Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Endowment and Education The 1998 annual report of the Research Corporation (http://www.rescorp.org/) contains fascinating reading for anyone with an interest in science education at private institutions. An article titled “The Midas Touch: Do Soaring Endowments Have Any Impact on College Science” concludes that “college science is seldom more than an incidental beneficiary of endowment resources, even when they are conspicuously plentiful.” Written by Research Corporation director of communication W. Stevenson Bacon, the article reports on a survey of leading undergraduate institutions, dividing them between those with endowments above and below $300 million. The first surprise to me was that Harvard’s endowment of $727,522 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student is exceeded by Grinnell’s $760,404, and Yale’s $612,015 per FTE student is far exceeded by Agnes Scott’s $692,914 (much of it in Coca-Cola stock and somewhat restricted) and closely rivaled by Swarthmore’s $608,955. Of the eleven institutions in the Research Corporation survey, seven were above $300,000 per FTE student and only four were below. Private-college endowments have soared along with a soaring stock market. The Research Corporation report asks whether this increased endowment income is helping colleges to provide improved education in the sciences. A major use of endowment income and gift funds is for construction of buildings. Seven of the eleven institutions surveyed had building programs under way or planned for the sciences, and three of the four remaining expected to stress science facilities in upcoming campaigns. In some cases new buildings are designed to support science effectively, but in others, according to Research Corporation Vice President Michael Doyle, “the building is an elegant shell without modern instrumentation or flexibility for future uses.” New construction serves to make a campus attractive to prospective students who will bring in the tuition fees that support most of a college’s budget. An “elegant shell” may serve this goal adequately, and science faculty need to become intimately involved in building plans to ensure that a building is well equipped, flexible, and safe (see page 547 regarding safety). There appears to be little correlation between endowment and support for those who carry out research with undergraduates. Expectations regarding hours spent in classrooms and laboratories seem to depend on tradition. Some institutions below the $300,000/FTE line provide teaching credit for time spent with undergraduate research students, while many above it do not. A positive development is that five of the eleven institutions surveyed are raising endowment funds specifically to support summer student–faculty research programs, with campaign goals in the range from $0.5 to $6 million. This is a trend that could profitably be extended to many more colleges, because there is clear evidence that undergraduate research experience is strongly correlated with the success of students who are potential scientists. Endowment funds are being used to support startup packages for new faculty, which are required to attract the
The most important factor is what we do— and what attitudes and habits of mind we impart to our students. A college or university that is well endowed with human resources provides the best possible venue for learning.
best teachers and researchers. From the survey, packages appear to be in the range from $20 to $50 thousand, and there has been a tenfold increase over the past 15 years. Endowment also supports purchases of instruments, where matching funds are required by federal grants. However, it is not always easy to come up with matching funds for big-ticket items like NMRs. Also, there is constant pressure to provide the latest in computer equipment, especially for use in teaching. Computers and other technology seem to become obsolete overnight, and maintaining facilities that will attract students who are more and more computer literate is an ongoing drain on endowment income. Recently competition for the best students has begun to draw endowment income away from science departments. In addition to scholarships based on need, merit awards have become de rigueur. There appears to be a trend to offer to match the best scholarship package a really good student has been able to get from a competing institution. The average tuition and fees paid at most institutions is well below the advertised “sticker price”, and the difference is being made up from endowment income and gifts. Two thoughts came to me as I read the Research Corporation report. First, private funding agencies, such as the Research Corporation and the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation (which sponsored JCE’s Viewpoints series), are uniquely positioned to influence science research and science education in this country. Their reports and activities provide perspectives and ideas that those of us in the trenches might otherwise be too busy to come up with. Second, science departments in undergraduate institutions have considerable control over their destinies. Quoting the report, “small endowments and even substandard facilities do not rule out vigorous science departments—or even necessarily impact morale, if faculty can see that good use is being made of available resources.” I would turn this around. If we don’t allow external, uncontrollable forces to get us down, and if we work hard at things that will make a difference, we can accomplish a lot, even with only a little money. The most important factor is what we do—and what attitudes and habits of mind we impart to our students. A college or university that is well endowed with human resources provides the best possible venue for learning.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 5 May 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
543
