The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 3, 1984 Page: 44 of 48
forty eight pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
clines were offset by increased importance ot endowment income, which rose from
$9,095,565 in 1973 to $32,768,000 in 1983, and by increased private gifts and grants,
which increased from $3,047,139 to $9,661,000 over the same period. In 1983 endow-
ment income provided almost one-half of Educational and General Revenue while tuition
and fees provided less than one-fifth. In 1973, endowment generated a little over one-
third, and tuition and fees a little over one-fourth. In actual dollars the total amount of tui-
tion and fees increased from $6,480,226 to $13,535,000, while student aid increased
from $3,306,765 to $6,413,000. In other words, student aid decreased slightly in relation
to tuition, from 51 % to 47%.
Tuition policy at Rice has been guided primarily by the desire to maintain the aca-
demic excellence of the sutdent body. An outstanding student body is not only a major cri-
terion of excellence for the University but also a potent force in attracting and keeping a
high quality faculty. On the other hand, there is a trade-off in a low tuition policy in terms
of foregone resources to support other aspects of University excellence. It was pointed out
at the public hearing that the main competition for high quality students comes not from low
cost state universities but from high class private universities. This concern is reflected in the
recruitment brochure issued by the Admissions Office. For the current year the Admissions
Office has issued the comparisons shown in Exhibit I.
Some comments may be in order on two of the excellence criteria,- library holdings
and faculty quality. Library expenditures have risen from $1,343,784 in 1973 to
$3,202,000 in 1983. In relation to Educational and General Expenditures, library spend-
ing was almost constant; it fell only slightly from 5.46% to 5.33%. This percentage is well
above the average among university members of the Association of Research Libraries. In
dollar amounts, however, Rice ranked 96th among the 97 universities in this organization in
1982.
Faculty quality is difficult to measure in any direct sense. In practice, faculty compen-
sation is usually substituted as an indicator of relative quality when comparing universities.
Although salary levels do not guarantee faculty quality, it can be argued that it is difficult
to maintain excellence over time when compensation falls substantially below that of com-
peting institutions. Since 1973 the level of faculty compensation at Rice has ranked mostly
in the middle and lower ranges of Category I universities. This applies especially in the case
of full professors, upon whom academic eminence rests. Exhibit J traces the ranking of Rice
professorial compensation over the past ten years. The position of Rice has improved con-
siderably in recent years, but with the exception of assistant professors Rice compensation
still falls considerably below the 80th percentile, which represents the lower end of the num-
ber one compensation class in the AAUP survey. The cost of reaching the number one class
for all professorial ranks would have been about $820,000 in 1982-1983, which is roughly
equivalent of 1 % of current funds revenues for the year.
Budget Planning and Control.The budget and control procedures at Rice are well
established and functioning satisfactorily in the mechanical sense. A possible weakness in
the existing system might be the complete absence of any kind of formal program planning
in relation to budgeting. Program decisions are obviously made, but their relation to budg-
eting decisions are rather obscure. There seems to be no systematic analysis of the relation-
ship of cost and importance of different programs, although such matters are no doubt
considered in an informal way. In looking at the cost per student of various divisions of the
University, one is struck by the very wide differences, as indicated in Exhibit K.
It is not clear why the ratio of faculty to students should be so much more unfavorable
in the social sciences and engineering in comparison to other divisions, especially the Hu-
manities. Nor is it obvious why the cost per student in the School of Administration should
be almost twice as high as in the natural sciences since the student ratio favors administra-
tion. One wonders whether a more formal link between planning and budgeting would lead
o a different allocation of resources.
Budgeting at Rice for existing departments is primarily an incremental process. Once
the percentage increase in the overall budget is decided, it is applied equally to all depart-
ments. This procedure is complemented through funds reserved by the President to deal with
special situations. However, the absence of any zero-base reviews of cost center expense
budgets tends to aggravate tight and loose budgets over time. Budget control is exercised
at the cost center level through monthly reviews of expenditures in relation to the budget.
This seems to be an effective mechanism for preventing persistent overruns. A second form
of control relates to individual expenditures for services, supplies and equipment. Since cost
centers have considerable freedom in purchasing and taking delivery, control at this level is
exercised mainly on paper through purchase orders. This decentralized approach has the
virtue of flexibility and responsiveness, but it involves a calculated risk of potential loss
through fraudulent purchase orders. The existing approach is felt to be more consistent with
the collegial setting of a university than a centralized and more bureaucratic approach
would be. Until evidence develops to the contrary, the advantages of the present system
are seen to outweigh the disadvantages.
Physical Resources.In this section the Panel's analysis of how well the physical re-
sources of the University support the goals of the University is reported. We decided to take
a rather broad view of what constitutes the physical resources of the University, but to place
special emphasis on the physical plant—i.e., the buildings and grounds of the University.
Other areas considered include: food and housing, security, insurance, legal support, class-
rooms and laboratories, storerooms, administrative supplies, bookstore, parking, space
allocations, etc.
Panel members met with many administrative officials who have responsibility for a
variety of physical resources. The Panel also interviewed a cross-section of academic lead-
ers: deans, chairmen, faculty. Discussions were held with several other self-study panels—
those responsible for assessment of undergraduate education, graduate education, and
community relations. Af<fiighly relevant source ofinformation regarding physical resources
at Rice was the "Report of the Research Services Subcommittee" of the Rice University Re-
search Council, dated November, 1983. R.E. Smalley, Chairman of the Research Services
Subcommittee and a member of the Administrative Services Panel, provided invaluable in-
formation for the Panel's assessment of physical resources at Rice University.
Improvements in Physical Resources at Rice During the Past Ffew Years.Many
important and positive things have been happening with respect to physical resources at
Rice during the past few years. Among these are the following:
The Rice Thresher, February 6,1984, page 24
1. Recently the Board commissioned Cesar Pelli to draw up a new Master Plan for
Growth. The plan has been accepted by the Board and partially presented to the
community.
2. A new renovation and maintenance program has been approved and is underway
in the residential colleges. The program addresses the problems of bringing the
colleges back to high standards and maintaining them theredfter.
3. The condition of the utility systems has been reviewed and several projects are un-
derway to catch up on maintenance and/or improve these facilities. These include
improved electrical circuits, cleaning out the sewer system, and a new telephone
switch which supports voice and will shortly support data.
4. A great deal of review and reorganization has gone into the structure of Physical
Plant. The Director now reports to the Vice President for Administration and is re-
sponsible for Physical Plant services as well as Planning and Construction. The
procedures and working structure of the Physical Plant have also been improved
substantially.
5. Building activity on campus has increased — both renovation and new building
activity.
6. The Tidelands Motel has been purchased for graduate student housing.
7. More emphasis has been directed to safety and security staff and services have
been substantially upgraded.
8. Energy conservation measures have been put into place.
9. A number of classrooms have been updated and refurbished.
10. Housekeeping services have improved.
11. The Administrative Supply area has taken on a wider scope in providing assist-
ance in more campus purchases. Some consideration has been given to estab-
lishing a Central Receiving and Stores function.
In spite of the fact that there are many high quality, beautiful, and useful
physical resources available to the faculty, students, and staff; it is clear that
there is concern that the impact of lower quality physical resources on educatior
and research is critical. There also is some concern that the impression some
poorly maintained resources give to the external community, alumni, potential
students, parents, etc. is not consistent with the image of high quality the Uni-
versity intends to reflect.
In order to analyze the physical resource situation, we have considered
three areas of concern: planning and communication, personnel, and financial.
Although these topics overlap somewhat with our discussion in other sections of
this report, here the focus is upon physical resources. The issues that were noted
in the interviews conducted by Panel members and gathered from other sources
are listed in this section. Following the listing of issues, conclusions regarding
the status of physical resources at the University are drawn.
Planning and Communication Concerns.
Lack of a clear plan emerged as a major concern in our investigation.
Sometimes it appears that the administration is fighting excellence by not recog-
nizing the importance of resources in the functioning of the University. This point
is not limited to physical resources.
Not enough planning for preventive maintenance exists at the University. Other
universities also seem to be plagued by backlogs of maintenance, but this is of lit-
tle comfort to Rice.
There is concern that decisions regarding physical resources are made in an "ad
hoc" manner. This tends to create an atmosphere of concern and frustration
rather than a sense of understanding and acceptance of actual constraints on re-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
It is clear that the Physical Plant situation is critical. A policy of primarily re-
sponding to emergencies needs to be replaced with a combination plan to catch
up and solve problems, and not to just patch them.
As presently utilized and configured, there is inadequate classroom space. Fac-
ulty have indicated that they have had to teach in rooms that were too small, too
dark, too noisy, inadequately furnished, etc. Administrators mentioned a need
for more faculty involvement in the problem. It has been suggested that no new
building on campus be contemplated without giving attention to additional class-
rooms.
7.
10.
11
12.
13.
Laboratories, particularly undergraduate laboratories, are not keeping pace
with technological change. Concern has been expressed that Rice is falling behind
other universities, including some in Texas.
Not enough is known by faculty, staff, students, and administrators about the
many services available or how they may be obtained.
The feeling appears to exist that services provided on campus are lower in quality
than are alternative services off campus.
Since there are no stated or documented objectives, it is hard to find a basis for
evaluating the quality of physical resources.
Much unnecessary time and effort goes into identifying and dealing with physi-
cal resource problems; it would help the educational and research missions if
this time could be redirected toward academic goals.
There is a sense that the faculty and students do not value physical resources or
the people providing associated services.
_ There seems to be a sense that it is not clear where decisions regarding physical
resources are being made or if they have been made. For example, where do
requests to improve a classroom go? Department Chair? Dean? Provost? Physi-
cal Plant? University Council? Committee on Undergraduate Education? Space
Committee? The current practice is for recommendations to be accepted by Mr.
Binford in the Campus Business Office, but there seems to be considerable con-
fusion regarding this type of decision.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Mitchell, Mark M. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 3, 1984, newspaper, February 3, 1984; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245550/m1/44/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.