RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "RESEARCH EXPENDITURES"

Transcription

1 RESEARCH EXPENDITURES September 1, 2003 August 31, 2004 Texas Public Universities and Health-Related Institutions Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Division of Finance, Campus Planning, and Research P.O. Box Austin, TX April 2005

2 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Jerry Farrington (Chairman) Dallas Robert W. Shepard (Vice Chairman) Harlingen Cathy Obriotti Green (Secretary of the Board) San Antonio Neal W. Adams Bedford Laurie Bricker Austin Ricardo G. Cigarroa, M.D. Laredo Paul Foster El Paso Gerry Griffin Hunt Carey Hobbs Waco George Louis McWilliams Texarkana Nancy R. Neal Lubbock Lorraine Perryman Odessa Curtis E. Ransom Dallas A. W. Whit Riter, III Tyler Terdema L. Ussery, II Dallas Coordinating Board Mission The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board s mission is to work with the Legislature, Governor, governing boards, higher education institutions, and other entities to provide the people of Texas the widest access to higher education of the highest quality in the most efficient manner. Coordinating Board Philosophy The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that quality without access is unacceptable. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies.

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The first six sections of this report are based on data provided by each Texas public university and health-related institution for Fiscal Year 2004 September 1, 2003 through August 31, Highlights include: Total reported research expenditures increased 3.6 percent over Fiscal Year Research expenditures in Fiscal Year 2004 were $2,252,897,987. In Fiscal Year 2003, the total was $2,174,191,894. Research expenditures increased by 91.5 percent since Fiscal Year Most of the growth occurred at health-related institutions, which reported an increase of $87,516,698 (8.3 percent). At universities, research expenditures decreased $8,824,236 (-0.8 percent) when compared to Fiscal Year Scientific discipline categories benefitting from the largest research expenditures include medical sciences $769,574,622; biological and other life sciences $534,916,292; engineering $319,106,112; and physical sciences $146,513,008. Funding for medical sciences increased by 7.7 percent in Fiscal Year 2004 compared to the previous year. The federal government provided 58.1 percent of the research funds expended, an increase from 56.1 percent in Fiscal Year The seventh section of this report is based on data provided by the National Science Foundation for Fiscal Year 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. Highlights include: Texas ranked third among the states in total research expenditures for Fiscal Year Life sciences accounted for 66 percent of the research expenditures, followed by engineering (14 percent) and physical sciences (6 percent), at Texas institutions. Texas institutions of higher education ranked fifth in federal obligations for science and engineering, as well as fifth in federal obligations for research and development in science and engineering, after California, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The National Institutes of Health provide 64 percent of the federal research support for science and engineering to Texas higher education institutions. Eight institutions Baylor College of Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Texas A&M University (including Texas A&M Service agencies), The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston accounted for 80.8 percent of the federal obligations for science and engineering to Texas higher education institutions in Fiscal Year i

4 ii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...i Overview...1 Major Findings...3 Statewide Summary Data...5 Institutional Data Universities...13 Institutional Data Health-Related Institutions...23 Historical Data...27 National Comparisons...32 Appendix A Research Expenditures Surveys...A-1 Appendix B Institutional Contacts...B-1 iii

6 iv

7 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables: 1 Research and Development Expenditures Rankings, FY Federal/State Research and Development Expenditures Ratio Rankings, FY Sources of Funds for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs, FY Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field and Source of Funding, FY 2004, Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004, Texas Public Universities Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, FY 2004, Texas Public Universities Federal R&D Expenditures/FTE Faculty Ratio, FY 2004, Texas Public Universities Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004, Texas Public Universities Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, FY Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Expenditures for Research and Development by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Expenditures for Research and Development, Texas Public Universities Federal Expenditures for Research and Development, Texas Public Universities Expenditures for Research and Development, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Federal Expenditures for Research and Development, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Federal Expenditures for Research and Development by Field, Texas Public Universities and Health-Related Institutions...31 v

8 19 Top Five States in Federal R&D Expenditures, Selected Science and Engineering Fields, FY State Rank in Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D, FY Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D by Texas Institutions, FY Texas Universities and Colleges with Federal Science and Engineering R&D Obligations of More Than $10 Million by Support Agency, FY Figures: 1 Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development, Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education, FY Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Universities, FY Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY Growth Rates in Research and Development Expenditures at Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education, FY FY Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Discipline Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Universities, FY Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY Expenditures for Research and Development, FY 1984 FY Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering, Universities and Colleges Selected States, Federally Financed R&D Expenditures, Universities and Colleges Selected States, Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering, Texas Universities and Colleges, Top Five Support Agencies Federally Financed Research Expenditures by Discipline, Texas Public and Private Institutions, FY vi

9 OVERVIEW The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board s annual research expenditures report summarizes data submitted to the Board as required by Section (h) of the Texas Education Code, which states: Once a year, on dates prescribed by the board, each institution of higher education shall report to the board all research conducted at that institution during the last preceding year. The Coordinating Board s summary report is based on expenditures rather than awards because expenditures more accurately reflect the level of current research activity. Awards tend to fluctuate from year to year, making them a much less stable indicator for year-to-year comparisons. The Coordinating Board is only able to verify the accuracy of the research expenditures data by asking institutions to ensure that the data reported are consistent with data in their Annual Financial Reports. According to recent changes adopted by the Government Accounting Standards Board, expenses rather than expenditures will be reported in institutional annual financial reports prepared for Fiscal Year 2002 and beyond. The major difference for research reporting purposes is that capital outlays for research equipment will be depreciated over the life of the equipment and will not be separately identified as research items in current annual financial reports. To provide research expenditure data comparable to that gathered in the past, the institutions were allowed to add capital outlays for research equipment to their research expenses for this report. In addition, the current annual financial reports no longer have a section Exhibit C - Current Funds Expenditures, Expenditure Category Research that was used in previous years as the basis for reconciling data from those reports with data gathered for this report. To facilitate reconciliation, the institutions were asked to submit data using functional classifications that show expenses categorized by instruction, research, public service, and other categories. A set of definitions is provided in the research expenditures survey to help ensure consistency from institution to institution. Even with these safeguards, institutions have some latitude in determining how they report data. Data elements and definitions used in this year s report are comparable to similar research expenditure data elements used by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The two sets of elements differ to some degree because the NSF focuses on science and technology alone, while the Coordinating Board s report includes research in all disciplines. Collection of research expenditure data is a challenging task for institutions. Administrators face many difficulties as they sort out research expenditures at their institutions. For that 1

10 reason, information they have submitted and the Coordinating Board s research expenditures report should be considered indicative rather than definitive. Appendix A includes a copy of the survey form completed by each institution. Appendix B includes a list of the institutional contacts who collected the data on their campuses. This report also contains a section, beginning on page 32, that compares research funding in Texas with that of other states. These data are drawn from three National Science Foundation reports on research obligations and research expenditures. 2

11 ---- MAJOR FINDINGS Total research expenditures at Texas public institutions of higher education increased by 3.6 percent during Fiscal Year 2004, continuing a long-term growth trend. Most of the growth occurred at health-related institutions, which reported an increase of $87,516,698 (8.3 percent). At universities, research expenditures decreased $8,824,236 (-0.8 percent) when compared to Fiscal Year As in most states, Texas higher education research expenditures were concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions. Collectively, the top five institutions in research spending accounted for 69 percent of total research expenditures. The top 10 institutions accounted for 88 percent of the total. Six of the state's health-related institutions ranked among the top 10 Texas public institutions in research expenditures. In addition, the top seven institutions in Table 1 also appear in the National Science Foundation s list of top 100 institutions in federal research and development expenditures for Table 1 Research and Development Expenditures Rankings, FY 2004 Institution Texas A&M University (including Texas A&M Services) The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio University of Houston Texas A&M University System Health Science Center* Texas Tech University *TAMU College of Medicine combined with TAMUS Baylor College of Dentistry to form Texas A&M HSC in FY The federal government funded 58.1 percent of all research expenditures by Texas public institutions of higher education, making it the source of most research funds as it is in other states. At academic institutions 1 nationwide, the National Science Foundation/SRS, Academic 1 For this purpose, academic institutions are generally defined as institutions of higher education that grant bachelor's or doctoratal degrees in science or engineering. 3

12 Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2002, Table B-29 shows that 60.1 percent 2 of the academic research was funded by the federal government. State government in Texas provided 18 percent of the funds for all research expenditures in the state s public higher education institutions. Institutional and private funding accounted for the remaining 24 percent. The ratio of federal funds to state-appropriated funds for each of the 10 Texas institutions reporting the greatest research expenditures is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Federal/State Research and Development Expenditures Ratio Rankings, FY 2004 Institution R&D Rank Fed/State Ratio Ratio Rank The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston The University of Texas at Austin Texas A&M University System Health Science Center The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Texas Tech University Texas A&M University (including Texas A&M Services) University of Houston Medical sciences, accounting for 34 percent of the total, led all other disciplines in expenditures. The top five disciplines medical sciences, biological and other life sciences, engineering, physical sciences, and environmental sciences collectively accounted for 83.7 percent of all reported research expenditures. California ($2.95 billion), New York ($1.68 billion), Pennsylvania ($1.38 billion), Maryland ($1.30 billion), Texas($1.22 billion), and Massachusetts ($1.15 billion) were the top six states in federal obligations for research and development in science and engineering for Fiscal Year The National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation provided 71.4 percent, 10.3 percent, and 7.2 percent, respectively, of the Fiscal Year 2002 federal obligations for research and development in science and engineering to Texas higher education institutions. 2 This percentage was reported incorrectly in the FY 1999 and FY 2000 issues of Research Expenditures. The correct values are 58.6 percent for FY 1999 and 58.4 percent for FY

13 STATEWIDE SUMMARY DATA Expenditures related to research are divided into two categories: expenditures for the conduct of (1) research and development and (2) other research-related sponsored activities. Other research-related sponsored activities refers to support received from external sources to fund activities that cannot be considered strictly research. Examples include grants for equipment or facilities, contracts to perform studies, and training. Definitions for both categories are included in the survey form that is Appendix A. Table 3 and Figures 1 3 provide information on expenses and sources of funds for research and development and for other sponsored activities related to research at public universities and health-related institutions. Some institutions do not report funds used for other sponsored activities related to research. Expenditures for research and development account for 98.4 percent of all reported expenditures. Figure 4 shows growth rates in research and development expenditures for public universities and health-related institutions. Expenditures increased by $79 million from Fiscal Year 2003 to Fiscal Year 2004, after a decrease of $9 million at public universities and an increase of $88 million at public health-related institutions. Eighty-eight percent of the increase is from federal sources. Table 3 Sources of Funds for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs, FY 2004 Federal State Contracts Appropriated and Grants Institution Public Universities Research and Development $598,223,237 $164,060,466 $89,478,366 $109,589,358 Other $4,503,615 $3,313,314 $4,695,415 $3,402,984 Total $602,726,852 $167,373,780 $94,173,781 $112,992,342 Public Health-Related Institutions Research and Development $709,811,366 $149,560,559 $11,525,340 $43,950,813 Other $408,045 $6,008,954 $0 $2,658,835 Total $710,219,411 $155,569,513 $11,525,340 $46,609,648 All Public Institutions Research and Development $1,308,034,603 $313,621,025 $101,003,706 $153,540,171 Other $4,911,660 $9,322,268 $4,695,415 $6,061,819 Totals $1,312,946,263 $322,943,293 $105,699,121 $159,601,990 (table continued on next page) 5

14 Public Universities Table 3 - continued Sources of Funds for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs, FY 2004 Profit Private Non-Profit Total Research and Development $62,315,236 $85,934,918 $1,109,601,581 Other $80,487 $333,419 $16,329,234 Total $62,395,723 $86,268,337 $1,125,930,815 Public Health-Related Institutions Research and Development $67,521,973 $160,926,355 $1,143,296,406 Other $0 $145,520 $9,221,354 Total $67,521,973 $161,071,875 $1,152,517,760 All Public Institutions Research and Development $129,837,209 $246,861,273 $2,252,897,987 Other $80,487 $478,939 $25,550,588 Totals $129,917,696 $247,340,212 $2,278,448,575 Figure 1 Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education, FY 2004 Federal 58.1% State 18.4% Institution 6.8% Private 16.7% 6

15 Figure 2 Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Universities, FY 2004 Federal 53.9% State 22.8% Institution 9.9% Private 13.4% Figure 3 Sources of Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY 2004 Federal 62.1% State 14.1% Institution 3.8% Private 20.0% 7

16 Figure 4 Growth Rates in Research and Development Expenditures at Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education FY 2000-FY 2004 FY % Increase over previous year FY % FY2002 FY2001 FY % 10.4% 15.9% Universities Health-Related Institutions ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Dollars in Millions The accelerated growth in research expenditures peaked in 2002, dropping precipitously in the following years to overall growth rates comparable to those of the mid-1990 s, but well below those characteristic of the 1980 s. The sudden decline in the growth rate of research expenditures at public universities over the past two years is a unique feature for the 1982 through 2004 history of research expenditures at Texas public higher education institutions and results from slow growth in federal support and reduction in state support. 8

17 Table 4 indicates expenditures in the 16 different fields defined in Appendix A. The Coordinating Board s instructions directed institutions to assign project expenditures to only one field to avoid duplication. For the most part, this table reflects expenditures in particular academic disciplines. Some inconsistency may result, however, as institutions strive to categorize a particular research project into only one field. For example, a college of agriculture could perform basic research in biological sciences and report expenses in that field rather than in agricultural sciences. Proportions of expenses by discipline are shown in Figure 5. Medical and biological sciences account for slightly more than one-half of all research expenditures. Table 4 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field and Source of Funding, FY 2004 Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education Federal State Contracts Appropriated and Grants Institution Agricultural Sciences $29,761,742 $24,311,447 $4,459,090 $9,924,202 Biological and Other Life Sciences $326,338,774 $85,286,618 $6,150,800 $33,611,480 Computer Science $32,913,333 $5,826,275 $4,136,932 $3,909,574 Engineering $161,944,610 $33,064,348 $47,978,018 $29,745,654 Environmental Sciences $78,624,859 $14,003,482 $5,693,972 $5,394,486 Mathematical Sciences $27,621,316 $8,725,680 $644,672 $1,217,501 Medical Sciences $470,857,882 $92,024,936 $10,455,298 $33,582,904 Physical Sciences $93,589,792 $19,950,471 $2,154,442 $10,397,189 Psychology $22,479,729 $1,349,426 $3,900,807 $1,758,104 Social Sciences $17,240,621 $9,296,269 $7,226,517 $3,435,696 Other Sciences $4,552,802 $2,603,178 $1,858,844 $1,282,022 Arts and Humanities $778,886 $859,719 $562,585 $3,214,404 Business Administration $2,829,412 $2,393,300 $995,602 $2,192,687 Education $27,239,592 $632,881 $3,375,371 $2,989,862 Law and Public Administration $2,234,255 $650,812 $714,298 $554,872 Other Non-Science Activities $9,026,998 $12,642,183 $696,458 $10,329,534 Totals $1,308,034,603 $313,621,025 $101,003,706 $153,540,171 (table continued on next page) 9

18 Table 4 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field and Source of Funding, FY 2004 Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education Profit Private Non-Profit Total Agricultural Sciences $3,775,555 $10,071,034 $82,303,070 Biological and Other Life Sciences $12,615,796 $70,912,824 $534,916,292 Computer Science $1,412,417 $1,319,500 $49,518,031 Engineering $30,150,849 $16,222,633 $319,106,112 Environmental Sciences $8,402,336 $4,164,406 $116,283,541 Mathematical Sciences $2,237,149 $1,830,416 $42,276,734 Medical Sciences $58,653,588 $104,000,014 $769,574,622 Physical Sciences $5,185,679 $15,235,435 $146,513,008 Psychology $626,970 $1,080,897 $31,195,933 Social Sciences $1,754,054 $7,211,585 $46,164,742 Other Sciences $820,312 $1,631,358 $12,748,516 Arts and Humanities $563,094 $1,138,892 $7,117,580 Business Administration $1,890,773 $3,371,655 $13,673,429 Education $229,825 $7,068,879 $41,536,410 Law and Public Administration $308,555 $582,938 $5,045,730 Other Non-Science Activities $1,210,257 $1,018,807 $34,924,237 Totals $129,837,209 $246,861,273 $2,252,897,987 Figure 5 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Discipline Biological and Other Life Sciences 23.7% Engineering 14.2% Physical Sciences 6.5% Medical Sciences 34.2% All Other 12.6% Environmental Sciences 5.2% Agricultural Sciences 3.7% 10

19 Table 5 shows research in nine different areas of special interest at public universities, and Table 6 shows research in six different areas of special interest at public health-related institutions. Double counting was allowed because many projects are relevant to two or more areas of research. Table 5 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Federal State Appropriated Contracts and Grants Institution Aerospace Technology $27,642,291 $22,232,866 $824,017 $11,777,703 Biotechnology $27,622,888 $1,481,054 $782,114 $5,091,974 Energy $31,697,927 $6,069,577 $836,449 $2,085,127 Environmental Science & Engineering $54,174,762 $30,795,619 $3,718,423 $15,304,643 Food, Fiber, Agricultural Products $11,376,310 $9,394,809 $1,587,142 $2,275,774 Manufacturing Technology $6,369,372 $449,192 $4,718,235 $281,534 Materials Science $26,197,218 $5,204,612 $1,425,642 $2,683,285 Microelectronics & Computer Technology $40,740,444 $5,422,598 $1,290,008 $2,484,203 Water Resources $6,213,711 $1,410,493 $1,967,914 $1,375,048 Totals $232,034,923 $82,460,820 $17,149,944 $43,359,291 Table 5 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Profit Private Non-Profit Total Aerospace Technology $2,836,490 $5,351,208 $70,664,575 Biotechnology $1,845,297 $1,796,068 $38,619,395 Energy $1,384,585 $7,891,877 $49,965,542 Environmental Science & Engineering $3,875,953 $12,551,236 $120,420,636 Food, Fiber, Agricultural Products $1,854,917 $4,435,195 $30,924,147 Manufacturing Technology $1,675,216 $635,198 $14,128,747 Materials Science $3,594,631 $4,996,928 $44,102,316 Microelectronics & Computer Technology $1,871,448 $4,184,524 $55,993,225 Water Resources $523,702 $1,262,626 $12,753,494 Totals $19,462,239 $43,104,860 $437,572,077 11

20 Table 6 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Federal State Contracts Appropriated and Grants Institution Aging $37,854,264 $1,115,440 $208,804 $179,041 Cancer Research $192,917,008 $90,086,935 $1,411,481 $17,263,828 Cardiovascular Research $62,198,113 $1,114,180 $618,987 $1,842,747 Child Health and Human Development $27,747,428 $673,566 $4,841,332 $4,851,073 Mental Health $35,582,652 $1,313,061 $284,652 $303,688 Substance Abuse $22,125,230 $1,686,896 $86,041 $330,818 Totals $378,424,695 $95,990,078 $7,451,297 $24,771,195 Table 6 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D in Areas of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Private Total Profit Non-Profit Aging $619,661 $3,884,588 $43,861,798 Cancer Research $25,675,827 $47,419,527 $374,774,606 Cardiovascular Research $1,636,108 $19,085,971 $86,496,106 Child Health and Human Development $1,055,180 $4,403,092 $43,571,671 Mental Health $2,439,982 $3,180,777 $43,104,812 Substance Abuse $544,751 $363,115 $25,136,851 Totals $31,971,509 $78,337,070 $616,945,844 12

21 INSTITUTIONAL DATA UNIVERSITIES This section of the report contains detailed information on research expenditures reported by individual institutions. Statements related to data quality and applicability found on page 1 of this report also apply to the data shown in this section of the report. Figure 6 Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Universities, FY 2004 (Millions of Dollars) All Others Sam Houston State Lamar UT at Brownsville Stephen F. Austin State UT-Pan-American Texas A&M at Galveston Texas Southern West Texas A&M Tarleton State Texas State - San Marcos Texas A&M-Kingsville Prairie View A&M Texas A&M-Corpus Christi University of North Texas UT at San Antonio UT at Arlington UT at Dallas UT at El Paso Texas Tech Univ. of Houston UT at Austin Texas A&M and Services

22 Table 7 Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Universities, FY 2004 State Institution Federal Appropriated Contracts and Grants R&D Other R&D Other R&D Other Midwestern State $77,388 $0 $0 $0 $225 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $1,025,461 $35,407 $0 $0 $158,570 $8,945 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $8,138,054 $152,268 $2,193,313 $285,227 $91,497 $232 Tarleton State $5,439,350 $0 $1,851,802 $0 $923,092 $0 Texas A&M and Services $174,570,204 $783,918 $75,477,044 $462,311 $38,566,087 $559,139 Texas A&M-Commerce $355,709 $0 $114,642 $0 $972 $0 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $6,233,432 $0 $1,100,248 $0 $2,973,053 $0 Texas A&M at Galveston $2,757,465 $0 $388,714 $259,810 $228,189 $0 Texas A&M International $119,762 $0 $0 $0 $16,983 $0 Texas A&M-Kingsville $3,856,738 $0 $3,054,296 $0 $957,226 $0 Texas A&M-Texarkana $188,653 $0 $0 $4,759 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $2,580,645 $0 $2,619,011 $958,207 $51,559 $0 Texas Southern $3,969,899 $0 $0 $0 $354,305 $0 Texas State University System Angelo State $155,851 $0 $451,819 $0 $25,866 $0 Lamar $1,504,062 $41,058 $1,120,063 $250,750 $352,772 $11,210 Sam Houston State $2,175,912 $0 $29,756 $0 $269,445 $0 Sul Ross State $261,417 $0 $347,902 $0 $68,558 $0 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $3,506 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $3,536,053 $0 $1,673,469 $0 $1,070,401 $0 Texas Tech $23,393,040 $0 $11,326,727 $0 $3,802,483 $0 Texas Woman's $1,238,556 $0 $405,110 $339,711 $280,723 $0 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $11,093,256 $0 $6,373,703 $0 $1,561,940 $0 UT at Austin $249,014,154 $0 $24,957,887 $0 $18,838,740 $0 UT at Brownsville $2,889,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UT at Dallas $15,733,571 $0 $6,013,499 $752,539 $3,100,438 $4,115,889 UT at El Paso $22,232,318 $3,490,964 $6,141,840 $0 $1,144,301 $0 UT-Pan American $2,666,191 $0 $1,271,516 $0 $23,659 $0 UT of the Permian Basin $1,215,420 $0 $449,088 $0 $12,536 $0 UT at San Antonio $11,705,185 $0 $1,837,493 $0 $1,295,960 $0 UT at Tyler $585,874 $0 $0 $0 $124,499 $0 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $31,682,165 $0 $14,193,639 $0 $11,286,912 $0 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $396,016 $0 $508,573 $0 $33,317 $0 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $490,584 $0 $155,806 $0 $0 $0 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $13,631 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 University of North Texas $6,927,327 $0 $0 $0 $1,864,058 $0 Totals $598,223,237 $4,503,615 $164,060,466 $3,313,314 $89,478,366 $4,695,415 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. (table continued on next page) 14

23 Institution Table 7 - continued Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Universities, FY 2004 Institution Private, Profit Private, Non-Profit R&D Other R&D Other R&D Other Midwestern State $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,040 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $1,391,960 $2,200 $555,342 $5,250 $508,124 $52,628 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $113,700 $85,127 $30,338 $0 $130,226 $0 Tarleton State $137,621 $0 $152,437 $0 $74,900 $0 Texas A&M and Services $55,630,504 $1,946,172 $15,221,865 $52,115 $31,188,966 $84,553 Texas A&M-Commerce $826 $0 $0 $0 $137,715 $0 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $1,812,316 $0 $43,669 $0 $1,520,193 $0 Texas A&M at Galveston $153,704 $29,569 $4,267 $0 $1,005,306 $569 Texas A&M International $48,392 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas A&M-Kingsville $347,213 $0 $431,599 $0 $1,889,737 $0 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $0 $0 $117,573 $0 $134,363 $0 Texas Southern $0 $0 $52,092 $0 $271,684 $0 Texas State University System Angelo State $0 $0 $41,866 $0 $210,024 $0 Lamar $34,197 $175,048 $86,312 $23,122 $112,844 $46,339 Sam Houston State $229,625 $0 $0 $0 $153,391 $0 Sul Ross State $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,787 $0 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $1,708,780 $0 $59,027 $0 $1,082,268 $0 Texas Tech $1,206,334 $204,174 $4,172,266 $0 $4,241,811 $0 Texas Woman's $0 $0 $143,459 $0 $165,237 $2,007 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $98,003 $0 $1,894,383 $0 $1,395,845 $0 UT at Austin $31,553,970 $0 $34,323,658 $0 $23,703,362 $0 UT at Brownsville $246,601 $0 $0 $0 $136,831 $0 UT at Dallas $1,368,108 $244,110 $1,015,628 $0 $4,043,346 $0 UT at El Paso $747,991 $716,584 $197,243 $0 $1,604,042 $147,323 UT-Pan American $42,050 $0 $15,628 $0 $290,218 $0 UT of the Permian Basin $156,078 $0 $0 $0 $62,442 $0 UT at San Antonio $812,007 $0 $115,731 $0 $750,081 $0 UT at Tyler $26,370 $0 $7,364 $0 $149,927 $0 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $7,351,900 $0 $2,931,364 $0 $8,481,452 $0 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $146,229 $0 $17,164 $0 $110,008 $0 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $20,639 $0 $404 $0 $1,586 $0 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 University of North Texas $4,204,240 $0 $684,557 $0 $1,956,162 $0 Totals $109,589,358 $3,402,984 $62,315,236 $80,487 $85,934,918 $333,419 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. (table continued on next page) 15

24 Institution Table 7 - continued Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Universities, FY 2004 Total R&D Other R&D and Other Midwestern State $119,653 $0 $119,653 Stephen F. Austin State $3,639,457 $104,430 $3,743,887 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $10,697,128 $522,854 $11,219,982 Tarleton State $8,579,202 $0 $8,579,202 Texas A&M and Services $390,654,670 $3,888,208 $394,542,878 Texas A&M-Commerce $609,864 $0 $609,864 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $13,682,911 $0 $13,682,911 Texas A&M at Galveston $4,537,645 $289,948 $4,827,593 Texas A&M International $185,137 $0 $185,137 Texas A&M-Kingsville $10,536,809 $0 $10,536,809 Texas A&M-Texarkana $188,653 $4,759 $193,412 West Texas A&M $5,503,151 $958,207 $6,461,358 Texas Southern $4,647,980 $0 $4,647,980 Texas State University System Angelo State $885,426 $0 $885,426 Lamar $3,210,250 $547,527 $3,757,777 Sam Houston State $2,858,129 $0 $2,858,129 Sul Ross State $1,058,664 $0 $1,058,664 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $3,506 $0 $3,506 Texas State - San Marcos $9,129,998 $0 $9,129,998 Texas Tech $48,142,661 $204,174 $48,346,835 Texas Woman's $2,233,085 $341,718 $2,574,803 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $22,417,130 $0 $22,417,130 UT at Austin $382,391,771 $0 $382,391,771 UT at Brownsville $3,273,326 $0 $3,273,326 UT at Dallas $31,274,590 $5,112,538 $36,387,128 UT at El Paso $32,067,735 $4,354,871 $36,422,606 UT-Pan American $4,309,262 $0 $4,309,262 UT of the Permian Basin $1,895,564 $0 $1,895,564 UT at San Antonio $16,516,457 $0 $16,516,457 UT at Tyler $894,034 $0 $894,034 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $75,927,432 $0 $75,927,432 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $1,211,307 $0 $1,211,307 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $669,019 $0 $669,019 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $13,631 $0 $13,631 University of North Texas $15,636,344 $0 $15,636,344 Totals $1,109,601,581 $16,329,234 $1,125,930,815 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. 16

25 Table 8 Federal R&D Expenditures/FTE Faculty Ratio, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Institution Federal R&D Expenditures FTE Faculty* Federal R&D Expenditures/FTE Midwestern State $77, $ Stephen F. Austin State $1,025, $3, Texas A&M University System** Prairie View A&M $8,138, $39, Tarleton State $5,439, $27, Texas A&M and Services*** $174,570,204 1, $113, Texas A&M-Commerce $355, $1, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $6,233, $33, Texas A&M at Galveston $2,757, $63, Texas A&M International $119, $ Texas A&M-Kingsville $3,856, $19, Texas A&M-Texarkana $188, $4, West Texas A&M $2,580, $15, Texas Southern $3,969, $21, Texas State University System Angelo State $155, $ Lamar $1,504, $6, Sam Houston State $2,175, $6, Sul Ross State $261, $3, Sul Ross - Rio Grande $ $0.00 Texas State - San Marcos $3,536, $6, Texas Tech $23,393, $26, Texas Woman's $1,238, $5, University of Texas System UT at Arlington $11,093, $22, UT at Austin $249,014,154 1, $146, UT at Brownsville $2,889, $26, UT at Dallas $15,733, $55, UT at El Paso $22,232, $54, UT-Pan American $2,666, $7, UT of the Permian Basin $1,215, $17, UT at San Antonio $11,705, $28, UT at Tyler $585, $4, University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $31,682, $37, Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $396, $2, Univ. of Houston-Downtown $490, $2, Univ. of Houston-Victoria $13, $ University of North Texas $6,927, $9, Totals $598,223,237 11, $50, * FTE Faculty indicates number of full-time equivalents for tenured and tenure-track faculty for fall of ** A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. *** FTE faculty for Texas A&M and Services is based on its Legislative Appropriations Request for FY 2004 and includes 207 FTEs from Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and 16.1 from Texas Engineering Experiment Station. 17

26 Institution Table 9 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Midwestern State $0 $42,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $2,183,230 $555,806 $18,843 $0 $69,973 $0 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $5,284,633 $459,261 $1,139,386 $2,610,330 $0 $132,623 Tarleton State $3,890,477 $69,855 $0 $349 $2,306,813 $0 Texas A&M and Services $51,397,877 $69,852,416 $8,938,716 $121,707,373 $48,112,875 $8,551,033 Texas A&M-Commerce $128,113 $49,502 $3,008 $64,740 $0 $1,000 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $7,438 $481,360 $736,686 $3,359,467 $3,401,232 $1,983,375 Texas A&M at Galveston $0 $625,052 $0 $81,713 $3,615,846 $7 Texas A&M International $0 $27,131 $0 $25,074 $736 $0 Texas A&M-Kingsville $5,502,198 $1,909,708 $0 $1,634,428 $778,831 $0 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $1,434,597 $111,392 $50,934 $1,747,862 $314,693 $12,951 Texas Southern $0 $3,804,198 $0 $97,749 $0 $15,642 Texas State University System Angelo State $411,199 $35,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lamar $0 $7,117 $39,174 $1,084,108 $1,566,645 $24,623 Sam Houston State $129,256 $306,267 $12,756 $0 $1,117,052 $0 Sul Ross State $236,987 $156,027 $0 $0 $0 $38,314 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $750 $149,939 $191,311 $4,425 $1,089,688 $112,059 Texas Tech $11,391,806 $3,845,672 $863,059 $12,256,615 $9,369,129 $478,675 Texas Woman's $0 $876,283 $0 $0 $0 $1,421 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $0 $720,907 $2,870,931 $9,113,443 $164,804 $391,752 UT at Austin $173,589 $36,177,292 $22,191,391 $128,816,119 $33,856,650 $14,980,087 UT at Brownsville $0 $99,598 $0 $0 $42,165 $0 UT at Dallas $0 $3,669,752 $3,813,979 $6,657,797 $1,177,724 $96,474 UT at El Paso $0 $4,085,963 $1,023,878 $4,777,170 $3,151,947 $195,265 UT-Pan American $35,211 $187,482 $467,712 $878,169 $159,293 $94,731 UT of the Permian Basin $0 $4,869 $0 $0 $5,242 $1,823 UT at San Antonio $0 $7,719,932 $777,261 $2,123,649 $494,258 $210,025 UT at Tyler $0 $66,267 $7,302 $145,233 $0 $162,336 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $0 $6,406,164 $5,405,868 $13,605,268 $3,670,025 $1,084,405 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $0 $145,946 $252,606 $28,614 $133,355 $88,032 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $0 $90,538 $324,659 $3,244 $0 $0 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 University of North Texas $95,709 $1,989,458 $388,571 $1,170,156 $948,790 $311,162 Totals $82,303,070 $144,728,297 $49,518,031 $311,993,095 $115,547,766 $28,967,815 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Agricultural Sciences Biological and Other Life Sciences Computer Science * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. Engineering Environmental Sciences Mathematical Sciences (table continued on next page) 18

27 Table 9 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Institution Medical Sciences Physical Sciences Psychology Social Sciences Other Sciences Midwestern State $0 $0 $0 $225 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $0 $109,471 $13,751 $30,847 $0 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $74,155 $733,688 $42,005 $48,360 $0 Tarleton State $1,159 $478,340 $0 $0 $0 Texas A&M and Services $22,610,534 $28,389,511 $2,539,076 $15,403,427 $2,366,405 Texas A&M-Commerce $0 $6,601 $20,042 $2,649 $0 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $122,129 $111,122 $18,791 $63,147 $463,946 Texas A&M at Galveston $0 $172,512 $0 $42,338 $177 Texas A&M International $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,983 Texas A&M-Kingsville $0 $174,009 $0 $0 $214,956 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $37,841 $67,674 $0 $100,694 $398 Texas Southern $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,624 Texas State University System Angelo State $211,768 $48,722 $100,546 $0 $0 Lamar $2,347 $121,347 $0 $26 $0 Sam Houston State $17,000 $88,738 $15,000 $30,395 $122,908 Sul Ross State $0 $45,156 $0 $571,517 $0 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $171,171 $2,849,001 $22,126 $477,321 $1,054,365 Texas Tech $0 $5,750,723 $388,694 $3,044,101 $0 Texas Woman's $817,291 $95,131 $1,770 $21,753 $305,967 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $196,962 $4,506,437 $524,276 $683,131 $0 UT at Austin $17,889,862 $58,472,572 $7,552,487 $18,700,485 $2,048,643 UT at Brownsville $1,144,134 $1,709,449 $0 $31,791 $24,240 UT at Dallas $497,985 $9,805,689 $3,177,565 $1,563,358 $0 UT at El Paso $1,630,575 $2,415,124 $832,641 $678,240 $1,529,546 UT-Pan American $1,386,334 $196,375 $307,301 $35,396 $0 UT of the Permian Basin $12,536 $113,144 $8,795 $9,180 $69,336 UT at San Antonio $0 $876,244 $175,993 $1,816,822 $0 UT at Tyler $357,663 $0 $1,534 $51,784 $33,957 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $6,900,280 $16,925,060 $7,792,893 $926,835 $3,056,812 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $0 $82,600 $4,157 $3,246 $0 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $0 $194,821 $0 $3,307 $10,322 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,631 University of North Texas $50,711 $4,446,949 $465,597 $1,412,843 $0 Totals $54,132,437 $138,986,210 $24,005,040 $45,753,218 $11,369,216 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. (table continued on next page) 19

28 Institution Table 9 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Arts and Humanities Midwestern State $0 $0 $77,388 $0 $0 $119,653 Stephen F. Austin State $49,355 $635 $346,216 $58,015 $203,315 $3,639,457 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $10,723 $0 $161,964 $0 $0 $10,697,128 Tarleton State $16,479 $0 $248,819 $0 $1,566,911 $8,579,202 Texas A&M and Services $676,711 $2,999,588 $5,851,929 $976,185 $281,014 $390,654,670 Texas A&M-Commerce $3,539 $13,949 $294,814 $0 $21,907 $609,864 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $0 $0 $1,888,026 $0 $1,046,192 $13,682,911 Texas A&M at Galveston $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,537,645 Texas A&M International $15,993 $27,832 $75,388 $0 $0 $185,137 Texas A&M-Kingsville $50 $18,815 $24,037 $0 $279,777 $10,536,809 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $188,653 $0 $0 $188,653 West Texas A&M $132,741 $1,098,486 $382,799 $0 $10,089 $5,503,151 Texas Southern $0 $0 $130,108 $0 $559,659 $4,647,980 Texas State University System Angelo State $37,390 $9,671 $31,027 $0 $0 $885,426 Lamar $0 $87 $18,696 $0 $346,080 $3,210,250 Sam Houston State $32,343 $61,568 $35,051 $874,795 $15,000 $2,858,129 Sul Ross State $10,663 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,058,664 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $3,506 $0 $0 $3,506 Texas State - San Marcos $75,579 $269,161 $830,567 $213,528 $1,619,007 $9,129,998 Texas Tech $15,152 $479,939 $238,904 $20,192 $0 $48,142,661 Texas Woman's $5,434 $756 $2,768 $0 $104,511 $2,233,085 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $74,681 $90,257 $324,767 $476,651 $2,278,131 $22,417,130 UT at Austin $3,445,100 $3,286,556 $14,401,181 $1,464,657 $18,935,100 $382,391,771 UT at Brownsville $10,917 $0 $193,615 $0 $17,417 $3,273,326 UT at Dallas $283,136 $488,712 $9,928 $0 $32,491 $31,274,590 UT at El Paso $83,141 $56,077 $6,846,537 $536,308 $4,225,323 $32,067,735 UT-Pan American $237,432 $25,481 $298,345 $0 $0 $4,309,262 UT of the Permian Basin $13,425 $392,562 $1,125,048 $468 $139,136 $1,895,564 UT at San Antonio $78,665 $1,727,261 $512,715 $3,632 $0 $16,516,457 UT at Tyler $5,980 $27,924 $25,054 $0 $9,000 $894,034 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $1,306,368 $307,584 $5,280,254 $328,667 $2,930,949 $75,927,432 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $3,004 $159,366 $7,153 $0 $303,228 $1,211,307 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $1,026 $0 $41,102 $0 $0 $669,019 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,631 University of North Texas $492,553 $2,131,162 $1,640,051 $92,632 $0 $15,636,344 Totals $7,117,580 $13,673,429 $41,536,410 $5,045,730 $34,924,237 $1,109,601,581 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Business Administration Education * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. Law and Public Administration Other Non- Sciences Total 20

29 Table 10 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Institution Aerospace Technology Biotechnology Energy Environmental Sciences Food, Fiber, Agricultural Products Midwestern State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $0 $1,266,432 $0 $3,183,426 $2,884,303 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $42,008 $0 $38,620 $0 $232,855 Tarleton State $0 $2,856 $0 $13,351 $3,357,032 Texas A&M and Services $52,681,091 $307,535 $6,605,357 $55,394,242 $4,371,635 Texas A&M-Commerce $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,113 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $0 $75,751 $0 $2,056,729 $7,310 Texas A&M at Galveston $0 $0 $97,259 $473,361 $0 Texas A&M International $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas A&M-Kingsville $7,909 $1,915,776 $0 $2,091,342 $4,369,884 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $0 $0 $318,562 $277,184 $1,139,895 Texas Southern $0 $1,144,089 $9,177 $0 $0 Texas State University System Angelo State $0 $0 $0 $0 $411,199 Lamar $12,124 $0 $39,764 $2,260,040 $0 Sam Houston State $0 $0 $0 $31,908 $14,600 Sul Ross State $0 $0 $0 $31,500 $0 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $48,142 $116,054 $18,370 $729,266 $128,746 Texas Tech $2,469,674 $4,124,492 $3,443,137 $12,298,135 $12,675,081 Texas Woman's $0 $0 $0 $0 $304,370 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $242,315 $2,249,550 $3,219,434 $1,080,632 $0 UT at Austin $9,914,543 $20,925,833 $30,199,047 $34,570,829 $355,443 UT at Brownsville $1,495,635 $1,161,261 $42,165 $0 $61,336 UT at Dallas $1,220,436 $1,036,062 $1,186,108 $418,023 $0 UT at El Paso $19,363 $0 $0 $570,345 $0 UT-Pan American $0 $7,775 $0 $157,956 $35,211 UT of the Permian Basin $0 $0 $96,253 $19,093 $0 UT at San Antonio $148,411 $0 $0 $223,273 $0 UT at Tyler $3,058 $0 $0 $15,939 $0 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $2,152,969 $3,727,334 $4,396,332 $3,427,987 $230,140 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $176,219 $307 $0 $133,356 $0 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $283 $0 $0 $8,100 $0 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 University of North Texas $30,395 $558,288 $255,957 $954,619 $216,994 Totals $70,664,575 $38,619,395 $49,965,542 $120,420,636 $30,924,147 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. (table continued on next page) 21

30 Table 10 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Universities Institution Manufacturing Technology Materials Science Microelectronics and Computer Technology Water Resources Total Midwestern State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stephen F. Austin State $122,072 $0 $0 $2,092,086 $9,548,319 Texas A&M University System* Prairie View A&M $0 $17,673 $0 $0 $331,156 Tarleton State $0 $0 $0 $1,288,702 $4,661,941 Texas A&M and Services $6,456,816 $7,461,350 $4,810,658 $638,817 $138,727,501 Texas A&M-Commerce $0 $0 $3,008 $0 $131,121 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $0 $1,040 $548,019 $1,434,449 $4,123,298 Texas A&M at Galveston $0 $0 $0 $0 $570,620 Texas A&M International $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas A&M-Kingsville $0 $123,817 $33,994 $90,406 $8,633,128 Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 West Texas A&M $0 $55,514 $0 $58,429 $1,849,584 Texas Southern $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,153,266 Texas State University System Angelo State $0 $19,516 $0 $15,920 $446,635 Lamar $100,026 $5,381 $54,485 $10,911 $2,482,731 Sam Houston State $0 $0 $12,756 $346,861 $406,125 Sul Ross State $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,500 Sul Ross - Rio Grande $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Texas State - San Marcos $6,702 $97,761 $65,526 $918,305 $2,128,872 Texas Tech $2,478,651 $5,005,080 $3,248,366 $3,380,259 $49,122,875 Texas Woman's $0 $0 $0 $0 $304,370 University of Texas System UT at Arlington $2,428,487 $4,644,250 $4,942,111 $277,038 $19,083,817 UT at Austin $1,083,627 $17,045,929 $33,225,421 $1,653,118 $148,973,790 UT at Brownsville $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,760,397 UT at Dallas $318,697 $912,234 $1,203,798 $0 $6,295,358 UT at El Paso $0 $1,020,120 $45,235 $178,230 $1,833,293 UT-Pan American $527,693 $0 $467,712 $0 $1,196,347 UT of the Permian Basin $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,346 UT at San Antonio $0 $0 $674,579 $270,984 $1,317,247 UT at Tyler $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,997 University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $309,536 $5,492,517 $5,749,014 $15,583 $25,501,412 Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $0 $0 $252,606 $0 $562,488 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $0 $0 $808 $0 $9,191 Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 University of North Texas $296,440 $2,200,134 $655,129 $83,396 $5,251,352 Totals $14,128,747 $44,102,316 $55,993,225 $12,753,494 $437,572,077 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. * A&M agency and research foundation expenditures reported by individual affiliated university. 22

31 INSTITUTIONAL DATA HEALTH-RELATED INSTITUTIONS This section of the report contains detailed information on research expenses reported by individual health-related institutions. Statements related to data quality and applicability found on page 1 of this report also apply to the data shown in this section of the report. Figure 7 Expenditures for Research and Development at Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY 2004 (Millions of Dollars) UT Health Center at Tyler 10.2 Univ North Texas HSC 18.5 Texas Tech Univ HSC 19.8 Texas A&M HSC 58.5 UTHSC at San Antonio UTMB at Galveston UTHSC at Houston UT M.D. Anderson Cancer UT Southwestern Medical Center *Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), requested to be included in this report and provided data summarizing its FY2004 research expenditures to the Coordinating Board. BCM expended $390 million for research of which $237 million was provided by federal sources. Most of its research expenditures were made for biological sciences ($158 million) and medicine ($209 million). None of the independent institutions were asked to complete the research expenditures survey. The Coordinating Board is not able to verify financial data for independent institutions that do not provide annual financial reports. 23

32 Table 11 Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY 2004 Institution State Federal Appropriated Contracts and Grants R&D Other R&D Other R&D Other Texas A&M HSC $30,283,043 $0 $9,485,566 $0 $1,056,727 $0 Texas Tech Univ HSC $7,603,557 $0 $4,605,184 $0 $115,746 $0 Univ North Texas HSC $13,258,816 $408,045 $0 $0 $607,580 $0 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $150,528,694 $0 $89,186,816 $0 $715,404 $0 UTMB at Galveston $102,490,775 $0 $10,244,236 $5,200,999 $737,774 $0 UTHSC at Houston $110,438,174 $0 $8,252,449 $807,955 $5,647,699 $0 UT Health Center at Tyler $4,659,021 $0 $2,208,368 $0 $0 $0 UTHSC at San Antonio $89,661,741 $0 $4,563,075 $0 $361,766 $0 UT Southwestern Medical Center $200,887,545 $0 $21,014,865 $0 $2,282,644 $0 Totals $709,811,366 $408,045 $149,560,559 $6,008,954 $11,525,340 $0 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Table 11 - continued Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY 2004 Institution R&D Other R&D Other R&D Other Texas A&M HSC $5,223,695 $0 $2,876,024 $0 $9,560,769 $0 Texas Tech Univ HSC $4,270,284 $0 $950,146 $0 $2,282,096 $16,892 Univ North Texas HSC $1,697,638 $17,232 $1,002,444 $0 $1,953,479 $0 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $12,096,804 $0 $22,338,299 $0 $39,050,338 $0 UTMB at Galveston $1,220,636 $353,279 $5,841,986 $0 $12,233,504 $128,628 UTHSC at Houston $3,179,092 $0 $7,372,807 $0 $15,331,985 $0 UT Health Center at Tyler $2,564,985 $0 $245,439 $0 $562,577 $0 UTHSC at San Antonio $6,597,370 $0 $14,481,942 $0 $9,246,828 $0 UT Southwestern Medical Center $7,100,309 $2,288,324 $12,412,886 $0 $70,704,779 $0 Totals $43,950,813 $2,658,835 $67,521,973 $0 $160,926,355 $145,520 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Institution Table 11 - continued 24 Private, Profit Private, Non-Profit Total Expenditures for Research and Other Research-Related Sponsored Programs by Source of Funds, Texas Public Health-Related Institutions, FY 2004 Institution R&D Other Total Texas A&M HSC $58,485,824 $0 $58,485,824 Texas Tech Univ HSC $19,827,013 $16,892 $19,843,905 Univ North Texas HSC $18,519,957 $425,277 $18,945,234 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $313,916,355 $0 $313,916,355 UTMB at Galveston $132,768,911 $5,682,906 $138,451,817 UTHSC at Houston $150,222,206 $807,955 $151,030,161 UT Health Center at Tyler $10,240,390 $0 $10,240,390 UTHSC at San Antonio $124,912,722 $0 $124,912,722 UT Southwestern Medical Center $314,403,028 $2,288,324 $316,691,352 Totals $1,143,296,406 $9,221,354 $1,152,517,760 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Total

33 Institution Table 12 Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Texas A&M HSC $115,619 $1,800,725 $727,975 $14,989 $55,718,453 Texas Tech Univ HSC $5,671,725 $0 $0 $0 $14,155,288 Univ North Texas HSC $14,726,812 $0 $0 $0 $3,793,145 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $126,555,771 $3,181,591 $0 $13,293,930 $155,863,911 UTMB at Galveston $68,936,643 $2,130,701 $0 $0 $61,701,567 UTHSC at Houston $25,452,593 $0 $0 $0 $124,769,613 UT Health Center at Tyler $0 $0 $7,800 $0 $10,232,590 UTHSC at San Antonio $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,912,722 UT Southwestern Medical Center $148,728,832 $0 $0 $0 $164,294,896 Totals $390,187,995 $7,113,017 $735,775 $13,308,919 $715,442,185 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Biological and Other Life Sciences Engineering Environmental Sciences Mathematical Sciences Medical Sciences Table 12 - continued Expenditures for Conduct of R&D by Field, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Institution Physical Sciences Psychology Social Sciences Other Sciences Total Texas A&M HSC $0 $108,063 $0 $0 $58,485,824 Texas Tech Univ HSC $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,827,013 Univ North Texas HSC $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,519,957 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $7,526,798 $7,082,830 $411,524 $0 $313,916,355 UTMB at Galveston $0 $0 $0 $0 $132,768,911 UTHSC at Houston $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,222,206 UT Health Center at Tyler $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,240,390 UTHSC at San Antonio $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,912,722 UT Southwestern Medical Center $0 $0 $0 $1,379,300 $314,403,028 Totals $7,526,798 $7,190,893 $411,524 $1,379,300 $1,143,296,406 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. 25

34 Table 13 Expenditures for Research and Development by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Institution Texas A&M HSC $811,203 $3,132,801 $5,448,229 $6,018,875 Texas Tech Univ HSC $1,043,789 $1,659,525 $303,253 $0 Univ North Texas HSC $2,914,314 $662,065 $3,317,478 $0 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $0 $313,916,355 $0 $0 UTMB at Galveston $13,938,750 $6,132,959 $6,698,683 $12,589,635 UTHSC at Houston $3,523,342 $3,381,083 $13,226,891 $11,848,651 UT Health Center at Tyler $0 $37,275 $0 $0 UTHSC at San Antonio $14,164,476 $15,520,401 $15,623,988 $6,744,903 UT Southwestern Medical Center $7,465,924 $30,332,142 $41,877,584 $6,369,607 Totals $43,861,798 $374,774,606 $86,496,106 $43,571,671 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Aging Cancer Research Cardiovascular Research Child Health and Human Development Table 13 - continued Expenditures for Research and Development by Area of Special Interest, FY 2004 Texas Public Health-Related Institutions Institution Mental Health Substance Abuse Total Texas A&M HSC $796,069 $1,299,671 $17,506,848 Texas Tech Univ HSC $1,027,994 $0 $4,034,561 Univ North Texas HSC $1,093,525 $472,065 $8,459,447 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $0 $0 $313,916,355 UTMB at Galveston $8,820,512 $7,074,545 $55,255,084 UTHSC at Houston $6,119,077 $3,738,052 $41,837,096 UT Health Center at Tyler $0 $0 $37,275 UTHSC at San Antonio $6,719,439 $7,992,929 $66,766,136 UT Southwestern Medical Center $18,528,196 $4,559,589 $109,133,042 Totals $43,104,812 $25,136,851 $616,945,844 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. 26

35 HISTORICAL DATA Much of the data in this report does not allow accurate comparisons with data contained in reports prior to Since then, many individual data items have been more rigorously defined. Total research expenditures is the statistic allowing the most accurate long-term comparison. However, because a more precise and more conservative definition of research activity was adopted, research expenditures prior to Fiscal Year 1990 were probably overstated when compared to expenditures reported in later years. Figure 8 graphs total research and development expenditures since The recent accelerated growth in research expenditures for the public health-related institutions results primarily from the doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget, a major source of research funding, from 1999 to ,500 Figure 8 Expenditures for Research and Development FY FY ,250 2,000 2,050 2,174 2,253 1,750 1,603 1,770 (Millions of Dollars) 1,500 1,250 1, ,044 1,137 1,177 1,211 1,266 1,323 1,381 1, Fiscal Year Universities Health-Related Institutions Table 14 on the following page shows total research and development expenditures at Texas public universities over the past four years. Table 15 shows federal research and development expenditures and the ratio of federal-to-state research and development expenditures over the past four years. Tables 16 and 17 show similar data for health-related institutions. One-year and five-year changes in federal expenditures for research and development for the different disciplines are shown in Table

36 Institution Table 14 Expenditures for Research and Development Texas Public Universities FY 2001 Midwestern State $93,085 $74,626 $85,760 $119, % Stephen F. Austin State ** $4,840,607 $5,583,051 $5,491,566 $3,639, % Texas A&M University System Prairie View A&M $9,201,307 $10,330,085 $10,682,633 $10,697, % Tarleton State $6,495,956 $7,909,999 $8,229,694 $8,579, % Texas A&M and Services $340,660,614 $372,828,854 $390,305,058 $390,654, % Texas A&M-Commerce $336,803 $629,496 $520,321 $609, % Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $6,710,930 $10,365,501 $12,110,618 $13,682, % Texas A&M at Galveston $3,252,082 $4,010,618 $4,949,454 $4,537, % Texas A&M International $507,806 $677,346 $570,457 $185, % Texas A&M-Kingsville $7,144,715 $8,591,828 $10,148,177 $10,536, % Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 $212,252 $116,913 $188,653 NA West Texas A&M $4,744,757 $6,036,713 $6,221,085 $5,503, % Texas Southern $3,048,521 $4,930,117 $3,872,628 $4,647, % Texas State University System Angelo State $643,460 $800,044 $699,836 $885, % Lamar $3,441,465 $4,237,915 $3,958,697 $3,210, % Sam Houston State $2,281,435 $1,931,014 $1,829,162 $2,858, % Sul Ross State $773,021 $841,426 $816,917 $1,058, % Sul Ross - Rio Grande $6,277 $10,464 $21,610 $3, % Texas State - San Marcos $11,652,513 $10,400,827 $9,112,931 $9,129, % Texas Tech $43,373,437 $51,701,449 $56,147,235 $48,142, % Texas Woman's $3,023,439 $2,960,015 $2,998,340 $2,233, % University of Texas System UT at Arlington $19,966,034 $21,072,964 $23,314,938 $22,417, % UT at Austin $321,580,736 $366,355,359 $376,403,651 $382,391, % UT at Brownsville $635,365 $1,286,638 $1,558,306 $3,273, % UT at Dallas $18,531,582 $27,444,057 $32,547,141 $31,274, % UT at El Paso $29,003,608 $27,328,772 $27,847,152 $32,067, % UT-Pan American $2,601,598 $2,605,758 $3,193,419 $4,309, % UT of the Permian Basin $737,853 $980,905 $1,118,184 $1,895, % UT at San Antonio $11,751,323 $12,402,017 $14,547,732 $16,516, % UT at Tyler $342,206 $375,821 $411,275 $894, % University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $61,332,253 $82,865,307 $88,608,021 $75,927, % Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $11,928,221 $8,862,208 $1,707,440 $1,211, % Univ. of Houston-Downtown $1,016,352 $1,270,494 $678,068 $669, % Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 $0 $0 $13,631 NA University of North Texas $17,441,681 $18,875,396 $17,587,767 $15,636, % Totals $948,223,316 $1,076,789,336 $1,118,412,186 $1,109,601, % * Percent change for 2004, relative to 2001; NA indicates not applicable FY 2002 ** Stephen F. Austin State University reported corrections to FY 2001 research expenditures: total research expenditures = $4,840,607; from institutional sources = $877,726; and expenditures for agricultural sciences = $797,344; physical sciences = $162,323; biological sciences = $152,562; and arts and humanities = $117,719. FY 2003 FY 2004 Percent Change* 28

37 Institution Table 15 Federal Expenditures for Research and Development Texas Public Universities Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Midwestern State $25, $0 NA $20, $77, Stephen F. Austin State $959, $1,054, $1,208, $1,025, Texas A&M University System Prairie View A&M $7,247, $7,915, $8,106, $8,138, Tarleton State $4,321, $5,431, $5,856, $5,439, Texas A&M and Services $152,196, $166,285, $178,016, $174,570, Texas A&M-Commerce $114, $315, $198, $355, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $2,805, $4,473, $5,667, $6,233, Texas A&M at Galveston $1,567, $2,362, $3,128, $2,757, Texas A&M International $376, $572, $486, $119, Texas A&M-Kingsville $1,818, $1,950, $2,766, $3,856, Texas A&M-Texarkana $0 NA $182,262 NA $113,290 NA $188,653 NA West Texas A&M $2,900, $3,531, $3,190, $2,580, Texas Southern $2,051, $4,147, $3,247, $3,969, Texas State University System Angelo State $111, $254, $131, $155, Lamar $2,216, $2,279, $1,998, $1,504, Sam Houston State $1,802, $1,491, $1,397, $2,175, Sul Ross State $95, $76, $95, $261, Sul Ross - Rio Grande $ $ $ $ Texas State - San Marcos $4,961, $4,769, $3,975, $3,536, Texas Tech $17,394, $20,511, $23,285, $23,393, Texas Woman's $1,185, $1,321, $1,493, $1,238, University of Texas System UT at Arlington $9,224, $7,923, $7,993, $11,093, UT at Austin $202,440, $235,436, $240,537, $249,014, UT at Brownsville $602, $896, $1,011,353 NA $2,889,894 NA UT at Dallas $8,781, $11,815, $14,432, $15,733, UT at El Paso $22,872, $19,796, $17,022, $22,232, UT-Pan American $1,324, $1,394, $1,895, $2,666, UT of the Permian Basin $147, $138, $166, $1,215, UT at San Antonio $8,032, $7,641, $10,049, $11,705, UT at Tyler $66, $67, $174, $585, University of Houston System Univ. of Houston $24,227, $33,239, $34,242, $31,682, Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $10,843, $7,659, $696, $396, Univ. of Houston-Downtown $649, $783, $378, $490, Univ. of Houston-Victoria $0 NA $0 NA $0 NA $13,631 NA University of North Texas $8,284, $8,827, $8,328, $6,927, Totals $501,648, $564,550, $581,313, $598,223, NA indicates not applicable (no state research and development funds expended). FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY

38 Institution Texas A&M HSC $37,328,465 $45,066,569 $50,435,247 $58,485, % Texas Tech Univ HSC $14,343,187 $19,279,797 $19,751,348 $19,827, % Univ North Texas HSC $11,034,554 $12,347,141 $14,901,791 $18,519, % UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $210,236,589 $262,144,960 $282,260,250 $313,916, % UTMB at Galveston $91,088,019 $109,139,538 $129,860,903 $132,768, % UTHSC at Houston $128,161,248 $140,827,726 $152,117,064 $150,222, % UT Health Center at Tyler $9,228,568 $8,453,709 $9,217,039 $10,240, % UTHSC at San Antonio $97,638,253 $112,232,653 $119,279,555 $124,912, % UT Southwestern Medical Center $222,378,235 $263,958,410 $277,956,511 $314,403, % Totals $821,437,118 $973,450,503 $1,055,779,708 $1,143,296, % NA indicates not applicable * Percent change for 2004, relative to 2001 Table 16 Expenditures for Research and Development Texas Public Health-Related Institutions FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Percent Change* Institution Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Federal R&D Dollars Fed/ State Ratio Texas A&M HSC $18,384, ,417, ,729, ,283, Texas Tech Univ HSC $6,457, $8,802, $8,674, $7,603, Univ North Texas HSC $6,562, $7,224, $9,454, $13,258, UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $91,543, $117,633, $122,868, $150,528, UTMB at Galveston $63,274, $78,100, $93,039, $102,490, UTHSC at Houston $91,267, $101,738, $111,170, $110,438, UT Health Center at Tyler $3,063, $2,783, $3,493, $4,659, UTHSC at San Antonio $66,852, $83,760, $86,854, $89,661, UT Southwestern Medical Center $131,820, $155,257, $177,133, $200,887, Totals $479,224, $577,718, $639,417, $709,811, NA indicates not applicable Table 17 Federal Expenditures for Research and Development Texas Public Health-Related Institutions FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY

39 Field Table 18 Federal Expenditures for Research and Development by Field Texas Public Universities and Health-Related Institutions FY 1999 FY 2003 FY 2004 One-Year Change Five-Year Change Agricultural Sciences $20,834,133 $27,202,509 $29,761, % 42.85% Biological and Other Life Sciences $175,637,665 $283,763,040 $326,338, % 85.80% Computer Science $17,444,987 $32,749,420 $32,913, % 88.67% Engineering $130,020,542 $154,531,991 $161,944, % 24.55% Environmental Sciences $72,773,515 $93,228,178 $78,624, % 8.04% Mathematical Sciences $6,130,370 $29,248,227 $27,621, % % Medical Sciences $247,785,566 $440,091,234 $470,857, % 90.03% Physical Sciences $74,617,855 $86,155,663 $93,589, % 25.43% Psychology $7,799,677 $21,355,883 $22,479, % % Social Sciences $16,464,312 $17,846,438 $17,240, % 4.72% Other Sciences $2,466,478 $5,158,847 $4,552, % 84.59% Arts and Humanities $977,851 $1,208,462 $778, % % Business Administration $2,945,289 $1,272,822 $2,829, % -3.93% Education $18,344,451 $20,077,464 $27,239, % 48.49% Law and Public Administration $882,011 $1,077,506 $2,234, % % Other Non-Science Activities $1,520,432 $5,763,289 $9,026, % % Totals $796,645,135 $1,220,730,973 $1,308,034, % 64.19% In 2001, the 77th Legislature passed the Centers for Technology Development and Transfer Act (Texas Education Code, Section ), which specifies reporting requirements for intellectual property income and expenses. Intellectual property income is now reported biennially in a new report, Technology Development and Transfer. 31

40 NATIONAL COMPARISONS This section of the report is based on data provided by the National Science Foundation. It is not entirely consistent with data provided in earlier sections of the report because it is based on an earlier year, because reporting requirements are somewhat different, and because the federal reports do not differentiate between state-funded and independent institutions. The National Science Foundation makes three reports available, and each provides somewhat different information: Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering shows federal obligations for grants and contracts awarded to higher education science and engineering programs by federal agencies during the fiscal year. Funds obligated in any given year may be expended over a number of years, so obligations will be somewhat different from expenditures. This report includes support for a number of programs that are not necessarily research and development programs, such as science education programs and assistantship support for engineering students. The amount of support is reported by the agencies. Data from this report measures progress toward the research goal of Closing the Gaps by Federal Obligations for Research and Development in Science and Engineering includes only federal funds obligated during the year to support, directly or indirectly, basic and applied research and development in science and engineering disciplines at higher education institutions. The amount of support is again reported by the agencies. Federally Financed Research and Development Expenditures summarizes federal funds expenditures by higher education institutions to support research and development in any given year. This report is based on data reported by institutions and summarized by the National Science Foundation. Some of the highlights of the 2002 survey of federal research and development expenditures include the following: o The top five states in federal research and development expenditures were: California $2.80 billion New York $1.79 billion Texas $1.41 billion Maryland $1.41 billion Pennsylvania $1.34 billion o Texas ranked second (behind California) in state- and local government-funded Research and Development expenditures. o Texas ranked third in total research and development expenditures. o Texas ranked third in research and development expenditures from institutional sources (behind California and New York), second in research and development expenditures from industrial sources (behind California), and second in research and development expenditures from all other sources (behind California). o Texas was among the top three states for all of the different types of sources. 32

41 o In Texas, life sciences accounted for 66 percent of the research and development expenditures, followed by engineering (14 percent) and physical sciences (6 percent). Table 19 Top Five States in Federal R&D Expenditures Selected Science and Engineering Fields, FY 2002 Rank Life Physical Environmental $ Engineering $ $ Sciences Sciences Sciences $ 1 California 1.6B Maryland 394M California 382M California 178M 2 New York 1.2B California 379M Massachusetts 187M Massachusetts 106M 3 Texas 942M Pennsylvania 213M Maryland 178M Texas 90M 4 Pennsylvania 837M Massachusetts 190M New York 150M Colorado 85M 5 Massachusetts 637M New York 174M Texas 102M New York 74M Note: M refers to million; B refers to billion. Source: National Science Foundation, WebCASPAR Database System, 02/24/2005 Table 20 shows the ranking of all states in federal obligations for science and engineering, federal obligations for research and development in science and engineering, and federally financed research and development expenditures for Texas ranks fifth in federal obligations for science and engineering, which includes science education, and also ranks fifth in federal obligations for research and development in science and engineering, which excludes science education. Texas ranks third in research and development expenditures from federal sources. Patterns in federal research and development support over time for the top six states are shown in Figures 9 and 10. California and New York are the uncontested leaders in federal research support to the states. State Table 20 State Rank in Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D, FY 2002 (Dollars in Thousands) Federal Obligations for Federal Obligations for R&D Federally Financed R&D Science and Engineering to in Science and Engineering Expenditures at Colleges Colleges and Universities to Colleges and Universities and Universities FY 2002 Rank FY 2002 Rank FY 2002 California $3,263,577 1 $2,949,032 1 $2,801,529 1 New York $1,930,805 2 $1,682,187 2 $1,785,134 2 Maryland $1,513,068 3 $1,296,852 4 $1,405,242 4 Pennsylvania $1,490,181 4 $1,378,756 3 $1,344,043 5 Texas $1,438,119 5 $1,220,475 5 $1,409,858 3 Massachusetts $1,285,961 6 $1,147,690 6 $1,261,765 6 North Carolina $955,893 7 $841,951 7 $726,272 8 Illinois $832,114 8 $745,394 8 $838,614 7 Michigan $717,607 9 $636,407 9 $699,669 9 Ohio $666, $592, $642, Washington $651, $584, $548, Colorado $625, $494, $484, (table continued on next page) Rank 33

42 Table 20 - continued State Rank in Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D, FY 2002 (Dollars in Thousands) Federal Obligations for Federal Obligations for R&D in Federally Financed R&D Science and Engineering Science and Engineering Expenditures at Colleges to Colleges and Universities to Colleges and Universities and Universities State FY 2002 Rank FY 2002 Florida $603, $530, $559, Missouri $577, $509, $447, Georgia $554, $445, $534, Wisconsin $515, $432, $442, Virginia $449, $377, $405, Connecticut $442, $404, $375, Alabama $421, $359, $365, Tennessee $406, $339, $315, New Jersey $361, $319, $315, Minnesota $336, $296, $300, Indiana $329, $283, $276, Oregon $296, $260, $273, Arizona $290, $249, $287, Iowa $289, $242, $257, Utah $254, $230, $234, District of Columbia $226, $205, $206, Louisiana $214, $177, $200, Kentucky $191, $152, $150, South Carolina $189, $147, $183, Mississippi $180, $143, $178, New Mexico $179, $131, $195, Hawaii $166, $120, $119, New Hampshire $149, $125, $138, Kansas $140, $115, $134, Oklahoma $136, $102, $112, Rhode Island $121, $104, $113, Nebraska $109, $91, $89, Arkansas $99, $73, $61, Montana $87, $57, $65, Alaska $84, $66, $71, Vermont $82, $74, $59, West Virginia $73, $54, $59, Nevada $69, $59, $85, North Dakota $67, $45, $46, Delaware $64, $54, $51, Idaho $50, $35, $42, Maine $38, $25, $25, South Dakota $32, $20, $22, Wyoming $22, $18, $20, SOURCE: National Science Foundation, WebCASPAR Database System, 02/24/2005 Rank FY 2002 Rank 34

43 Figure 9 3,000 Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering Universities and Colleges - Selected States, ,500 Millions 2,000 California Dollars in 1,500 1,000 Maryland Massachusetts New York Texas 500 Pennsylvania Year SOURCE: National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System, Constant 2000 Dollars, 02/24/2005 Figure Federally Financed R&D Expenditures Universities and Colleges - Selected States, Dollars in Millions Texas Massachusetts California New York Maryland Pennsylvania Year SOURCE: National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System, Constant 2000 Dollars, 02/24/

44 Table 21 shows federal obligations and federally financed R&D expenditures for Texas higher education institutions for FY The table includes public and independent institutions. In all cases, the top five institutions account for 60 to 63 percent of the total federal support. Table 21 Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D by Texas Institutions, FY 2002 (Dollars in Thousands) Institution Abilene Christian $160 $160 $173 Alamo Community Coll. Dist. $812 $ Amarillo Coll. $ Angelo State $318 $ Austin Coll. $16 $ Austin Community Coll. $ Baylor- Coll. of Medicine $304,594 $266,786 $259,475 Baylor Univ. $1,102 $1,102 $830 Cedar Valley Coll. $ Coll. of the Mainland $1, Collin County Community Coll. $ El Paso Community Coll. $493 $ Houston Community Coll. $ Jarvis Christian Coll. $538 $38 $10 Lamar $437 $100 $2,080 Le Tourneau Univ. $93 $ Lubbock Christian Univ. $15 $ McMurry Univ. $ Northeast Texas Community Coll. $ Our Lady of the Lake $1,144 $ Paul Quinn Coll. $ Prarie View A&M $12,540 $6,968 $7,712 Rice Univ. $38,854 $34,105 $39,739 Sam Houston State $1,373 $1,373 $2,386 San Jacinto Coll. $ San Jacinto Coll. District System $65 $ South Texas Community Coll. $1,788 $ Southern Methodist $5,719 $5,352 $6,026 Southwest Texas Junior Coll. $ St Mary's Univ. $242 $25 $152 Stephen F. Austin State $3,689 $769 $1,054 Sul Ross State $ $77 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering Federally Financed R&D Expenditures 36

45 Table 21 - continued Federal Obligations and Federally Financed R&D by Texas Institutions, FY 2002 (Dollars in Thousands) Institution Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering Federally Financed R&D Expenditures Tarleton State $1,959 $1,828 $5,216 Tarrant County Junior Coll. $ Temple Coll. $ Texas A&M and Services $107,375 $60,520 $163,488 Texas A&M HSC $38,553 $38,553 $22,417 Texas A&M International $387 $ Texas A&M System Office $6,535 $5, Texas A&M-Commerce $37 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi $1,173 $845 $3,127 Texas A&M-Kingsville $2,905 $1,295 $1,956 Texas Christian $2,249 $2,245 $2,492 Texas Coll. $ Texas Southern $2,866 $2,536 $3,910 Texas State Technical Coll. $1, Texas State - San Marcos $3,873 $2,544 $4,144 Texas Tech $22,814 $19,716 $28,202 Texas Wesleyan Univ. $1,289 $ Texas Woman's $782 $275 $1,321 Trinity Univ. $519 $315 $250 Univ. North Tx HSC $7,770 Univ. of Dallas $30 Univ. of Houston $24,480 $22,611 $31,455 Univ. of Houston System Administration $2,553 $1, Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake $4,258 $4,193 $7,460 Univ. of Houston-Downtown $976 $929 $596 Univ. of St. Thomas $30 $ Univ. of the Incarnate Word $748 $ University of North Texas $12,519 $11,008 $6,015 UT at Arlington $7,777 $5,203 $7,848 UT at Austin $174,418 $146,012 $219,158 UT at Brownsville $1,073 $ UT at Dallas $13,148 $13,019 $11,624 UT at El Paso $24,945 $7,755 $16,457 UT at San Antonio $14,399 $6,660 $7,111 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $134,717 $128,350 $117,633 UT Southwestern Medical Center $170,211 $162,347 $155,258 UT System Office $5,231 $4, UTHSC at Houston $101,412 $92,974 $98,676 UTHSC at San Antonio $84,319 $74,874 $83,761 UTMB at Galveston $85,246 $81,129 $78,100 UT-Pan American $1,660 $842 $1,387 West Texas A&M $1,051 $14 $3,245 Wiley Coll. $ Texas Total $1,438,119 $1,220,475 $1,409,858 SOURCE: National Science Foundation, WebCASPAR Database System, 02/24/2005 Shading indicates the five highest in each category. 37

46 Figure 11 shows federal obligations to Texas higher education institutions for research and development in science and engineering by federal agency. The National Institutes of Health have a long history of providing most of the federal research support to Texas higher education institutions. The budget of this federal agency doubled from 1999 to 2003, providing more research funding for higher education institutions across the country. 800 Figure 11 Federal Obligations for R&D in Science and Engineering Texas Universities and Colleges, Top Five Support Agencies 700 Dollars in Millions National Institutes of Health NASA National Science Foundation Year SOURCE: National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System, Constant 2000 Dollars, 02/24/2005 Department of Defense Department of Energy Table 22 shows federal obligations from federal agencies providing the most support to the most federal research-intensive Texas higher education institutions. The National Institutes of Health provide most of the federal support at health-related institutions. The National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation provide most of the federal support for The University of Texas at Austin. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Agriculture provide most of the support for Texas A&M University. The National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation provide most of the federal support for Rice University. The University of Houston receives most of its federal support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Texas Tech University receives most of its support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. 38

47 Table 22 Texas Universities and Colleges with Federal Science and Engineering R&D Obligations of More Than $10 Million by Support Agency, FY 2002 (Dollars in Thousands) Institution National Institutes of Health Dept. of Defense National Science Foundation NASA Dept. of Energy Dept. of Agriculture All Other Federal Agencies Total of All Federal Agencies Baylor-Coll. of Medicine $252,873 $7,594 $1,670 $1,560 $660 $655 $1,774 $266,786 UT Southwestern Med Center $154,300 $6,357 $ $ $423 $162,347 UT at Austin $40,619 $49,306 $27,742 $10,366 $15, $2,724 $146,012 UT M.D. Anderson Cancer $106,652 $19,591 $503 $ $1,234 $128,350 UTHSC at Houston $84,726 $801 $187 $1,261 $300 $45 $5,654 $92,974 UTMB at Galveston $72,217 $4,155 $534 $2,177 $ $1,541 $81,129 UTHSC at San Antonio $66,301 $6,948 $1, $611 $74,874 Texas A&M --- $5,773 $17,994 $9,861 $3,139 $16,511 $7,242 $60,520 Texas A&M HSC $38, $ $38,553 Rice $5,649 $6,918 $16,100 $2,282 $2,588 $300 $268 $34,105 Univ. of Houston $14,236 $1,103 $3,190 $2,390 $1,253 $35 $404 $22,611 Texas Tech $5,765 $3,238 $4,457 $117 $2,419 $1,544 $2,176 $19,716 UT at Dallas $2,678 $3,126 $2,692 $4,312 $ $13,019 University of North Texas $6,060 $1,529 $2,831 $236 $7 $ $11,008 SOURCE: National Science Foundation, WebCASPAR Database System, 02/25/2005 Figure 12 shows federally financed research and development expenditures at Texas public and independent higher education institutions by scientific discipline. Most of the expenditures are made in medical and biological sciences. Figure 12 Federally Financed Research Expenditures by Discipline Texas Public and Private Institutions, FY 2002 All Other Life Sciences Biological Sciences Computer Sciences Engineering Environmental Sciences R&D Discipline Mathematical Sciences Medical Sciences Other Sciences Physical Sciences Psychology Social Sciences SOURCE: National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System, 02/25/2005 Dollars in Millions 39

48 APPENDIX A RESEARCH EXPENDITURES SURVEYS THECB - Survey of Research Expenses, FY 2004 Public Universities and Health-Related Institutions About the On-Line Form The survey should be completed by using the on-line form by December 10, 2004 The on-line form will be used to submit your institution's FY 2004 research expense data. The login page for the form has an instructions page and links to previous expenditures reports. Blank Lotus and Excel worksheets can be downloaded here, but the information still must be entered into the on-line form. The on-line form consists of five parts, easily navigated with the buttons on the bottom of each web page. The whole form is saved when clicking on the "Total" buttons, going from page to page or clicking the "Save and Logoff" buttons. Using the "Reload Last Save" button will return information changed on a particular page before any other buttons are clicked on. Clicking underlined row or column labels will open a viewable definition for that item, and full instructions and definitions are accessible from the bottom of any page. Use whole dollar amounts, as the system will truncate decimals. The system will ignore any characters (dollar signs, commas, etc.) typed into entry blocks in parts 2-5. Click on any "Total" button to calculate column and row totals which are clearly marked in yellow. The FICE code for your institution will be used to log in to the system, and please safeguard the provided password and authorization code. The password may be issued to individuals for completion of the form. When the form is ready for final submission, the final approval authority (usually the highest research executive at the institution) clicks the "Submit to THECB" button in part 5 and enters name, title and the authorization code. Using the print button before final authorization will produce a draft printout of all forms. After final authorization, your data cannot be accessed or altered, but a printout of the final version can be produced. If you have questions or need assistance, contact information is located at the bottom of each web page or you may call Dale Cherry or Linda Domelsmith at A-1

49 A-2

50 A-3

51 Part 5 for Public Universities Part 5 for Public Health Institutions A-4

u Articulation and Transfer Best Practices

u Articulation and Transfer Best Practices Articulation and Trevor Chandler Houston Community College December 17, 2014 What is an Articulation Agreement Content of an Articulation Agreement What is the purpose of an Articulation Agreement What

More information

Texas Healthcare & Bioscience Institute

Texas Healthcare & Bioscience Institute Texas Healthcare & Bioscience Institute Tom Kowalski President October 27, 2004 What is THBI? The Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute (THBI) is a non-profit, public policy research organization,

More information

LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FISCAL YEARS 2018 AND 2019 Submitted to the Governor's Office and the Legislative Budget Board THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION August 2016 THE UNIVERSITY

More information

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is the core postsecondary education data collection program for the NCES. It is a single, comprehensive

More information

Higher Education. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. November 3, 2017

Higher Education. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. November 3, 2017 November 3, 2017 Higher Education Pennsylvania s diverse higher education sector - consisting of many different kinds of public and private colleges and universities - helps students gain the knowledge

More information

Financing Education In Minnesota

Financing Education In Minnesota Financing Education In Minnesota 2016-2017 Created with Tagul.com A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department August 2016 Financing Education in Minnesota 2016-17

More information

Texas Libraries: Responding to the Needs of Job Seekers

Texas Libraries: Responding to the Needs of Job Seekers Texas Libraries: Responding to the Needs of Job Seekers Kyla Hunt, Consultant, Continuing Education and Consulting Dawn Vogler, Manager, Continuing Education and Consulting Library Development Division

More information

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can:

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Section 11.515, Florida Statutes, was created by the 1996 Florida Legislature for the purpose of conducting performance reviews of school districts in Florida. The statute

More information

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24 CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24 INTRODUCTION Once state level policymakers have decided to implement and pay for CSR, one issue they face is simply how to calculate the reimbursements to districts

More information

Appendix IX. Resume of Financial Aid Director. Professional Development Training

Appendix IX. Resume of Financial Aid Director. Professional Development Training Appendix IX Resume of Financial Aid Director Professional Development Training ALBERT TEZENO 6815 Chapelfield Houston Texas 77049 Tezeno_aj@yahoo.com 281-459-4114 cell 832-642-6937 Director of Financial

More information

TRENDS IN. College Pricing

TRENDS IN. College Pricing 2008 TRENDS IN College Pricing T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S Highlights 2 Published Tuition and Fee and Room and Board

More information

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 will have a postsecondary credential or degree. Target: Increase the percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 with a postsecondary credential.

More information

Governor s Office of Budget, Planning and Policy and the Legislative Budget Board. Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

Governor s Office of Budget, Planning and Policy and the Legislative Budget Board. Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST For Fiscal Years 212 and 213 Submitted to the Governor s Office of Budget, Planning and Policy and the Legislative Budget Board by Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

More information

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS Palm Desert, CA The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is the nation s core postsecondary education data collection program. It is a single,

More information

Texas Bioscience Institute Educating Scientists For The Future. Nelda Howton

Texas Bioscience Institute Educating Scientists For The Future. Nelda Howton Texas Bioscience Institute Educating Scientists For The Future Nelda Howton www.texasbioscienceinstitute.com Nov. 20, 2007 Impact of the Health Care Industry Temple is home to three hospitals and the Texas

More information

NC Community College System: Overview

NC Community College System: Overview NC Community College System: Overview Presentation to Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education Brett Altman Mark Bondo Fiscal Research Division March 18, 2015 Presentation Agenda 1. NCCCS Background

More information

STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA

STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA NOVEMBER 2010 Authors Mary Filardo Stephanie Cheng Marni Allen Michelle Bar Jessie Ulsoy 21st Century School Fund (21CSF) Founded in 1994,

More information

State Budget Update February 2016

State Budget Update February 2016 State Budget Update February 2016 2016-17 BUDGET TRAILER BILL SUMMARY The Budget Trailer Bill Language is the implementing statute needed to effectuate the proposals in the annual Budget Bill. The Governor

More information

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium SABCS UPDATE Saturday, January 20, 2018 Kleberg Auditorium Alkek Building, 1st Floor Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza Houston, TX 77030 Featuring highlights

More information

Program Change Proposal:

Program Change Proposal: Program Change Proposal: Provided to Faculty in the following affected units: Department of Management Department of Marketing School of Allied Health 1 Department of Kinesiology 2 Department of Animal

More information

Toward a Latino Attainment Agenda:

Toward a Latino Attainment Agenda: Toward a Latino Attainment Agenda: Shaping Our Own Destiny by Francisco G. Cigarroa, M.D. TomÁsRivera LECTURE SERIES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HISPANICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2013 Toward a Latino Attainment

More information

Program Review

Program Review De Anza College, Cupertino, CA 1 Description and Mission of the Program A) The Manufacturing and CNC Program (MCNC) offers broad yet in-depth curriculum that imparts a strong foundation for direct employment

More information

Financial Plan. Operating and Capital. May2010

Financial Plan. Operating and Capital. May2010 10 Financial Plan Operating and Capital May2010 Published by: The Division of Planning and Budget Cornell University 440 Day Hall Ithaca, New York 14853 http://dpb.cornell.edu 607 255 0155 May 2010 Edited

More information

FY Matching Scholarship Grant Allocations by County Based on Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Population 1

FY Matching Scholarship Grant Allocations by County Based on Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Population 1 FY 2015-2016 Matching Scholarship Grant Allocations by County Based on Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Population 1 Y NAME K-12 FRL % FRL % OF STATE FRL Population Graduates in class of 2014 Estimated number

More information

Moving the Needle: Creating Better Career Opportunities and Workforce Readiness. Austin ISD Progress Report

Moving the Needle: Creating Better Career Opportunities and Workforce Readiness. Austin ISD Progress Report Moving the Needle: Creating Better Career Opportunities and Workforce Readiness Austin ISD Progress Report 2013 A Letter to the Community Central Texas Job Openings More than 150 people move to the Austin

More information

2012 ACT RESULTS BACKGROUND

2012 ACT RESULTS BACKGROUND Report from the Office of Student Assessment 31 November 29, 2012 2012 ACT RESULTS AUTHOR: Douglas G. Wren, Ed.D., Assessment Specialist Department of Educational Leadership and Assessment OTHER CONTACT

More information

2016 Match List. Residency Program Distribution by Specialty. Anesthesiology. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis MO

2016 Match List. Residency Program Distribution by Specialty. Anesthesiology. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis MO 2016 Match List Residency Program Distribution by Specialty Anesthesiology Cleveland Clinic Foundation - Ohio, Cleveland OH University of Arkansas Medical School - Little Rock, Little Rock AR University

More information

All Hands on Deck! Engaging Faculty Voices to Rise Above the Storm!

All Hands on Deck! Engaging Faculty Voices to Rise Above the Storm! All Hands on Deck! Engaging Faculty Voices to Rise Above the Storm! Introduction Five R s to Diversify Engineering Faculties Recruiting Faculty Colleagues Relating to Faculty Colleagues Retaining Colleagues

More information

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Title I Comparability 2009-2010 Title I provides federal financial assistance to school districts to provide supplemental educational services

More information

University of Central Florida Board of Trustees Finance and Facilities Committee

University of Central Florida Board of Trustees Finance and Facilities Committee ITEM: FFC-1 University of Central Florida Board of Trustees Finance and Facilities Committee SUBJECT: Minor Amendment to the University of Central Florida 2015-25 Campus Master Plan Update DATE: December

More information

UIC HEALTH SCIENCE COLLEGES

UIC HEALTH SCIENCE COLLEGES Academic Mission Report: Board of Trustees March 10, 2010 Joseph A. Flaherty, MD Dean, College of Medicine INNOVATION EXCELLENCE SERVICE Brief History 1858 Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary opens 1859 College

More information

THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2005

THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2005 THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2005 - T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT ON APPLICATION OF AGREED-UPON

More information

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 will have a postsecondary credential or degree. Target: Increase the percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 with a postsecondary credential.

More information

Trends in Student Aid and Trends in College Pricing

Trends in Student Aid and Trends in College Pricing Trends in Student Aid and Trends in College Pricing 2012 NYSFAAA Conference Katrina Delgrosso Senior Educational Manager Agenda What is the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center? Trends in College Pricing

More information

INTERPRETATIONS. Condensed FY 2009 Annual Report RESEARCH. Norman Campus

INTERPRETATIONS. Condensed FY 2009 Annual Report RESEARCH. Norman Campus Norman Campus RESEARCH INTERPRETATIONS Condensed FY 2009 Annual Report THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH NORMAN CAMPUS AND NORMAN CAMPUS PROGRAMS AT OU TULSA Norman Campus

More information

For the Ohio Board of Regents Second Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio

For the Ohio Board of Regents Second Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio Facilities and Technology Infrastructure Report For the Ohio Board of Regents Second Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio Introduction. As Ohio s national research university, Ohio State

More information

Evaluation of Teach For America:

Evaluation of Teach For America: EA15-536-2 Evaluation of Teach For America: 2014-2015 Department of Evaluation and Assessment Mike Miles Superintendent of Schools This page is intentionally left blank. ii Evaluation of Teach For America:

More information

JOB OUTLOOK 2018 NOVEMBER 2017 FREE TO NACE MEMBERS $52.00 NONMEMBER PRICE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND EMPLOYERS

JOB OUTLOOK 2018 NOVEMBER 2017 FREE TO NACE MEMBERS $52.00 NONMEMBER PRICE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND EMPLOYERS NOVEMBER 2017 FREE TO NACE MEMBERS $52.00 NONMEMBER PRICE JOB OUTLOOK 2018 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND EMPLOYERS 62 Highland Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18017 www.naceweb.org 610,868.1421 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Texas A&M University-Texarkana

Texas A&M University-Texarkana LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST For Fiscal Years 216 and 217 Submitted to the Governor s Office of Budget Planning and Policy and the Legislative Budget Board by Texas A&M University-Texarkana October

More information

Teacher Supply and Demand in the State of Wyoming

Teacher Supply and Demand in the State of Wyoming Teacher Supply and Demand in the State of Wyoming Supply Demand Prepared by Robert Reichardt 2002 McREL To order copies of Teacher Supply and Demand in the State of Wyoming, contact McREL: Mid-continent

More information

Welcome. Paulo Goes Dean, Eller College of Management Welcome Our region

Welcome. Paulo Goes Dean, Eller College of Management Welcome Our region Welcome. Paulo Goes Dean, Welcome. Our region Outlook for Tucson Patricia Feeney Executive Director, Southern Arizona Market Chase George W. Hammond, Ph.D. Director, University of Arizona 1 Visit the award-winning

More information

CHAPTER XI DIRECT TESTIMONY OF REGINALD M. AUSTRIA ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

CHAPTER XI DIRECT TESTIMONY OF REGINALD M. AUSTRIA ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Application No: A.1-09-00 Exhibit No.: Witness: R. Austria Application of Southern California Gas Company (U 90 G) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 90 G) to Recover Costs Recorded in the Pipeline

More information

About the College Board. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center

About the College Board. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center 15% 10 +5 0 5 Tuition and Fees 10 Appropriations per FTE ( Excluding Federal Stimulus Funds) 15% 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93

More information

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Education Act 1983 (Consolidated to No 13 of 1995) [lxxxiv] Education Act 1983, INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Being an Act to provide for the National Education System and to make provision (a)

More information

Value of Athletics in Higher Education March Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University

Value of Athletics in Higher Education March Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University Materials linked from the 5/12/09 OSU Faculty Senate agenda 1. Who Participates Value of Athletics in Higher Education March 2009 Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University Today, more

More information

ALAMO CITY OPHTHALMOLOGY

ALAMO CITY OPHTHALMOLOGY 34th ANNUAL ALAMO CITY OPHTHALMOLOGY C LINICAL CO NFERE N C E Original Research, Ethics, Patient Safety Projects Saturday, April 12, 2014 San Antonio Country Club 4100 N New Braunfels Avenue 78209 Sponsored

More information

Director, Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute

Director, Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute Director, Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute The Ohio State University invites applications and nominations for the position of Director, Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute (Ohio State

More information

Proficiency Illusion

Proficiency Illusion KINGSBURY RESEARCH CENTER Proficiency Illusion Deborah Adkins, MS 1 Partnering to Help All Kids Learn NWEA.org 503.624.1951 121 NW Everett St., Portland, OR 97209 Executive Summary At the heart of the

More information

A Comparison of State of Florida Charter Technical Career Centers to District Non-Charter Career Centers,

A Comparison of State of Florida Charter Technical Career Centers to District Non-Charter Career Centers, A Comparison of State of Florida Charter Technical Career to District Non-Charter Career, 2013-14 At a Glance In school year 2013-14, there were 4,502 students enrolled in the state of Florida s charter

More information

A Financial Model to Support the Future of The California State University

A Financial Model to Support the Future of The California State University A Financial Model to Support the Future of The California State University Report of the Chancellor s Task Force for a Sustainable Financial Model for the CSU LETTER TO CHANCELLOR FROM THE CO-CHAIRS The

More information

Higher Education Six-Year Plans

Higher Education Six-Year Plans Higher Education Six-Year Plans 2018-2024 House Appropriations Committee Retreat November 15, 2017 Tony Maggio, Staff Background The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2011 included the requirement for

More information

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal:

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: The Honorable Kevin Brady The Honorable Richard Neal Chairman Ranking Member Ways and Means Committee Ways and Means Committee United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives

More information

FTE General Instructions

FTE General Instructions Florida Department of Education Bureau of PK-20 Education Data Warehouse and Office of Funding and Financial Reporting FTE General Instructions 2017-18 Questions and comments regarding this publication

More information

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas An Introduction to School Finance in Texas May 12, 2010 Sheryl Pace TTARA Research Foundation space@ttara.org (512) 472-8838 Texas Public Education System 1,300 school districts (#1 in the nation) 1,025

More information

AB104 Adult Education Block Grant. Performance Year:

AB104 Adult Education Block Grant. Performance Year: AB104 Adult Education Block Grant Performance Year: 2015-2016 Funding source: AB104, Section 39, Article 9 Version 1 Release: October 9, 2015 Reporting & Submission Process Required Funding Recipient Content

More information

DELIVERING A DEMAND LED SYSTEM IN THE U.S. THE ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH

DELIVERING A DEMAND LED SYSTEM IN THE U.S. THE ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH DELIVERING A DEMAND LED SYSTEM IN THE U.S. THE ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH LEARNING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY NORTHERN IRELAND DR. BRUCE LESLIE, CHANCELLOR THE ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES 40

More information

Michigan State University

Michigan State University Michigan State University Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University (MSU), the nation s premier land-grant university, invites applications and nominations for

More information

MARYLAND BLACK BUSINESS SUMMIT & EXPO March 24-27, 2011 presented by AATC * Black Dollar Exchange * BBH Tours

MARYLAND BLACK BUSINESS SUMMIT & EXPO March 24-27, 2011 presented by AATC * Black Dollar Exchange * BBH Tours Baltimore, MD. February 23, 2011 Lou Fields, President of AATC and founder of the Black Dollar Exchange announced the First Annual Maryland Black Business Summit & Expo being held in the City of Baltimore

More information

Texas Public Libraries:

Texas Public Libraries: Texas Public Libraries: Economic Benefits and Return on Investment Prepared for: Texas State Library and Archives Commission By the: Bureau of Business Research IC² Institute The University of Texas at

More information

Data Glossary. Summa Cum Laude: the top 2% of each college's distribution of cumulative GPAs for the graduating cohort. Academic Honors (Latin Honors)

Data Glossary. Summa Cum Laude: the top 2% of each college's distribution of cumulative GPAs for the graduating cohort. Academic Honors (Latin Honors) Institutional Research and Assessment Data Glossary This document is a collection of terms and variable definitions commonly used in the universities reports. The definitions were compiled from various

More information

The Policymaking Process Course Syllabus

The Policymaking Process Course Syllabus The Policymaking Process Course Syllabus GOVT 4370 Policy Making Process Fall 2007 Paul J. Bonicelli, PhD Assistant Administrator United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 1300 Pennsylvania

More information

FY year and 3-year Cohort Default Rates by State and Level and Control of Institution

FY year and 3-year Cohort Default Rates by State and Level and Control of Institution Student Aid Policy Analysis FY2007 2-year and 3-year Cohort Default Rates by State and Level and Control of Institution Mark Kantrowitz Publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com January 5, 2010 EXECUTIVE

More information

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY INTRODUCTION Economic prosperity for individuals and the state relies on an educated workforce. For Kansans to succeed in the workforce, they must have an education

More information

Council on Postsecondary Education Funding Model for the Public Universities (Excluding KSU) Bachelor's Degrees

Council on Postsecondary Education Funding Model for the Public Universities (Excluding KSU) Bachelor's Degrees Bachelor's Degrees Institution 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 UK 3,988 4,238 4,540 UofL 2,821 2,832 2,705 EKU 2,508 2,532 2,559 MoSU 1,144 1,166 1,306 MuSU 1,469 1,512 1,696 NKU 2,143 2,214 2,196 WKU 2,751 2,704

More information

Dr. Tang has been an active member of CAPA since She was Co-Chair of Education Committee and Executive committee member ( ).

Dr. Tang has been an active member of CAPA since She was Co-Chair of Education Committee and Executive committee member ( ). 2015 CAPA Candidates Profiles For President-elect (alphabetic order): Dr. Ping Tang Dr. Ping Tang is a Professor at Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center,

More information

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District Greetings, The thesis of my presentation at this year s California Adult Education Administrators (CAEAA) Conference was that the imprecise and inconsistent nature of the statute authorizing adult education

More information

Foothill College: Academic Program Awards and Related Student Headcount, to

Foothill College: Academic Program Awards and Related Student Headcount, to Foothill College: Academic Program Awards and Related Student, 2013-14 to 2015-16 Introduction The following document summarizes data in the 2015-16 MIS SP report 1 for Foothill College, which was submitted

More information

Virginia Principles & Practices of Real Estate for Salespersons

Virginia Principles & Practices of Real Estate for Salespersons Volume 1: January 2015 Virginia Principles & Practices of Real Estate for Salespersons Please read the catalog in its entirety. To register for the VA Online Pre-Licensing Course click on the link on the

More information

46 Children s Defense Fund

46 Children s Defense Fund Nationally, about 1 in 15 teens ages 16 to 19 is a dropout. Fewer than two-thirds of 9 th graders in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Nevada graduate from high school within four years with a regular diploma.

More information

A Comparison of the ERP Offerings of AACSB Accredited Universities Belonging to SAPUA

A Comparison of the ERP Offerings of AACSB Accredited Universities Belonging to SAPUA Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) SAIS 2004 Proceedings Southern (SAIS) 3-1-2004 A Comparison of the ERP Offerings of AACSB Accredited Universities Belonging to SAPUA Ronald

More information

Enrollment Trends. Past, Present, and. Future. Presentation Topics. NCCC enrollment down from peak levels

Enrollment Trends. Past, Present, and. Future. Presentation Topics. NCCC enrollment down from peak levels Presentation Topics 1. Enrollment Trends 2. Attainment Trends Past, Present, and Future Challenges & Opportunities for NC Community Colleges August 17, 217 Rebecca Tippett Director, Carolina Demography

More information

CAMPUS PROFILE MEET OUR STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS. The average age of undergraduates is 21; 78% are 22 years or younger.

CAMPUS PROFILE MEET OUR STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS. The average age of undergraduates is 21; 78% are 22 years or younger. CAMPUS PROFILE MEET OUR STUDENTS Freshmen are defined here as all domestic students entering in fall quarter from high school. These statistics include information drawn from records available at UC Davis.

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR MEETING OF THE BOARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR MEETING OF THE BOARD TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR MEETING OF THE BOARD Board Meeting: 11/15-16/2006 Austin, Texas A. Wednesday, November 15, 2006 CONVENE THE BOARD IN OPEN SESSION FOR THE 125 TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION PROGRAM (U.

More information

Communities in Schools of Virginia

Communities in Schools of Virginia Communities in Schools of Virginia General Information Contact Information Nonprofit Communities in Schools of Virginia Address 413 Stuart Circle, Unit 303 Richmond, VA 23220 Phone 804 237-8909 Fax 804

More information

Graduate Division Annual Report Key Findings

Graduate Division Annual Report Key Findings Graduate Division 2010 2011 Annual Report Key Findings Trends in Admissions and Enrollment 1 Size, selectivity, yield UCLA s graduate programs are increasingly attractive and selective. Between Fall 2001

More information

Like much of the country, Detroit suffered significant job losses during the Great Recession.

Like much of the country, Detroit suffered significant job losses during the Great Recession. 36 37 POPULATION TRENDS Economy ECONOMY Like much of the country, suffered significant job losses during the Great Recession. Since bottoming out in the first quarter of 2010, however, the city has seen

More information

Examining the Structure of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program

Examining the Structure of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program Paper ID #9172 Examining the Structure of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program Mr. Bob Rhoads, The Ohio State University Bob Rhoads received his BS in Mechanical Engineering from The

More information

An Analysis of the El Reno Area Labor Force

An Analysis of the El Reno Area Labor Force An Analysis of the El Reno Area Labor Force Summary Report for the El Reno Industrial Development Corporation and Oklahoma Department of Commerce David A. Penn and Robert C. Dauffenbach Center for Economic

More information

FIN 571 International Business Finance

FIN 571 International Business Finance FIN 571 International Business Finance I. Course Description The scope and content of international finance have been fast evolving due to the deregulation of financial markets, product innovations, and

More information

Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview. Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools

Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview. Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools + Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools + The Key Metrics of the Organization: Orange Elementary Enrollment 661 Attendance 94% Average Class Size 22 Student

More information

CURRENT POSITION: Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas

CURRENT POSITION: Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas Raelye Taylor Self, Ed.D Angelo State University College of Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction ASU Station #10921 San Angelo, Texas 76909 Phone: 325-486-6773 Email: Raelye.Self@angelo.edu

More information

UCB Administrative Guidelines for Endowed Chairs

UCB Administrative Guidelines for Endowed Chairs UCB Administrative Guidelines for Endowed Chairs I. General A. Purpose An endowed chair provides funds to a chair holder in support of his or her teaching, research, and service, and is supported by a

More information

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 269 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): School District Best Financial Management Practices Reviews Representatives

More information

College of Education Department of Educational Psychology SYLLABUS

College of Education Department of Educational Psychology SYLLABUS College of Education Department of Educational Psychology SYLLABUS Course: EPSY 6310.01R Ethical & Legal Issues in School Psychology Term: Summer I 2015 Day/Time: Tuesdays/Thursdays 5:00-10:15pm Location:

More information

Strategic Plan Update, Physics Department May 2010

Strategic Plan Update, Physics Department May 2010 Strategic Plan Update, Physics Department May 2010 Mission To generate and disseminate knowledge of physics and its applications. Vision The Department of Physics faculty will continue to conduct cutting

More information

Shaping the History of Photography

Shaping the History of Photography The Harry Ransom Center presents september 30 october 2, 2010 We are pleased to welcome you to the Ransom Center s ninth biennial Fleur Cowles Flair Symposium. The Flair Symposium, which is generously

More information

2015 Academic Program Review. School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln

2015 Academic Program Review. School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln 2015 Academic Program Review School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln R Executive Summary Natural resources include everything used or valued by humans and not created by humans. As a

More information

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment 29-21 Strategic Plan Dashboard Results Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Binghamton University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Definitions Fall Undergraduate and Graduate

More information

Austin Community College SYLLABUS

Austin Community College SYLLABUS ARTS 1311 Design I Austin Community College SYLLABUS 1. Course Description Introduction to fundamentals of design: line, color, form, texture, and arrangement. Emphasis on two-dimensional principles. 2.

More information

Identifying Users of Demand-Driven E-book Programs: Applications for Collection Development

Identifying Users of Demand-Driven E-book Programs: Applications for Collection Development Identifying Users of Demand-Driven E-book Programs: Applications for Collection Development Background Information In 2003 San José State University (SJSU) and the City of San José formed a unique partnership

More information

African American Male Achievement Update

African American Male Achievement Update Report from the Department of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment Number 8 January 16, 2009 African American Male Achievement Update AUTHOR: Hope E. White, Ph.D., Program Evaluation Specialist Department

More information

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA TO THE STATEWIDE ECONOMY

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA TO THE STATEWIDE ECONOMY THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA TO THE STATEWIDE ECONOMY JANUARY 2016 THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA TO THE STATEWIDE ECONOMY 1 TABLE

More information

Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency. Michael Conlin Michigan State University

Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency. Michael Conlin Michigan State University Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency Michael Conlin Michigan State University Paul Thompson Michigan State University October 2013 Abstract This paper considers

More information

Testimony in front of the Assembly Committee on Jobs and the Economy Special Session Assembly Bill 1 Ray Cross, UW System President August 3, 2017

Testimony in front of the Assembly Committee on Jobs and the Economy Special Session Assembly Bill 1 Ray Cross, UW System President August 3, 2017 Office of the President 1700 Van Hise Hall 1220 Linden Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1559 (608) 262-2321 Phone (608) 262-3985 Fax e-mail: rcross@uwsa.edu website: www.wisconsin.edu/ Testimony in front

More information

Trends in Higher Education Series. Trends in College Pricing 2016

Trends in Higher Education Series. Trends in College Pricing 2016 Trends in Higher Education Series Trends in College Pricing 2016 See the Trends in Higher Education website at trends.collegeboard.org for figures and tables in this report and for more information and

More information

Pathways to Health Professions of the Future

Pathways to Health Professions of the Future Pathways to Health Professions of the Future Stephen C. Shannon, DO, MPH American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine Copyright 2014 AACOM, all rights reserved. Photo courtesy of LECOM The

More information

File Print Created 11/17/2017 6:16 PM 1 of 10

File Print Created 11/17/2017 6:16 PM 1 of 10 Success - Key Measures Graduation Rate: 4-, 5-, and 6-Year 9. First-time, full-time entering, degree-seeking, students enrolled in a minimum of 12 SCH their first fall semester who have graduated from

More information

The State University System of Florida Annual Report

The State University System of Florida Annual Report The State University System of Florida 2009 Annual Report Data definitions are provided in the Appendices. Note concerning data accuracy: The Office of the Board of Governors believes that the accuracy

More information

David Erwin Ritter Associate Professor of Accounting MBA Coordinator Texas A&M University Central Texas

David Erwin Ritter Associate Professor of Accounting MBA Coordinator Texas A&M University Central Texas David Erwin Ritter Associate Professor of Accounting MBA Coordinator Texas A&M University Central Texas Education Doctor of Business Administration (1986) Juris Doctor (1996) Master of Business Administration

More information

Nancy Guilloteau The University of Texas at Austin Department of French and Italian 201 W. 21st St. STOP B7600 Austin, Texas 78712

Nancy Guilloteau The University of Texas at Austin Department of French and Italian 201 W. 21st St. STOP B7600 Austin, Texas 78712 Nancy Guilloteau The University of Texas at Austin Department of French and Italian 201 W. 21st St. STOP B7600 Austin, Texas 78712 EDUCATION Ph.D. French Linguistics with concentration in Second Language

More information