R. E. Dunbar and J. W. Broberg
North Dakota State College Fargo
Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory Fee and Breakage Practices
The rapidly rising cost of laboratory equipment and chemicals has greatly intensified the need for conservative buying, efficient use, and judicious accounting of all materials used in undergraduate chemistry instruction. Even a casual acquaintanceship with current practices will reveal a wide diversity of philosophy, extent, and method of collecting supplementary fees and breakage. The lack of authentic information along these lines prompted the current national study. Nicholson1 has recently reported the results of a limited survey involving 24 state universities, 43 privately operated institutions, 54 denominational schools, 6 schools operated by municipalities, 2 institutions under federal control, and 3 junior colleges. In the summary of this survey he draws 9 general conclusions, but perhaps his greatest finding and contribution is the discovery of a great diversity of practices, or even a lack of justifiable and consistent policy. I n the present study, a brief questionnaire was prepared and mkled to the chairman of the chemistry department of each of the 250 colleges and universities on the "List of ACS Approved School~."~The prompt and enthusiastic response received indicated a profound interest in this mutual problem. I n most instances the details requested were supplied by the chairman of the department or someone closely associated who was equally qualified to provide accurate and complete information. A total of 215 responses was received. This represented 86% of the original mailing. A further tabulation indicated that 98 state tax supported institutions, 74 privately and municipally operated schools, and 43 others, under denominational control, responded to the questionnaire. The great interest in this situation was attested to by the fact that over 25% of the individuals responding requested a tabulation of the findings. Supplementary remarks also indicated that many institutions were still following questionable practices that were inherited from previous administrations, and were now seeking a more logical and justifiable solution. The original questionnaire included 10 broad categories with subtitles thereto; the results were thus tabulated. It was discovered that 73 schools or 34.0% of the departments collected supplementary laboratory fees for this instruction from undergraduate students enrolled in chemistry. It was also evident that this practice was less common in tax supported institutions. The amount of this collection varied greatly. Of NICHOLSON, D. G., J. CHEM.EDUC., 31, 192 (1954). "Progress Report Number 31 of the Committee on Professional Training," Chem. Eng. Nms, 36, 99-105 (1958).
46
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
the 73 schools making such a charge, 34 reported a uniform charge for each chemistry course throughout the period of undergraduate instruction. This amount varied from $2.00 to $45.00 per course, with an average of $12.33 and a median of $10.00. The remaining 39 departments charged a variable amount for different courses with a minimum ranging from $0.60 to $30.00 per course, and a maximum ranging from $2.00 to $40.00. The minimum average was $9.12 and the median $7.50. The maximum average was $14.21 and the median $12.00. Of the 73 schools making a fixed or variable laboratory charge, 26 indicated that in general this charge also provided for an average amount of breakage. The remaining 47 institutions had other methods of collecting or ignoring average or excessive breakage. Here the practices were almost as varied as the number of schools responding. Many suggested that the usual laboratory charge, and frequently breakage, if not excessive, was covered in a general university fee, collected from all students. Some collected only for what appeared to be excessive breakage or damage to expensive equipment; or they prorate all breakage among all members of the class. Others frankly admitted that unlimited breakage was common and accepted. Some of the reports indicated supplementary charges for loss of keys or failure to check out. Some schools reported loss of all breakage collections which reverted to other university uses, such as support of athletics. One university made such a charge only during the summer session. The results indicate that it is a much more common practice to collect chemistry breakage than supplementary laboratory fees. Whiie only 73 schools collected supplementary laboratory fees, there were 109 schools or 50.5% that used some system of collecting laboratory breakage. There were 106 institutions that included such charges in the general laboratory fee or in the university fee. This supplementary deposit varied from $1.00 to $50.00 with an average of $11.98 and a median of $5.00. Of this group, 70 made a uniform charge for all chemistry courses varying from $1.00 to $30.00, with an average of $8.40 and a median of $5.00. The remaining schools varied the required deposit, usually with increased amounts a t the more advanced levels of instruction. The method of collecting and administering these breakage couections and deposits followed a 'rather common pattern, with few deviations. A total of 83 departments employed a system of breakage cards which are usually purchased a t the business office a t the beginning of each term. I n 40 instances the stockroom attendant retained possession of these
cards; in 38 cases they remained with the student; and in only 5 schools were they held by the instructor. A system of cash collection for total or excess breakage was followed by 19 institutions. This collection was usually made by the business office a t the close of the term. Occasionally the collection was made by the stockroom attendant. I t appears to be the prevailing practice to charge students the actual replacement cost of equipment when the same is lost, damaged, or broken. A total of 127 departments followed this pattern, while 38 others used a "cost plus" system. This "cost plus" varied generally from 5 to 10% and was justified by the usual deterioration, handling, storage loss and breakage, and obsolescence of equipment. Three schools used a fixed breakage charge and 7 others a class average. One unusual situation was encountered wherein students were charged to '/lo of the replacement cost, depending upon the course and cost of equipment damaged. It should be noted that the figures quoted regarding the number of schools collecting breakage and charging fixed fees and supplementary breakage do not conflict since so many deviations are employed in assessing and collecting such funds. The ever present and unsolved mystery of adequate means of collecting excess breakage a t the end of the course, regardless of the amount of deposit which is required, seems to persist on most campuses. Various systems have been employed, the most common of which is to withhold grades. This procedure was used by 78 departments. while 38 additional schools refused admission to subsequent chemistry courses. Other plans included exclusion from laboratory, denial of final examination, or refusal to issue college transcripts. Other penalties involve graduation, enrollment in any department of the institution, admission to any subsequent chemistry laboratory, and an additional personal charge to every student as a sort of insurance against such deficiencies. A numher of additional observations and practices were appended to the original questionnaire. One school postponed all billing for supplementary fees and breakage until the end of the year rather than requiring payment or a deposit in advance. Several departments collected only excess breakage beyond a reasonable maximum, whether this amount was covered in a general fee, special fee, or breakage deposit. Some iostitutions did not collect full value for very expensive equipment, such as Beckmann thermometers, but discounted, or prorated, the cost throughout the entire class. Some instructors believed that the bookkeeping costs did not justify the income received from keeping individual breakage accounts. They usually preferred one general charge including both fee and breakage, or the elimination of all breakage charges. Many institutions increased general tuition charges to all students, whether enrolled in laboratory sciences or not, and simultaneously eliminated most supplementary charges. A few nchools assessed a fixed laboratory and hreakage fee, based on credit hours or course, and issued no refunds. I t appears to be common practice to charge for excessive or careless breakage. Perhaps this tends to discourage extravagance, waste, carelessness, and even mild pilfering. Some colleges included in the survey a
comprehensive deposit system, this deposit payable in advance a t the business office, which covered laboratory breakage, library fines, athletic equipment, band instruments, and any other property loss or damage to the institution. The department periodically reported student breakage, etc., to the business office. At least three stockrooms sold replacement equipment to the student for cash. Receipts were issued; records were audited periodically; and funds which were collected were credited to the department. One department reported that the abandonment of breakage fees a few years ago, in favor of an all-college comprehensive charge, had greatly encouraged extravagance and carelessness with both chemicals and equipment. A lack of fixed personal responsibility had caused these departments to return again to definite fixed breakage charges. Many schools made supplementary rental charges for the use of balances, weights, platinum-ware, and other expensive items of equipment. Frequently this income was used for repair service or as a reserve for unexpected major breakage. In addition to the facts and conclusions which are ohvious from the tabulations above, the following generalizations seem to emerge as a result of this study: Tax supported institutions are less inclined to collect supplementary chemistry laboratory and breakage fees than privately supported schools. This is due to factors influencing expected income and support. The collection of fees for chemistry breakage, and particularly excessive breakage, is a far more prevalent practice than the collection of lahoratory fixed fees. The reason is perhaps obvious, for most chemicals used are necessarily expendable, while any loan system of equipment assumes the return of the same in equally usable condition. Necessary chemicals are usually supplied to students without charge or are included in the laboratory fee. Many institutions accept a limited or average student breakage without penalty. Careless or excessive breakage is usually charged to the student. A small minority of schools average class breakage, particularly that of expensive items. There is little to recommend this practice for such a procedure hardly encourages care or conservation of chemicals and equipment. Most breakage charges are computed on a replacement cost or on a "cost plus" basis. The latter is used to cover unavoidable deterioration, depreciation, and loss in storage and handling. Most schools collecting chemistry laboratory fees or breakage, regardless of the amount or system, reassign all such collections to the department. An increasing number of institutions are adopting a policy of charging all students an average laboratory or university fee. This obviously does not financially penalize the student enrolled in chemistry or any other laboratory science as contrasted with the non-laboratory student. However, there may be serious complications in such a policy. Several schools reported complete satisfaction with such a system. At least three other departments reported the collection of huge sums under such an arrangement but that they were receiving absolutely nothing in return. While the plan was apparently desirable in theory, the final result was that such collections were diverted to library use, band instruments and uniforms, general college support, and even Volume 37, Number 1, Jonuary 1960
/
47
athletic activities. While such a plan may have much to recommend it, extreme care should be exercised in its initiation and administration. Funds so collected should be logically allocated and used specifically and only for the purposes collected. Many schools which have tried the system are woefully disappointed and would welcome a return to a departmental plan of responsibility and administration of such funds. Many departments are adopting newer, simplified, and improved methods of storeroom bookkeeping. This results in tremendous savings, improved operation,
48
/
Journal of Chemical Education
and more accurate accounting. It is observed that careless and inaccurate record keeping, or a complete absence of fixed student responsibility, leads invariably to excessive waste, breakage, and carelessness. Even a class-average breakage system encourages extravagances. Chemistry students, as well as any other responsible citizens, should learn the necessity for caring for and returning or replacing borrowed public property. A fair, reasonable, and equitable system of breakage fees and collections appears to be the best system so far evolved.
