A system dynamics model of the relationship between the distribution of a universitys funds and its
enrollment patterns
by Mark Andrew Hinrichs
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE i
n Industrial and Management Engineering
Montana State University
© Copyright by Mark Andrew Hinrichs (1981)
Abstract:
The well-documented coming decline in the number of college age youth has profound implications for
the future of higher education. Barring fundamental changes in the nature of higher educations
university administrators face the prospect of having to deal with the unpleasant reality of an imbalance
in the demand for education and the extant capacity to supply education. The complex nature of the
inter-related processes, however, makes intuitive human assessments of the effects of policy decisions
of questionable accuracy.
This situation implies the need for a facility whereby higher education managers can project and
contrast the effects of a range of alternate policies. Of particular interest is the relationship between the
distribution of today's funds upon tomorrow's enrollments.
The techniques of System Dynamics were applied to this problem. The system of budgeting which
molds the university’s degree program offerings, which Iin turn influences the overall enrollment
profile of the university was studied in depth. A computer simulation model using the DYNAMO
simulation language was built to represent this system. Imbedded in the model were demographic data
descriptive of the conditions in the state of Montana and other data specific to conditions and
procedures found at Montana State University.
In the limited sense, this thesis project demonstrates the effectivity of the application, of the principles,
of System Dynamics to the relationship between the distribution of funds in a university and the
resulting enrollment profile the university eventually experiences. More importantly, it. illustrates the
use of an approach to the solution of large-scale problems which has' tremendous potential for
improving the manner in which we deal with the wealth of such problems this society currently faces.
STATEMENT OF PERMI SSI ON TO COPY
i
'
I
i
In
I
presenting
I
the
degree;
:
for
and
I
Management
permission
I
' .
of
'l'
Ma r k
■
fulfillment
at-
agree
for;
inspection,I
extensive
copying
.
:
Dy r e son.
permi ssi on
understood
or
of
be
or
that
material
prohibited
author
In
t he event
may be g r a n t e d
is
the
:
may be g r a n t e d ! by my Ma j o r
i
D . . A.
his
a ny
assigns,
S i gned_
Da t e _ v 2 . j f „ _ M A ^ L d - 8 l
the
of
publication
herein
prior
■
..
..
.
Professor,
Dy r e s o n 6s abs ence,
Director
or
i thesis for
.‘i
Dr,
"
Dr,
by t h e
contained
without
of
copying
State
L i b r a r y may
' ........
.
f u r t h e r agree
oft h i s
1
purposes: s c h o l a r l y
Mont a na
in
that the
.
for
Science
t '
Hinrichsv
available
'
the
of
'
Master of
Engineering
'
University^I?
:
make
i tl , f r e e l y
that
■■
.
thesis in p a r t i a l
.
requirements
Industrial
this
for
LibVaries,
of
financial
written
such
this
gain
consent
It
thesis
shall
of
the
A SYSTEM DYNAMI CS MODEL OF, THE RELATI ONSHI P BETWEEN
THE DI ST RI BUT I ON OF A U N I V E R S I T Y ' S FUNDS AND
I T S ENROLLMENT PATTERNS
I
br
.
i
-
MARK ANDREW HI NRI CHS
A t he si s submitted i n , p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f t he r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e
!'
I
of
i
MASTER OF SCI ENCE
in
Industrial
and Management
Engineering
D„ A. Dy r e s on /
C h a i r m a n * G r a d u a t e C o mmi t t e e
Ritchey
(i rma
M/% P .
De a n ,
Ma l o n e
Graduate
Studies
■MONTANA STATE UNI VERSI TY
. Bozeman, Mont ana
May,
I 981
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I should l i k e to
e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e and a p p r e c i a t i o n i n
general
to a l l the
many c o l l e a g u e s * f r i e n d s
and me n t o r s who
ha v e a s s i s t e d me i n t h e
c o u r s e of t h i s t h e s i s p r o j e c t .
Their
generous s h a r i n g of
a d v i c e * e n c o u r a g e me n t and e n t h u s i a s m * not
t o me n t i o n ha r d d a t a * has made i t p o s s i b l e t o r e a c h m e a n i n g f u l
conclusions in t h i s study.
I woul d
p r o j e c t was
i mo r o v e t h e
l i k e to t hank
and whose own
mo d e l .
Walter
studies
Yur ek whose b r a i n c h i l d t h i s
w i l l f u r t h e r b u i l d upon and
I
wo u l d
like
to
t hank
Dr .
St eve
Hampl e * D i r e c t o r of
I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h * w i t h o u t whose a i d most of t h e c o n c r e t e
p a r t s of t h e model woul d
n e v e r have been c o m p l e t e d .
I shoul d
l i k e to
t h a n k Tom M e s s i c k of t he
Ca r e e r Pl a ce me nt O f f i c e f o r
the
data
concerning
e mpl oy me nt
p o t e n t i a l s and s a l a r i e s .
I
s h o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k Joe F r a z i e r * Ri ch Day and Mar k Samar as of
the
Office
of
t he
Registrar
and
Admi ssi ons
for
their
invaluable assistance,
I should e s p e c i a l l y l i k e
t o t h a n k my ma j o r p r o f e s s o r * D r .
De l
Dyreson*
without
whose
g u i d a n c e and e n c o u r a g e me n t t h i s
p r o j e c t wo u l d
n e v e r have been c o m p l e t e d .
I should a l s o l i k e
to
t ha nk Ji m
Williams for
proof reading
t h e d r a f t * and t h e
o t h e r members of my
c o m m i t t e e * M a r t y F a u l k n e r * Ed Mooney* and
Paul S c h i l l i n g s .
with
I woul d l i k e to
and s u g g e s t i o n s
t h a n k Di c k
concerning
McCl ue of S e l b y 6S f o r
t he d r a w i n g s .
My s i n t e r e s t t h a n k s go t o Dr . He nr y
out o f more t r o u b l e t h a n any r e a s o n a b l e
st umbl e i n t o .
his
help
P a r s o n s * who b a i l e d
person could expect
me
to
And l a s t * but f a r f r om
l e a s t * I wi s h t o e x t e n d my s i n c e r e
appreciation
to bot h Honeywel l
I n f o r m a t i o n Sy s t e ms * I n c , f o r
p r o v i d i n g t h e TEXT p r o c e s s o r
u n d e r whi ch I w r o t e t h i s t h e s i s *
and t o
The L e a f and Bean* w i t h o u t
whose c o f f e e I c o u l d n e v e r
ha v e s u r v i v e d t h e o r d e a l .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
L I S T , OF TA{3L£Seettee4»vo*s«»'eoO'oeoeaee<ieo-oe-ep<e4i«eee4i««iee«o-»e
vi
LI ST
vii
OF FI ' GURESeeaeoaeee- eooe- eaet i eeo' e- oeee' eaeooeeooo eeoee
9
«
ooe«aoo«<7 e#ea-oe,e e- eooeoe»e»o«i oeo- a#«fli-oaai ao
6
•r*.
0
>
ABSTRACT
8
Chapter
1 -o
I NTRODUCTI ONoee oae ae e - oe e e oooe e e i a a . e e a oeweee eeeea
I
2.
REVI EW OF FORMATI VE LI TERATURE.
6
The P r o b l e m
of
Model ing
E d u c a t i o n lMan a g e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The
in
0
MODEL
Enrollm ents.........
Sys tem Dynami cs Ap pr oa c h^ eo
The U n i v e r s a l
3
Declining
Language
and
0 * 0
0
"f t h e
Over vi ew of
9
DYNAMO............
Syst em^ *
<a
o * * * # * eeo *
0
t he B u d g e t - E n r o l l m e n t
e» eee no
« 0
1 2
.
e**
Model . . . . . .
I
17
om <#« eeo«o<i«-oe ec««o
24
Important
COnSt ant Seeeeeooeooo- epoo#oP- ee=oe«»eee
31
E x p l a n a t i o n of
0
t he
Mode I . . . . . . . . . . . .
LeVe L EQUd t l On Se e o e e e e e e e e e e edoooeee
Rat e
Equa
1 1
Auxi LLi a r y
OBSERVATI ONS
<9
epoee
36
37
@© » » © •«© ©• ©©o
40
V a r i a b L e s © * ©© ©* # « * « ©© ©©« ©«» ©» ©•.
45
onso « o©« « « * « ©«
OF THE MODEL
IN
U SE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
23
Assur npt i onSe * ^ «
0
.
6
Important
Detailed
4.
7
oo® o-a-e e@oe-«
DEVELOPMENTeoep • oee » e-e ooooeeaee eoa
'
I
Ana Lys i s
6
49
■
V
Pa ge
5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS. ................... .................... ..
S U n i m a r y e e e e e o . . . . . . .
Discussion
of
Observed
Re c o mme n d a t i o n s
Conclusions..
e e e e e e e e . e e .
for
e «
« 0
Research...
o e e e e e e e e e o - o e e e o e e e e e o e e e
e e e 0 e 'O
73
0
0
o o o 0
75
0
0
0
76
0
0
0
REFERENCES
78
APPENDI CESeee
APPENDI X
72
72
e e e e e e
Behavior.......
Future
o e
•
A:
APPENDI X B :
e o e o e o o o o e e o e o e e e o o e
DYNAMO So ur c e
Code ........... ..
DIAGRAM OF THE FULL MODEL.
O O O O O O
81
O O O O O O
81
O O O O
88
OO
vi
LI ST
OF TABLES
Table
Page
3. I
Empl o y me n t
3e 2
Credit
3.3
Miscellaneous
4. I
Aggregate
4.11
Enrollment
Projections
for
4.12
Enrollment
Projections
for! A r t - A r c h
4 . 13
Enrollment
Projections
for| Business.
4.14
Enrollment
Projections
for;Education.
4.15
Enrollment
Projections
for
4.16
Enrollment
Projections
forjLiberal
Constants.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Load p e r
Incremental
S t u d e n t .. iO
e o ' o o -e <9
Constants........
Enrollment
Levels
o
o
e
33
34
e ® -e e
35
e n a e o e e o i a e o - O '
Projected.,..
Ag-Bio... «
i
d
54
e e e e e o
55
e a s e o o a e
56
I -B {t oo O
O
O
O
lQ
-O 000- 00
57
0
0
*
0
Engineering.^.
0
58
« o o o « e « o o
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A rts......
60
I
I Nursing,
4 . 17 E n r o l l m e n t
Projections
for
O O Q O O
61
4.18
Enrollment
Proj a c t i o n s
for I Math- S c i e n c e . . . . . . . . . . .
62
4.21
Projected
P r o p o r t i o n of
4 . 22
Projected
Proportion
of
4. 23
Projected
4.24
Projected
Proportion
4.25
4.26
1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T o t a l ■a
j
A g - B i o . oo . . . . o ©j®.
63
Total
:
Art-Arch.. . . . . . . .
64
Pr opo r t i on of
Total
5
Business.. . . . . . . .
65
of
Total
:
Ed uc a t i on
66
Projected
Pr opo r t i on of
To t a I
;
Projected
Propor t i o n
of
Total
S
67
' Engineering.......
Liberal
68
A rts.....
I
To t a I
Nur s i n g . . . . ,
Projected
P r o p o r t i o n of
Total
Math-Science,....
CO
P r o p o r t i on of
PU
4 . 27 P r o j e c t e d
Iv
■
.
69
70
L I ST OF FI GURES
Figure
Page
2.1
Sampl e
Universal
3.1
The
3.2
The
4.1
Enrollment
Language
Diagram..,
15
Fl ow o f
Students,*,*......,*...................
25
Fl ow o f
Do l i a r s . * . . * * . . . . . . . . . * . * . . . . . * * . . . , * *
26
Projections
and
D e mo g r a p h i c
I
t
Trend.. . . . .
71
vi I i
ABSTRACT
The
well-documented
comi ng
decline
in
the
number
of
c o l l e g e age y o u t h has
p r o f o u n d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r e of
higher
education.
B a r r i n g f undamental
changes i n t he n a t u r e
of
higher
educations
university
administrators
face
the
p r o s p e c t of
havi ng t o dea l wi t h t he
u n p l e a s a n t r e a l i t y of an
i m b a l a n c e i n t he demand
f o r e d u c a t i o n and t h e e x t a n t c a p a c i t y
to suppl y e d u c a t i o n .
The
c o mp l e x n a t u r e of t h e i n t e r - r e l a t e d
processes,
h o w e v e r , makes i n t u i t i v e
human a s s e s s me n t s of t h e
e f f e c t s of p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s o f q u e s t i o n a b l e a c c u r a c y .
This
s i tu a ti o n implies
t he need
for a
f a c i l i t y wh e r e b y
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ma n a g e r s can p r o j e c t and c o n t r a s t t h e e f f e c t s
of a
range o f a l t e r n a t e p o l i c i e s .
Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s
the
relationship
bet ween
t he
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o d a y ' s f unds
upon t o m o r r o w ' s e n r o l l m e n t s .
The
techniques of
Syst em Dy nami c s
wer e a p p l i e d
to t h i s
probl em.
The sy s t e m o f b u d g e t i n g whi ch mol ds t h e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s
d e g r e e p r o g r a m o f f e r i n g s , whi ch I i n t u r n i n f l u e n c e s t h e o v e r a l l
e n r o l l m e n t p r o f i l e of the
u n i v e r s i t y was s t u d i e d i n d e p t h .
A
c o mp u t e r s i m u l a t i o n model u s i n g t h e DYNAMO s i m u l a t i o n l a n g u a g e
was
b u i l t to
represent this
syst em.
I mbedded
i n t he model
wer e
d e mo g r a p h i c d a t a
d e s c r i p t i v e of
the c o n di t io n s
in the
state
of Mont a na
and o t h e r
data s p e c i f i c
t o c o n d i t i o n s and
p r o c e d u r e s f ound at Mo n t a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
I n t h e l i m i t e d s e n s e , t h i s t h e s i s p r o j e c t d e mo n s t r a t e s t he
e ffestivity
of t h e
application, of
t he p r i n c i p l e s , of Syst em
Dynami cs t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e di s t r i but i o n
f f unds
in
a
university
and
t he
resulting
e n r o l l me n t p r o f i l e the
university
eventually
experiences.
Mor e
importantly,
it.
illustrates
t he
use
of
an
approach
to
the
solution
of
large-scale
p r o b l e ms
whi ch
h a s ' t r e me n d o u s
potential
for
i m p r o v i n g t h e manner i n whi ch
we d e a l w i t h t he w e a l t h o f such
p r o b l e ms t h i s s o c i e t y c u r r e n t l y f a c e s .
* ' 0
(I)
Chapt er
I
I NTRODUCTI ON
Perhaps
in
the
t he
most
remai nder
teach
nor : how t o
shall
be
effects:
empl oyment
in
student
about
to,enter
already
upon
a
us.
higher
education
wh i c h
may
i mp e n d i n g
help
It
of
enrollment
The' r o o t s
as
si mpl e
topic
of
of
of
t he
. as mi g h t
declining
with
by
patterns
IeVelsJ
some
decline
this
of
dimini shment
education
thesis
t he
say.it
to
tool?
effects
wh i c h . ,
most
and
of
in
a pervasive
Some wo u l d
indicating
of
are
is
present
a toot
of
the
curriculum
likely
lead
to
the
are
not
before
the
desired.
pr o b l e m of
initially
of
declining
unpalatable
areas;
higher
to
whom i t
pri mary
a policy-shaping
will
to
what
curtailments
t he
we i n
intent
policies
the
all
austerity,,
ameliorate
austerity
special
at
Clearly?
management
emphasis/de-emphasi s
types
is
to
nation’ s
predictably
as
education
neither
dramatically
faculty . moraleJ
period
is
facilities?
educators
achievement.
higher
importantly?
ou r
of
as we(.l
for
and
mor e
with
closings
prospects
century
beset
syst ems?
traditional
educational
but ?
facing
p h e n o me n o n ' o f
already
numer ous
in
it
The
school
problem
twentieth
teach
has
secondary
p r ogr a ms
the
taught.
enrollments
drop
of
serious
be
enrollments
declining
enrollments
t h o u g h t , • I ndeed?
may
be
properly
ex a mi ne d?
an
(2)
a ns we r
Many
to
the
woul d
untenable
higher
argue
per
potential
to
the
was
we
in
demand f o r
supplying
universal
Fundi ng
c o mp a r i s o n
of
the
facilities
within
The
t hemsel ves
to
reach
record
of
the
meet
of
institutions
of
research
also
of
opportunity
such
that
arena
was
a national
n e e ds
was# by
The
expansi on of
demand was w e l l
nation-wide*
populations
pursue
leaders
limitless.
increased
record
to
of
The p o s t - w a r
achi evement
administrations
proportions
a period
Aero-space
virtually
the
of
t he n a t i o n ' s
t he
and
was
a period
I 960 8 s was
of
educational
economy
be s o u g h t *
u n p r e c e d e n t e d numbe r s ' of .
in
situation#
most
in
services*
reaction
d omi na nc e
today's
and p r o g r a ms
Consequently#
their
must
living
For
late
instructional
nation's
the
been
t hem w i t h
high
for
with
hav e
m i d - 1 950 * s t o
t emporary. S o v i e t
goal.
f r om w h a t ? "
enrollments*
' c u s t o m e r s 8*
make
state
that
t he
g r o wt h
" Ba b y Boom" |
"Declining
capita
learning^
explosive
to
question
a
availed
more c o m p l e t e
education.
This
trend#
late-1960's.
started#
slowly#
5-year-olds#
in
t he
percent.
forty
The
t he
to
howeve r #
effect
decline.
pr i me
I ate-seventies
. Indications
p e r c e n t . (25)
started
of
the
and
are
baby
From 19 6 0
traditional
The economy
that
was not
decline
in
boom had peaked
to
ma r k e t
eighties#
that
to
1970#
for
the
higher
declined
by
declination
in
quite
t he
number
the
and
of
education
fifteen
may r e a c h
vigorous
I
(3)
expansion-driven
s c hi s m
over
state
foreign
Asia,
forces
legitimize
many
had
universities
governing
not
societal:
need
for
gave
became
and
way
to
of
t he
it
without
is
t he
The
ills
of
it
is
to
desirable
of
of
t i me
to
possess
(return,
e c o nomi c
it
austerity,
One a p p r o a c h
uniformly
■
whi c h
another.
this
in
the m i n o r i t y .
to
obtain
t hem
there
fact
money,
.at
must
such
least
be
with
the
perception
attainment,
capacity
approach
demand
The d i m i n i shment
for
of
woul d
one
sake:
with
people
no demand.
education
life
trend
rife
simply
of
As t h e
particular
was
of
that,
as
being
unless
an
......................................
as e d u c a t i o n r e q u i r e s , can
j
. . . . .
the
p o t e n t i a l of showi ng a
tend
t he pr obl e m
was
'
regarded
luxuries
the
di senchantment
force
of
as
their
this
labor
Thus,
for
erode
conceive
economi c
diminish
Unfortunately,
differential
to
in
education-forrits-own-
to
and
balance
educational
\
i nvestment
1
be
shown
sufficient
of
seventies,
for
an
to
t he
national
difficult
value,
of
regard
’ punished”
began
The n a t i o n a l
tKatiwith
harder
Further,
value
advanced degrees
Whi l e
f unds
values
pronounced.
e x a mp l e s
with
reached
conservative • majority
traditional
enjoyed,.
especially
yet
f ound
dissension.
sixties
earlier
t he o b j e c t i o n s
students’
the
had
policy,
Southeast
to
it
to
of
as
a luxury.
lose
their
declining
to
t e nd
ignore
variety
a capacity
for
of
times
appeal.
mar ket s
provide
to
In
is
to
services.
any i n h e r e n t
service
whi ch
over
demand has
not
diminished
short-term,
inability
in
to
perception
serve
Another
will
is
the
inevitable
are
university
of
of
the
to
what
term
effects
away due
as
t he
influences
elsewhere.
to
public
future
Clearly,
probl ems.
of
is
in
in
short
the
mi g h t
of
result
as
the
term,
with
levels.
situation
at
approach,
goal
a means . of p r o j e c t i n g
|
the
institution
of
upon
t o, f ocus
overall
staffing
Most
undesirable.
the
a
short
and
variety
of
scenarios.
of
ma k i ng . p r o j e c t i o n s
as
it
is,
perturbations
I '
par amet er s
in
the
enrollments
this
is
funding
this
enrollment
vi ew
reduced
enrollments
If
in
of
Inherent
Tha t
its
intuition
to
t h e n o w- f a mo u s
in
,
a system of
system
•
predict.
Cl ub of
about
syst em,
the
i
developing
the
one p r o g r a m
counter-intuitive.
human
bot h,
emphasi zi ng
feed-back
!
I ..
for
that,
in
is a
1
t erm,
problem
another.
.
The p r o b l e m
is
of
needed
fund-distribution
nature
of
wo u l d
is
the
institution,
ma x i mi z e
,
l ong
in
turned
decline
reduction
fluctuations
administrators
l ong
education
solving
patterns
concomi t ant
the
seek
a
a number
fluctuating
Clearly,
to
expense
is
enrol lees
service's
accompany
energies
and
institution
undesirable.
means
the
however,
that
the
lost
t h e m,
enrollees
approach
wh i c h
injure
t e r ms . of
of
potential
this
will
its
behavior
will
react
. ,
.
ways whi c h
Jay
W,.
this
are
is
to
L :
difficult
Forrester,=
in
■
Rome s p o n s o r e d
Wo r l d M o d e l s ,
(5)
solved
this
c ompl ex
tool,
very
sy s t e ms .
the
language
sufficiently
It
of
for
large
processes.
determine
Hi s
is
funding
future
of
de' al ing
solution,
s y s t e m d y n a mi c s
universal
system
problem
approach,
s y s t e ms
and
with
includes
and
a synthesis
is
contention
of
whi ch
influences
future
is
such
of
this
be
the
author
useful
in
alternative
to
build
a
evaluating
policies
for
model
the
of
thesis
It/ is
this
system
and
short
long
c o n f o r ma n c e
with
I
1
:
;
:
-
/
i
1
.V-
!■
to
any
that
the
whi ch
term
the
whi c h
intent
>
.
will
t hen
effects
ma na g e me nt * s
'
the
inter-related
.
of
tool,
enrollments
a sy s t e m.
of
an a n a l y s i s
applicable
system
the
funding
dy n a mi c s
whi c h
modeling,
c ompl e x
the
of
goals.
,
-
.
j
( 6)
Chapt er
2
REVI EW OF FORMATI VE LI TERATURE
THE PROBLEM OF DECLI NI NG ENROLLMENTS
The
premi se
some
Lean y e a r s
the
matter.
University
institutions
time;
for
has
higher
Chiet,
serious
noted
experiencing
Some had e v e n
The
be e n
Dean
California,
wer e
education
apparently
Ear L
of
i ncome. (3)
that
a c a d e mi c
higher
the
gr ow
in
" ' d i s m a l ’’-
education
t he
first
solution
proportion
was
not
to
formulated
published
of
to
r e duc e
de ma nd.
well
twelve-point
enrollments
Council's
ans wer ed
in
the
r e c o mme n d a t i o n s
In
as
of
in
Bu s i n e s s ?
that
many
gr owt h i n
i nc ome by t h a t
of
the
p r o b l e ms
for
potential
i n . t h e ; I 980 * s
take
of
how
to
in
colleges
and.
cope w i t h
the
to
t wo ways.
serve
: Predictably,
Anot her
in
this
at
solution
approach
stanching
In
the
The
direct
on E d u c a t i o n ( 5 : 1 1 ) ,
decades.
the
noted
■
capacity
ai med
comi ng
many
primarily
Council
plan
19 71
real
for
i nformed
of
rate
in
1 98 0 R o b e r t : Zemsky
received.
by t h e A m e r i c a n
a
School
early
in
those
is
:■!
f
:
question
reduction;in
generally
the
management
out , l o o k
T.he.
was
was
as
by
a declining
mid. 19 7 0 9s > .
d e mo g r a p h i c .
crunch
of
Amer i ca
" c ommuni t y ’ s p e r c e p t i o n
u n i v e r s i t i e s . (25:10)
i mp e n d i n g
ceded
seen a d e c l i n e
■
began, t o
in
was
wh i c h
erosion
general,
the
f orm " I n c r e a s e ( d e c r e a s e )
(7)
the
rate
at
education
the
whi c h
this
marketplace
approach
Implicit
by
stresses
in
these
group
that
enters
smal l
setting
fraction."
ambitious
suggestions
is
(leaves)
but
a much
recruitment/marketing
effort.
Conspi cuous
the
however,
is
Council’ s plan,
what
educational
without
mar ket
research
is
generally
MODELI NG I N EDUCATI ON
Accordi ng
Information
to
In
higher
essence^
attainable
goals.
more s o p h i s t i c a t e d
in
its
any m e n t i o n
services/curricula
t he
are
abs ence
of
f r om
determining
needed.
Marketing
ill-advised.
MANAGEMENT
a
I 977 r e p o r t
by t h e E d u c a t i o n a l Re s o u r c e s
I
CenterCI6 ) ,
the
use
of
q a n t i t a t i v e met hods i n
i
education
to
mi d
management
1 9 7 0 's.
hastened
by
public
in
The
for
higher
t he
either
of
the
Ojf
universities
of
in
t he
topics
of
case,
of
developed
concern
enrollments
early
model i ng
ar enaj wer e
mo d e l s
of
I ^ b O 8S
evidently
to
face
and r e t u r n
late
deal
of
from
was
with
declining
investments
’
education
of
the
me t h o d o l o g y
resources
value
applications
majority
projection
inability
in
during
education.
higher
separate
widespread
change'
critical
perception
Initial
in
This
the
competition
became
to
‘
orj.
theory.to
fairly
decision-making
limited
t wo
ma n a g e me n t ,
the
n a me l y
model i ng
we r e
'
funds..
/ I
=
!
’
In
predictably
primitive,.
i
scope.
f o c u s e d op e i t h e r - o f
i .
'
the
budgeting
of
at tempts ^ at
in
'
'
,
(8)
Enrollment
and
population
estimate
trends
or
into
t er m*
in
not
it
grossly
of
While
still
the
educational
A later
met hod
State
of
the
their
they
any
trends
Orwig*
model .
needed
department s
in
In
I
This
the
a
study
:
model s
societal
ignored
any
t er m.
in
societal
t he
An
trend
perception
participation
departments
conducted
results
sub-unit
In
an
for
cases
-
of .
shifts,
and
Kansas
known
existing
administrators
plans
all
at
applied
of
i nformed
term.
i mp a c t
5 year)
participation
L e n n i n.g ( I 9 )
I
the
to
is
considerations=
■
in accuracy* i t
individual
provided
short
approach
l ong
*
population
t he
the
to pr epa r e
c ha nges
i
Jones ; and
to
in
to
enrollment
(2
shifts
i mp r o v e me n t
in
university..
short
d e mo g r a p h i c
c ha nges
■
i
I
expanded
proportions
institution-wide
data
of
needs.
University*
departmental
with
i mpact
this
population
of
seeks
d e mo g r a p h i c
t h e .mid t o
t he
regional
I
a notable
projecting
the
in
was
historical
Whi le
in
projection
The f o r m e r
to
consideration
i mp r o v e me n t
by
sub-units
to
presents
ignores
regard
error
approach
strictly
the t r e n d
by p r o j e c t i n g
influences.
to
this
by
me t h o d s .
wit hout
introduced
this
typified
inaccurate
p r one
met hod wh i c h
due
future
societal
is
e n h a n c e me n t
line
enrollment
t he
shifts
wer e
participation
future
probably
of
mode l s
ma na gi ng
yet
seen*
.
in
t he
focus
of
needs.
Budget
model s
we r e
no
Less
restricted
in
their.range
(9)
during
this
procedures
was
related
constructed
Financing
i mp a c t
of
on
Post
the
to
the
inter-related
of
factors
In
and/or
A model
Commi ssi on on t h e
whi c h
e x a mi n e d
universities
f r om cha nges
aid.
data
process.
National
health
financial
only
budgeting
EducationCI7:6)
resulting
of
consider
President's
financial
c ha nges
of
mo d e l s
Se c o n d a r y
availability
feedback
Most
directly
by
the
enrollment
the
period.
in
tuition
this
model ,
t he
caused
rates
at
by
and
least,
was c o n s i d e r e d .
THE SYSTEM DYNAMI CS APPROACH
Until
recently,
management
to
has
ignore
been
the
involved.
ne e d
a
understand
represent
In
system
provided
In
tool
the
and
"Principles
perhaps
of
contention
that
of
s ma l l
of
the
this
of
of
f or m
of
suitable
education
scale
mode l s
whi c h
may hav e
inter-related
been
and
evaluation
of
advanced
in
due
model er
syst ems,
for
use
the
try
by
to
t he
first
to
sec ond
to
c omput er .
techniques
model i ng
theory
of
have
facilities.
S y s t e ms " ( 1 1 ) ,
the
definitive
large-scale
virtually
high-order
higher
real-world
dy n a mi c
the
in
enabling
i mp r o v e me n t s
necessary
simulation
category
capable
mode l i ng
to
part,
however,
analysis
produced
In
a
years,
these
of
restricted
behaviors
t hem i n
recent
use
complexities
processes
for
the
feedback
all
feedback
social
Jay
wor k
W.
Forrester
has
on
analysis
and
syst ems.
s y s t e ms
sys t e m on
It
fall
whi c h
his
is
hi s
into
the
wor k
has
(io):
focused -
He
characterizes
these
common t r a i t s , among wh i c h a r e
!
1. C o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v i t y
2.
Insensitivity
3»
St ubborn
4.
Existence
5.
Opp o s i n g
6.
:
to
T e n de nc y
to
pressure
to a given
t owar d
having
a number o f
.
of:system
]
i
perturbation
l ow
behavior J
in
policy
in
long-
set
of
levels
many
parameters)
changes)
joints
p o l a r i t i e s ' of
responses
as
■
resistance
of
s y s t e ms
unexpected
and
short-term
policy
of
areas)
changes)
and
performance*
(11),(8)
Forrester's
mi nd
is
not
wor k
has
adapted
lead
to
him:to
interpreting
j
behave."
Thi s
human
c o mp l e x
s y s t e ms
exhibit
I
often
are
leads
l ong
diametrically
results
bear
to
are
■;
that
how
social
,
'■
coupled
with
j
■j
t owar d
;
"The human
’
s y s t e ms
, ■
t he t e nde n c y
.
-■
-
oscillatory.behavior,
-
term e f f e c t s
of p o l i c y a d j u s t m e n t s wh i c h
|
I
.
;
opposed
toi
those
intended*.
Sh o r t t e r m
often
disastrous
:
inability,
i
wh i c h
conclude
politically
fruit
in
t he
l ong
desirable
and s e d u c t i v e ,
but
t e r m*
"If
we wer e- m a l i c i o u s and
wa nt e d t o c r e a t e u r b a n
s l u m s , t r a p l o w- i n c o me
p e o p l e i n g h e t t o a r e a s , and
i n c r e a s e t h e number o f
p e o p l e on w e l f a r e , we c o u l d
do l i t t l e b e t t e r t h a n f o l l o w t h e p r e s e n t p o l i c i e s * "
i
(8:13)
I
Forrester's
ma j o r
.
social
upon
sciences
statistical
is
. criticism
of
'
:
t h a t t he.
e mp h a s i s
analyses
of
dy n a mi c
■ „
current
.
seems
.
.
practice
in
the
be
placed
.
to
p h e n o me n a , .
b e i ng
This
woul d be
(11)
akin
to
power
describing
as
having
description
is
domest i c
an
alternating
average
valid,
but
voltage
meaningless.
current
of
In
zero
electrical
volts:
Forrester's
the
wor ds
",,,the
social
sciences
ha v e
fallen
into
some
m i s t a k e n " s c i e n t i f i c " p r a c t i c e s t h a t compound ma n' s
n a t u r a l shortcomings.
Co mp u t e r s a r e o f t e n used f o r
what
t h e c o mp u t e r
does p o o r l y
and t h e human mi nd
does w e l l ,
At t h e same t i me t h e human mi nd i s used
for
what
t h e human
mi nd
does
poorly
and
the
c o mp u t e r do e s w e l l , " ( 8 : 5 )
" The
key t o s uc c e s s
i s not i n
ha v i n g a c omput er ;
the
important thing
i s how
t he c o mp u t e r i s u s e d .
Wi t h r e s p e c t
to
model s, the
key
is
not
to
c o m p u t e r i z e a model b u t t o ha v e
a model s t r u c t u r e
and
relationshipsthat
property
represent
the
system t h a t i s bei ng c o n s i d e r e d , " ( 8 : 8 )
C,
West
C h u r c h ma n ( 7 )
system a n a l y s i s
approach
the
is
is
most
is
adopted
advocates
can
t he
a
and
is
accurate
definition-of
I.
The
five
critical
t he
goal
of
be
that
step.
or
the
of
the
view of
when
an
syst em
is
He
motivating
precise
and
mandat es
the
s y s t e m:
and
of
valid.
the
approach
objective,
progress
a
considered
Gi ve n
hi s
every
to
I
phase
a scientific
Onl y
definition
problem,
e l e ment s of
system's
is
when
approach
analysis
first
t he
me a s u r e me n t
point
objective
critical
of
the
restricted".
wherei n
probl em
consideration
ma j o r
resulting
process
a
Hi s
"terribly
inter-disciplinary
that
accur at el y! per f or med
followed,
worl d
proposes
:
its
toward/proximity
me a n s . o f
to
it;
(12)
2«
The
resources
seeking
3.
the
4„
t he
syst em;
means
and
research
the
of
in.
language
means
t he
t urn#-
to
by w h i c h
or
sub- syst ems
process
in
this
s y s t e m by
of
the
study
the;,n
Universal
developed
'
c o mp r i s e
t he' model
s y s t e m;
t he
policy
is
based
at :
was
t u
of
r e
for
into
on
the
a
work
of
thereof
by o t h e r s .
s y s t e ms
r e s u l t e d .in
describing
comput er
^Because
'i
subject
a
language
DY NAMO( 2 0 ) . :
t he
whi ch
implementation
into
was.
called
applicability
upon t h e
implemented.!?)
t he
Forrester’ s
Thi s#-
are
developed
men
creation
placed
by: wh i c h g o a l - s e e k i n g
decisions
t wo
in
and
The management
The model
may m a n i p u l a t e
e n v i r o n me n t ;
The c ompo ne nt s
5.
system
goal #
The c o n s t r a i n t s
i ts
these
the
of
syst ems.
simulation
its
direct
:
hand DYNAMO was chosen
as t h e
i mpl ement ed.
THE UNI VERSAL LANGUAGE AND DYNAMO
The
set
of
Universal
sy mbol s
representation
l anguage
Auxiliary.
are
of
the
The
implementation
Language
is
whi ch
are
a
s y s t e m.
Level?
compr i sed
graphically
t he
concept, of.
of.the
of
Universal
The
time
combi ned
chief
Rat e?
smal l
f or m t h e
of
Const ant ?
is
in
to
el ement s
the
flow
Language
a relatively
the
and t h e
critical
to
the
DYNAMO? b u t
is
not
(13)
present
in
l anguage
Figure
provides.
2.1,
The
some
the grap hi ca l
page
Level
The
contained
Please
is
a
construct
mea s ur a bl e
state
within
of
its
t he
actions
of
the
Rates.
Rat es a r e
the
system
average
the
is
a
is,
period
discrete
me a s u r e s a r e
an y p o i n t
in
upon
it
bet ween
in
is
c he c k e d
the
of
to
the
(efflux). !
Rat es
Rat es
held.
represent
provided
in
a quantity
of
•
I
by t h e
t he
to
time
Auxiliaries
is
value
status
be d i s c e r n e d
pf
t i me
of
,
it
of
as an
in
and
the
that
a level
at
'
had a t
t he p r e v i o u s
of
rates
the
Levels ■ create
acting
continuity
■
t he
s y s t e m,
^influx)
as
:
and may e i t h e r
or:subtract
algebraic
j
rates.
.
f r om i t
statements,
-
values
■
organizational
‘ the
by
instantaneously
value
affect
any p r e v i o u s
':
of
the
continuous,
The
of
level
are
sub-di vi sions
n ot
concept
it
represented
or
represented
sy s t e m.
the. a c t i o n s ;
are
are
The
time.
a
of
time.
that
the
the accumul ati ons
by whi c h
ar e
intervening
of
are
point
in
is
can o n l y
:
regard
:
the
in ti me
i mp a c t
;
1
without
whi ch
i mpor t ance
given
means
by t h e
value
any
meaningless.
in
of
actions
modified
Rat es . r e p r e s e n t
add
at
whi c h
is
given
t i me
represents
Levels
only
of
DYNAMO)
t i me
points
t he
their
(and
i t ' was
syst em
syst em,
l anguage
t i me
a system
t h e e x a mp l e
substance
changed..
That
over
to
wh i c h
levels.
the
measurable.
refer
of
15.
physically
sy s t e m.
representation
-
t h e y , mi g h t
-
constructs
They,
1
hav e
wh i c h
represent
.
(14)
intangible
are
of
quantities
primarily
the
important
and
balance
is
Levels
of
is
a level
compar i son,
be
l ong
are
as
in
attempting,
then
in
clarifying
concepts
influx
conceived
upon
by
useful
standpoint
t he
and
the
actions
existence
t he
the
absence
to
study.
and
any
equilibrium,
the
rate
of
at
s y s t e m,
and
and p r o c e s s e s
wh i c h
if
natural
a
must
be
in
of
are
the
generally
filters
I
is
influx
balance.
■
I
f or ms
rate
woul d a c t
t he model er
modifications
whi ch
system
rates!
•
it
and t h e
A natural
a process
of
basis.for
to
it
may
determined
out
transient
!
i
level
'
rates
influences
is,
analysis,
'
interactions
’ n a t ur a l . ®
whatever
That
'
t he
equilibrium,
naturalf rates
statistical
Further,
at
to
of
policy-induced
The
influences.
relating
efflux
being
isolated.
term
the
'
given
of
system.
Two
rates
f rom t h e
■
to
reach
and
or m a i n t a i n
efflux
for
any
(15)
FI GURE 2 . 1
:
SAMPLE
UNI VERSAL LANGUAGE
DIAGRAM
. KCOKl ^TAMT
\ z
/\KATE N
A
x
\
FUPsO
<2> f
ib~~ I N F o F U sA j ^ f | c? W
\
F L O V j v OF
/ C rate qoi
\
(16)
/
Chapt er
3
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The. i mpi n g e n t
i mp e t u s
to
this
project
eventually
be f e l t
of
has
Mont ana
while
Mo n t a n a
extend
its
the
author
be'
as
p r o b l e m of
on
to
useful
University*
level
build-a
to
institutions*
such
to
of
individuals
■
inter-relationships
influential
part
its
present
f o r m*
one
nor
practices
these
the
is
t wo.
It
ensuing
resolved
by
•
of
of
as
as MSU.
Rather*
involved
of
reader's
tlje
j
the
author
in
often
resulting
to
of
lies
the
access
actual
played
an
mode I ,
a completely
generic
conditions
and
somewher e b e t w e e n
that
model ' s
bearing
as
t he
1
of
oriented
woul d
as w e l l
into
it
Arts
to
woul d
Unfortunately*
data*
neither
intent
one whi ch
it
representative
hope of
initial
Liberal
shapir g o f . t h e
MSU.
the
The
,
solely
University
continues
insight
is
the
present*
model J i e *
processes
effect-will
t he
coherent
; mode I
discussion
the
and
ga v e
enrollments*
;UM*
t he
the
the
at
is
generic
with
in
it
here
for
ones * such
complete
its
whi c h
by d e c l i n i n g
records.
as
is*
I n Mo n t a n a *
administrators
Agriculture-Engineering
availability
fronts.
enrollments
That
been h a r d - h i t
enrollment
was
systemic.
all
already
State
is
declining
any
ambi gui ty
'
d e v e l o p me n t
mi nd
the
in
may be
necessary
(
c ompr omi s e
made b e t w e e n
17)
t he
intended
ideal
and t h e
achievable,
reality=
ANALYSI S
The
application
probl em
is
a
analysis
of
t he
of
system
a
Universal
Language=
model
in
with
of
the
greater
model
t he
length
Chur chman
system
is
the
system
with
problem
whose
the
i mmut abl e
el ement s
within
wh i c h
followed
at
The
its
by
the
of
is
the
step
goals
and t h e
phases.
t he
Next,
to
or
the
is
the
I
usi ng
is
F o r r e s t e r 6s
the
use
posed
of
the
a bo ut
the
deals
briefly
syst em,
s y s t e m,
of
o fi a n a l y z i n g
The ■ f i r s t
and a t
to
the
identify
a c ompl e x
phase
with
is
that
should
is,
the
operate.
catalog
the
effort
system' s
bet ween
isolation
t hem.
of
the
the
is
syst em has
to achieve i t s
the
has
envi r onment
This
resources
the
attention
better"understanding
to a t t e m p t
t he
seeks,
analyst
intei—r e la tio n s
analysis
is
s y s t e m has been
chapter
syst em,
solution
whi ch
is
This
process
constrained
with
phase
initially
any o t h e r
synthesis.
five
the
first
Budget-Enrollment
identification
disposal
fourth
in
it'
an
sub- sy st e ms
step
effort.
that
or
sub-task
hand=
model
of
'
questions
at
this
the
synthesized
final
the
the
motivated
Once
t he
c o mp r i s e d
of
study.
of
suggests
identification
to
the
analysis
The
be
The
to
process.
under
may
answeri ng
behavior
Syst em Dy nami c s
three-step
analyzed,
OF THE SYSTEM
goals.
component
The
final
management
process,
that
is,
t he
mechani sm wh e r e b y
• _
Gi v e n
t he
the
identification
of
the
one
system
hand,
the
contribute
to
itself.
was
superior
this
its
woul d
syst ems
the
to.
the
its
a
'
university,
public
goals
is
one
It
' of !
task.
by
wholly
perceived
termination'.
constitute
goals
fulfillment
■ ;
its
only
goals.
ho s m a l l
motivated
of
sys t e m
goals,
own
to achieve
is o s t e n s i b l y
if
external
undertake
s ee ks
I
of
satisfaction
is,
detrimental
syst em
f rame-wor k
the
That
d e c i :s i o n - m a k i n g / a c t i o h - i m p l e m e n t i n g
of
that
is
the
On t h e
the
need
to
external
to
its
existence
societal,
recourse
or
woul d
highly
the
other
be
^u n l i k e l y
university's
to
that
, primary
objectives.
A more r e a l i s t i c i a s s e s s me n t woul d i n d i c a t e t h a t
I
...
■
■
;
'i
■ ....................'i
'
the
u n i v e r s i t y woul d
have sel tf
p r e s e r v a t i o n high
among i t s
i
'l '
'
'■ ■ ■
goals
regardless
of
t he
perception
of
the
society.
A
.
•
i■
i
: .
secondary goal
mi g h t be t he g r p wt h
of t h e u n i v e r s i t y , e i t h e r
in
t e r ms
odds
of
to
size,
prestige
g r o wt h
fluctuations
mi ght
of
or. ! b o t h .
be
V
enrollment
Another
stability...
about
g o a l : somew hat
; ;v
i That
a
is,
constant:
at
smal l
level
of
J
enrollment
mi g h t
fluctuations
about
of
t he
be
an
deemed
more
i n c r e a s i n g , .....
one.
,
university's
goal s
one
-! d e s i r a b l e
t han
Somewher e
down t h e
mi g ht
find
»
societal
■
perceptions
.
Contributory
satisfaction
'
'
to
of
of
i ts.
role
to
■
responsibility.
'
the . u n i v e r s i t y ' s
the
list
c o n f o r ma n c e
,
and/or
gross
goals
of
goals
individuals
mi g h t
within
well
it.
be t h e
That
is.
(19)
all
things
being
a department
This
mi g h t
perceived
its
is
that
Certainly
with
and
each
of
aiding
to
perceived
the
event
that
the
being
linked
from
other.
For
as
extent
in
student
within
balance
that
the
as
one
that
the
subject
without,
t he pur poses
attainment
of
Subordinate
goals
strategy
further
during
at
The
much
beyond
that
a
of
this
m o d e l 6s
■ :
point..
Another
demand
the
for
Further,
t e r ms
of
the
of
rate
and
of
of
in
this
goals
a
whi ch
odds
are
its
and
in
be d i s c u s s e d
' ' • ■
.'»
salient
of
the
i t ems
e mpl oyment
various
quite
is
potential
and s t a r t i n g
factors
the
management
envi ronment
population
is
■
goal
enrollment.
t he
university's
■
primary
will
category
author
'
of
among
the
at
study,.the
as v a r i a t i o n s
e mpl oyment
economi c
its
their
f r om
university's
is
t he
of
of
t o ; pressures
level
Chief
control
el ement
holders
societal
as
use p ha s e
I
i
straightforward.
the, u n i v e r s i t y ' s
in
treated
t he
enrol lees.
(both
be
identification
more
has,
mo d e r a t e l y ■ hi gh
will
program
university
-
university
a given
of
satisfaction
■!
has pr e s ume d
university
demand.
is
and
atrophy*
with
or
the
establish
university
bel ow,
to n u r t u r e
mi ght
students
may
elect
to. i t s e l f ,
departments,
the
it
the
in
mi ght
left
viability
to
beneficial,
responsiveness
above
be so
long-term
Further,
university
whi ch,
assortment
offerings.
perceives
t he
program
especially
department,
needs
or
equal,
degrees
salary).
beyond
the
(20)
university's
power
may
either
contribute
ameliorate
it.
These
factors
alternative
to
m ilitary
service
suitable
due
to
e mpl oy me nt
societal
c ha nge s
changes,
et
The
deal
with
of
its
with
easily
the
a kind of
inertia
university
as
conflict,
in
of
swelled
cha nge
sex-defined
base due
or
an
lack
enrollments
depression),
student
difficulties.
may
in
roles,
to s o c i e t a l
has
an
l ong
the
reason
repute,
as
ope
enjoys
to.
I
for
all
it,
and
intangible
a number
inertia
staff
That
carry j
its
if
is,
it
of
own:
on c e e s t a b l i s h e d ,
facilities,
'
facilities
to
another.
resources
repute
through
Short
social
has
not
ceased
are
In
wh i c h
of
the
lived
phe nomena,
good r e p u t e
is
to
the
similar
jany,
to
standards/practices.
endeavor
be a t t a c h e d .
with
reputation
I
dollars,
may a t t e m p t
staff,
admi ssi ons
f r om
help
As
university
dollars,
I
is
university
may
bad
college
the
are
and
converted
addition,
itself)
the
whi ch
pr obl ems
among t h e s e
after
of
differences
of
di l e mma
enrollment
t i me
great
its
cetera.
standards,
Pri mary
in
t he
t he
age p r o f i l e
resources
a c a d e mi c
not
during
perceptions
i n. t h e
include
(surprisingly,
une mpl oy me nt
to
persists
to ma ni f e s t
quickly
reversed.
I
■The c omponent s
the
funding
career
s ubsyst em,
of
subsyst em,
pl acement
t he
t he
s y s t e m may be
budget
s u b s y s t e m,
and t h e p o l i t i c a l
distribution
t he
s u b s y s t e m.
I
defined
as
including
subsyst em,
the
admission-enrollment
The f u n d i n g
s ub s y s t e m
(21)
is
assumed
t o be
i n t e r —r e l a t e d
that
f unds
are
derived
this
case
t he
State
graduates
i mp a c t
of
o^f
t he
part
who
either
t he
from
Legislature.
university
those
graduating,
in
with
is
have
p o l i t i c a l , s ub s y s t e m
in
a political
entity,
in
i mp a c t
of
The p o l i t i c a l
assumed
left'
to
the
be p o s i t i v e .
university
The
without
by
c h o i c e or by f a i l u r e ,
i s assumed t o be
^
.
1
negative.
. The
relative
magni t ude
of
the p o l i t i c a l f or ces
/
e x e r t e d on t h e f u n d i n g p r o c e s s
i s assumed t o . b e d e t e r m i n e d by
'
weight
of
n u mb e r s .
The a d m i s s i o n
enrollment
subsyst em a l s o
-I
plays
a
part
level
of
in
d e t e r mi n i n g , f undi ng in t h a t the aggregat e
!
enrollment
and t h e
ammount o f
t u i t i o n charged p e r
• .
student
are
central
to
the
g e n e r a t i o n , of
the
■
university’ s
re venues.
the
budget
information
St e p
in
generated
determining
are
budgeted
the
student
I.
subsystem
distribution
by
the
the
involves
also
enrollment
level
at
s u b s y s t e m.
whi c h
determining
relies
The f i r s t
t he v a r i o u s
t he
total
upon t h e
load
colleges
in c r e d i t s
/
multiplying
average
every
figure,
t he
credit
other
colleges'
yields
body
numbe r
i mp o s e .
of
demand p l a c e d
college.
mu t u a l
The
estimate
multiplied
by
This
students
by
in
for
the
cost
in
of
demands
each
process!
each
students
summa t i o n
demands and t h e
an a c c u r a t e
when
will
college
that
t he
of
its
college's
to
involves
the
by t h e
college
on
individual
own s t u d e n t s
load.
college
This
of
( 22)
providing
funding
its
ne e d
own
make
an
for
level
informed
taken
incremental
the
of
period.
funding,
budgeting
together
credit
with
pl acement
subsyst em,
subsyst em
by
hour,?
Given
the
of
either
college.
aggregate - attrac tiven ess
p a r a mo u n t
i mportance
Management
of
primarily
through
ment i o ne d
earlier,
detail
In
in
the
addition
the
ability
dismissal
linked
with
to
t he
decision-making
the
this
topic
the
The
is
is
decreasing
in
to
a
the
given
is
be
of
covered
in
however,
to
For
t he
t he,
the.sake
, these
to
of
process
wholly
student's,
to
As
greater
t he
beyond
of
mo d e l .
university
has
admi ssi on
and
of
policies
its
the
the model ' s
are
closely
enrollment
. u n i v e r s i t y ’ s ma na g e me nt ,
vital
i mparted
discretion.
o b s e r v e d use
c ha n g e s
management
process
enrollment
.
u n iv e rs ity ’ s proximity
the
be
!
policies,
t he
career
enrolling
assumed
will
pr esumed t h a t
to
of
budgetary
and p o l i c i e s .
is
decisions,
the
or
and
can t h e n
the
enrolling
is
of
outlining
s y s t e m and
university.
sys t e m
institute
it
of
needs
university.
use
to budgetary
represent
the/overall
the
chapter
In . a d d i t i o n
must
t he
the
standards
development,
prospect
to
f r om
increasing
of
The
the
budgeting
over
attractiveness
collegers
management
gleaned
influence
the
individual
These
information
means
the
university
decisions.
exert
yields
t he
goal.
t he
model
student.
This
proper^definition-of
r'
t he d i r e c t
management
is
control
pr e s ume d
to
of
be.
(23) ,
exerted
in
and/or
drop
out.
lim ited
1t o
'voting
necessary
the
(from
process
of
d e c id in g to e n r o l l * r e - e n r o l l *
I
II . 1
s tu d e n t's range of o p tio n s is thus
The
the
with
his
standpoint
1
options.
student's
feet'*
of
an
t h e i mo d e l )
j
-
.
unrealistic
but
l i m i t a t i o n ! of . t h e
•
I
.
................
.
^
OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET-ENROLLMENT MODEL ,
V -
Thi s
belief
,
section
that
in
a s s umpt i ons
will,
'
.
appear
students
'colleges'
,
an
aid
depth
whi c h
Briefly*
.
presents
this
discussion
eight
.
of
reader's
of
t he
in
later
within
.
overview
t he
model
I
enter
.
t he
the
v ,
the
model
in
the
understanding
of
the
and
its
sections.
model
by e n r o l l i n g
,university.
3.1*
of
college
are
the
are
university
and
of
t he
f rom, t h e
from t he
by
the
level
level
26.
The
enrolled
university
the
its
colleges.
The
'strength'
whi c h
the
university's
level
body*
affects
future
in
the
•B o t h : sources
i
PI ease
a
its
future
The
among whi c h
plays
Funds
f or m o f
vary
■ »,
to
f unds
•
come
to
the
registration
,
. .
Figure
with
the
■-
3.2*
t o ’ t he
funding
The
a key p a r t
directly
■•
refer
college's
as w e l l .
to
choice
t he u n i v e r s i t y .
funding.
distributes ! its
of
refer
and t h e
factors*
of
students.
university
of
and of
j
number o f
enroll*
college
student
state.
to
a number
of
one of
'
The d e c i s i o n
governed
enrollment
determining
fees*
25.
'strength'
aggregate
in
page
in
Please
i ■
Figure
underlying
page
eight
affects
enrollments
whi ch
strength
a college
of
its
affect
is
(24)
based
of
not
its
on i t s
graduates
expect
to
through
bot h
funding
control
of
selected
funding
or
rate.
colleges,.
they
are
funding,
are
out'*
is
factored
lies
consumed
in
t he
from
softening
fluctuations.
on
the
i
model
either
exerting
as
political
such
or
until
the
outside
the
budget s
the
period
university
i mp a c t s
other
■
of
hand,
of
for
(or
a
enrollment
r emai n
in
the
.
as ' g r a d u a t e s
leverage)
either
'
the bud ge t a r y
Students,
can
into
the
:
college)
they
The p o l i t i c a l
slightly
preventing
that
university
wh i c h
a ugme nt s
Dollars
budgeted,
the
dropouts
employability
salary
‘ dropping
and
university,
upon t h e
leave
through
Federal
also
starting
St udent s
graduates
the
b ut
t he average
receive,.
of
whi c h
and
graduation
i mp a c t
state
just
they
or
dropouts
(thus
' d i e 6,
I MPORTANT ASSUMPTI ONS
One
building
of
t he
mor e
a model
of
t he
identifying
and
analysis
synthesis
and
Pe r h a p s
is
that
t he
the
difficult
justifying
most
to
rational
ma n n e r .
This
the
a n d 1 complexity
t he
important
enroll,
in
ass umpt i ons
of
process
this
of
one
made d u r i n g
is
the
phases.
student,
college
size
exercises
in
is
assumpti on
the]
process
financially
a s s u mp t i o n
is
of
entire
deciding
motivated
and
r
-
'
'
model
i n wh i c h
acts
suspect,
i . : V
I
in the
'
:' '
in
a
(25)
FI GURE
3.1
:
i."•
THE FLOW OF STUDENTS
(26)
FI GURE
O
3.2
:
THE FLOW OF DOLLARS
O
KSTATE
ZBOP&Tar
RFEP(L)
) ^REXFND(L)
( 2 7)
Any
speculation
processes
of
into
factors
the
of
wi de
of
the
'colleges'.
to
be
i mportant,
is,
random c ha nc e
inaccurate,is
Ho we v e r ,
for
probably,not
too
the
set
of
assumpt i ons
of
the
university
into
I
I
'
. .was
made p r i m a r i l y a l o n g
dissection
dat a
resulting
decision-making
ignores
the:assumption
'
I
dissection
The
by
whi c h
and
t
the
indicated
bound
model ,
equally
concerning
The
the
is
ma r k .
Per haps
motivation
eighteen-year-olds
and e m o t i v e
purposes
t he
c o m p i l e d by t h e
I
c o l l e g e s are:
MSU C a r e e r
: ■ •
P l a c e me n t
eight
.
.
lines
office,
I
I.
Agriculture-Life
Sciences;
I
’
.2 „ A r t - A r c h i t e c t u r e ;
3,
Business;
i
I
'
4 » . Education;
'•
5.
I
Engineering;
6o Liberal
Ar t ' s;
I
.
7.
-
'
I.
.
-
'
■
1
'
Nursing;
8 , . Science-Mathematics,
Not e . t h a t
ignored
in
t he
•
.
non-degree
composition
-
I'
•
and
of
the
■■ .
IJ
primarily
due
to
the
prospects
for. students
some
amal gams
of
of
the
actual
-
studies
difficulty
model ' s
colleges
are
This
is
V
■
enrolled
pr ogr ams
-model , u n i v e r s i t y , .
.. .
‘
•
that
V
general
of
i'n
' .
determining
those
i
areas,
the
•
career
. No t e
1
'
colleges
in;
• • • • # - •
are
real
f ragments
also
. . .
. and/or
university,.
The
(28)
colleges
of
a
in
t he
model
similar
similar
model
a ca demi c
e mp l o y me n t
are
wer e
the
constituted
n a t u r e ; the
prospects.
validities
so. as t o
graduates
Central
of
the
g r o u p p r o g r a ms
to
the
of
whi c h
validity
assumpt i ons
namel y,
that
meaningful
distinction
compi l ed
f r om
j
accurately
t he
finally
Another
a s s u m p t i o n whi c h
profile
unchanged.
That
significantly
year
pool'
of
estimate
be
reached
the
These
total
without
three
the
ass umpt i ons
be
that
the
Office's,
in
of
the
in
mo d e l .
ages
a
data
files
the
relatively
body w i l l
is
that
MSU w i l l
'five
g r a d u a t e s - who e n r o l l
here.
greatly
simplify
these
assumptions,
in
*
each
model , t o
n a me l y
traditionally-aged
al most , c e r t a i n t y
of
n ot
t he
new e n r o l l m e n t
r"
I
that
and g e o g r a p h i c
the p r o p o r t i o n
By ma k i ng
the
is
r emai n
student
assumpt i ons
requiring
are
e x a mi n e d
body w i l l
hi gh, school
populations,
and
needs
student
changes
t wo
of
t he
out-of-state,
Pl ace me nt
A f u r t h e r , assumpt i on
in-state
side
pr ogr a ms ^
t he d i s t r i b u t i o n
change.
these
of
t he
manifested
no g r e a t
Together,
enrollment
of
is,
presently
experience
Career
constitute
prospects.
d e mo g r a p h i c
origin
degree
this
.
initial
c a re e r, prospects,
and,
1- *
M
1
' I
.•
» -»»/
...
j
career
prospects
c o r r e l a t e well with
initial
career
prospects
the
those
•
that
long-term
be t we e n
MSU.
reflect
J
.
career
of
governing
I
dissection,
faced
time
period
‘
distinguish
the
an
can
bet ween
o t d e r - t han-average,
prospective
students.
i n accurate.
Accordi ng
V.
(29)
to
an a r t i c l e
proportion
wi d e
is
increase
assert/
of
than
throughout
however/
validity
is
to
of
in
trigger
an
eve n
fact
budget-induced
the
university.
level
with
the
assumpti on
of
out-of-state
used
out-of-state
structures
that
state
the
in
the
students
even
and p r o p o r t i o n s .
of
of
of
this
the
valid.
The
in/
or
in
t oward
and
wo u l d
offered
fee
by
structure
will
the
of
negative/
simulation.
greatly
t he
period
This
pr ogr ams
change
student
wer e
student
the
model
rationality
registration
per
i mp a c t
budgeting
the
positive
to
woul d
t he
of
alterations
degree
the
factored
greatly
during
more
the
continue
of
the
nation
author
e mp h a s i s
either
has
The
profile
revenues.
model
to
not
assumpti ons
no s i g n i f i c a n t
gross
will
if.such
period
colleges
enrollment
funding
students/
of
multiplier
in
in
century.
primary
response/
Education(6),
likely
alterations
be
is
of
the
is
de mogr a phi c
changes
of
students
upon
the
woul d
throughout
computation
t he
age/
assumpti on
Higher
and
The
i mp a c t
greater
to
constant
of
assumpti ons
and e s p e c i a l l y
motivation
t he
of
significant
fiscal
and
rest
model .
average
Another
before
the
t he
undergoes
simulation
the
the
If
'increasing
Chronicle
ever
that
e x a mi n e
strategies.
the
The
o I d e r - than-average
larger
the
body
in
r e ma i n
Coupl ed
proportion
simplifies
the
registration
fee
extra
contribution
given
present
of
fee
(30)
Another
with
the.
important
quality
a ss umpt i on
direct
is
and
Anot her
in
the
model ' s
The
starting
is
to
to
salary
levels
will
as
in
Federal
prospects,
funding.
that
and,
instantaneous
cause
A third
populace
further,
Gi v e n
the
of
majority
|
ie,
is
that
potential
plays
a, p a r t
f r a me w o r k
in
of
the
trends
and
seem w a r r a n t e d . . .
e mpl oy me nt
This
has
have
of
a s s u mp t i o n
been u n a b l e
••
duration
inflation,assuming
figures
a
not
otherwise.
t he
has
inertia;
b ut t h e
model er
: .
.
'
i t ,
For . t h e
ignores
vast
its
been c o n v e r t e d
the
available
•
.
of
.
.
the.
effects
to
1978
data
wer e
year.
funding
is,
and t h e
the
do
college
certain
remain!constant.
, upon
dollar
the
That
college,
i mp r o v e
All
c o lleg e’ s quality®
present,
to be e r r o n e o u s ,
model
the
ass umpt i ons
, that
the
upon
or d r o p o u t .
these
One
the
by
enrol lees
ass umes
linear.
ethic.
perceived
performance.
of
a
funding
t hemsel ves
level
has
mode l
adequately
Dollars,
'
gathered
in
enroll
environment
pr e s ume d
be
funding
p e r c e i v e d or
and c u r r e n t
simulation,
to
c ha nge s
concern
college’s
influence
properly
decision
given
quality
quality?
is
enr ol lees
the
that
of assumpti ons
a
positive
is
quality
of
that
instantaneous
c ha nge s
set
is
the
higher
more
Experience
assumed t o
follow
higher : the
that
likely
a ’rich
perceived
college
shows t h i s
is
assumpti on
I
to
richer’
quality'
c o l l e g e ’ s graduates'
t he
get
of
a
empl oyment
receive
federal
t o be d e f e n s i b l e ®
I
(31)
A.
final
dealing
set
with
of
a s s u mp t i o n s
t he . a l l e g e d
i mpact!
to
of
funding
levels.
largely
supportive
largely
derogative
w i 11
reflect
the
group of
their
purposes
of
The
t he
: ..
t owar d
apparent
whi ms
I ’ ■
of
t he
fe l t
are
those
p r o c e s s "upon
1. - !
graduates wijll.be
.
-
■
univenant/f
that dropouts
I
■.
. '
it f
and t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s
constituents
this
, :
assumptions'that
of
are
t he p ol i t i c a I
|
state
be d i s c u s s e d
to
'
largest
or
:,
w i l l , be
'
actions
"
most- v o c a l
be1reasonable ,for
the
model .
I MPORTANT CONSTANTS
In
data
are
its
driven.
based
assumed
of
present
The
in
E n r o l Ume n t - Bud ge t
i
I
t he
pro jections that
the
|
I
;
constants b u i l t into i t
t he
of
t he
the
Office
direction
I
compr i ses
.
shown
in
respectively
empl oy me nt -
for
data
t he
rate
and
salary
years
supplred
ignored
processes.
assumed
of
is
:
:
I
,3.If
Table
increasing
t he
and
rate
aver age, . of
1 975
by
graduates
the
(in
who
:
model - makes
as upon t h e
its
generic
average
I 979j .
Career,
failed
to
vectors^
■
33.
the
In
by t h e
CEMPRT
The se
vectors
weighted
average
.
•
of
1978 d o l l a r s )
through
the
•
pa ge
highly
Any a l t e r a t i o n
two o n e - b y r e i g h t
!
starting
model
s h o u l d be p r i m a r i l y f ocused, i n t h i s a r e a .
■ .
I
s e t o f c o n s t a n t s d e r i v e d f r om t h e d a t a s u p p l i e d
CSALRT?
reflect
t he
i s
much upon
model
P l a c e me n t
and
That
interactions
the
aspects
as
f orm*
the weighted
of
t he
condensi ng
Pl acement
respond*
eight
the
Office*
average
colleges
vol umes
t he
of
author
who had been i n v o l v e d
(32)
in
ROTC p r o g r a m s ,
e mpl oy me nt
who
received
ment i o ne d
The
load
rate
o r : who wer e
was
thus
e mp l o y me n t
continuing
calculated
as
offers
all
to
placed
the
ith
was
derived
matrix
j th
Please
see
listed
maj or s
of
1978-1979
CBDNRL
of
The
department
fiscal:
year.
The
represent
taught
of
these
f rom t he
eac h
of
the
CDLPCR,
cost
in
j
i ■
eight)
.
.
Registrar,.
credits
consumed by
campus
during
vectors
t he
The
the
CBNROL,
ba s e
rates
of
and r e - e n r o l l m e n t
by
vectors
are
based
listed
1978
in
Table
dollars
3,3
on
per. credit
•■
■ •-
was c o m p i l e d
f r om a
!
•
ordered
reflecting,
by t h e Re ge nt s of: t h e Mont ana U n i v e r s i t y Syst em
;
'
!
'I
■■■■• ■
among o t h e r
t hi ngs; , t o t a l :
credits taught, total
;
fulltime
for
.
of
colleges
■ j
report
Co n s u mp t i o n
.
Registrar,
vector
t he
matrix
the
respectively
contents
in
of
one-by-eight
dropouts
obtained
.
on
by
credit
This
FY 7 8 - 7 9
'
re-enrollment
representing
by
line
number
other
one-by-eight
35
those
student
Page 3 4 ,
•,
:
the
incremental
,office
t he
represents
3,2,
every
graduates
information
an
a 7000
the
by d e p a r t m e n t
and CBGNRL
enrollment,
page
through
by
Table
i
report
graduates
graduates(minus
CCRP Sf .
college
by c o n d e n s a t i o n
obtained
of
The
, .
upon t he
college,.
education,.
t he r a t i o
above),
eight-by-eight
Repor t
their
each
equivalent
depar t ment
students,
in . the
.
.
;
•
.
.
'
and;total
i n s t r u c t i o n a l : costs
university
for
the
fiscal
year
1978-197.9.
i
(33)
TABLE 3 . 1
:
COLLEGE
EMPLOYMENT CONSTANTS BY COLLEGE
CSALRT
(1978
I
AG- BI OL
CEMPRT
$)
! CEXPVL
I
I (1978 $ ) I
I
$11,336
0.810
$9,182
2 ART-ARCH
$10,930
0.731
$7,990
3 BUSI NESS
$11,818
0.902
$10,660
4 EDUCAT8N
$10,447
0.835
I
I
I
I
I
J
I'
I
$8,723
J
I
I
I
I
-------I
I
$16,212 I
I
5 ENGI NRaG
$16,662
0.973
6 LI B
$11,303
0.693
$7,833
7 NURSI NG
312,112
0.964
$11,676
8 MATH- SCI
$14,888
0,887
I
$13,205 I
I
■■• I
I-------- - - I
ARTS
I
I
I
(34)
TABLE
3.2
:
CREDIT
LOAD PER
INCREMENTAL STUDENT
CONTRI BUTI NG COLLEGE
CONSUMING
COLLEGE
I
I
I
2 1
3
I
4 1
5
I
6 1
7
I
8
- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I -------------J -------------I ------------- I ------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 1 2 0 . 6 9 2 I 0 . 6 4 9 1 1 . 1 1 71 2. 1 36 1 1 . 454 1 5. 636 I 0 . 0021 9 . 391
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I -------------I ------------- I - - - - - I -----------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 I I . 6 2 7 1 2 7 . 4 8 2 1 0 . 6 9 2 I 2 . 6 2 0 1 1 . 0 7 3 1 6. 274 I 0 . 0
I 3.520
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I -------------I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I -------------I ---------- -- I ------------ I ------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 I 6 . 1 50 1 0 . 8 7 7 1 2 1 . 6 7 1 I 3 . 7 8 4 I I . 0 0 2 1 1 0 . 9 6 8 1 0 . 0
I 6.350
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I -------------I -------------I ------------- I ------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4I
2 . 7 4 9 1 2 . 6 9 3 11 . 3 7 0 1 2 4 . 4 1 1 I 0 . 1 82 16. 853 I 0 . 002 I 5 . 5 5 1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------- I ------------- I ----------- I ------------- I -------------I -------------I - — ------ I ------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 I 2 . 1 0 7 1 , 0 . 6 1 71 0 . 5 5 6 1 0 . 9 4 9 1 2 0 . 5 4 8 1 4. 8131 0 . 0
I 13.647
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------ I — ------- I ------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 I 3.5611 1.2771 1. 699 I 3.239 I 0. 661 1 3 3 . 05 6 I 0.001 I 4.208
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I ---------- - I ------------ I -------------- I -----------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 I 5 . 0 8 0 1 0 . 7 5 8 1 0 . 1 13 I 4 . 9 9 3 1 0 . 0 0 3 1 6 . 2 1 7 1 2 8 . 6 7 7 1 2 . 6 3 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 - I ------------- I ------------- I ------------- I -------- — I ---------- - I ---------- - I ^ ------------ I -----------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
81
3 . 2 4 5 I 1 . 1 16 10 . 3 9 5 I 2 . 1 1 3 1 2 ; 2 0 2 l 6 . 0 4 9 I 0 . 0 0 3 1 3 5 . 4 1 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I ------------ I ------------- I ------------- I - - --------- I --------- -- I ----------- I --------------I ------------
( 3 5) :
TABLE 3 . 3
:
VARIOUS
I
CONSTANTS BY COLLEGE
i
COLLEGE
CBNROL
CBGN1RL
AG- BI OL
.00756
, 000115
000066
$30.81
2 ART-ARCH
,00427
„ 0 0 0 0 79
,000037
$37.79
3 BUSI NESS
00^90
000075
000043
i $20.21
4 EDUCAT 'N
.00499
.000076
000044
$29.93
5 E N GI N R 6G
;00841
, 0001 28
.000073
$34.76
.00368
, 000056
000032
$21.90
7 NURSI NG
00271
000:041
000024
$58.63
8 MATH-S Cl
,00147
,0000 22
, 00001 3
$22.19
I
CBDNRL
CDLPCR
i
6 LIB
ARTS
(36)
The
raw
Office
data
of
the
TAVPOP,
wer e
Director
t he
the
for
representing
" F i v e - y e a i — pool"
for
obtained
years
same
of
1976
office,
t he
hi gh
was
schools'
Yureckf
of
graduating
f r om a s t u d y
a
Doctoral
the
The t a b l e
population
compi l ed
Wal ter .
f or m f r om
Research.
estimated
1999
by
punched-card
Institutional
Mont ana
to
in
the
seniors
done
candidate
for
in
Education.
DETAI LED
For
purposes
of
clarity*
I
been
less
an i t e m
characters
The
indicated
A ;
Auxiliary
C ;
Const ant s
D :
Drivers
Rat e
T :
Tables
ha v e
parallelism
the
name o f
been
in
.
all
The
to
convention
has
.
cases*
t he
remaining
letters
first
five
be d e s c r i p t i v e
first-character
of
specify
or
the
the
'
variables
i
(Generaljcase)
(Special
constants
of
notable
i mport)
. .j
e q u a t i ons
certain
us e d
i tems
jare
extensively
a coherent
t he
.
name a t t e m p t
variables
R ;
addition*
Arrays
the
following
; Level
nami ng
mo d e l .
In
' I
its type.
classifications;
L
In
t he
indicates
of
MODEL
|
throughout
of
item.
ai r a t i o n a l
■
used
letter
EXPLANATI ON OF THE
array
fashion.;
:
'
the
For
whose e l e m e n t s
s
'
in
the
f
.
of
to
■
arrays.
represent
LNROL ( i )
r e p r e s e n t , the
:
i
j
model
instance*
i
'
names
level
is
of
(37)
enrollment
i
in
indicates
eac h o f
one o f
the e i g h t
eight
colleges
= I
Agriculture-Life
i
= 2
Arts-ArchiLecture)
i.
= 3
Busi ness, '
i
= 4
Educat i on, '
i
= .5
Engineering)
i
= 6
Liberal
i
= 8 :
Science-Mathematics,
represents
t he
I
LNROLCi )
set
EQUATI ONS
of
total
level
is
given
= LNROLC i )
me a ni ng
enrollment
f r om
its
level
quantity
is
i ncrement
rate
is
in
by t h e
derived
enrollment
of
at
any g i v e n
+ DT* <RN.R OL ( i >+ RG RNR L < i ) + R DRN RL ( i )
+ RSDTHCi ) ) )
equation
is
!
the . i t h c o l l e g e
a t ! any
this
of
and
the n e t ,
f r om
the
new s t u d e n t s *
aggregate
equation
e n r o l l me n t at i the
'
i
m o d i f i e d by a dd i ng t o i t
( DT)
whose
'
- (RGRAD ( i .) + RDROPC i )
The
names*
\
variables
university
■
LNROL( i )
array
Arts;
N u r s i n g ; ''
the
all
Sciences,
= 7 S
is
In
follows:
i
LNROL( i )
time.
as
i
LEVEL
value
colleges.
the
rate
of
algebraic
re-enrollment
that
the
given
time
level
is
derived
period just p rio r.
■
. - ■.
t h e p r o d u c t of t h e
influx/efflux.
sum. o f
rate
t he
of
Th a t
. .
t i me
The n e t
enrollment
graduated
of
rate.
f or me r
students
; (R GRNRDi -
(RDRNRL)f
i the
( RDROP)
and
LGRAD
number
value
of
is
I
rate
the
of
rate
student
by
graduates
the
rate
( RGRAD) ,
deaths
level, variable
living
given
re-enrollment
graduation
the
is
t he
t he
of'
dropouts
dropout,
rate
( RSDT H) e
whi ch
'not
'
represents
currently
t he
total
re-enrolled.
Its
equation
LGRAD = L GRAD + D T * ( S.RGRAD( i ) - J-LRGRNRL ( i ) . - 1 RG DTH )
2, RGRAD( i )
individual
is
intended
graduation
Similarly^
rate
of
graduates
number
value
is
of
is
the
the
death
level
living
given
^RDROP(i)
individual
dropouts
by t h e
rate
variable
n ot
equation
■
;
is
intended
graduation
into
eight
t he e i g h t
of
the
colleges.
summat i on
rate
RDDTH
is
of
'
to
of
the
individual
whi c h
represents
currently
-
total
re-enrolled,.
Its
SRDR NR L d ) — RDDTH)
for
t he
the
■
back
rate
the
■
represents
•
i
death
graduates,
represent
graduates
the
of
■
i
rates
S.RD RNRL ( i )
re-enrollment
colleges,
the
the
back
LDROP = L DROP + DT * ( ^.RD ROP ( i )
Similarly*
t h e summa t i o n
’
RGDTH i s
LDROP
for
represents
I
colleges,
represent
rates .
S.RG RN RL ( i )
re-enrollment
to
t he
into
of
summat i on" of
the
eight. . colleges.
s umma t i on
■ '
the; e i g h t
of
:
the
individual
dropouts,
'
LUFUND
is
the
level
equation
whose
value
represents
the
(39)
level
of . the
university’ s
funding.
It
is
given
by t h e
equation
;■
'
LUFUND = LUFUND + DT* ( RRGFEE: + RSTATE
RRGFEE
is
t h e component
registration
f unds
fees*,
derived
summa t i o n o f
RSTATE
f r om
the
of
budgeting
model
to
previously,
expend
all
rates
t he
its
the
by
LCFUND
is
levels
of
the
of
RF EDCi )
RE XPNDCi )
funds,
of
university
RBUDGT < i )
the.eight
is
the
colleges*
As
I
.
is
.
constrained
everyiperiod.
f r om
This
.
in
this
implies
that
RBUDGTCi ) ,
the,
t he
array
whose
individual
el ement s
colleges.
represent
It
is
given
= LCFUNDCi ) + DT * CRBUDG TC 5 > + RFEDCi ) - REX RN D< i ) )
is
is
As
colleges’
t he
t he
t he
ith
rate
same
v
wh i c h
constraint
expenditures,
honored
college’ s
at
t he
RBUDGTC i ) + R F ED C i .)
also
for
derived
e q u a t i on
LCFUNDCi )
is
=
t h e name of
funding
component
university
f unds
RRGFEE + RSTATE
the
f unds
subsidization,
i
me nt i o ne d
RBUDGT ( i ) )
university
i s:
state
-
■
=
:
rate
the
ith
of
college
!applies
implication
that
REXPND Ci )
■
federal
to
the
funding,
expends
its
individual
(40)
RATE EQUATI ONS
RNROL
is
rate
of
It
given
is
the
enrollment
by
RNROL( i )
t he
of
of
college.
is
t he
DAVPOP i s
the
i mp a c t
strength
multipliers
whose
absence/
the
t i mes
available
the
RGRADCi )
graduation
by
of
or
the
AMISC
natural
represent
eight
is
ACSTRN
of
the
values
is
ith
the
colleges.
ACSTRNCi )
available
an a u x i l i a r y
of
rate
college.
of
t he
population
variable
miscellaneous
an a u x i l i a r y
range
rate
*
enrollment
estimated
AMI SC
enrollment
is
wh i c h
into
upon e n r o l l m e n t
environment.
t he
DAVPOP *
t he
describes
depicts
*
base
new e n r o l l e e s .
t he
equations
equation
potential
in
rate
new s t u d e n t s
= CBNROL < i )
CBNROLCi )
ith
set
of
whi ch
factors
variable
whi ch
AMISC and ACSTRN a r e
close
to
wo u l d d e v o l v e
1.0.
to
In
the
their
base
rate
population.
the
set
students
of
rate
f r om t h e
equations
eight
wh i c h
describe
colleges.
It
is
the
given
t he e q u a t i o n
RGRADLCi )
CBGRADCi )
college.
regardless
It
of
RDROPCi )
is
is
= LNROLCi )
the
rate
assumed
external
is
t he
of
that
*
CBGRAD Ci ) .
graduation
students
of
students
graduate
at
in
t he
a given
ith
rate
influences.
set
Z
of
rate
equations
whi c h
describe
t he
(41)
withdrawal/dismissal
of
students
from
the
i th
college.
It
is
I
given
by
the
equation
;
; .
.
.j
.
R DR0P< i ) .= C B D R 0 P ( i - ) * L N R 0 L ( i ) * j : 2 “ A C S T R N ( T ) ) * ( 2 - A M I S C ) * A A C A D '
CBDROR( i )
d i s m i s s e d :by
and
is
the
base r a t e
t he
ith
college.
"(2-AMISC)"
values
rate
exert
of
an
tend
enrolled
in
weak
strength.
a c a d e mi c
to
re-enrollment
is
of
i se
; The
students
quantities
dropout/are
"(2-ACSTRN(i))"
f orm because
variances
in
the
direction
upon t h e
opposite
students
out
Fur t her , ?
. f rom
as
enrolled
in
frequently
a hi gh
value
of
their
a strong
as s t u d e n t s
AMI SC p r o mp t s
colleges
without
regard to
i
.
the a u x i l i a r y
v a r i a b l e whi ch r e p r e s e n t s
AACAD i s
standards,
in
dr op
ones.
rates
RGRNRLC i )
this
That
not
dropout
in
influence
dropout.
college
l o we r
are
a t i whi ch
and
all
is of
the
set
of
the
graduates
into
same p o l a r i t y
rates,
the
ith
as
whi ch
RDR0P(i) .
depict
college.
It
is
the
given
i ■
by
the
equation
!
RGRNRLCi )
. '
CBGNRLCi )
the
ith
I
is
. . .
t he
base
rate
.
i
•
at . whi c h
1 ■-i
graduates
•
re-enrotI i n
■■■' ■
.
college.
RDRNRLCi )
!
r e - e n r o l l me n t
the
= CBGNRL Ci ) * LGRAD( i ) * AM IS C* ACSTRN C i )
equation
is
of
the
dropouts
set
of
'
i n t o the
rates
whi c h
.
ith
.
.
college.
depipt
.
.
the
.
It.is
given
by
(42)
the
RDRNRL ( i )
= CBDNRL( i . ) * LDROP( i ) * A M I S C * A C S T R N ( i ) :
CBDNRLCi )
is
ith
t he
ba s e
rate
college*
RSDTH(i).
students
in
at
whi c h
-
is
the
t he
ith
re-en r o l l
in
!
s e t .of
college
dropouts
rates
due
to
whi c h
d e p i c t ' t he
death.
It
is
loss
of
by
t he
given
equation
\
RSDTH( i )
CDTHRT
is
the
!
be
a
i mp a c t
bit
is
= CDTHRT *
national
death
.
,
high
f o r
minor;
the
a
rate
s y mme t r y ,
"I'
LNROLC i )
rate
I
for
..
X
all
•
age s ®.
.
T h i s may
...
'
g r ou p i o f . c o l l e g e - a g e p e o p l e * - b u t the
■
,
. . . . . .
was b u i l t , i n t o t he model : t o m a i n t a i n
:
RGDTH i s
t he
death
rate
of
graduates.
It
is
given
by
the
dropouts.
It
is
gi ven
by t h e
equation
RGDTH = CDTHRT * LGRAD
RDDTH
is
t he
death
rate
of
equation
RDDTH = CDTHRT * LDROP
RRGFEE
is
university
the
rate
coffers.
It
at. whi ch
is given
registration
by
the
fees
enter
the
equation
RRGFEE = ANROLL * CRGFEE
ANROLL
i
summa t i o n o f
university
at
whi ch
is
’
the
the
auxiliary
/
values
enrollment
,
■s t u d e n t s pay
of
at
variable
, ■ ■’
LNROL(i),
It
any.given, time,
f '
registration fees,.
whose
•'
value
r e p r e s e n tp
t he
i s<: t h e
■ '
total
CRGFEE i s t h e r a t e
-■
■■
■•
I t has an a d j u s t m e n t
(43)
built
into
it
out-of-state
fees
paid
budgets,
this
to
allow
students.
by
as
It
students
t hose
for
the
higher
represents
i
whi ch
are
budgets
are
only
rate
paid
by
that
p o r t i o n of t h e
•
to in s tru c tio n a l
applied
ttpe o n l y
ones
of
interest
to
model =
RSTATE
purposes
is
t he
enter
rate
t he
whi ch
at
state
university's
f unds
fund.
for
It
instructional
is
gi ven
by t h e
equation
RSTATE
= ANROLL
ESTATE
is
*
ESTATE
the base
* AUSTRN *
rate,
APOLI
!i n d o l l a r s
per
FTE s t u d e n t s
I
whi c h
the
state
f unds
purposes.
AU STRN i s
aggregate
strength
auxiliary
variable
the
funding
are
multipliers
upon
funding
and
total
R F ED ( i )
contribution
college.
entire
certain
values
are
process
fixed
t
is
of
the
These
t he
close
political
to
of
is
i mp a c t
the
the
upon
AUSTRN and APOLI
unity.
absence,
depicts
A POL I
Their
intentionally
t he p r o d u c t
the
mi n o r
state
t he bas e
i mp a c t
but
funding
funding
rate
represent
the
.
set
federal
whi c h
influences.
thei r;
enrollment,
instructional
university,
is
In
for
variable
represents
significant.
wo u l d be
ith
t he
of
■
the 1 u n i v e r s i t y
auxiliary
whi ch
whose
process
t he
of
process
the
potentially
the
at
of
f unds
f unds
are
rates
directly
riot
whi ch
to
under
t he
budget
of
the
t he
purview
of
the
(44)
i
university*
strength
and t h u s
of
the
may
be see n
college
in
= LCFUND M )
*
as '
directly
^question.
I
equation
R FED ( i )
■
CFED *
It
AC ST RN ( i .) *
benefiting
is
gi ven
t he
by t h e
AUSTRN
f
CFED i s
t he
nomi nal
rate
(currently
i.
funding
can
college
augment
then
university's
product
order
the
yield
the
as
university's
are
distribute
st r engt h^
rate
the
upon
The
f unds
to
its
flow
to
during
t he
the
all
colleges
•
• ;
. - ■" ■
of
This
on t h e
amount - f a v o r s
for
all
increases*.
through
whi ch
colleges*
observation
it h
and t h e
increases
individual
■
t he
strength
strength
university
strategy*
- ■
actual
■rates
the
for
nomi nal ' r a t e * ,
amount
aggregate
of
federal
!from f e d e r a l : s o u r c e s
whose
set
control
of
( 8%) ibu11- whose
and
whi c h
The r a t e
and t h e
contribution
manipulated
strategies*
the
is
;
product
university's
f unds
i mpact
I
t,he
colleges*
t he
RBUDGTl i )
rates
a.
n o mi n a l
stronger
colleges
the
becomes
at
■
c o l l e g e ' s | budget*
aggregate
will
of
a
8%)
!
phase
varying
outlined
below*
equitably*
It
the
These
to
study
budgetary
will
is
be
to
given
by
equation
I
RBUDGKi , )
= ANEED ( i . )
ANEED( i )
is
college's-
t he
funding
* L UFU N D / AUNEE D
auxiliary
need
in
variable
total
representing
dollars*
The
the
ith
ratio
(4 5)
"LUFUND / AUNEE Dre
its
aggregate , needs,
AN EE D Ci ) .
the
university
to
strength
will
differences
•• REXPNDf i )
describes
by
AUNEED ; i s
needs.
equal
is
the
the
divides
the
As s t a t e d
last
expenditure
set
of
the
of
all
the
colleges
no c o l l e g e ' s
another
before,
I
t o LUFUND.
to
strategy,
that
of
'control8 strategy,
f unds
this
t o meet
summat i on
the
its
In
ability
the
in
vis-a-vis
funding.
is
.university's
stated,
increase
in
RBUDGTCi )
given
merely
their
the
as
As p r e v i o u s l y
according
the
represents
the
of
rates
in
ith
college's
due
to
summat i on- of
'
the
mo d e l .
f unds
It
and i s
equation
REXPND( i )
= LCFUND ( i ) .
AUXI LI ARY VARI ABLES
AACAD i s
standards.
enrolled
t he
It
students
auxiliary
is
us e d
dropout
variably
in
wh i c h
represents
determining
(are
d i s mi s s e d . )
t he
and
rate
is
a c a d e mi c
at
given
whi ch
by t h e
equation
AACAD = CACSTD -
In
this
(1.0),
( CDESLN- ANROLp / CDES LN ’
equation
and
CACSTD
CDESLN
d e s i . r e d - l e v e l - o f - e n r o l l ment
bel ow
the
desired
level
i t he
ba s e
is
—
academic.standard
t he .
goal.
the
'
is
Thus,
university's
as e n r o l l m e n t
drops
t e r m " ( C DESLN-ANR OLL ) / CDE SLN*'
f
’
.
(46)
becomes
positive.
allowing
marginal
the
enrollment
become
This
students
exceeds
greater
dismissals*
diminishes
to
t he
than
r emai n
goal
t he
a c a d e mi c
enrolled*
the
unity*
and d r a w i n g
net
net
Conversely^
a c a d e mi c
increasing
university
standards
the
nearer
standards
number
its
as
of
enrollment
goal..
The
auxiliary
AADMIS
variable
represents
enrollment
AADMIS
is
rates
given
AADMIS
In
as
by t h e
describing
in
AMISC
is
given
study
the
has
is
my r i a d
decision
version
by
the
same way.
factored
variable
into
AMI SC0
variable
to
to
t he
*
its
ba s e
admi ssi on
promote.opposite
term i n
t he
equation
■
AUSTRN0
which*
1.0
«
It
factors
and c o u l d
the
(2-AADMI S).
the e q u a t i o n
equal
model
auxiliary
i n AADMIS
rates*
( 2 - A A D MI S )
enroll*
and i s
represents
t he f or m
miscellaneous
to
of
set
the
fluctuations
a driver
be e n
of
CADSTD
of
AMISC = DMISC *
standards
much t h e
equation
enrollment
is
functions
( CDESLN- ANROLL) / CDESLN
Because
fluctuations
DMISC
part
equation
standards.
AMISC
admi ssi on
= CADSTD -
t he
AADMIS
well
status
of
f o r . t he
is
purposes
of,this
present
to
represent
influencing
a
person’ s
be
an
expanded-in
entire
a future
sub-model.
■
I
.(47)
AUSTRN
is
the
ith
is
college.
It
the
is
= ,7
CS AL RT l i )
is
auxiliary
given
t he
can
expect
salary
for
alt.
by
salary
to
of
the
AC F R T S l i ) . i s
the
a s s umpt i ons
t he
the
'
individual
strength
of
the
equation
in
;
rate
at
whi c h
graduates
AUAVSL
is
i
i
university graduates„
r a t e expected
funding
I '
depicting
start,
e mpl oyment
the
-
+ „ 3 * I CSALRT I i ) / AUAVSL * CEMPRT I i >* AC FRT5 < i >)
college
actual
'
I
ACSTRNl i )
ACSTRNl i )
J
weighted1 average
AC STRNt i ) »
.
.
year
the
ith
funding
average
affects
of
of
college.
weighted
the
the
This
t he
the
ith
ratio
term
quality^
is
the
college,
of
is
ith
average
CEMPRT ( i )
fo r graduates
five
that
t he
of
need
to
f ounded
in
o r ■s t r e n g t h s
:
of
a college
and
a college.
that
there
Thise q u a t i o n
i s an
yields
1. 0,
inertial
values
property
i n t he
to
funding
neighborhood
of
,
ANEEDli)
funding
product
dollars
is
needs
of
t he
of
set
the
ALOADI i )
that
the
of
auxiliaries
ith
college,
and C D L P C R l i ) , .
ith
college
ALOADI i )
total
is
the
enrollment
credit
of
the
l oad p l a c e d
ANEEDli)
CDLPCRl i )
incurs
-
in
the
is
the
si mpl y
the
offering
upon t h e
ith
ALOADl i )
CCRPSTli,j).
college
is
cost
in
one c r e d i t ,
,
university,
LNROL ( j ) *
represent
is
",
equation
ALOADl i ) .=
whi ch
given
.
by t h e
by t h e
(48)
The s umma t i on
enrollment
an
and t h e
incremental
credit
across
load
credit
student
on
t he
is
APOLI .
influence
of
political
given.by
APOLI
DVOFUf
=
the
of
the
l oad
in
ith
discussed
is
j
placed
t he
;j t h
college.
APOLI
is
the
factors
on
of
upon
the
t he
col l ege
The
the
ith
college’ s
college
yields
final
auxiliary
j th
t he
auxiliary
whi c h
funding
total
to
depicts
process,
by
be
the
APOLI
equation
( LG RA D-L DR OP) / LG RAD ,*
I
like
product
DMISC
is
a driver
DVOFU
variable, fixed
in
this
study
:
to
a value
greatly
in
represent
the
of
1,0
further
the
role
university
woul d
indicate
wo u l d
manifest
strong
,
funding
in
Al so
like
revisions
of
the
t he
DMI SC
of
societal
funding
strong
itself
support.
the
i
i
Its
perception
support
t he
could w el l
mo d e l .
process.
popular
in
it
most
be e x p a nde d
i mp o r t
of
t he
is
value
A hi gh
level
of
university
t he
meani ngful
to
of
way of
of
DVOFU
and
all#
(49)
Chapter
4
OBSERVATI ONS OF THE MODEL
In
this
chapter
Budget-Enrollment
patterns
period
alternate
r un u n d e r
f r om
model
is
of . enrollment
twenty-year
five
t he
each
t he
of
model
observed
presented*.
at
the
19 7 8 - 1 9 9 7 „
funding
in
behavior
This
model
For
schemat a
t hem.
I N USE
behavior
university
t he p u r p o s e
we r e
of
defined
the
projects
during
of
t he
and t h e
the
st udy, ?
model
was
The
e n r o llm e n t 1projec tio ns obtained
i
;
.
this
process w i l l
be i n t e r p r e t e d
in the
,
1
of t h i s t h e s i s # t h i s
chapter w i l l confine
■
concluding
itself
to
The
chapter
their
reader
conducted
in
enrollment
is
of
the
will
t he
recall
it
f r om
previous
influenced
degrees
■!
presentation.
discussion
chapter
not
offers-?
the
only
but
by
also
that
t he
of
a given
expected
by t h e
t h e model
c o l l e g e 8S
ma r k e t
five-year
value
average
of
1
its
funding
university#management
support
as
and
well.
with
a
t he
Thi s
lever
aggregate
assumed
through
/
shaping
the
not
the
relationship
whi c h
to
apply
university’s
administrators
future.
of
t he
The a s s u m p t i o n
five
' i
woul d I
of
the
provides
its
will
in
.
""
modeler’ s d e f i n i t i o n
all
strength
funding
perceive
whi ch
s c h e ma t a
t he
mol de d
was t h a t
effects
of
the
attempt
was
!
exercise
of
budgetary
discretion
I
similarly.
The
(50)
made,
therefore,
discretionary
existence
funds).
to
represent
choice
of
five
I «
Strongly
2,
Moderately
3,
Fund a l l
4,
Moderately
5,
Strongly
reasonably
broad
of
prerogative
in
. the
distribution
of
mo d e l e d may
t hus
be
as
approaches
course,
range o f
(stipulating,
executive
The
a
t he
very
described
fo I l ows:
Schema
colleges,
this
3,
budgeted,
is
we a k e r
favor
favor
favor
defined
t he
by
equitably)
stronger
no
considered
t he
colleges)
stronger
shows
RBUDGT( ' i ) ,
colleges)
weaker
colleges
wh i c h
may be
schema
favor
colleges.
funding
the
rate
colleges)
base
at
differential
funding
whi c h
bet ween
approach.
t he
ith
In
college
is
receives
as
equation
•
RBUDGT( I )
its
That
S i mp l y
stated,
budge t
the
proportion
university
supply.
= ( LUFUND/ AUNEED)
this
means t h a t
same p r o p o r t i o n
is
defined
receives
to
Each c o l l e g e ,
by t h e
t he
of
of
sum
* ANEED(i)„
every
its
ne e de d
ratio
of
course,
college
t he
can
of
level
the
needs
also
of
total
it
look
funding.
f unds
is
to
asked
the
to
federal
sources
for
funding
additional
support
Sc he ma t a
I
is
derived
attractivenesses
amount
these
s c h e ma t a
be
t he
federal
funding
Therefore#
order
of
e mp h a s i s
of
the
are
in
these
strength
is
applied
budgeting
are
to
t hos e
may
t he
( ACST RNCi ) )
b a s e d on
need
and
that
ar e
a
for
emphasi s*
distribution
and 10% t o
given
following
by
the
Schema
ordering*
t wo
e mp h a s i s .
a (
t
RBUDGT <i )
support
T h i s may
b e t we e n
considered*
ranked
in
inverse
In
schema
t he
I # 80%
and 20%
.90% t o e q u i t a b l e
funding
rates
are
equations:
I
RBUDGT ( i )
less
is
of
mor e
equitably#
applies
Thus#
either
differential.funding
u n i v e r s i t y ’ s f unds a r e d i s t r i b u t e d
used
others*
relationship
strength
s chemat a c o l l e g e s
of
suffering*.
positive
college
whose r e l a t i v e
stronger
are
its
distributing
following
well
whi c h
by
than t hose
t he
of
administration*
colleges
l o we r
colleges
majority
rate
administrations
when
and
great
university
that
than
true
t he
funds
is
university
especially
of
of
a t t r a c t i v e - t o —e n r o l l e e s
f r om
t he
(strengths)
assumed p h i l o s o p h y
but
f r om t h e
and 2 mo d i f y
a disproportionate
The
f unds
- ■
( LUFUND/ AUNEED)
( LUFUND *
.20
*
= (. ( LUFUND/ AUNEED)
+ ( L U FUND A
„
1
0
* *80
*
ANEED ( i )
EMPHASI S Ci.) )
*
.90
*
)
C Schema
13 .
ANEEDCi > )
EMPH A SI S Ci ) )
[ Schema
23
(52)
The d i f f e r e n t i a l
Most
Emphasi z ed
Least
Thi s
e mp h a s i s
concept
s c h e ma t a
4 and
Se
schemat a,
the
empha s i s
is
colleges*
of
but
colleges
placed
funding
wi t h
are
on
defined
Emphasis(I)
Empha s i s ( 2 )
Emphasi s(3)
Emphasi s( A)
Emphas i s ( 5 )
Emphasi s ( 6 )
Emph a s i s ( 7 )
Emphasi s( S)
E mp h a s i z e d
same
is
t he
ranked
further
of
these
i s ,to
enhance
whi c h
are
proof
first,
s c h e ma t a
the
is
strengths
of
in high
demand*
In
is
on
we a k e r
and
t hen
the
we'll
e mp h a s i s
in
of
order
of
and
10%
applies
80%
equitably
20%
in
funding
rates
are
RBUDGTf i )
defined
= (
as
strong
following
( and p r o g r a ms )
the
“d e m o n s t r a t e
burden o f
y our
The
wor t h
90% of
e mp h a s i s ? '
e mp h a s i s *
choice
«10
*
* * 90 - *
5
resulting
AN EED< i ). }
EMPHA S I S ( i j )
the
schema
follows:
( LUFUND/ AUNEED)
+ ( LUfUND *
already
t he
colleges
for
these
Thus,
Schema 4 u s e s
f und e q u i t a b l y
in
strength.
philosophy
you'*
In
u n i v e r s i t y ’ s best
those
this
applied
administrators
the
university's
and
is
polarity*
college's:
support
e26
.22
«18
. I4
.10
=06
. 03
«01
i mproving
that
follows:
opposite
The p r e s u me d p h i l o s o p h y
either
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
-
as
[ Schema
43
(53)
RBUDGT < i )
= (
+
Please
s c h e ma t a
note
is
of
its
many
colleges.
be
(LUFUND *
that
need
considered
*
the
f unde d
by
the
t he
this
above
desirable,;
limit
it
is
r a nge
least
of
funding
as b r o a d
as ■ t h a t
ability
The
data,
to
Tables
displays
within
i mpl ement .
five
the
support
r uns
most
4„1
the
5 - year-poo I
to
of
ability
funding
less
to
than
f und
could
its
by no
a u t h o r ’ s hope t h a t
■■ '
t h e r e b y mode l e d i s a t
.
university
administration’ s
!
the
pertinent
4.28,
Mont a na
I
model ! p r o d u c e d
parts
pages
aggrregate
of
at
5J
the
levels
the
outlined
on f u n d i n g
,
the
.)
[ Schema
university
university’ s
l ower
ANEED( i )
EMPHASI S( i ) )
of
times
Whi l e
„ 20
* »80 *
i n none
any c o l l e g e
80%
means
CLUFUND/ AUNEED)
I
. of
54 t o
whi c h
70.
many p a g e s
are
of
tabulated
Figure
4.1,
enrollment pro jections
I
Hi gh Sc hool g r a d u a t e s ®
along
n u me r i c
here
in
page 7 1 ,
with
t he
(54)
TABLE 4 0 I
YEAR
I
1978
I
.
5
AGGREGATE
I
I
94 4 0
I
ENROLLMENT LEVELS PROJECTED
FUNDING SCHEMA
2 . 1
3
I
9440
4
I
5
I
1
9440
I
944 0
I
9440
-------------------------------
1979
I
956 2
I
9594
I
9621
I
9690
.I
9770
1980
I
96 3 9
I
9683
I
9718
I
9803
I
9914
1981
I
9646
9698
I
9738
I
9837
I
9970
1982
I
9 60 3
I
9662
I
9707
I
9815
I
9965
1983
I
9539
I
9604
I
9653
I
9768
I
9931
1984
I
9458
I
9527
I
'9 5 78 • I
96 9 9
I
9872
I
9367
I
9439
I
9493
I
' 9619
I
9294
I
-II
9425
I
95 54
I
9742
I
9516
I
l_________I
I
9483
I
9709
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
I
I
iI
I
II
9249
921 2
I
I
9325
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s
-
•
9800
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
■9289 ■ I
9383
— -—
9348
—
-
9165
9.369
---------------- -- I
9243
I
I
• 9303
I
94 3 9
I
_
_
_
9680
:
961 4
i'
1990
I
9106
I
9184
I
9245
I
9383
I
9585
1991
I
9035
I
9115
I
917&
I
9314
I
9518
1992
I
8 951
I
9032
I
9094
I
9233
I
943 8
1993
I
8 86 5
I
8946
I
9009 ' I
91 4 8
I
9354
1994
I
8792
I
1995
I
8 73 2
e
i
M
M
i—
co i co
CO I CO
«
I
9076
I
9284
8877
I
9017
I
9226
8969
5
9178
8938
I
9148
I
9607
I
■■ 8 93 6
1996
I
868 3
I
-II
1997
I
II
8651
I
AVGo
I
8765
I
■ 8828
I
8733
I
8797
I
-I- ________j
9 200
I , 9267
I
1
—
9319
I
— —
9437
;
(55)
TABLE 4 . 1 1
YEAR.
I
s ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
2
FUNDING
I
FOR AG- BI O
SCHEMA
3
I
4
5
— I
1978
1837
1837
I
1.979
1857
1855
!■
I
I 980
1861
1859
-
18.3 7
I
1837
1837
1859
I
1855
1852
I 863
I
1 856
1850
{—
1981
1855
1850
1855
I
1845
I 982
1841
1834
1839
I
1 826
1983
1824
1816
1984
1804
1795
I 985
1784
1773
I
1788
1986
1768
1757
I
1761
1836
-I
I
I
181 6
—- I ■
I 806
I ■ 1794
i
I 784
1771
!
1762
1748
1 744
1729
I - - -------
I
1820
T-""
I
1800
i
■ |
1987
1757
J
1745
( 1750
V * mm ^
m -*m *
I
1 732
1718
.1708 ■
j lie »
1
1U
ieue-U
BB
ee—
it
I 988
1749
1736
I
I
1741
I
1 723
I 989
1739
1726
I
, 1730
I
1712
1990
1727
1713
I
I 1718
I
I 700
1991
1713
1700
I-
i 1703
I
1685
1671
1992
1696
1683
I 670
165 5
1993
1679
1667
1653
1640
I 994
1665
1653
I
TI
■I .
I
TI
1640
1626
I
1697
-I
1685
i
1687
I
'
1995
1654
1641
I
j
1670
; 1656
*o
* » « - «1» ■» «
I . I 164 5
1616
1628
I—
I 996
1644
1632
I 997
1639
1626
1755
174 5
.1619
1607
1630
1614
1602
I ! 1749
I ——----- --
I 735
1723
I
1 6 36
I
-I
AVG1
-I
(56)
TABLE 4 . 1 2
!
ENROLLMENT
PROJECTI ON
FUNDING
FOR ART- ARCH
SCHEMA
YEAR
I
I
I
2
I 978
I
1020
I
1020
I
I™
1032 I
10 2 2
I
1017 ,1
1012
—— - I — -— - - - - - I - - — ----------I —- «• »- - - 1034
I
1020
I
1012
I
1004
I 979
1 980
I
1041
- I --------- — S
10 45
I
I
3
I ■ 1020
I
4
I
I
1020
I
5
I
!
8
I
i
I
1020
I 981
I
1042
I
1029
I
1012
I
1001
I
991
1982
I
1035
I
1020
I
1001
I
987
I
977
I 983
I
1026
I
1010
I
989
I
974
I
960
I
998
I
I
I
I
I
i
I 984
1985
I 986
1987
I 988
I
1015
- I - --- ----------I
1004
I
995
I'
975
I
960
!
I —-— ——
—I —— ——————|
I
9 63
I
946
I
I ——
I
987
I
977
I
I
952
971
j i
945
I
989
I
- I - — — ------ I
I
984
I
-W -m* -W w w m
j
w w w
966
* » « » « » « * » ■«— -™» «*»«>•«•»
I
935.
I
927
|
939
j
I
w w w w w w w w e e
I
I
904
I
i
I
898
—- - - - 890
I
978
I 990
I
971
I
961•
I '
933
I
914
i —* —- - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - j -----------—
I
953
I I
926
I
907
1991
I
964
j
1992
I
955
I
937
I
I 993
I .
946
I
928
I
9 4 6
■I ■ ■■
9 18
909
I
■I
900
I
I
|
921
I 989
. .. .
I
I
I
945
I
— I
- 930
I
I
918
I
I
910
899
I • ■ 88 2
890
S
873
881
I
864
•!
6
•I
I
-S
I
I
■i
I 994
I
938
S
1995
I
932
I
914
I- - - - - - - I
908
i-^ -—
I
■■ 905 ■ ;
I 996
1997
AVG„
I
926
- I -------- — —
I
922
I
. 986
I
• 920
. 971
' I
I
892
886
I
I
I '
I '
I
J
|I
881
— j
878, I '
9 48
I
874
I-
■ 857
I
H
868 - I
851
J
- - - - - - I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -I
. 863
I
: 847
I
--------_ _ _ _ j —
■I
' 860 • I- 8 4 4
I
■|
933
I
: 919
I
-I
C57.)
TABLE 4 . 1 3
YEAR
:
I
1978
1232
1979
1250
1980
1
I
ENROLLMENT PROJECTI ON FOR BUSI NESS
2
FUNDING' SCHEMA
1
3
I
1232
■
4
I
•
5
2
1232
I
1232 J
1232 ■ -I
1247
1 239
I
1281 .,I
1331
I
1262
1261
1 249
'I
1 305 !
1381
I
I 981
1265
1266
1250
I
1318 . I i - 1414
,I
I 982
1260
1262
1244 I
■ 1320
i
- 1433
I
1320 I
1445
■i
- I
I 983
1253
1256
, 1235
I
------------- j
I 984
1243
1247
I 1225
1314
I
1449
I 985
1231
I 236
' 121-3
1 306 : I
1448
I 986
1223
1227
1203
I 987
1218
1222
1197
I 988
1213
1217
' 11 92
I
I
I
1 300
w -wies
1 296
1 293
■ •w-e»
I 989
'1212
1208
! H86
w
I 990
1200
I 991
11 90
I 992
1180
—
I
I
I;J
. 1448
I
1448
I
1445
eiirw J >
1 288
I 204
117 8
1281 • I
1195
• 1169
1184
1 I 58
1 272
I
_______ I
1 262
I
1173
1147
I
I -I 993
1168
1 250
I
- - - J
1447
—I
I
-I
. I 4 31
I
-S
I
1420
- I
1409
I
■-!
1400 ■ I
-I
1391 ;■ - 1
1439
I 994
1159
1163
, 1138
I 240
I
1995
1151
■ 1156
1 130
1 233
I
I 996
1144
1150
1124
I 226 ■■ I
1384
I 997
1140
■. 1145
1120
1222 ; I
1379
1209
' 1213
1 191
1 278
1409
AVG-
I
(58)
TABLE 4 . 1 4
YEAR
I
1978
I
|
19 7 9
I
——-w.™-, J
:
ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
FUNDING SCHEMA
3
I
I
.1
2
1205
I
1205
1224.
I
1222
I
1 980
I
1228
J
1224
I
I 205
I
I «■*?!1217
I
J
I ----- ,■ W■— ™I
12 1 7
I
I
I 981
I
1224
I
1219
i
1210
I
I 982
1214
I 208
I 983
1203
1 197
119 8
----------I 1 84
I 984
1190
1 183
I 1 70
1985
1177
1169
1155
I
FOR EDUCATION
4
I .
1205
I
■ 1213,1
1 210
!
I 200
; I
1186
I
■" — - - " I
I I 72
I
---------1
1156
I
------ I
1140
I
5
.I
1205
8
-i
;,1208. 8
-I
1203
$
1192
8
1176
I
—- — — I
1160
I
1144
I
1128
I
1115
. I
S / 1107
I
,1100
I
- - - - - I
1986
1166
1158
1.98 7
1159
I I 50
1988
1153
I 989
1143
1128
I
1135
1120
1144
I
I 1129
1147
1137
I
I 1122
1990
1139
1129
I
1114
I 991
1130
1120
I
' 1104
1992
1119
1109
I •
.3
1113.1
1106
I
1092
I
— — — I- ------ — , - j
■1084 J
1098
I
S■
1075 ■!
1089
I
ewwweeewww j
1094
1078
.5
' 1065
I
1067
I
105 5
I
1059.
I
------ ------ 1
1051
104 6
—
1039
I
J
!
I
I 993
1108
1994
1099
1995
1091
1996
1085
1997
1081
AVG.
1157
1098
I ■ ; 10 8 3
• 1089
I ■ 1074
—
J
----- 1081
I ■ 1067
—— —
.| _ _ _ _ _
1076 - I
1061
1072
I : 10 5 8
1149
I ■ 1137
I
------------------------------------1
.1046
1042
I I 24
1033
i
--------------- ,
I
1030
I
1113
I
(59)
TABLE
YEAR
4.15
ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
.2
I
1 978
2248
I 979
2258
I 980
2291
I 981
FUNDING SCHEMA
_ j
3
S
2248
I
2248
I
----------- ------------------2303
2 347
I
— - i
2303
FOR ENGI NEERI NG
4
1 . 5
I
2248
I
I
2386
S• ■ 24 2 5
I 25 1 6
2352
2412
I
2463
2379
- -----------1
24 5 2
I
2513
2248
25 7 5
eeni
w
J
I
I
J
I 982
2304
2388
24 7 3
I
2541
2611
I
I 983
2296
2390
2484
I
2556
2633
I
I 984
2283
24 8 4
I
2 561
2641
I 985
2265
I 986
I
2253
I 987
I
2245
1 988
I
—I
I
2383
-I
2371
I
I
2238
I
2362
I
----------------I
2358
I
I
2353
I
I
I
I
I 989
22 29
2345
1990
2216
2333
I
I
„„
2473
__
2471
I
2555
I
— — — i 2556
I
I
2642
I
I
2645
I
I
1
I
2556
I
! 2465
I
------ — I
I 2455 I
2551
2541
I
2643
I
I ----------------- 1
I
2633
I
2646
I
2526
I
2619
I
24f2
I
2507
I
• ■26 0 0
I
2401
j
2487
25 8 0
I'
I
1992
2180
2299
I 993
2160
2279
I
S1
I
I
I
I 2384
I
2469
I
21 28
2246
I
: 23 7 0
I
2454
I
1996
•2116
2.235
I
I 2357
.I
2441
I
1997
2107
, 2226
I
I 2349
I
2443
I
2223
2321
I
1—
2422
— —
J
I
J
W1**
I-
1995
AVG.
2642
; 2440
2319
2261
' 2473,
2 5 58
I
2200
2142
i
1— !— — —
1991
1994
j 2478
I
- 1
- - - - - I
2495
I
------ - - - I
«*. «v»•■»««»WWWI
-2562 , I
-WU- • »
-«9* w
25 4 7
W ■ **
j
'{
.. 2535 , J
2527
I
2574
I
------I
( 60)!
!
;
i
TABLE 4 . 1 6
YEAR
I
-
841
'841
-
-
-
-
-
84.1
4
»
I
I ■■ •■ 5
841
i
I 979
863
857
851
844
I 980
871
863
854
844
------8 39
I 981
873
863
852
1982
869
856
845
I 983
86 4
850
• 83 7
819
I 984
85 7
842
I
809
84 9
833
I 986
84 2
I 987
1988
I
827
I
wwee | e»-ww-*-*e»«we»e» j
I
841
I ----------- -.S
838
I -- I -
I 985
•
FOR LI BERAL. ARTS
FUNDING SCHEMA
2-' • . 1
3
I
- - - - - - I-
I 978
'
: ENROLLMENT PROJECTI ON
i
.1
I
I
834
I
- - - - - - - I
I
■826
■f
830 ■ 5
■ 81 4
I
803
■ I
791
I
818
799
826
8 10
790
83 8
822
805
■785
83 5
818
; 801
780
I
- - 1
- ■
■780
J
----------------- ;
771
I
—— I
76 5
■6
I
.I
. 76 0
I
►
Ww»O e* Wee
I- ’
I 989
831
814
I 796
775
I 990
82 5
808
792
769
I
755
I
749
"P
1991
1992
1993
81 9
81 2
80 4
802
I
785
— ---------1■
795
I :■ 7 77
787
»«■»w
763
74 3
------- I
■ I
736
I
|
I
I
-I
-------- - I
I
770
I•
. ( ■-i 76 3
I
7 56
I
747
I
742
73 7.
1994
797
780
I 995
79 2
775
I
758
3
1996
788
771
I
: 754
I
1997
785
768
I
751
. I
■wweKepweoeawe J.
3
728
I
- e - — e- | -
.!
■ 722
I
I
-719
J
■ 733
: I
714
I
731
I
712
I
787
I
770
I
--I
AVGa
833
819
I
------------ 1
804
( 61 )
TABLE 4 „ 17 5 ENROLLMENT, PROJECTI ON
I j
SCHEMA
3
J
j
6 77
FUNDING
YEAR
I
I 978
677
. ?
677
!
FOR NURSING
4
i
I
677
5
677-
I
J
I 979
688
692
690
699
1980
696
698
701
709
I 981
698
700
705
714
I . 706
. j - -— ------ I
719
»j W
efc
I
726
I 982
696
699
715
I •- . 727
I 983
69 3
696
714
I 984
687
690
I
727
I
-- I - . 724
... j
704
—
1
701
I
------- I
6 96
I
I
1 985
682
685
I
■!
I 986
676
680
I
I
691
705
687
i
7.10
I
J
n* w-w« «
I
720
7 01
•71 7
715
I 987
673.
677
684
699
I 988
671
675
• I ■ I 682
697
713
1
J
i
I
I 989
668
|672-
1990
66 3
668
I 991
658
663
1992
65 2
657
1993
64 6
651
I-
- 679
694
7 1 0 ...... 1
•8
-j 675
690
707
i
I .
67P
685
702
■I
I--I
66 4
680
697
I
673
691
I
668
686
I
681
I
658
•I
W«B» W-0» I
--5
I 994
641
645
I
652
I 995
636
641
I
: 6<9
663
I---
633
1 99 7
631
635
668
672
AVG,
64 5
6 60
678
I
I
642
658
676
I
. 678
691
705
I
--I
I
637
I
....------- -- I
1996
—I
(62)
TABLE 4 . 1 8
: ENROLLMENT PROJECTI ON
YEAR
1
2
FUNDI NG
I
SCHEMA
3
I
I 978
.380
380
I
380
I 979
381
386
392
I 980
384
391
I 981
384
I 982
FOR MATH- SCI ENCE
4
I
3 80
I ■
380
I
396
I -
398
■399
I
■ 4 03
392
402
I■
4 07
I ■■ ■408
38 2
391
402
I
408
I
409
I 983
379
389
401
I
407
I
408
1 9 84
376
386
399
I
■ 405
■ I
406
I
■ 405
-—I
-I
- I
1985
37 2
383
4 03
I . . 403
401
I
401
400
I
400
■ 391
399
I 396
-I
I
I 986
370
380'
394
I 987
368
378
392
I 988
366
19 8 9
364
375
I 390
3 98
S■
399
I ------------I
398
I 990
361
373
. 387
395
T
I 991
359
370
■ 385
393
I
I
I
- I
I 992
355
367
I 993
352
363
I 994
34 9
360
1995
346
1996
.34 4
i 381
389
■
i 380
386
■
375
383
358
372
381
356
•370
379
AVG.
343
366
355
369
377
375
388
394
I
—I
I
392
J —
—
I
■390
I
i
—I
386
383
I
.380
j— — —
I
' §
1997
395
378
W
«
I
377
I ------------I
39 5
-S
I
(63)
TABLE
YEAR
4 . 2 1 : PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF
COLLEGE OF AGR I CULTURE- LI FE
FUNDING SCHEMA
I
I
I
TOTAL ENROLLMENT
SCI ENCES
4
5
1978
0.195
0.195
I
0.195
I
0.195
0.195
I 979
0.194
0.193
I
0.193
I
0.191
0.190
1980
0.193
0.192
I
0.192
I
0.189
0.187
0.188
0.184
i""
I 981
0.192
0.191
I
0.190
I
I ----- -------------J
I 982
0.192
0.190
I 983
0.191
0.189
0.189
I
0.186
0.182
I
0.189
I
■I
0.185
0.181
1 0 . I 88
I
0.184
I
1984
0.191
0.188
— I
I
I
■
0.179
I
I
1 985
'
0.190
0.188
I ' 10.187
I
I
0.183
0.178
I
0.183
0.178
I
I
0.182
0.177
I
1
0.176
I
0.176
I
1986
0.190
0.188
I
0.187
•1
I
I 987
0.190
0.187
I
I 0. 1, 86
-----------
J
I 988
0.190
0.187
I
0.186
I
0.182
I
I
1989
0.190
0.187
0.186
0. 1 8 1
an-anemw amaw
I 990
0.190
0.187
1991
0 . 1 90
0.187
!
10.186
I
0.186
I
I
0.181
, 0. 176
I
0.181
0.176
I
1992
0.189
0.186
j
0.186
I
0.181
I
0.175
1993
0.189
0.186
I
[0.1,85
I
0 . 181
S
0.175
I 994
0.189
0.186
I
(0.185
I
0. 1 8 1
!
-0.175
0.189
0.186
I
10 . 1 8 5
I
0.175
— S
1995
1996
0 . 1 89
0.186
I 997
0.189
0.186
0.191
; 0.188
AVG.
I
0.181 .
j - - --------
I
■———— —-
I i 0.185II ‘ 0.185
I
I
I
I
0,187
J
>I
-I
I
Q. 175
.j — — —
•{■ 0 . 1 7 5
-0.181
I—
0.184 ■ I; ; P . 1 7 ? - ,
0.1-81
(64)
TABLE
4.22
YEAR
J
------------1
1 978
I
------------ 1
I 979
I
---------- - I
1
1980
I
— |
1 981
I
-
-
-
-
-
:
0.107
0.109
0.108
0.108
I
PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT
COLLEGE OF ARTS- A RC HI TE CTURE
FUNDING SCHEMA
I
2
1 3
1 4
■ 5
--------------I
I
0.107
I
0.107
I
0.107
S
0.107
j ---------| it. «•» «!• •
"———— I
0.108
I
0.106
I
0.104
j
0.105
I
I
— ------- - I
0.107
i
0.105
I
■0. 103
0.101
I
- - - - - I
' I ------------0.106
I
0.104
i
0.102
0.099
5
I
0.106
I
0.103
I
0.101
■0 . 0 9 8 ■ I
-I'
I
——
i
■ 0.097.
I
0.105
I
0 . 1|02 ■ J- 0„ 100
I 982
I
— --------I
1 983
I
0 . 1 08
1 984
I
-------- - I
I 985
I
0 . 1 07
0.105
I
i
0.099
■ 0. 107
0.105
0.098
0.098
■0,094
0,097
0.094
0.108
:o . i
0 2
1 986
I
--------- - !
1987
I
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.104
I
0.101
I
J
I
! i 0. 1| 01
I
--------1
I i 0.101
I
I 988
I
0.107
0.104
I
I 989
I
0.107
O.
I 990
I
0.107
P . 104
I 991
I
0 . 1 07
0,104
I
I0.100
I 992
I
0.107
0,104
I
I 993
I
0.107
0.104
I
I 994
I
0.107
0,104
I 995
I
0 . 1 07
1 996
I
I 997
I
--------- - I
AVGe I
, 0 . 0 9 6 ,-J
0.095
— —
J
—
O. I ' OI
J
0.097
0.093
OmiOO
I
0.097
0.093
T:o:;po""T
0.097
- 0.093
I
0.097
0.093
0.100
, I
0.096
. 0.093
-0,100
I
0.096
0.092
I
0.096
0.092
J
0.104
J '0.100
I
S I 0 . 1 OO
0.096
■ 0.092 -
I
0.107
0.104
0.100
I
0.096
.P,092
..j
0,107
0.104
0.100
I
I
0.096
■■ 0 . 0 9 2
I
0.107
0.105
104I
I
'*T
0,102
i
' u;
I
0.099
0.095
i
—— I
(65)
TABLE
4.23
j
YEAR
PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL. ENROLLMENT
COLLEGE OF BUSI NESS <,
FUNDING SCHEMA
2
I
3
I
4
. I ■■ .5• I
I 978
0.130
0.130
I
0.130
I
0.130
I
0.130
I
1979
0.131
0.130
I
0.129
I
0.132
I
0.136
I
I 980
0.131
0.130
I
0.129
I
0.133
!
0.139
I
I 981
0.131
0.130
I
0.128
J
0.134
.I
- 0.142
I
I 982
0.131
0.131
I
0.128
J
0.135
I
0.144
I
1983
0.131
0.131
. I
0.128
J
0.135
I
0.145
I
I 984
0.131
6.131
■■ I
0.135
■■I
0.147
1985
0.132
0.131
I ' | 0 . 128
I
j O . 1:28
,I
»•”» I -*»»«. w
0.136
I
* «•» j
1986 .
I 987 ■
0.132
0.132
• 0.131
0.131
I
I i d . 1128
J-
I
I
I
:0.1' 28
0.136
^
0.148
w w
-I
«4»<eeJ
I
«!• w I
0.149
0.136
I
I
I
0.149
. I
I
S
i---—
I 988
0.132
0. 1 3 1
I
;0.1| 28
I
0.136
I
-0.150
I
I 989
0.132
0.131
I
10. 1:27
I
0.136
. I:
0.150
I
I 990
0.132
0.131
i
0.127
I
0.137
I ------------------ j ------
l _ , --------
I
0.150
. J
I
I
0.150
I
0.137
I
0.151
I
0.137
I
I
S
.I
0.151
I
0.151
-S
■«*>J
I 991
0.132
0.131
0.127
I - - — -------
J
0.137
I - - - ----- “ ■
I 992
0.132
0. 1 3 1
I 993
0.132
0. 131
I 994
0.132
0. 1 3 1
1995
0.132
0.131
1 996
0.132
0. 1 3 1 -
I
0.127
I
------- — ™j
I — ----I
0.127
I
I
I
0.127
I
S— I
I
0.127
I
I ...........
S .0.127 - I
1997
0.132
0 . 131
I
0.127
I
0.132
0.131
I
0.128
I
AVG.
0.137
0.137
I. - 0 . 1 5 1
I^.--------------
I
0.137
I
■0.151-
J
0.137
I
0.151
I
I
0.147
J
0.136
( 66 )
-a
(X)'
CO
YEAR
I
: PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT
COLLEGE OF| EDjJCATION
FUNDING SCHEMA
I
2
I
4
J
5
'o "
4.24
TABLE
0 . 1 28
0.128
I
I 979
0 . 1 28,
0.127
I
I 980
0 . 1 27
0.126
I
0.126
. I ■
0 . 1I24
I
0. 1123
I
0 „ 128
I
0*128
I
I
II
I
I
a
1978
I 981
I
0.127
•
I
0.125
• I — ------- —
0.125
I
0.123
--I
° - ' f 7
1982
0.126
0.125
I 983
0 , 1 26
0.125
|o./23
1984
0 , 1 26
0.124
O . 1 '2 2
1 985
0.126
■O.. I 24
I 986
0.125
0.124
0.121
1987
0.125
O1i I 23
• jO. I 21
I 988
0.125
0.123
0.121
I 989
0.125
0*123
jO. I 21
1990
0 * 1 25
0.123
0.121
1991
0.125
0,123
.0.120
!
0
.
1
2
2
I
0*124
I — ■*—
J
I
S
I
0 .1 2 1
I
0. 122
I
I
0.121
I
I ---------- r - — I
I
0.120 - 1
0.120
0*118
-I
0.117
I ,0.119
I ----------- ^ ^
I
0.119
I
5
I
I
I 0.114
0.118
Oe I 16
«
0.115
I
I
S 0*118
,I 0. 114 . I
I --------- — S—- -r
I 0.117
! 0.114
i
J** “• ——' w«M»
I ee«e*se*<«d *ta■■|
I 0.117
I 0.113
I
I
0.117
I --------------I
0.117
I 0.113
I
I— — ----I
I . 0. 1 13
i
l _ _ _ -----------
I 992
0 . 1 25
0.123
:0 . 1 2 0
I
0.117
I
0.113
I
1993
0 . 1 25
0.123
'
0.120
I
0.117
I
0.113
I
1 994
0.125
0.123
0.120
I
0.117
I
0.113
I 995
0.125
0.123
0.120
I
0.117
I
0.113
I 996
0,125
0.123
:
0.120
i
0*117
I
0.113
I 997
0.125
0.123
: 0 . 1 20
I
0.117
I
0.113
0 . 1 26
0.124
.0.122
I
0*1, 19
I - V- ~ —
I
I
0.116
i—
-
AVG,
' T----- '
(67)
i
TABLE
4.25
: PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL
COLLEGE OF- ENGI NEERI NG
FUNDING SCHEMA
I
4!i
YEAR
I
I 978
0.238
0.238
0.258
i
I
,
1 979
0.236
0,242
• ;0. 2 4 4
i
I
I 980
0.238
0.243
0 . 2 48
I
I 981
O.239
0.245
0.
1982
0.240
0.247
0.255
I 983
O. 240
0.249
Io . 2 5 7
1984
0,241
0.250
,0.259
I 985
0.242
0,251
jO. 2 6 1
1986
0.242
0.252
0.262
I 987
0.243
0,253
0.264
I 988
0.243
0.253
0.264
I 989
0.243
0.254
0.265
I 990
0.243
0,254
0.266
I 991
0.243
0.254
0.266
I 992
0.244
0,255
I 993
0.244
I 994
I 995
2 F:
I
0.238
I
0.238
0.246
I
0.248
- 0 . 2 51
I
J
0.256
' I —- ” “ —i—
I
0.259
!
0.262
. j ------------ -I
0.2b4
I
0 . 2 54
j ---------I
0.258
I
I
0.262
I — — .—
I
0.265
, ---------I
0,268
I
.0,270 .
’ "I
.3
0.265
I
0.267
I ~ *— * "• ■—
I
0.269
I
0.271
I — ------ - -—
I
0.272
I
0.273
I ----- I
0.274
I-— ----I
0.275
0.266
I
0.270
I --------------I
0.270
i
0.271
I
I
0.271
-----f
0.272
0.255
0.267
3
0.272
0.276
0.244
0,255
,0.267
I
0.272
,0,276
0.244
0.255
0.267
3
0.272
.
0.276
0.276
■i - 0 . 2 7 6
I—
I
0.276
i0,268
i
0.255
I
0.267
i
0,272
I 997
0.24 4
0.255
I
0.267
I
0.272
0.242
0.251
I
0.260
3
0.265
(
0.275
j-
0,244
I
I
, ----------------
I 996
AVG,
ENROLLMENT
I
( 68)
TABLE
4.26
:
YEAR
PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL
COLLEGE OF LI BERAL ARTS
FUNDING SCHEMA
2
I
3
I
4
I 978
0.089
0.089
I 979
O.090
.0.089
I 980
0.090
I 981
ENROLLMENT
5
■■I
0.089
0.089
0.089
I
I
0.089
0.087
0.086
I
0.089
I
0.088
0.086
0.084
I
0.091
0.089
I
0.087
0.085
0.083
I
I 982
0.091
0.089
I
0.087
0.085
0.082
I
I 983
0 . 0 91
0.089
I
0.087
0.084
0.081
I
I 984
0.091
I 985
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
----------— - | -------■— - 0.088
I
0.080
0.083
>-•»-w.e.
I
w «• ^
0.086
0.083
0.080
I
'5
1986
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
0.083
0.079
I
1987
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
0.082
0.079
I
I 988
0.091
0.088
0.082
0.079
I
1989
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
I ----- — —
I
0.086
0.078
I
I 990
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
0.082
0.078
I
I 991
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
0.082
0.078
5
0.078
I
0.082
------------------1
—
1992
O .091
0.088
I 993
O .091
0.088
I 994
0.091
0.088
I 995
0.091
I 996
I 997
AVG,
S • 0.085
0.082
I
0.085
0.082
0.082
0.088
I
0.085
I------I
0.085
0.082
0.078
I
----------------- ;
0 . 0 7 8 -I
--------1
0.078. I
O . 091
0.088
I
0.085
0.082
. 0.078
0.091
0.088
I
0.085
0.091
0.088
I
0.086
j.™-—-™.-.™.
.j—
— — —
■
0.082
0.083
I
I-. 0 . 0 7 8
I
I
wee
w|
I
0.080
I
S----- -—
I
(69)
TABLE
YEAR
4.27
:
I
•
PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL
COLLEGE OF NURSING
FUNDING SCHEMA
S
2
I
3
I
4 --
ENROLLMENT
I
\
0.072
8
1I ’
J
0.072
I
0.072
I
0.072
I
I
0.072
I
0.072
I-
0.073
I
0.072
I
0,072
I
0.073
0.073
I
0.072
I
0.073
I
0.073
I
I5
»«*» ,W
1978
0.072
0.072
1979
0.072
0.072
I
1980
0.072
0.072
I 981
0.072
1982
0.073
I 983
0.073
I 984
0.073
I 985
0.073
I 986
0.073
0.073
I 987
0.073
0 = 073
. I ■ 0.072
0.072
I 0.073
I
0.073
I
------------ j -------- ------ j -------- ~ ~ ~ - I
0.073
I 0.073
I
0.073 I
; -------------------1 ----------------1
0.073
I
0.073
I
0.073
I
0.072
:I
0.073
I
-------------- - 1
0.073
I
■
-— - )
0.073
I
—
j
0.073
I
I
0.073
I
0 . 0 7 3 - „i
0.074
.S
I
0.073
I
0.073 - I
j —----------- I
---------- —
I
0.073
0.074
J
I - - - - - - -
I 988
0.073
0.073
I
0.073
I --------------
I 989
0.073
0.073
I
0.073
I
0.074
1990
0.073
0,073
I
0.073
I
I 991
0.073
0.073
i
0.073
-1
I 992
0.073
0,073
I
I 993
0.073
0.073
I
I 994
0.073
0,073,
I
■
5
<
W
!
j
0.074
I
I-0.074
I
I
0= 0 7 4 .
-5
0=074
I
0.073 ' I
0.074
I
0.074
I
0.073
-I
0.074
0=074
S
I
0.074
0.074
J
0.073
-
I
0.074
!
---------— _|
0.074
I
~
-I
- | ---------j
- - - - - - - i
O.
07,4
I 995
0.073
0,073
I - 0.073
19 9 6
0.073
0,073
I
0.073-1
I 997
0.073
0.073
I
0,073
S
0.074
I
0.074
0.073
0,073
I
0,073
I
0.073
I
0 .0 7 4 I
AVG.
I
0.074
- -I
P.
0.074 - J
074
I
3
-I
(70)
TABLE
4 . 2 8 : PROJECTED PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT
COLLEGE OF PHYSI CAL SCI ENCES 8 , MATHEMATI CS
FUNDING SCHEMA
YEAR
I
I
I
2
I
3
I
4
I
5
- - —
~ l
I
— ----------V
I
I 978
I
O.040
0.040
I
0,040
I
0.040
I
0.040
I
-------— - - - - - - 1
I
I
I
I 979
I
0,040
0.041
0.040
I
I
0.041
I
0.041
J
---------------1
I
----- - - I
J
I
I 980
I
0.040
I
0.040
0.041
I
0.041
I
0.041
. | - —---------------- - I
■8 - —
—
• — -------- V
I 981
I
0,040
0.040
I
0.041
I
0.041
I
0.041
------------- I
--------------- ,
________
I- - - — —
I 982
I
0.040
0.040 . I
0.041
I
0.042
!
0.041
- i
I 983
I
0.040
0.040
I
0.042
I
0.042
I
0.041
■— —------- I ■
I ------- I 984
I
0.041
I
0.040
0.042
!
0.042
I
0.041
I"— - -- —— - - I
5 •— - — - I
I 985
i
0.040
0.041
I
0.041
I
0.042
I
0.042
----- - - I
I ----- --I
I 986
I
0.041
I
0.040
0.042
S 0.041
I
I
0.042
----- ------ I
I
-s-■ 1i - - 1— -— ™- •“ I
----------------II 987
I
0.040
0.041
I
I
0.042
I
0.041
0.042
--------- - - I
I -------- - - - !— — —
0.040
1 988
I
0, 041
I
0.042
I
0.041
0.042
I
1989
I
0 , 0 40
0.041
I
0.041
i
I
0.042
0.042
I 990
I
--------- - I
1991
I
0.040
0.041
0.042
I
0.042
I
0.040
0.041
0.042
I
0.042
I ■0.041
— I
' I * ee
I
0.040
0.041
I 993
I
------------ 1
1 994
I
0.040
0.041
I
0.042
0.040
0.041 ( I
0.042
1995
I
0.040
0.042
1996
I
0.040
0.041
I
— — --V
0.041 ■ I
1997
I
O. 040
0.041
I
0 . 0 40
0.041
I 992
AVG.
0.041
0.042
I
0.042
I
0.042
. I ________
I
0.042
I
0.042
,j ________
e»WW—
I
0.041
I
I
I
0.041
I
0.041
0.041
8
I
I
I
0.041
0.042
I
0.042
I
I
0.042
I
0.042
I • 0.041
I
I-
0.042
I
0.042
I
S
0.041
■I
I
I
(71)
4.1
;
ENROLLMENT PROJECTI ONS AND DEMOGRAPHIC
-\ZTT ^ V - r-r-y/oz-fu
r >
^j
FIGURE
TIME
TREND
(72)
Chapt er
5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS
SUMMARY
The
probl em
document ed. .
i mbal a nce
the
The
b e t we e n
level
higher
of
assumes
The
capacity
educate
for
of
is
as
as
is
of
the
supply
only
to
be
the
syst emi c
and
faced
l ong
side
t he
For
necessary
to
assess
ultimate
the
Techniques
enable
of
for
of
the
ones>
as
staff
when
management
p owe r .
Due
processes#.
are
results
highly
of
of
to
is
its.
the
intuitive
suspect.
a given
action
A
may
.
by s h o r t
to
of
response
"further
reason
higher
effects
term
have
this
system
in
t h e p r o b l e m,
term i m p l i c a t i o n s
maki ng
effects
of
be f o u n d
mal ady.
shift
of
'
interacting
these
supported
later
education
polarity
i
to
well
a probl em
manager i al
best
policy
' r e a s o n a b l e 11 p r o j e c t i o n
appear
been
d e mo g r a p h i c
constitutes
on t h e
well
higher
and
regardless
short
of
of
upon
has
become n e c e s s a r y ,
the
of
a s s e s s me n t s
education
h o we v e r #
exercises
complexities
to
surplus
aspects
decisions
cognizant
various
effect
When t he
p r o b l e m#
enrollments
inevitable
management
personal
reduction
declining
demand
education
i mbalance.
most
of
policy
analysis
of
the
aggravated
a system
education
from
the
d y n a mi c s
management
s y s t e m#
true
t o o l : i s'"
to b e t t e r
decisions.
demonstrat ed
reliability
(73)
we r e
applied
influence
t he
universty.
analysis
and of
the
of
a
the
sy s t e m
five
interacting
are
f rom
t he
philosophies*
wer e
facets
less ge n e r i c
t h a n mi g h t
analysis
d e m o g r a p h i c a 11y d r i v e n
levels
certain
University
developed
processes
wh i c h
attractiveness
reasons
model
State
funding
enrollment
of
resulting
was
upon
of
enrollment
number
Mont a na
A model
effects
range
of
to
the
aggregate
For
specific
ideale
to
The
bot h
the
be deemed
relates
trends
resulting
presented
of
a
and more
whi c h
enrollment
of
of
a
projections
tabular Iy
and
graphically*
i
DI SCUSSI ON OF OBSERVED BEHAVI OR
The p r o j e c t e d
the
model
display
funding
support
response
in
support
colleges^
Mor eover #’
of
the
though
s c h e ma t a
whi c h
be t we e n
weaker
favoring
attempts
strength
by
the
colleges
funding
funding
are
colleges*
weaker
not
support
counteract
profiles
l ar ger * ?
In
is
positive
the
projects
two e n r o l l m e n t
strong
to
model
while
at
the
t he ■ p r i m a r y
to
the
notably
be t h a t
the
enrollment
smaller#
less
a funding
innate.differences
colleges
the
aggregate
appreciably
short#
of
and p o s i t i v e
t he mor e
greater
runs
be t we e n
p r o g r a ms
isf
the
are
five
realtionship
That
t he
enrollments
their
f r om t h e
high-employability
strong
colleges*
levels
consistent
levels*
of
differences
even
of
a
obtained
enrollment
enrollment*.
strong
enrollments
in
the expense
in
the
schema
college
stronger
(74)
ones
succeeds onl y
university
In
restructuring
all
or
five
their
of
all
t he
lesser
runs
degrees
the
strong^
runs
the
model
of
profile
extent,
of
whose
the
of
model
whose d e g r e e s
of
are
and t h e r e b y
to
lose
is
upon
hi g h
after
gr ound
t he
that
university
sought
project
university.
project
the
less
the
dependi ng
marketability
proportion
tendency
damagi ng
the
itself*
addition,
greater
in
in
colleges
t he
emphasi s,
whi c h
tend
student
t he
To a s l i g h t l y
funding
will
in
a-moderate
to
increase
body.
job
offer
Colleges
ma r k e t
university
show a
p r o f i I e 8S
compos i t i o n .
One s u r p r i s i n g
proximity
of
the
b e t we e n
the
for
20 year
for
the
out
s y s t e ms
t he m.
In
system t o
A
the
rate
of
model ' s
any
be
■ I
t he
of
to
each
l o we s t
407
more
mode I
average
to
woul d
assertion
our
projects
9200.)
seem t o
that
efforts
the
enrollment
C9 607 t o
t h a n 4%. . T h i s
resistant
was t h e
The d i f f e r e n c e
students
F o r r e s t e r ' s (1 1,8)
the
however,
other.
projected
was o n l y
slightly
case,
projections,
to
social
control
inertia
of
the
f r o m t he
mode I :
formidable.
not e
about
d oc ume nt e d
decline
of
projections
'
I
I
period
stubbornly
final
well
and
empirically
are
of
projections
highest
a difference
bear
aspect
■
t he
results
de mo g r a p h i c
t h e ma r k e t
v
show f o r
obtained
trend
for
higher
enrollments.
■
shows a
much s t e e p e r
education
Thi s
■
i
is,
I
t han, t h e
believe,
(75)
an
accurate
felt *
not
The
need
for
diminishing
education
de c a de s
the
representation
in
nee d
man' s
for
greater®
our
the
next
diaspora
of
higher
into
decades
is
in
enrollment
area
the'
will
in
not
the
full
be
education
is
f ocus
comi ng
of
the
initial
syst em and b e y o n d *
education
that
of
has
never
d e mo g r a p h i c
be f e l t
in
been
decline
t he a r e n a
model
in
whi ch
ma nne r
relationship
is
could
this
interests
and
stipulated
need
model i ng
compl ex
of
Another
subsystem
area
whi c h
influences.
e mpl oy me nt
are
for
hel d
made
i n wh i c h
college
author,
in
t he
in
t he
i mp r o v e me n t
strength
is
qualitative
that
sense*
quantitative
of
a
abilities*
it
reinforces
an
influences
confident
woul d be
nature
interdisciplinary
could
the
an
aspect®
foreign
to
the
Churchman' s( 7 )
approach
to
the
is
the
syst ems®
in
whi ch
i mp r o v e me n t
represents
In t h e
and
t he
valid
be
reseach
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
t he
Whi l e
Although
college
the
solar
I predict
rates®
i mp r o v e me n t
author's
the
the
soon t o
education^
The p r i m a r y
assumed
higher
during
higher
RECOMMENDATIONS
be made
of
effect
Al t hough
alter
universal
t wo
actual
society®
may
Consequently*
of
the
and d e s i r a b i l i t y
undertaken
of
of
present
starting
the
i mp a c t
version
of
salary
constant®.
could
Thus*
for
the
of
the
be
made
the
empl oyment
model
t he
graduates
of
fluctuating
rates
of
a given
nature
of
(76)
the
real
e mpl oy me nt
employability
that
area
the
model' s
subsystem
but
An
woul d
s howi ng
the
society
t he
of
the
university.
t he
alter
An e x t e n s i v e
substantial
system' s
during
research
in
i mp r o v e me n t
in
character.
t he
discussion^of
implementation
and
means w h e r e b y
the
of
actual
political
could
model ed.
a substantial
be t h e
administrators
fate
well
require
me n t i o n e d
woul d
effects
and
not
also e ffe c t
i mp r o v e me n t
de v el opment
is
woul d
p o r t r a y a l , of
model ' s
the
mar ket
s u b - mo d e l s
miscellaneous
actions
these
of
taken
subsyst ems’
the
trends
in
by u n i v e r s i t y
influence
upon
CONCLUSIONS
In
one
sense,
Budget-Enrollment
project
mo d e l
represents
experience
spanni ng
Certainly,
on t h a t
must
the
of
be
see n
author.
the
may
t he
as
well
level
room
is
years
alone,
been
i n t he
for
that
the
That
the
model , must
of
of
of
the
larger
future
validity
course
one
the
sense,
Whi l e
a model
be j ud-g ed on t h e
is
the
this
an
educational
and
the
i mprovement ,
of
of
t i me
t he
use
thesis
person's
project
wor t hy, of
widespread.
asserts
is,
the
and
culmination
several
However ,
have
during
the
having
undertaking
construction
its
life.
results
and e n e r g y
of
potential:merit
model
constructed
Forrester(11:3-4)
a relative
basis
matter.
of. that
wh i c h
existed
the
before i t .
I f t h i s m o d e l / i s a l l o w e d t o : g a t h e r d u s t on
I
.
.
.
”1 ' „ ■. ‘
‘
■
.
..
shelves
of
some
must y . l i b r a r y , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g used
.iI
(77)
and/or
the
i mp r o v e d u p o n ,
I
study
will
not
demonstrates
Sy st e m
just
t he
extent
similar
the
Dy na mi c s
wor t h
of
to a
whol e
particular
that
this
nature,
Budget-Enrol ment
worthwhile.
t hen t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g from
'
- :
be
f u l l y realized=,
I nd e e d , t h i s study
the
application-of
realm
of
one on win c h t h e
project
encourages
s y s t e ms
author
of
the
mode l
may
b e . judged
principals
in
general.
focused.
future
regardless
it
the
use
to
not
To t he
efforts
ultimate
of
of
have
t
of
a
the
been
(78)
REFERENCES
1.
Be h r e n s # W. W. I I I .
" The Dynami cs of N a t u r a l Re s o u r c e
Utilization."
Towar d a G l o b a l E q u i l i b r i u m ,
Meadows, D . L . and Me a dows , D. H„ , e d . Ca mb r i d g e :
MI T P r e s s , 1 9 7 0 .
2.
Boughe y , A r t h u r S.
Strategy
C a l i f o r n i a , 1976.
3.
Chiet,
4.
C h r i s t e n s e n , S a n d r a ) M e l d e r , J o h n ) and Wei sb r o d . B u r t o n .
" F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g C o l l e g e A t t e n d a n c e . " The
J o u r n a l of Human R e s o u r c e s , 10 ( Summer 1 9 7 5 ) .
5.
Chronicle
of
Hi gher
Education,
The .
21
. Chronicle
of
Hi gher
Education,
The.
4 May
6
7.
8
For
Survival.
Menl o P a r k ,
Earl F.
The New D e p r e s s i o n i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n :
A St u d y of F i n a n c i a l C o n d i t i o n s at Al C o l l e g e s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s . New Yo r k : Mc Gr aw- H i l l , 1 9 7 1 .
Ch ur c hma n,
Dell
April
C. We s t .
The Syst ems A p p r o a c h .
P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 6 8 .
I 980.
1981.
New Yor k
:
. Forrester,
9.
10.
J ay W.
" C o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e B e h a v i o r of S o c i a l
S y s t e m s . " Towar d a G l o b a l E q u i l i b r i u m , Meadows,
D . L . and Meadows, D . H . , ed. Ca mb r i d g e : MI T P r e s s ,
I 970.
_______ . " C h u r c h e s a t t h e T r a n s i t i o n Be t we e n Gr owt h and
Wo r l d E q u i l i b r i u m . " Towar d a G l o b a l E q u i l i b r i u m ,
Meadows D . L . and Meadows, D . H . , e d . Ca mb r i dge :
MI T P r e s s , 1 9 7 0 .
_______ .
Industrial
I 961 .
Dy n a mi c s .
Ca mb r i d g e
: MI T
Press,
I I . _______ .
P r i n c i p l e s Of S y s t e ms . C a mb r i d g e : W r i g h t - A l i e n
P r e s s , 1968.
I 2. _______ .
Ur ba n Dy n a mi c s .
Ca mb r i dge : MI T P r e s s , 1 9 6 9 .
13.
_______ .
Wo r l d
Dy n a mi c s .
Ca mb r i dge
:
MI T P r e s s ,
1971.
(79) .
I 4„
Kieftf
Raymond# A r m i j o / Fr ank # and Buck l e w / N e i l S«,
A Handbook f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Ac ademi c and Pr ogr a m
P l a n n i n g : Fr om I d e a t o , I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , .
Boulder/
C o l o r a d o S NCHEMS/ I 9 7 7 a „
15.
Lawrence/
the
16.
L a w r e n c e # Ben G. # and S e r v i c e / A l l a n L . / e d .
Q u a n t i t a t i v e Ap pr oa c he s t o H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n
Ma n a g e me n t : P o t e n t i a l / L i m i t s and C h a l l e n g e . .
Wa s h i n g t o n . / D. C. : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r
Hi gher Educat i on# 1977.
17.
N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Management
S y s t e ms .
I n t r o d u c t i o n the S t a t e Pl a nn i ng
S y s t e m.
B o u l d e r # C o l o r a d o :. N CH EMS# 19 77a
18.
_______ .
S t a t e P l a n n i n g Syst em Case S t u d i e s .
B o u l d e r # C o l o r a d o : N CH E MS # 1 9 7 7 b .
19.
Or wi g#
M. D . # J o n e s # Pa ul K. ) and L e n n i n g # Os c a r Te .
ACT R e s e a r c h Re p o r t on E n r o l l m e n t P r o j e c t i o n
Model s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l P l a n n i n g . ' I o w a C i t y #
I owa : A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e T e s t i n g S e r v i c e # 1972«
20.
Pugh#
Alexander
Ca mb r i d g e
Ben 6 .
United
F i n a n c i n g Pos t s e c o n d a r y
States.
NCFPE : I 9 74.
Education
in
-
L. I I I .
DYNAMO U s e r 8S Manual.,.,
: MI T P r e s s # 1 9 7 6 .
• •
’
21.
P a n d e r s # J or g e n ) and Meadows# D o n e l l a H. " T h e C a r r y i n g
C a p a c i t y o f Our G l o b a l E n v i r o n m e n t : A Look at
t he E t h i c a l A l t e r n a t i v e s . "
Towa r d a G l o b a l
E q u i l i b r i u m # Meadows# D . L . and Meadows# D » H . # e d .
Ca mb r i dge : MI T P r e s s # 19 7 0
22.
S a l l e y # C h a r l e s D.
"Short-Term Enrollment Forecasting
f o r A c c u r a t e Budget P l a n n i n g . " J o u r n a l of H i g h e r
E d u c a t i o n # 50 ( Ma y / J u n e # 1 9 7 9 )
23.
W a l l h a u s # Ro b e r t A.
"Model ing for Hi gher Education
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and M a n a g e m e n t . " Management
I n f o r m a t i o n Syst ems: The. S t a t e o f . t h e Art.#
. Johnson# C h a r l e s B» and K a t z m e y e r # W i l l i a m G. #
ed.
Durham : Duke U n i v e r s i t y Pr es s# 1 96 4«
(80)
24.
Yureckf Walter.
" Sys t e m Dy n a mi c s M o d e l i n g o f F i n a n c i a l :
F a c t o r s and E n r o l l m e n t P a t t e r n s i n P u b l i c
U n i v e r s i t y Ma n a g e me n t " . U n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r p r e p a r e d
f o r EdAd 6 9 0 c r e d i t s June 1 9 8 0 .
2 5«
Zemsky #- Ro be r t ? and A s s o c i a t e s . "Can C o l l e g e s C o n t r o l :
Enrollments?"
E d u c a t i o n a l Re c o r d s 61 ( W i n t e r
19 80)
I
(81 )
APPENDI X A
:
DYNAMO SOURCE
BUDGET-ENROLLMENT MODEL
CACSTD=I . 0
***
CADSTD= I . 0
CGRAD = . I 89
CDROP=. 063
CDESLN=I OOOO
CODE
DEFI NI TI ON
OF CONSTANTS
CRED I TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST( I , I ) = 2 0 . 6 9 2
CCRPST( 1 » 2 ) = 0 . 649
CCRPST( 1 , 3 ) = 1 . 1 1 7
CCRPST ( 1 * 0 = 2 . 1 3 6
CCRPST( 1, 5>=1. 454
CCRPST ( I , 6 ) = 5 . 636
CCRPST( I , 7 ) = 0 . 0 0 2
CCRPST ( I , 8) = 9 . 391
I N AG- BI O
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CC RPST ( 2 , 1 ) = 1 . 6 2 7
CCRPST ( 2 , 2 ) = 2 7 . 4 8 2
CCRPST( 2 , 3 ) = 0 . 6 9 4
CCRPST ( 2 , 4 ) = 2 » 6 2 0
CCRPST( 2 , 5 ) = 1 . 0 7 3
CCRPST ( 2 , 6) = 6 . 274
CCRPST( 2 , 7 ) = 0 . O
CCRPST ( 2 , 8 ) = 3 . 5 2 0
IN
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST ( 3 , 1 ) = 6 . I 50
CCRPST ( 3 , 2) = 0 . 877
CCRPST( 3 , 3 ) = 2 1 . 6 7 1
CCRPST( 3 , 4 ) = 3 . 7 8 4
CCRPST( 3 , 5 ) = 1 . 0 0 2
CCRPST( 3 , 6 ) = 1 0 . 9 6 8
CCRPST( 3 , 7 ) = 0 . 0
CCRPST ( 3 , 8 ) = 6 . 3 5 0
I N BUSI NESS
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST ( 4 , 1 ) = 2 . 7 4 9
CCRPST ( 4 , 2 ) = 2 . 6 9 3
CCRPST < 4 , 3 ) = 1 . 3 7 0 0
CCRPST ( 4 , 4 ) = 2 4 . 4 I I
CCRPST ( 4 , 5 ) = 0 . I 82
CCRPST( 4 , 6 ) = 6 . 8 5 3
CCRPST ( 4 , 7 ) = . 0 0 2
IN
ARTS-ARCH
EDUCATI ON
(82)
CCRPST( 4 , 8 > = 5 . 551
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST( 5 , 1 ) = 2 . I 07
CCRPST ( 5 , 2 ) = 0 . 6 1 7
CC RPST( 5 , 3 ) = 0 . 5 56
CCRPST ( 5 , 4 ) = 0 » 9 4 9
CCRPST( 5 , 5 ) = 2 0 . 5 4 8
CCRPST( 5 , 6 ) = 4 . 813
CCRPST( 5 , 7 ) = 0 . 0
CCRPST ( 5 , 8) = 1 3 . 647
IN
ENGI NEERI NG
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST( 6 , I ) = 3 . 5 6 1
CCRPST( 6 , 2 ) = 1 . 2 7 7
CCRPST( 6 , 3 ) = I . 6 9 9
CCRPST ( 6 , 4 ) = 3 . 2 3 9
CCRPST( 6 , 5 ) = 0 , 661
CCRPST( 6 , 6 ) = 3 3 . 0 5 6
CCRPST( 6 , 7 ) = 0 . 001
CC RPST( 6 , 8 ) = 4 . 2 0 8
IN
LI BERAL
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST ( 7 , 1 ) = 5 . 0 8 0
CCRPST ( 7 , 2) = 0 . 758
CCRPST ( 7 , 3 ) = 0 . 1 1 3
CCRPST( 7 , 4 ) = 4 . 9 9 3
CCRPST ( 7 , 5) = 0 . 003
CCRPST ( 7 , 6 ) = 6 . 271
CCRPST( 7 , 7 ) = 2 8 . 677
CCRPST( 7 , 8 ) = 2 . 6 3 2
IN
NURSING
CREDI TS CONSUMED BY ONE STUDENT
CCRPST( 8 , I ) = 3 . 245
CCRPST( 8 , 2) = 1 . 116
CCRPST( 8 , 3 ) = 0 . 3 9 5
CCRPST ( 8 , 4 ) = 2 . 1 13
CCRPST( 8 , 5 ) = 2 . 2 0 2
CCRPST ( 8 , 6 > = 6<,049
CCRPST ( 8 , 7 ) = 0 . 0 0 3
CCRPST ( 8 , 8 ) = 3 5 . 4 1 6
I N MATH- SCI ENCE
COST OF PRODUCING ONE C R E D I T ,
CDLPCR ( I ) = 3 0 . 8 1 "
CDLPCR( 2 ) = 3 7 . 7 9
CDLPCR( 3) =20. 21
CDLPCR ( 4 ) = 2 9 . 9 3
CDLPCR( 5 ) = 3 4 . 76
CDLPCR ( 6) = 2 I . 9 0
BY COLLEGE.
ARTS
(83)
C
C
CDLPCR( 7 ) = 5 8 . 63
CDLPCR ( 8 ) = 2 2 . 19
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
AVERAGE SALARY RATE OF EMPLOYED GRADUATES,
CS A L R T ( I ) = I I 3 3 6 .
CSALRT( 2 ) = 1 0 9 3 0 .
CSALRT ( 3 ) = 1 I 8 1 8 .
CS AL RT( A) = I 0 4 4 7 .
CS AL R T ( 5 ) = 1 6 6 6 2 .
CS AL R T ( 6 ) = 1 I 3 0 3 .
CSALRT( 7 ) = 1 2 1 1 2 .
CSALRT(B)=I4888.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
RATE OF GRADUATES
CEMPRT(I)=O.81O
CEMPRT( 2 ) = 0 . 731
CEMPRT ( 3 ) = 0 . 903
CEMPRT( 4 ) = 0 . 835
C E MP R T ( S ) = O . 973
CEMPRT( 6 ) = 0 . 693
CEMPRT( 7 ) = 0 . 964
C E MP R T ( B ) = O . 887
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
BASE ENROLLMENT
CBNROL( I ) =O. 00756
CBNROL( 2 ) = 0 . 0 0 4 2 7
CBNROL( 3 ) = 0 . 0 0 4 9 0
CBNROL( 4 ) = 0 . 0 0 4 9 9
CB NR OL ( S ) = O. 00841
CBNROL( 6 ) = 0 . 0 0 3 6 8
CBNROL( 7 ) = 0 . 00271
CBNROL( 8 ) = 0 . 0 0 1 47
BASE RE-ENROLLMENT
CBDNRL( I ) =O. 000066
CBDNRL( 2 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 7
CBDNRL( 3 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 3
CBDNRL( 4 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 4
CBDNRL( S) =O. 000073
CBDNRL( 6 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 2
CBDNRL( 7 ) = 0 . 00 0 0 2 4
. C B D N R L ( S ) = O. 0 0 0 0 1 3
RATE OF DROPOUTS,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
BASE RE-ENROLLMENT
C B GN RL ( I ) = O. 0001 I 5
CBGNRL( 2 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 5
CBGNRL ( 3 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 7 5
CBGNRL( 4 ) = 0 , 0 0 0 0 7 6
CBGNRL ( S) = O. 0 0 0 1 2 8
RATE OF GRADUATES,
C
C
C
C
C
FI NDI NG EMPLOYMENT
BY COLLEGE
I N THEI R
RATE OF NEW STUDENTS,
FI ELD
BY COLLEGE
BY COLLEGE
BY COLLEGE
6
•
' (84 )
C
C
C
CBGNRL( 6 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 6
C B G N R L ( Z ) = O . 000041
CB GN RL ( B ) = O. 0 0 0 0 2 2
C
C
C
C
C
C
CDTHRT=O. 0 0 8 9
CS TATE= 8 9 0 .
CRGFEE=7 0 9 .
CF E D = . 08
DVOFU=I . 0
DM I SC = I . 0
A
T
X
X
ESTI MATED 5- YEAR POOL. OF HI GH SCHOOL GRADUATES, 1 9 7 8 - 1 9 9 7
DAVPOP. K=TABLE( T AV P OP , DUMMYe K , 0 , 2 7 , 1 )
TA VPO P = 62541 / 6 2 7 5 7 / 6 2 5 9 1 / 6 1 4 6 3 / 5 9 7 7 5 / 5 7 2 2 7 / 5 5 1 2 0 / 5 3 4 OO/ 5 1 3 2 0 /
49991/49616/49670/49047/48269/47164/46039/44560/43698/43152/
/42761/42445/42727
***
LEVEL
EQUATIONS. * * *
L
DUMMY. K=DUMMY . J+DT
FOR 1 = 1 , 8
L
LNR O L . K ( I ) = L N R O L . J d ) + D T * ( R N R O L . J K ( I ) + R D R N R L e J K ( I ) +
•
X
RGRNRL. J K ( I ) - ( R D R O P . J K ( I ) +RGRAD. J K ( I ) + R S D T H eJ K ( I ) ) )
L
LDROPSeK= LDR OP S . J + D T * (RDROPe J K d ) +R DROP^ J K ( 2 ) +R DROP « J K ( 3 ) +
X
RDROP. JK ( 4 ) + RDROP. JK< 5 ) + RDR-OP e JK ( 6 ) +RDROPeJ K ( 7 ) + R D R 0 P e J K( S) T
X
( RDRNRL. JK ( I ) +RDRNRLe J K ( 2 ) + R D R N R L „ J K ( 3 ) +RDRNRLeJ K ( 4 ) +
X
( RDRNRL. JK( 5) +RDRNRL. JK( 6) +RDRNRL. JK( 7) +RDRNRL«JK<8) +RDDTH) )
L
LG RADS. K= LGRADS. J + D T * (RGRADe JK ( I ) +RGRADeJ K ( 2 ) +RGRADeJ K ( 3 ) +
X
RGRAD. J K( 4 ) + RGRAD. J K( 5 ) + RGRADe J K ( 6 ) + RGRADe J K( 7 ) + RGRADe J K ( 8 ) X
( RGRNRL. J K ( I ) +RGRNRL. J K ( 2) +RGRNRLeJ K ( 3 ) +RGRNRLoJ K ( 4 ) +
X
( R G R N R L . J K ( 5 ) + R G R N R L . J K ( 6 ) + R GR N R L . J K ( 7 ) + R GR N R L eJ K ( 8 ) + R G D T H ) )
L
• LUFUND. K=LUFUND. J + D T * ( RRGFEEe J K+ RST AT E. JKX
( RBUDGT . J K( I ) + RBUDGT. J K ( 2 ) + R B U D G T . J K ( 3 ) +RBUDGTeJ K ( A ) +
X
RBUDGTe J K ( S ) +RBUDGT. JK( 6 ) +RBUDGTe J K ( 7 ) +RBUDGT0J K ( S ) ) )
L
LCFUNDeK ( I ) = L C F U N D . J ( I ) + D T * ( R B U D G T . J K ( I ) + R F E D . J K ( I ) X
REXPNDe J K d ) )
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DUMMY = Oe O
ADFRT( I , I ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( I , 2 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT ( 1 , 3 ) = I . 0
ADFRT( 1 , 4 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT ( 1 , 5 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( I , 6 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( I , 7 ) = I . 0
AD F RT( I , 8 ) = 1 . 0
N
AD F RT( 2 , 1 ) = 1 . 0
* * * . . I NI T I AL
VALUES
***
(85)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N-
N
N
N
N
N ■
N
N
N
Z Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
ADFRT( 2 , 2 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 2 , 3 ) = I . 0
ADFRT( 2 , 4 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 2 , 5 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 2 , 6 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT ( 2 , 7 ) = 1 . 0
AD F RT ( 2 , 8 ) = 1 „0
ADFRT( 3 , 1 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 3 , 2 ) = I . 0
AD F RT ( 3 , 3 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 3 , 4 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 3 , 5 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 3 , 6 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 3 , 7 ) = 1 . 0
AD F RT ( 3 , 8 ) = 1 . 0
'
ADFRT( 4 , I ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 4 , 2 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 4 , 3 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 4 , 4 ) = 1 . 0
AD FRT ( 4 , 5 ) = 1 . 0
AD FRT ( 4 , 6 ) = 1 . 0
AD FRT ( 4 , 7 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 4 , 8 ) = I . 0
N
N
N
N
N
AD F RT ( 5 , 1 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 5 , 2 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 5 , 3 ) = 1 . 0 '
ADFRT( 5 , 4 ) = I . 0
ADFRT ( 5 , 5 ) = 1 .0.
ADFRT( 5 , 6 ) = 1 . 0
ADFRT ( 5 , 7) = 1 . 0
ADFRT( 5 , 8 ) = 1 . 0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
L N R O L ( I ) = I 837.
LNROL( 2 ) = 1 0 2 0 .
LNROL( 3 ) = 1 2 3 2 .
LNROL( 4 ) = 1 2 0 5 .
LNROL( 5 ) = 2 2 4 8 .
LNROL( 6 ) = 0 8 4 I .
LNROL( 7 ) = 0 6 7 7 .
LNROL( 8 ) = 0 3 8 0 .
N
N
N
LDR0PS=7000
LGRADS = 2 8 0 0 0
LUFUND = I 1 784 700
N
LC FUND ( I ) = I 985 071 .
N
N
N
(86)
Z Z
N
N
N
N
N
LC FUND(2 ) = 1 3 8 3 9 7 5 .
LC FUND ( 3 ) = 6 6 I 1 9 9 .
LC FUND ( 4 ) = 1 5 5591 5 .
LC FUND( 5) = 1 581 I 0 8 .
LC FUND( 6) = 1 7 9 9 2 5 5 .
LC FUND ( 7 ) = 9 2 1 9 7 3 .
LCFUND(S)=I896168.
***
R
R
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
RATE EQUATI ONS
***
RNROL . KL ( I ) = CBNROL.(I ) * DAVPOP. K* AMI SC = K* ADSTRN. K (I.)
RDROP. KL ( I ) = CDR O P * L N R O . L . K ( I ) * ( 2 . - AU S T R N , K ) * ( 2 . - ADSTR N. K ( I ) ) *
( 2- AMI S C. K)
RG RAD. KL ( I ) =CGRAD* LNROL. K ( I )
. RDRNRL. KL( I >=CBDNRL( I ) * L D R OP S . K * A MI SC„ K * A D S T R N . K ( I >
RGRNRL. K L ( I ) = CBGNRL ( I ) * L GRADS . K* AMI S C . K * A DSTRN0 K ( I )
RSD T H . K L ( I ) = CD T HR T * L NR OL . K( I )
RDD T H . KL = Cd THRT * LDROPS. K
RGDTH. KL=CDTHRT* LGRADS. K
RRGFEE. KL=ANROLL. K * C RGFEE
RS TATE. KL = ANROLL. K* CSTATE* AUSTR N . K* APOLI . K
RF E D . KL ( I ) =LDFUND. K ( I ) * CFED * ADSTRN . K ( I ) *AUS TRN. K
RBUDGT. K L ( I ) = L U F U N D . K * A F N D R T . K
REXPND. K L ( I ) = L D F U N D . K ( I )
***
AUXI LI ARY
EQUATI ONS
***
A
ALOAD. K ( I ) = L N R O L . K d ) * C C R P S T ( 1 d ) + L N R O L . K ( 2 ) * C C R P S T ( 2 * I )
A
ANEED. K( I ) =ALOAD0 K ( I ) * CDLPCR( I )
A
AUNEED. K=ANEED. K ( 1 ) + A NE E D . K ( 2 ) + A N E E D . K ( 3 ) + A N E E D . K < 4 )
A
ABUD. K ( I ) = L D F U N D . K( I ) ZANEED. K( I )
A
AFNDRT. K=LUFUND. K/ AUNEED. K
FOR N = I #4
A
A D F R T . K d , I ) =ABUD0K ( I )
A
ADF R T . K(N + 1 / I ) =ADFRT0 K ( N , I )
A
ADFRT5.K(I)=(ADFRT.K(1,I)+ADFRT.K(2fI)+ADFRT.K(3,I))/3.
A
» ANROLL. K=LNROL0 K ( I ) + L NROL . K( 2 ) +LNROL. K ( 3 ) »LNR0Lo K ( 4 ) +
X
LNROL . K ( 5 ) +LNROL. K ( 6 ) + L N R 0 L . K ( 7) + LN, R0L. K( 8)
A
A U A V S L . K = ( L N R 0 L . K ( 1 ) * C EMPRT( 1 ) *C S AL RT ( I ) +
X
L NROL. K ( 2 ) * C E M P R T ( 2 > * C S A L R T ( 2 ) +LNR0Lo K ( 3 ) + C E M P R T ( 3 ) * C S AL RT ( S) +
X
LNROL. K ( 4 ) *C EMPRT ( 4 ) * CS AL RT ( 4 ) +LNR0L=,K( 5) 6CEMPRT ( 5 ) * CSALRT( 5) +
X
LNROL. K ( 6 ) * C E M P R T ( 6 ) * C S A L R T ( 6 ) + L N R 0 L o K ( 7 ) * C EMPRT( 7 ) * CSALRT( 7 ) +
X
LNROL. K ( 8 ) * C EMPRT( 8 ) * CSALRT( 8 ) )
A
AC S T R N . K ( I ) =CEMPRT( I ) * C S A L R T ( I ) / A U A V S L . K* A C F R T 5 » K ( I >
A
AU S T R N . K = ( A C S T R N . K ( 1 ) * LNROL. K ( I ) + AC STRNeK( 2 ) * L NROL. K ( 2 ) +
X
AUSTRN. K = (AC STRN. K ( 3 ) + LNROL. K ( 3) +. ACSTRN. K-(4 )*LNROL . K ( 4 ) +
X
AUSTRN. K = ( A C S T R N . K ( 5 ) * L N R 0 L o K ( 5 ) + A C S T R N oK ( 6 ) * L N R OL, K ( 6 ) +
X
AUSTRN . K = (AC S T RN. K( 7 ) + L NROL . K( 7 ) +AC STRNe K ( 8 ) * L N R O L . K ( 8 ) ) /
X
ANROLL. K
(87)
A
-A
A
A
A
PRINT
X
PRI NT
X
PLOT
PL OT
X
AA DMI S - K = CAD S T D - C C D E S L N - A IMR O L L . O / C DESLN
A P 0 L I . K = ( CLGR A.D S - K - L D R O P S . K ) / L G R A D S o K ) * DV OFU
AACAD. K=CACSTD- (CDESLN-ANROLL=K ) / ( C D E S L N )
AMI S C . K = D M I S C * ( 2 - A A D M I S o K ) * A U S T R N - K
ANROL.K ( I ) = L NROL.K ( I ) Z A N ROLL.K
D A N R O L ( I ) / 2 ) ANROL ( 2 ) / 3 ) ANROL ( 3) / A ) A NR O L ( 4 ) / 5 ) A NRO L ( 5 ) /
6 ) ANROL ( 6 ) / ■ 7 ) ANR0 L ( 7 ) / 8 ) ANROL ( 8 )
I ) L N R O L ( I ) / 2 ) L N R O L ( 2 ) / 3 ) LNROL( 3 ) / 4 ) L N R O L ( A ) / 5 ) L N R O L ( S ) Z
6 ) LNROL ( 6 ) Z7 ) L N R O L ( 7 ) Z 8 ) L N R O L ( 8 )
ANROLL=LZAFNDRT=$ZLUFUND=UZAUNEED=NZDAVPOP=P
LNROLCD = A , L N R O L ( 2 ) = R , L N R 0 L ( 3 ) = 8 , L N R 0 L ( 4 ) = T f L N R 0 L ( 5 ) = E ,
L N R O L ( 6 ) = L f L N R O L ( 7 ) = N , L N R O L ( 8 ) =S
PLOT
ACSTRN( D = A , A C STRN( 2 ) = R z A C S T R N ( 3 ) = B Z A C S T R N ( A ) = T f A C S T R N ( S ) = E z
X
AC S T R N ( 6 ) = L z A C S T R N ( 7 ) = N f A C S T R N ( B ) = S
PLOT
ANROL( I ) = A z A N R O L ( 2 ) = R z A N R 0 L ( 3 ) = B z A N R O L ( A ) = T f A N R O L ( S ) = E z
X
ANROL(6)=LzANROL(7)=NzANROL(8)=S
PL OT
A B U D ( I ) = A z A B U D ( 2 ) = R z A B U D ( 3 ) = B z ABUDC4 ) = T f A B U D ( S ) = E z A B U D ( 6 ) = L f
X
ABUD( 7 ) = N z ABUD( B) = S
OPT
L P P = S 2 z PLW= 9 7
SPEC
DT = . 1 2 5 Z L E N G T H = 2 0 Z P R T P E R = o 2 5 / P L T P E R = o2 5
RUN BASI C
APPENDIX B
ENRC>LLMENT-BUDGE 1
M ^ D E L
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
RL
3 1762 00168181 4
/-r?
I* S 0'-