typical enrollment at the level -- a large proportion of students from in-state (82.2 percent). This is particularly given that eight of these ten schools are public universities.

At the ALA-accredited master’s degree level (Table II-5-c-2) the data continue to reveal the local or regional nature of enrollments at most schools. For the 52 schools that reported the requested data, 81.4 percent of their students are from in-state/in-province. Only one school (Emporia, 53.1 percent) report more than half of its ALA-accredited master’s students were from out-of-state. Five additional schools (Rhode Island (49.7 percent), Kentucky (47.6 percent), Alberta (42.7 percent), Dalhousie (42.4 percent), and Tennessee (40.1 percent)) indicated that at least 40 percent of their students were from out-of-state/out-of-province.  Nineteen schools have less than 10 percent of their ALA-accredited master’s enrollment from out-of-state including Queens (1.3 percent) and Puerto Rico (0.9 percent) who report less than 2 percent of their enrollment consists of out-of-state students.

Data for "other master's" programs encountered a similar problem to that which occurred with bachelor's degree enrollment -- one of the larger programs (Syracuse (16.8 percent of total enrollment)) did not report the in-state/out-of-state status of its students. The percentage of in-state “other master’s” students (Table II-5-c-3) (70.1 percent) is somewhat lower than it is for the ALA-accredited master’s degree. The residency status of post-master's students (Table II-5-c-4) returns to the higher percentage of in-state/in-province enrollment (82.6 percent) exists for post-master’s degree programs that reported these data.  It is quite similar to the level for the ALA-accredited master's.

Doctoral programs appear to reflect what one might expect of a research degree -- the willingness of students to travel out-of-state/out-of-province to pursue their education. At the doctoral level (Table II-5-c-5) the percentage of students in an in-state/in-province status is 58.1 percent. One should note that this figure also made be affected by the ability at some schools for students to be able to change their residency status while enrolled in a program -- something particularly more likely during a program of longer duration. For the doctoral degree, for the 24 schools that provided residency data, eight schools (Alberta, Arizona, Drexel, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin – Madison) have at least 50 percent of their enrollment from out-of-state. More than half of the schools (13) with doctoral programs reporting residency data have at least 40 percent of their doctoral students in an out-of-state/out-of-province status. Four schools report 20 percent or less of their doctoral students are from out-of-state/out-of-province (Texas Woman's (20),Tennessee (14.3), Long Island (3.3), and British Columbia (0)).

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 1998 term for each of the program levels defined for Table II-1.

The 945 international students at all program levels, when compared against the enrollment figures reported in Table II-1, constitute 4.6 percent5 of students attending the 56 ALA schools. These 945 students represent a 32.3 percent increase from the 714 international students reported for Fall 1997 and well above the 841 reported for Fall 1996. It is likely that this year's increase in enrollment is due to the improvement of the Asian financial crisis which likely attributed to much of the decline the previous year. 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 256 international students pursuing “other master’s” degrees constitute 18.6 percent of that enrollment. This increased presence of international students is even more pronounced at the doctoral level where the 184 international students comprise slightly more than a quarter (26.6 percent) of doctoral student enrollment.  It is only at the doctoral level where international student enrollment decline does not occur. While international student participation in limited number of LIS bachelor’s degree programs is minimal compared to their enrollment in the master's and doctoral programs it did witness a major increase for 1998 from the 5 students in these programs in Fall of 1997 to 74 for the Fall of 1998 -- a 1,480 percent increase.  International student participation in post-master's programs continues to be low with a total enrollment of 5 this year.

Several schools stand out for their number of international students enrolled in their various degree programs. Syracuse has the highest number of international students (176) followed by Pittsburgh with 147. No other school has as many as 50 international students. Texas has the highest ALA-accredited master's international student enrollment (17) followed by Michigan (16), Illinois (15) and Louisiana State and Catholic with 14 students each. Eight other schools have ten or more international students in their ALA-accredited master's programs. Syracuse has by far the highest international student enrollment for an "Other Master's" program with 103 students followed by Pittsburgh with 86.  No other school approaches this level with Drexel having the next highest international student enrollment with 14 students. Similarly, the bachelor's enrollment at Syracuse is the highest with 44 international students followed by Drexel (19).  No other program has more than 7 international students in its bachelor's program.  Pittsburgh has the largest international student body at the doctoral level with 46 students followed distantly by Syracuse (19), Rutgers and Florida State (15 each), Texas, (13), North Texas (11), and Illinois (10).  The remaining doctoral programs have seven or fewer international students.

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 1998 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-1). 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 slightly more than two-thirds (67.3 percent). When the regions of Asia are examined, the Far East/Southeast Asia region is found to contribute the greatest percentage of international students (51.3 percent). South Asia is a distant second with 10.9 percent. European countries contribute 11.3 percent of international student enrollment while South America continues to have minimal representation in LIS programs with only 3.8 percent. Equally small is Africa with 5.2 percent. Australia has the lowest level of international students at ALA schools with 0.2 percent.

When the number of students from individual countries is examined, it becomes readily apparent that China and South Korea are the countries providing the greatest number of students (169 and 102 respectively). South Korea replaces India as the country providing the second largest number of international students last year. Two other countries, India and Taiwan with 87 students from each, form the next tier of countries of origin. Combined these four countries contribute nearly half (47.1 percent) of all international student enrollment.

Although bachelor's degree enrollment is relatively small, but rising, two countries are responsible for more than a quarter (28.4 percent) of that enrollment -- South Korea with 12 students and India (9). The two countries with the next largest representation in bachelor's programs are the Dominican Republic (6) and Malaysia (5).  Although China provides by far the most students pursuing the ALA-accredited master’s degree (67), China and Taiwan are nearly equal in the number of students of their students enrolled in “other master’s” programs (54 and 52 respectively).South Korea provides more doctoral students (37) followed closely by China (33). No other country sends more than 17 doctoral students.

Enrollment by Age and Gender (Table II-8)

For Table II-8 schools were asked to report Fall 1998 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 relatively large number of schools that were unable to provide age data (15.5 percent of the students could not be classified by age), they nonetheless provide some insight into the age distribution of students at ALA schools.6 For the ALA-accredited master’s and “other master’s” programs, the 25-29 age group by far has the greatest number of students (24.8 and 32.2 percent respectively). The 45-49 age group had the most post-master’s students (20 percent), although these students are distributed rather evenly across the 25-54 age range.

One would expect that in many graduate programs the 20-24 age group would represent a sizable portion of master's program enrollment given the number of students entering graduate education directly from their undergraduate study. This is not the case, however, with the ALA-accredited master's degree. Here that age group ranks sixth in frequency with only the over 50 age groups having fewer students.  It would appear, however, that the "Other Master's" programs are somewhat more attractive to younger students.  Here the 20-24 age group ranks third in frequency (with 13.8 percent of the students) following the 25-29 and 30-34 age groups respectively which have the highest frequencies for these programs. Overall, doctoral students are quite evenly divided among the six age groups 25-54.  Except for the 30-34 age group with 112 students the other age groups have between 87 and 97 students.

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 1997-98 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 differ.  Accordingly, for US schools, separate means are reported for public and private universities as well as a combined mean.7

Table II-11-a provides a summary of aid awarded for each of the seven program levels for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The total value of awards, $6,089,604, represents a 5.8 percent decrease in funding over that reported last year. The amount of money invested in doctoral students this year comes as quite a surprise from that of previous years. In those years nearly one-third of all scholarship and fellowship aid was awards to doctoral students.  This year that percentage has declined to 19.4 percent.  This decline is not due to an overall decrease in the dollars available for this aid but rather an decline of $763,998 (39.2 percent) in fellowships and scholarships awarded at the doctoral level. For the same period the totals for all other degree levels rose. Given the heavy investment schools make in their doctoral programs, in terms of human and other resources this comes as a surprise.   It is believed that a sizable amount of this decline is due to the reduction of aid for doctoral programs from Federal sources.  If this is true it reveals the dependence that schools had developed for this source of assistance.  This change in funding has resulted in a decline in the number of awards from 158 in 1996-97 to 129 in 1997-98 (an 18.4 percent decline).  This has also been reflected in a decline in the average size of an award from $12,326 in 1996-97 to $9,174 in 1997-98 (a 25.6 percent decline). This compares to an average $3,729 for ALA-accredited master’s program students and $4,701 for “other master’s” students. The ALA-accredited master’s average increased 2.8% over last year while the average award to “other master’s” students rose 142 percent. The small percentage increase in ALA-accredited master's fellowships and scholarship support was not due to a small increase in the total value of the awards (in fact they rose by $459,900 (11.1 percent), but rather to a parallel increase in the number of awards made from 1,151 to 1,235 (an 7.3 percent increase). The enormous increase the average size of "Other Master's" awards was due to two factors -- an increase of $60,254 (a 27.8 percent) combined in a 47.3 percent reduction in the number of awards made (from 112 down to 59).

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 (22.7 vs. 23.6 respectively).  The mean amount awarded was $3,206 per Canadian school compared to $2,117 per US public university and $4,422 per US private university. Another notable difference in the mean figures on this table is the mean number of awards given by private US universities (36.5) versus public (20.7).

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 eight of 15 schools reporting enrollment in these programs (53.3 percent) indicate any funding for these students. This is, however, one more school than last year, and it accompanies the sizable increase in the value of these awards mentioned previously.

Financial support of post-master students continues to be severely limited with only four of the 28 schools (14.3 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 notable difference in the mean figures on this table is the mean number of awards given by Canadian universities (10.3) versus US (6.2) despite. In previous years the higher average number of awards given by Canadian universities was offset by the much higher value of the awards of US universities. This year that difference was no longer true. A doctoral student at a Canadian university receives an average award of $9,476 compared to $8,978 for the average doctoral award at a US university.  The average size of a scholarship or fellowship award from a private US university is s $13,231 compared to a similar average award at a public university of $8,721.  It should be noted, however, that only one of four US private universities submitted data thus possibly skewing the resulting figure.

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 program level definitions of Table II-1 for students enrolled in Fall 1998. Please note the difference between the figures in this table which are for the Fall term versus Table II-11 for scholarships and fellowships which reported the value of those awards for the entire fiscal year.

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, $10,640,013, represents a 14.5 percent increase in funding over that reported last year and 48.2 percent over that for Fall 1996.

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 (11 vs. 20.9 respectively), unlike the nearly equal mean number of awards for scholarships and fellowships (22.7 vs. 23.6 respectively). Table II-11-c-2 reveals that scholarships and fellowships on average continue to be awarded at a far higher number by US private schools compared to US public schools (mean 36.5 vs. 20.7). The reverse is true for assistantships where US public universities awarded an average of 23.1 assistantships per school compared to 10 by US private schools. Although the mean figures for scholarships/fellowships and assistantships are higher this year than last, this pattern has been present fir several years. Differences in the mean size of an assistantship awarded by a Canadian school versus a US school continues. The mean value of an assistantship awarded by a Canadian school is $1,268 compared to $9,040 for US schools ($9,050 public; $8,825 private).

The figures in Table II-12-c-3 for “other master’s” degrees, as was the case with scholarship and fellowship aid, is informative for the increase in the number of schools that reported assistantship funding for these students. This year ten of 15 schools (67 percent) reported offering assistantships to "other master's" compared to 47 percent in Fall 1997 and Fall 1996.

Similarly, as was the case for scholarship and fellowship aid, assistantship support of post-master students is extremely limited with only three of the 26 schools (11.5 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 (7 and 7.8 respectively), the value of the average assistantship at a Canadian school is considerably lower -- $3,227 compared to $13,573 at US schools. Difference in the average number of assistantships awarded to doctoral students as US public and private universities is very noticeable (8.5 vs. 2.5 respectively). That difference between the two types of universities is reversed when the value of the average assistantship is examined. Doctoral assistantships at US public universities average $13,293 contrasted with similar awards at private universities averaging $19,563. This difference between public and private assistantship funding in terms of the size of the average award is similar to that observed for doctoral scholarships and fellowships.

Tuition and Fees (Table II-13)

Tuition and fee data for the 1998 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 fees 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. A 1998 article in Library Journal8 provided some information on tuition and fees based on the Library and Information Science Education Statistical Report 1998. The appearance of these data in the article alerted some schools to the fact that the data they had reported in the ALISE Statistical Questionnaire for that year, and in some cases for previous years, was incorrect. As a result a special effort was made this year to check the tuition and fee data reported on this year's questionnaire were accurate by checking them again school catalogs and school Web pages.  Where reported data did not appear to agree with those sources the schools were contracted for data clarification.  As a result it is believed that the data reported here are more accurate than before, but as a result it may differ noticeably from data reported for previous years.

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 9. As expected, the cost for the degree in the US is generally higher at private schools with a mean cost of $20,607 compared to $6,673 for in-state and $16,556 for out-of-state students at public universities. The least expensive ALA-accredited master’s programs at private universities are provided by Clark Atlanta ($14,708), Dominican ($16,020), and Long Island ($17,280). The most expensive are offered by Drexel ($25,824) and Catholic ($27,129).  As might be expected the cost of obtaining an ALA-accredited master's degree at the nine private US universities are the highest of the 49 US schools when compared to in-state tuition levels at US public universities.  The only exception to this is Michigan where the in-state tuition and fees is at the level of the mean cost of a degree at a private university.

Six schools (North Carolina Central ($3,040), North Carolina – Greensboro ($3,046), Puerto Rico ($3,325), Texas Woman's ($3,436), Southern Mississippi ($3,497), and Oklahoma ($3,783)) are able to offer the ALA-accredited master’s degree to their in-state students for under $4,000 while a total of 15 schools can provide this degree to in-state residents for less than $5,000. The most expensive programs for in-state students are at Michigan ($20,016), Pittsburgh ($13,368), and Wisconsin – Madison ($11,022).

Out-of-state students are able to obtain the ALA-accredited master’s degree for under $10,000 at three schools (Southern Mississippi ($6,513), Louisiana State ($6,825), and Queens ($8,367). There are nine public universities that have out-of-state tuition and fees exceeding $20,000.  Of these the most noticeable are Wisconsin –Madison ($33,970) and Michigan ($40,600) -- both well above the mean cost of this degree for both out-of-state students at public universities ($16,556) and students at private universities ($20,607).  Viewed from the financial aspect only it appears that private universities are competitive in their cost to degree with a number of public universities in competition for out-of-state master's students.

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 $11,860. The least expensive programs for in-state doctoral students are provided by Alabama ($4,026) and Texas Woman’s ($4,043). In-state doctoral students encounter the highest cost to degree is at Michigan ($42,964). That figure is more than $16,000 higher than the cost at the next most expensive program (Pittsburgh, $26,736). For out-of-state students, the doctoral programs with the lowest degree costs are at Alabama ($10,824), Texas Woman's ($13,031), and Emporia ($13.158).  The most expensive programs for out-of-state doctoral students are at Michigan ($73,840) and Pittsburgh ($53,520). These costs are well above the out-of-state mean for US public universities ($26,796) and nearly $13,000 higher than the next most expensive doctoral program (Tennessee, $40,656).

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 (Drexel, Long Island, Simmons, and Syracuse). Their mean cost is $30,212, with a range from $21,132 at Simmons to $43,290 at Syracuse.

Completed 10/25/99.
For problems with these webpages,
please contact Kathy Wisser, webmaster.

For corrections in the data,
please contact the editors, Evelyn H. Daniel or
Jerry D. Saye.