DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Archives. THE FIFTH DECADE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 MAJOR COMMITMENTS 2 Undergraduate Education; Graduate and Professional Education; Research and Scholarship; Community Participation; Moral Leadership. STRENGTHS REQUIRED 6 Faculty; Students; Plant; Balance. DUKE'S POSITION TODAY 8 Youth of University; Faculty Strength; Student Body; Atmosnhere; Problems; Evaluations of Position. THE UNIVERSITY: 1965-1975 13 Invigorating the Experience of Under- graduates; Four Challenges in Graduate and Professional Fducation; The Ad- vancement of Knowledge; Community, Regional, and National Obligations; Impact on Social and Moral Values. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE TASK 23 Faculty Needs; Physical Plant Needs; Enrollment Projections. FINANCING THE PROGRAM 29 Research and Training Grants; Income from Tuition and Fees; Fund-Raising Goals; Fund-Raising Feasibility. I THE FIFTH DECADE Two great and distinct eras have contributed to the formation of the Duke University of 1964. The first saw the historical development of Trinity College with its emphasis on scholarship and its strong moral tradition. The second was dominated by James Buchanan Duke, whose powerful vision and resources created the University and advanced it through its first four decades. During its fifth decade Duke University will move into a third era, in which it can fulfill its basic mission only by responding to new and greater expectations. The original mission — to be in every way one of the finest universities in the world — has not and will not change. What has changed, however, are the kind of resources required if Duke is to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world and of its own past success . In the past twelve months, several years of intense faculty and staff planning for the University's future have been brought into focus. We have undertaken two major tasks. First, we have clarified and enu- merated our commitments and their demands upon us. Second, we have projected the cost of meeting these commitments on a rigorous but necessary schedule. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/fifthdecadedukeuOOduke 2 I , Commitments Our essential tasks are neither new nor unique to Duke. What is new is their complexity, their massiveness, and their urgency in our own time. Our first commitment, in the future as in the past, is to liberal, general, preprofessional education as a major function of the University . Fundamental to all we do is the task of confronting young men and women with mankind's accumulated knowledge and with the processes by which this knowledge is expanded and judged in order to provide a basis for continuing intellectual growth. It is our hope that this process leads our students not merely to greater usefulness and economic independence but, even more significantly, to insights which will lend meaning and purpose to their lives. We cannot be satisfied simply with objective measures of how much our students know; our deeper satis- faction is rooted in what kind of people they become. We are preparing young people to live in an unpredictable world, to follow an unpredetermined course, and to answer questions which have yet to be asked. If we are to fulfill our obligations to Duke's undergraduates, we clearly must expose them not merely to fact but to creative insight and wisdom as well. This is our first task. Our second commitment is to graduate and professional education in a variety of fields . This commitment is vital, not only because of the time in which we 3 live, but also because of the region which is our homeland. While the South lags behind the rest of the nation in the quality of its under- graduate education, the gap becomes most formidable at the graduate and professional level. Tt is also at this level that the nation's manpower shortages become most acute-=and most crippling. In the fulfillment of this obligation, Puke extends and multiplies its own values and beliefs. Although strong universities can no longer serve more than a minority of the young people who seek admission to them, it is from these institutions that colleges new and old seek help to strengthen their own programs . Tf society is to meet the edu- cational needs of our young people, graduate and profpssional schools must be expanded and strengthened. Duke shares this duty. The importance of this obligation, however, does not commit us to the infinite subspecialties of learning on which society depends for solutions to its immediate problems. Those are the proper concerns of other institutions—industrial laboratories, for oxample. If we are to do well what we do— and this is our intent — our commitment must be confined to the mainstream of learning. Our third commitment is to the moving frontiers of learning and to the international community of scholarship . This commitment derives naturally from the first two. It is in this pursuit that the individual scholar enlivens his teaching at the undergraduate level and demonstrates the real meaning of scholarship at the graduate level. The major aspect of this commitment is scholarly research, through which the university contributes directly to the scientific, social , and spiritual reserves on which we as individuals and as a society so heavily depend. In another sense, however, this commitment is necessary to meet our obligation to the whole structure of learning and to the entire community of scholars. No university can exist only for itself or for its own students. We are inevitably caught up in the exchange of ideas and discoveries of the international community of scholars. Through encouragement of fine scholarship, the maintenance of a uni- versity press, the provision of new laboratories and a distinguished library, we sustain our share of the whole venture. In meeting our commitment to the moving frontiers of learning, we shall insist on competent, responsible scholarship. We shall also protect the scholar's right to free expression of what he has learned and of the conclusions he has reached. Our fourth commitment is to realistic participation in the affairs of our local, regional, national, and international communities . The modern university has both the opportunity and the duty to go beyond the accidental, natural impact that grows out of its own character. The more rapid the advance of knowledge, the greater the university's obligation to share what has been discovered. The more complex the issues of our day, the greater the university's obligation to share its knowledge and its insights. In an era of accelerating change, an important part of a university's responsibility is helping people live with, understand, and use new discoveries. The more formal aspects of this commitment must be undertaken with ■l 5 the clear realization that a university serves best by concentrating on its own primary tasks of teaching and research. There are many things a university can do, many ways in which it may serve. The danger of excessive participation and the accompanying distraction from basic tasks is magnified by the circumstances of our times. But these cir- cumstances also make it imperative that the university share its resources and wisdom with the people of its regional, national, and world communities. Arising inevitably from these four commitments, and a part of each of them, is our responsibility for the shaping of values and moral attitudes. This responsibility is difficult to describe and is subject to misunderstanding, but it is essential if a university is to be honest about itself. Any university that pretends to have other kinds of influence without recognizing the one in this area is naive. There are two major ways in which this quality is misunderstood. First , it may be denied altogether , on the ground that ideas are neutral and have no implications of judgment for those who explore them or explain them to others. Those who take this position fail to recognize the impossibility of moral neutrality; they simply make their judgments by default. As a result they often ignore the gap between carefully developed ideas and their own private opinions; they mistake the latter for the former. 6 At the other extreme, are those who feel that a university should adopt in a wholesale way their particular patterns of value — whether those patterns be the sectarian judgments of a church, the economic biases of a political party, or the academic prejudices of a particular theoretic structure. The values accepted by a university cannot be acquired through such sweeping doctrines. They must be thought through from within, not laid on from without. At this point the truest life of the university and the best insight of religious faith unite, not in their outer trappings or incidental moralities but in their final sense of direction and purpose. These are the basic commitments we must make in deciding the kinds of activity that will command us. They are not unique. They are, in fact, responsibilities which are the burden of all universities. Our individuality is rooted not in these, but rather in the emphasis we place upon each of them and in the imagination, will, and energy we bring to bear in their pursuit. II. Strengths Required If Duke is to fulfill its heritage and meet the obligation of its time and location, these commitments must derive support from several sources of strength. The University has all of these in part, but none in adequate measure. The first of these, here as elsewhere, is a faculty of real stature — a faculty of men and women whose superior accomplishments, combined with their own desire to stimulate the curiosity and creative genius of youth, awaken the student to the genuine joy of learning. 7 No institution can expect a faculty consisting entirely of such individuals. Those institutions committed to providing their students with a truly significant educational experience must, however, have high standards for all their professors and exalted standards for some. Requisite for such an experience is that the student be brought face to face with greatness. The second of these sources of strength is a body of students who have the ability, the desire, and the will to reach for all that an institution of higher learning has to offer. The good student today is not inclined to take his college education in stride while giving over the greater part of himself to easier pursuits. Neither does he retreat into the world of books as an escape from reality. Today's student is different. He is part of a new world, and he is more conscious of this than we sometimes realize. He enters into the prob- lems of the world — perhaps because he is caught up in them — and finds his pleasure in the broadening of his understanding and in the ex- pansion of his capabilities. He has discovered a new dimension to his own existence which elevates his capacity to enjoy life as much as it does his capacity to do disciplined work. It is to this student — whatever his origins and his resources, but especially to the Southern student— that Duke owes its primary allegiance. This is partially because it is this kind of student to whom society must turn for the performance of exacting tasks in every area of life. More importantly, however, our obligation rests in a national responsibility to develop the potentialities of able young men and women to the full, and in the realization that few institutions 8 have the capacity to do so. The third necessary source of strength is adequate space for the educational and research programs of the University, and adequate tools for professors and students alike. This means classrooms, laboratories, seminar rooms, and student residence halls; it means books and equip- ment. It also means such mundane things as heating plants, warehouses, roads, and parking lots. Any institution wishing to attract the kind of faculty and the kind of student body required to fulfill Duke's obligations must provide adequate facilities and services for them, or it will not be able to compete with those who do. The fourth source of strength we must have is less tangible, but equal in importance to the first three. It is balance: balance be- tween graduate and undergraduate education, balance between teaching and research, balance among all the academic disciplines our efforts embrace . Our concern today cannot be anything less than concern for the educated, civilized man. As we wrestle with today's problems and with man's need to rise above them, the anthropologist, the musicologist, and the painter have as powerful a part to play as the physicist or the physician. If we are to have real strength, we must strive for it in every area in which we work, not just in a few. III. Duke's Position Today Where are we along the path which leads from the strong small college to the attainment of real leadership in the educational world? 9 How many of the essential sources of strength do we now have , and in what measure? These questions raise another, the answer to which can help provide needed perspective for answering the first two: How far could the University have been expected to go in its first four decades? Measured by the life-span of the world's great universities, Duke's years have been brief indeed. At the time Duke was founded, Harvard was approaching its 300th anniversary. Yale was then 224 years old^ and Princeton, 179. Among the institutions generally thought of as new- comers to the ranks of strong universities, Chicago was then 34, and Stanford, 40. Viewed in its own historical perspective, Duke clearly has pro- gressed very far indeed toward the attainment of the essential strength- ening features of a distinguished university. Not surprisingly, its development has been uneven, and despite its strength its maturity is by no means complete. The present state of the University can best be described in terms of its faculty, its students, and the climate in which they meet. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be accomplished. Evidences of the real strength of the University today are too numerous for com- prehensive description, but a few examples will suggest its current position. During the past decade Duke's search for excellence has involved a major effort to attract and retain a dynamic, stimulating, dedicated, and recognized faculty. To reward faculty members for their teaching and research contributions, the James B. Duke Professorships were initiated in 1953; these now number twenty-four. There are twelve 10 other distinguished professorships at Duke. Various honors and awards attest to the professional recognition of the faculty. Duke professors have headed such organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Biological Chemists, the American Society of International Law, the American Political Science Association, and the American Economic Association. Two new additions to the National Academy of Sciences give Duke five members. While this number is equaled by only one other Southern university, it is still not a commanding figure nationally. New techniques for plastic surgery, organ transplants, and blood testing have been developed in Duke medical laboratories. Research by Duke professors has been of great significance in the conservation _ and utilization of state and regional resources. The 774 articles and 25 books written by faculty members in 1960- 61 is a striking increase over the annual average of 405 articles and 15 books published during the preceding 22 years. An outstanding faculty attracts highly motivated and capable stu- dents. The increase in the mean SAT scores for all Duke undergraduates from l,li+0 in 1959 to 1,260 in 1963 tells a small part of the story. Another part is told by the fact that the Woman's College has the second largest number of National Merit Scholars. Seventeen Woodrow Wilson Fellows were registered at Duke for 1963-64, ten more than in the preceding year. Students come here from every state and from more than twenty foreign countries. Students find at Duke an atmosphere combining respect for tradition 11 with freedom of experimentation. Evidences of the latter emphasis may be found in the projected curriculum of the Medical School; in a new medical hyperbaric unit; in research programs centered on the new oceanographic vessel Eastward ; in international programs involving foreign institutions, students, and professors; and in new under- graduate seminars conducted by distinguished professors. In addition, students find here a university with both a strong regional commitment and an international outlook. Inter-institutional collaboration with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has led to a number of joint programs. Library exchange arrangements have been expanded. Inter-university student registration without fees has been arranged. A challenging program in the humanities, supported by an $800,000 grant from the Eord Foundation, involves more than a dozen liberal arts colleges in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. A consortium in health and medical affairs will involve activities within North Carolina and in foreign countries. To create a controlled environment for the study of plants, a $3,250,000 phytotron will be constructed here and at the University of North Carolina at Raleigh, and will be operated jointly. These and other projected inter-institutional arrangements, stim- ulated in some instances by participation in the Research Triangle , will provide for financial economies, expand uses of facilities and man- power, and create new opportunities for professors and students. They will not limit in any way the internal autonomy of the institutions. Among Southern universities, Duke has been in the forefront in assuming its international responsibilities. The number and quality 12 of the library's special collections and other holdings, the numerous seminars and conferences on international topics, and the distinguished research of many faculty members all indicate great interest in foreign and international affairs. So also do the present and projected all- university organizations for dealing with international affairs, the World Rule of Law Center, and the Commonwealth Studies Center. Student involvement is impressive, with activities ranging broadly from the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service to this summer's Winchester archaeological diggings. Much is happening at Duke. Sometimes, however, the possibilities are far greater than the capabilities. The university, like every other institution in this society, feels the pressures of rising costs and population. Although since 1960 the salary structure has brought Duke an "A" rating on the AAUP scale, the University's position in terms of the average compensation for all faculty shifted during the past year from seventh to fifteenth place; our position in terms of the average faculty expenditure per student was still lower. Teaching loads do not place Duke in the top rank of universities. In only three departments in the humanities is the doctorate offered, and in some of the others there are real obstacles to attract- ing competent professors. This is a serious problem in a university committed to internal balance. Any final evaluation of developments of the past decade and of Duke's present position in the university world must be left to col- leagues in other institutions, to professional associations, to 13 private foundations, to government agencies, and to other outside organizations conperned with these matters. Some of their ratings give cause for concern. Duke was not placed in the top twenty graduate schools in the Keniston Report of 1959, even though the departments of botany, economics, and political science were among the top twenty in their disciplines. In 1960, Bernard Berelson in his Graduate Education in the United States rated Duke not in the top two lists of twenty-two graduate schools but in a third list of twenty-five other schools. Duke's Medical School stands relatively high in terms of research out- put and production of teachers, but it has points of weakness. Com- parative evaluations of our other professional schools are either in progress or remain to be initiated. These are only scattered appraisals on which to base any composite evaluation of Duke University on the national scene. They indicate, however, that our national standing is not so high as we wish it to be. Despite our great progress, unremitting thought, effort, and sacrifice will be required in the decade ahead to place Duke where it must stand— among the most distinguished universities in the nation. We must not be satisfied with a lesser position, even though there has been good reason for it in the past. IV. The University: 1965-1975 In developing plans for the decade ahead, it was necessary to make certain assumptions about the University: 1. Our first job is to do better the things to which we are committed and to use more fully the resources we have. 2. Additional faculty will be needed to reduce excessive work loads, to strengthen certain areas, to staff new programs, and to handle increased enrollments. 3. To strengthen the faculty and retain top people, we will have to maintain an "A" rating on the AAUP scale. 4. The University will continue to face rising instruction- al costs, and tuition increases will be required. 5. Physical plant needs resulting from added faculty and the increasing complexity of the educational process will require an average of $10,063,000 in new construction an- nually in the 1965-1975 period. 6. Pressure for increased enrollment will mount, and added faculty and plant will allow increases at both under- graduate and graduate levels; this will strengthen the University and give it greater balance. 7 . Pressures for added enrollment and adequate use of facil- ities will lead to year-round operation by 1970. 8. Despite increases in tuition, greater amounts of gifts and grants will be required to meet our obligations if the University is to fulfill its mission. 9. The gift and grant requirements are feasible. But the basic plans based on these assumptions do not describe the University's ability to meet new needs within its own scholarly com- munity, in the region, and also in an increasingly complex international setting. No list of these plans can be exhaustive. It is impossible to define the sound, imaginative thinking which a decade can produce, or to sketch the educational ideas which may result from it. We can already see certain lines quite clearly, however, which can be explained under four headings. A. Undergraduate Education in the Arts and Sciences We have a dual problem in undergraduate education. We must improve 15 the quality of what we do, while at the same time we must recognize the increasing competition for the time of any given faculty member and the increasing level of preparation in our students. This means, among other things, that students are progressively more uncomfortable with the teaching of graduate assistants or inexperienced instructors. Clearly these are opposing forces, and yet the best solution may grow from the problem itself. If our students are better, and if the re- search demands on our faculty are greater, then we should move students beyond their basic and routine work as rapidly as possible and should give serious consideration to them as junior partners in research pro- grams. This does not mean that all of them will or should go on to be research scholars , but the opportunity for undergraduate research will bring them into contact with some of the ablest members of the faculty and will give them essential independence as they pursue their own work. Taken by itself, this program would still be too narrow to fill the full need of undergraduates — or of graduate students, for that matter. We must also have work that cuts across the conventional lines of period, field, and discipline to concentrate on the major problem areas of our late-twentieth-century world as the old survey courses in history, philosophy, or religion were never able to do. Needed in our basic teaching is a freshness and breadth to complement the depth and specialization of the advanced undergraduate years. This may appear in the form of special seminars such as those being offered experimen- tally to undergraduates this year by eight or ten of our most distinguished senior professors. It may be manifested in cooperative 16 courses in which faculty members from several departments combine their skills to deal with a major area of interest. The precise solutions will be varied; here we indicate only the basic undergraduate need, with some suggestion of ways in which it may be met. B. Graduate and Professional Education In the next decade, graduate and professional education should develop in four principal ways beyond the steady strengthening of work that we now do in well-established fields. The assumption behind them all is that without foolish expansion the University should still make a significant contribution in all the major disciplines— something it cannot now claim to do. First is the development of work in areas of genuine importance where we now offer nothing or only a minimal program at the graduate level: art, classics, music, and Russian, which have no graduate pro- grams; civil and mechanical engineering, geology, and German, which offer only the master's degree; electrical engineering, philosophy, and romance languages, where doctoral programs are small and limited in scope . Second is the development of new programs in areas where a signif- icant need exists at the less advanced level, although advanced work is already done in them. Two examples of this are the new master's degree now being planned in forestry and the new Associate in Nursing program being developed by the Medical Center. Each of these will use our present resources to meet new needs in areas where we already have an established reputation and program. Third is the development of one or two new programs in areas where 17 we do nothing at the moment. The clearest example is a graduate pro- gram in business administration. The education of businessmen was of major interest to Mr, Duke, and a first-quality program would meet a major regional need. The establishing of new programs prior to the full development of existing ones poses a variety of rather basic ques- tions, however. It also requires alertness to special opportunities for financing such ventures. A trustee-administration-faculty commit- tee should be able to help us find the proper approach to this and similar ventures. Fourth is the development of new ways of treating certain major professional programs. The major revision of the course of study lead- ing to the M.D. degree is the most striking example at the moment of the way in which a long-established program can be modified to express a new, more demanding, more imaginative concept not only of what the best doctor should know but also of what he should be. Like other changes of program, this may make added demands on University resources. It will also enhance the quality and range of our work, however; and we have a clear and, indeed, a public obligation toward excellence in each of our graduate and professional programs. C. The Community of Scholars It would not be sensible to say that we could completely separate programs supporting basic scholarship from those designed to influence the regional and world community. There are, nevertheless, several whose primary emphasis is on the strengthened quality of scholarly work, though the focus may often be a subject of public urgency. First is the strengthening of our Faculty Research Fellowship 18 Program. For some years a modest number of research grants has been awarded by the University Research Council. We need a marked increase in these, particularly for those areas of study and those age groups of scholars where support from outside the University is difficult to obtain (no matter how worthy the project) „ We have recently received an initial grant from The Duke Endowment for this purpose; but we need to find other annual support and, as soon as possible, to underwrite the program with adequate endowment. If we are to support scholars properly, they must have a fine library. Though ways of recording and finding information are changing rapidly, the heart of advanced work will continue to be a collection of rare and unusual materials. The University has done well in the last forty years; now we need to take steps toward making our own area one of the major library centers of the country. Above all, we need to add rare collections bearing upon central problems of scholarship and teaching. Rarity in itself is not the goal of these collections; importance and uniqueness are. The scholars who receive these and other kinds of encouragement will obviously work on a wide range of individual projects, but they will also carry on a number of new cooperative ventures paralleling the Commonwealth Studies and World Rule of Law Centers. Two are particularly urgent for the next decade: a center for Southern Studies, and a Center in International Affairs, Each will be of major importance for other scholars and communities in the region; indeed, each will have that as one of its purposes. Beyond that service is its primary end: the advancement of knowledge in critical areas which have no adequate center 19 elsewhere in the Southeast. To support these scholarly purposes and others like them, one further step is necessary: the development of the Duke University Press, Good in quality but not dazzling, the Press, at its modest level of twenty-five volumes a year, does not have the output or the range appropriate to a major university. As we increase its size and improve its quality, we serve the whole scholarly community as well as our own faculty. D. Community, Regional, and World Responsibility To say these things about our scholarly future reveals the impossibility of subdividing our venture too neatly. There are certain significant obligations, however, which have their primary value in the service they perform. No university can be casual or uncritical in accepting such duties; important as they are, they can easily obscure the teaching and research center of the university. Certain of them, however, are essential and are the particular — indeed the unique- business of a fine university. 1 Like many of our other special programs, they will call for financing from outside the university if they are to be successful. The first is a program of advanced study for faculty from other Southern institutions, both predominantly Negro and predominantly white, We shall describe three of these; but it should be understood that they and other programs like them stand quite apart from the enormous contribution made by individuals in the university to massive regional, national, and world enterprises. These individual projects and con- tributions are more significant than any we would describe formally, and they represent a further justification for our expanded policy of research leaves and travel grants. 20 which are upgrading their programs. For the foreseeable future, these colleges have an important — even a massive— job to do. We can support the education of thousands of students who could never be admitted here by giving their faculty the opportunity to work with our faculty, our libraries, and our laboratories. We are attacking this same problem in another way through our participation in, and our leadership of , a number of major state and regional educational projects: first, the Learning Institute of North Carolina, which we helped to found and now support; second, the Operation Breakthrough Program for Community Improvement in Durham; and third, a regional project in which our faculty and staff will work with those in other schools and colleges to improve the whole level of education and the motivation for continuing it. These are examples of a cooperative venture in education which has the most crucial implica- tions for the South. The continuing education of those who are already beyond college age is another major regional concern. In fields as disparate as medicine, engineering, and art, the need is great. It comes from professional groups who need to learn about recent developments in their own disciplines, and it comes equally from gifted housewives whose children are finally in school. What we plan is not a mass program, which is the province of the state university, but intensive seminars for advanced students in fields where we are particularly strong, and general arts and humanities courses in fields where we have identified a good deal of local interest beyond the usual dilettante of arts-and-craf ts attitude. On the surface this obligation is not so dramatic as others we have 21 mentioned; but since knowledge is outdated at so astonishing a pace, there is real need for a university to share its own best work with mature and deeply motivated people. Here the university's special talents and its "larger public" can work together to great mutual advantage. Like our other suggestions of this type, the need of the region comes first; but each of these suggestions springs from the basic educational purposes of the university. To these might be added a fourth program, one of cooperative educa- tion in a larger sense. Recently a good deal of effort has been di- rected by American universities toward programs of aid to universities in new and developing countries. Duke has not been participating in these; but we see as part of our future responsibility a cooperative venture in teaching and research that would involve universities in three or four countries and would be directed to the mutual strength- ening of these universities rather than the supposed — and often fictitious — help of a strong university to a weak one. We believe that mutual faculty exchange with universities in Canada, Germany, and one of the strong African countries would strengthen our own work in some remarkable ways by bringing a variety of viewpoints and talents to each university. Each could use its own strongest departments for this program. The exchange for a year of an able physicist for a distin- guished African linguist, for example, could benefit everyone; among the many "selfish" benefits, such an honest exchange might contribute to the stabilizing of one of the world's most uncertain and precarious areas. Scholarship and public service at this point would be identical. 22 Everything that has been said about these special plans for our future implies one particular quality in the university: the most responsible and imaginative use of our talents in the battle that education wages for order, knowledge, civilization. Our social and moral contribution is the result of our programs; it cannot be a pro- gram in itself. But without this vision of its duty, and without this desire to reach beyond its present influence, the university is a poor place indeed. The history of the greatest universities has, in fact, been a long chronicle of change and growth, not for the sake of newness but in response to the significant demands of a changing society. This is our expectation of Duke: that it can decide what the greatest needs of our society are and can make a scholarly, thoughtful, vigorous con- tribution to them. The ideas we have advanced are only current ex- amples of that purpose. Undoubtedly the best ideas are still to be found . The Duke University of 1975 which we envision may seem bold. We hope that it is. The reasons for undertaking bold action are compel- ling ones. This vision, however, is one with which we have become comfortable after months of projecting complex, interlocking sets of assumptions about enrollment, student body composition, tuition and fees, faculty salaries, space utilization, construction schedules, maintenance and operations costs, and a host of other factors. The parts of this particular set of assumptions and projections fit together. The goals they provide for us are challenging, but we believe they are attainable. 23 V. The Dimensions of the Task Essentially our basic mission must be to achieve distinction in all of the major disciplines of the arts and sciences at the undergrad- uate and graduate levels and in all areas of professional education to which we are committed. Faculty Needs The first step toward meeting this requirement is the strengthen- ing of the University's faculty. The provision of a faculty of suf- ficient breadth and depth to serve with distinction in all of the areas to which we are committed is the cornerstone of all of Duke University's plans. Pressures for faculty additions arise from a variety of sources, the more important of which are as follows: The need to reduce the portion of course work being taught by temporary people. The need to alleviate current faculty overloads in some departments. The need for sufficient faculty to expand seminars and independent study for undergraduates. The need to initiate graduate programs in several areas and to strengthen them in others. The need to enter additional research areas in a number of strong -departments. The need for departmental staffs large enough to absorb sabbatical leaves comfortably. The need to adjust teaching loads to the demands of research and off -campus activity. While moderate increases in the size of the faculty are required in almost every area, the need is particularly great in (1) the College 2h of Engineering, (2) a majority of the disciplines in the humanities, and (3) the Department of Geology. The implementation of the Medical Center's new curriculum and related programs will also require faculty additions. Numerical additions will be of value, however, only to the degree that they provide a qualitative as well as a quantitative upgrading of the faculty. Only scholars of exceptional accomplishment or unusual promise can provide the strength required to achieve our objectives. The task is a formidable one. In Arts and Sciences alone, for example, the University will need 138 new faculty members (including replacements for those who will retire) between now and 1970. This number is equiv- alent to the entire faculty of a quality liberal arts college of 1,000 to 1,200 students. No institution can hope to attract so many superior people unless it is in a position to compete with the best institutions throughout the nation. The University therefore plans to maintain a faculty salary scale that will qualify for an "A" rating at both minimum and average levels of the AAUP scale in all four of the academic ranks. The achievement of our objectives for the University faculty has two direct, major implications for other aspects of our plans. First, significant additions to the plant will be required in order to over- come existing deficiencies and to provide for expanded teaching and research programs, office and library space, and supporting facilities. Second, a significant number of additional students— undergraduate , graduate, and professional — can then be accommodated. Each of these aspects of our plans deserves elaboration. 25 Physical Plant Needs The University's physical plant needs stem from a variety of cir- cumstances. A number of buildings, especially on the Woman's College campus, have outlived their usefulness. Some of these (Bivins, Asbury, and The Ark, for example) are no longer sound and need to be replaced. The East Campus Science Building, while structurally sound, is completely outmoded for the teaching of science and needs complete renovation. Another group of buildings, notably Chemistry, Engineering, and Davison (medical sciences), have become hopelessly overcrowded and out- dated by the rapid accumulation of knowledge and the increased com- plexity of the research programs fundamental to sound teaching and scholarship today. In all three of these areas, building inadequacies have prevented the undertaking of important programs and have prevented our attracting distinguished people who otherwise were interested in the University. In several departments in the humanities and social sciences, including English, history, and political science, faculty members' offices are scattered in several buildings. Offices also are cramped, leaving little privacy for interviews with students or faculty colleagues. The slow but steady growth in the size of the student body, com- bined with the original inadequacies built into student housing and recreational facilities, has resulted in substandard living conditions which have become increasingly intolerable. New housing for both men and women is an urgent need; physical education and student union facilities at both the eastern and western ends of the campus are woe- fully inadequate. 26 Ranking ahead of all these requisites and suffering from all the varied forces which bring them about is the most urgent need of all, the one ranking first on the University's building priority list: the renovation and expansion of the Main Library. No university can exceed the limits which its library places on the intellectual pursuits of students and faculty alike. The Duke Library, traditionally a source of strength to the University, today finds this strength threatened because it can no longer accommodate either the required books or the people who must use them. The strength of the library is fundamental to the strength of every academic department. Finally, but no less necessary than the others, is the need for a variety of service facilities to support the academic enterprise. The West Campus heating plant has been stretched to its limits by the aggressive building program of recent years; four of its five boilers have been operated two years beyond their useful lifetime. The threat of breakdowns is ever-present, and the possible consequences, ominous. Other service facilities are urgently needed to relieve traffic congestion, the clogged and overextended communications system, and debilitating inefficiencies in the procurement, installation, and main- tenance of buildings and equipment. The cost of providing the plant necessary to sustain the University's advance during the next ten years is estimated at $100,530,677 in 1964 dollars, with the expectation that construction costs will grow at an annual rate of 1.4 per cent during the decade. Appendix II itemizes our building projects, explains some of the considerations involved in establishing construction sequences among them, and summarizes the need for each facility. 27 Enrollment Projections Both the internal dynamics of the University and its interaction with the larger environment of which it is a part provide good reasons for projecting increasing enrollments at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels. The needs and demands of society manifest themselves in two ways. First is the demand for entry to the University of a steadily growing number of young men and women who possess the qualifications for ad- mission to the University. The line between those who are accepted and those who are not becomes increasingly difficult to draw and increas- ingly difficult to describe each year. The problems such decisions create among those whose understanding and support the University needs are compounded each year. Second is the overwhelming demand for graduates of the University's programs in all areas and at all levels. The need for men and women with superior educational backgrounds has never been so great, and it continues to mount. Duke, like other private universities, faces real limitations in meeting the needs and demands placed upon it by society. These limits are rooted in our commitment to quality and in the irrevocable cost of quality. On the other hand, the pressures of society cannot be ignored entirely; if those committed to exacting standards in affairs of the mind become too few, their influence and force will wane. The private university's responsibility for leadership is clear and well understood. What has not been sufficiently clear, however, is that the fulfillment of this role depends not only on the degree of quality but also on the 28 impact of quality — and the impact of quality is dependent in part upon numbers. It is the good fortune of this University to hold a position in which quality and quantity are not in immediate conflict. The faculty required to provide the breadth and depth of programs essential to our qualitative objectives, and the plant necessary for such a faculty to carry out teaching and research programs, provide at the same time an enlarged capacity for teaching students. Given the costs inherent in the fulfillment of our qualitative objectives, orderly growth of the student body is not only possible but also to be desired. The addition of students in the junior and senior classes and in certain graduate and professional areas, where specialized courses are most necessary and class sizes most uneconomical, should enable us to achieve higher levels of efficiency and provide greater income at min- imal cost. Another consideration is the need for continuous balance in the University to ensure that students in every area will have a rich experience. The projections of enrollment incorporated in The Fifth Decade represent our best estimate of the optimum relationship among our inter- locking objectives of faculty strength, plant needs, and student en- rollment . These projections call for an increase in undergraduate enrollment between 1965 and 1970 of 20 per cent (from 3,653 to 4,296), with a con- current increase in graduate enrollment of 37 per cent (from 1,039 to 1,500) and an increase in professional enrollment of 28 per cent (from 1,570 to 2,008). 29 In the period 1970-1975 enrollment projections are affected marked- ly by the projected twelve-month operation of the University, which is expected to raise summer enrollment to or near the enrollment during the traditional September-to-June academic year. During this period undergraduate academic-year enrollment is projected to increase by 38 per cent (from 4,296 to 5,926). Graduate enrollment is projected to increase from 1,500 to 2,078; this provides for a graduate enrollment of approximately 20 per cent of the student body in 1975, the same as projected in 1970. Professional school enrollment is projected to increase from 2,078 to 2,500. For the University as a whole, enrollment projections indicate an increase from 6,262 in 1963 to 7,874 in 1970 and 10,496 in 1975. Details of the distribution of students by schools for each year of the ten-year period are given on pages 14 through 25 of Appendix I. (See especially the table on page 23.) Financing the Program The costs inherent in the University's commitment "to attain and maintain a place of real leadership in the educational world" are ob- viously substantial. In addition to a $100 ,000 ,000-plus investment in plant, projections call for the University's current expenditures to grow from $35,637,000 in 1963 to $63,395,000 in 1970 and to $92,019,000 in 1975. The largest single factor in this increase in current expenditures is the projected growth of research and training programs, financed almost entirely by grants largely from scientific agencies of the 30 Federal government. Projections for this activity alone grow from $9,747,000 in 1963 to $20,614,000 in 1970 and to $29,268,000 in 1975. These programs are essential to the development of a university of real distinction. Agencies of the Federal government have become by far the largest investors in American science and technology. The programs they sponsor intensify the search for scientific truth as no university has been able to do with support from all other sources com- bined. Government grants have become no less essential to major private universities in recent years than have government contracts to major private industrial corporations. There seems also to be growing support for the establishment of a government-financed National Humanities Foundation in the pattern of the widely respected National Science Foundation. Although the use of government funds has imposed certain added accounting procedures on the University, there has been no attempt by the granting agencies to influence the University's research and train- ing activities or the methods by which they are pursued. A second factor that will assist in meeting the costs of the ex- panded programs is the increase in tuition receipts, projected on the bases of (a) expanded enrollments and (b) increased tuition charges. The salutary effect of increased enrollments has already been discussed. Income projections based on increased tuition charges now require com- ment. Charges for tuition and fees at Duke during the past decade have followed a consistent pattern with respect to instructional costs. This relationship is illustrated graphically in Appendix I on page 21. 31 In order to maintain this historic relationship, an average increase of $100 a year in tuition and fees will be required. This rate of increase does not seem unreasonable since educational costs for the country as a whole are growing faster than the over-all economy. Since tuition has historically been a principal source of revenue for private institutions, these rising costs will force tuition increases. The graph in Appendix I on page 19 illustrates the national picture. The reasonableness of the figure is further substantiated by com- paring Duke's present charges with those of other quality institutions in this region and outside it (including those with greater endowment income per student) and with other Methodist-related institutions. The following table compares charges at Duke with those at a number of the nation's leading institutions. Undergraduate Tuition and General Fees Selected Institutions Institution 1957-58 1959-60 1961-52 1963-64 1964-65 Duke $ 800 $ 800 $1000 $1237 $1237 Columbia 948 1148 1300 1700 1734 Cornell 1125 1425 1600 1700 1700 Harvard 1000 1250 1520 1520 1760 MIT 1100 1300 1500 1700 1700 Princeton 1200 1450 1550 1550 1770 Radcliffe 1000 1250 1520 1520 1760 Yale 1100 1400 1550 1550 1800 32 Among these institutions , Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are esti- mated to receive substantially greater endowment income per student than Duke. Estimates for 1962-63, for example, are as follows: Duke Yale Princeton Harvard $1198 $1774 $2013 $2106 Total annual costs for undergraduates at Duke, estimated at $1987, are well under such other Southern institutions as Agnes Scott ($2125), the University of the South — Sewanee ($2190), Randolph-Macon Woman's College ($2435), and Sweet Briar ($2740). Among Methodist -related institutions. Duke's costs are well under such universities as Syracuse ($2535), Boston ($2416), and Northwestern ($2520), and under such colleges as Allegheny ($2188), Drew ($2150), Ohio Wesleyan ($2210), and De Pauw ($2350). There are, however, more basic considerations. First, education is expensive. Second, it has great personal and economic value to the individual. Third, subsidies to students should be made after thorough consideration of individual circumstances rather than spread automatically through low tuition. Fourth, there is growing evidence that more and more people can afford to pay higher tuition charges and that they are willing to do so for an education of high quality. Under the projected charges for tuition and fees, tuition income is estimated to grow from $5,275,000 in 1963 to $11,078,000 in 1970 and to $18,751,000 in 1975. After increases in income from tuition and fees, increased endow- ment income, research and training grants, and all other sources exclusive of gifts and grants, the University's projected income falls 33 short of projected expenditures by an increasingly wide margin during the decade ahead. It is obvious from the figures that the University must undertake a vigorous effort to interest its friends in the accomplishment of its mission and to enlist their aid in its fulfillment. i I Fund-Raising Goals To project fund-raising goals 9 two factors must be considered: (1) the gap between projected income and projected expenditures for the 1965-1975 period; and (2) the estimates of the University's total fund-raising potential. Focusing immediately on the non-governmental aspects of Duke's financial goals, funds projected from all sources other than gifts and grants for research and training programs will fail short of projected needs by $6,193,000 by 1965. By 1975, this annual gap will widen to $18,413,000. These figures represent the University's fund-raising targets for those years. If the University is to achieve what it hopes to achieve, and if it is to fulfill its obligations, fund-raising needs during 1965-1975 will be $167,200,000. Included in this ten-year total is $40,588,000 for new endowment, $44,375,000 for current operations (excluding research and training), and $83,033,000 for plant construction and renovation . It should be pointed out that while these needs would be even higher except for anticipated earnings on new endowment. As new endowment is put to work and brings in new income, it reduces the total outside need for current funds. The new endowment is projected to earn approximately $10,552,000 for the ten-year period. This will reduce the current operations figure 34 from $54,927,000 to $44,375,000. and will result in the fund-raising total of $167,996,000 during 1965-1975. The table on page 35 gives a breakdown on these projections. Gift and grant income needs for current operations arise primarily out of the increased budgets for faculty salaries 9 student aid, main- tenance and operations, and library services. Projected needs for current support in 1965 total $2,613,000 — about the present level; by 1975, needs reach $5,601,000. The only theoretical ceiling on the need for gifts to endowment is the complete underwriting of the current operating needs of the University. This obviously is impossible. Recognizing the need for greater attention to this area, gifts to endowment have been estimated at $984,000 in 1965, at $4,354,000 in 1975, and at $40,588,000 during the entire period. The projections estimate gifts and grants for plant purposes at $2,596,000 in 1965; this grows to $8,458,000 by 1975. The total plant additions required during the next ten years will cost $110,692,000. Of this, approximately $14,283,000 is already pledged, $13,376,000 is anticipated from non-gift sources, leaving a total plant fund-raising toal of $83,033,000. These objectives will be difficult to attain. The task is a nec- essary one, however, if Duke is to continue to work toward becoming in ©very way one of the finest universities in the world. These goals are not idle dreams; they are stark reality. They represent the hard facts which we must acknowledge if Duke University is to become what all of us want it to be. LO ►J o CD 15 Z M 00 M < OS I Q lO r- cn rH O +- 1 in V5 ID L, CT> (fl rH "4 — 1 o o T3 ro Uh O c 3 to -> •o c 00 m c m •H 3 O O c £ 0) ♦J CO c M m a) >~ ■a u w •H U. 00 r-~ EN LO ro CO CO CD «C CO cj LO r- CO CD ir> J- H m CD LO ro O cn cn cn O m 9 (- o J- o to fx. i — | CT> J- lO rH iO LO r-H , } CN _j ^ lO :t rH 00 <~n o CO LO in o o o in —1 CM CO ro LQ o to ;f ~f in cn cn * • A m -H r- CM m cn no CN o , — 1 ro LO 10 r---l CN CD :* lO r> ro CM CO cn CN r» (N o r- CN r- m *■ r m *» m J- r- rH m CO cn O CO — H CO 00 o o o CN O J- ro r> O tO J" [*» r-H r> -t LO CD CN ro LD o o> A #» *» #» p •> I J" to <-H & CT> oo 00 f> p— 1 CN CM o f-- CN iO , j CD r~ rH CO CN r> LO CN I s - o 00 CO in ro CD f> r- CD m •> m •H :t in H cn tO •— i eg ro o tD & m CN CO o rH O m CN CN LO 00 CM rH l> in ro r-H CN cn in cn CD m 4* rH ro to — t CD r-- CN H CM j-J- co IT) CN ro CM lO lO O rH cj J" CO H rH o rH r- J- 00 00 tD cn cn 00 CD it *» «» *» ■1 —i ro ro in (N CM LO H CM ro cn CD CN r» in m CN r- CM o tO CO LO rH ro cn to ro -a* r- CO o O crs CD CD #» •1 a* m <-H ro J- ro r> J" o J- t — 1 CN ro CM tO rH in o r- cn to CO J- T> in J- ro rH LO r- lO CN CD LO cn CD 00 CD * r- is* #> «i 0k r-l to CO m to CT> m —A -H CO lO in CN CO o CD CO in r~ in cn CO ro m CO CO r> to m «» rH & co ro r- J- r-H CO CD O -H O co CO cn rH r> r> d- lO r- H CD CO o cm -h O in lO CM 00 CD * ** H ro ro iO CN m r~- rH cm m co o ro to CO c^ ro H rH cn cn CO CO CD to tO in rH CM CD *» r r* •* I CM CN CN LO CO CD rH rH z Du M cj m Q | U3 m H to < CD Q -I ►J o t.O z o CJ M c (1) i o a c LO M c c CI •H ■m a TJ 0) O V C (0 rrj to 11 Q' Cl, t-, 04 cu c 3 CO W U *-> (h o 1/3 r: O 0) Cm • r-l Mi M CO rj C CO z LO 0) c 3 M c rH o H c rrj u < E— o f. « c ro (- f- TJ c rfl JC o L, rfl CO U) a' ex to to 0) 36 O to o If) r o o o O CN cn CN H CM rH r>. H C\ 00 m ro U") H CD H CD l> CD CO CD CN H rH ID rH rH CO o LO m 10 ID H en 10 rH f» CD (N H r ) rH CD H O O rH CD f- ID O 10 H CN CD CN H r 1 rH lO H CD CO -rr to cn in IT) CD in o CD cn H r-( H H in H 0 o> o CD CD LO CO d Ol CD CD H rH 1 1 in r 1 t*» CO a* co us m CO rH 3 m 01 H H r t in CD CD CN in H o in in rH O CN cn H H H in H ID J- cn 10 r> in in H CO O o CD H <—\ i-H H in r-| w CJ 4_i CJ o CO if) ' — s < rH Cl-I o — i e w a> p O H Pi o +J +J CD to to fti g O rC >> w •H fj e * PQ Q) CJ to rH Cp o •H P c CO s 17) to W «H p • to W o CM < < n H U < in 01 o H i/i to cn H o to w M o w g < w !* cj c/i (-1 in iH ro o CD O f> o cn t- CD CTl CN CN rH H ft rH St CN rH o o CO I- CO 00 00 r- rH cn CO CM CM H rH iH H CO in H ID ro in r> CD t> lC LO CD cn CO CN CM rH o lO m IT. in rH CD CO Ct CN rH O i— i M rH rH CN in CO cn p- CO Sf =J- It CD cn CO CM CM f — i cn rH O in CO ro in H ro ro sf CN cn CO CN CM H cn cn CO ID in CJ» CD CD o CM CM CO cn cn CO CM Cm rH CO rH CO in a cn (Xi o ID cn Cm rH ro r> cn CN CM CM rH 00 rH r> CD CO rH rH rH CO CO H rH ro cn CN CN CM rH CO H lO ID (X) IX rr CD id r> o o C*J rH cn CN CM , j CO LT) cn a o CD ID m CO en CM in cn CN rH rH i— t 10 ro • rH u o to to < rH Cu o < W O co w cu x: CO rH Cj TJ O o o 3 CO to to rH < to to O H H QJ p o OS o +J q CO w ro ro s: >1 co ■H p p 4-> CQ r * a B CJ to in O H .3' H o r- CM d CM C^J o d CO CTi r- CO rH H «> rH d H 00 CO O J- r> co e'- a ro CM CM o d rH en <"0 r | rH rH ro H ID rH cn CN ID in E'- d CO CN rH o d CD en ID CO o H rH CM CM d O r> o ID cn o CO CM rH o St H cn ID ro O H A rH rH CN CM CO ID ID CI r- ID CO rH rH CJ: d ID cn in CM cn rH O CO O r~ in in in LO e'- CM CO rH H cn d CN en in CM cn iH CP CM cn in in H d ID ID O CM H rH CJ) d cn cn H in CN CO CO H 00 d d Cn .::t o ID CD CM H H 00 d CM & r i t- CD t-~ co d in CO H LO CM -1 H GO .H d cn d CN rn H ID CO x: CO Di O [— CO •u >, CO +-> rH w S >> »t5 ■H +j rt) c rH pQ C to o rH to ■H CO •H to rd ■p > U "CJ Ch ■P e . •H o CO H O :* LT) cn o ro w 1 •"3 < O o m 55 W < W CO r- H CO ro CN CM cn CO CO CO r- c\ to CT> •> •> rH ID H cn to rH rH to iC o H CN cn CO m H tD rH CO cn in cn *> •H CO H a' to rH H rH J- CN 3r H r-» CO CD cc CN O cn CTl r-1 CO o CO in rH H in O CO CO O CO r- O CO ID CO CO in cn #» M rH CN cn r- in cn CO cn rH cn CO CO O CO in CO CN rH cn •> M H rH a r- in rH O in lO CO CN (7 00 in cn CN ID cn cm rH o aj CO CO CO co CN t*« J- O in m to cn CN cn rH cn m CN in O CO ID is CO J- in J- H r> CN cn m rH cn f» LT> J- o IC O CN in CO CO CO rH in o H O 1 cn cn ft m rH CO lO J- CO cn cn co J" cn CD tD in cn CO CO cn m m rH r- in d CO w co rl o 0 o w n to w to H CD a 1 CD < o u , CO c o o cd u rl •H 0. Cm 10 0-. o to y to u CO 4-1 o O o C +J o TJ W m c3 - o C W w (o CD o to s u Mh o •rl ■p < CO O M W w OS W to c < < M < < • CN 0 >- a p U < Dm in CI LO 10 01 H o B o w CO a; < w >-• (J < CJ CO VH 8 < S CN 0 7 10 iff CJ rH t-» LO to cn rH r* to re O r ^ •H CO - h 1 — 1 O -f •w ■4, LO CN CN cn H CN (J) n (.-* 0* rH to ID CO O CN ■ t 1"- 1 _j ( 1 t"*- CO LO CO 00 LO O IV r- t> ID CO cn • «« ft H in ir Cm cn CN rH H CM c CN CM LD cn LO r> H cr> ft ** ft H & m CM cn Cm r 1 r~l Oi l£ Li ; to 1 LO _J t*» =f zr to 0 cn m m A m H CO 3" H cn 1 . 1 P f _ O to C v . CO oc H tr cn rH CN n ^5 CO CN rH CJJ ■ »• _ CD cn O CD ■ to LO LO CO iH iH 0 CO CN r — | ) C 1 C 1 CO CO -f -J cn cO CC If) —1 CN cn Cn r-l O 0 CN [ O r*i CO cn to ID to CO LO ft ft 1 rH cn cn t> rH H „ ID CN _t cn ID LD rH cn m rH CO CM cn r- rH 1 1 O O r — IT) J" ,. , 1 CN ID CO _.H H CO cn CN to rH H CO • 0 r , H r\ kj 0 O to 10 t — 1 w (/") CO 0) Q) ftl CO M r n MH CJ ■H I/) O CO CO W a: +j £ ro CO r . ^ < CM g TABLE 2 TLANT CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION 1. Expenditures The historical material for this table was taVen from the Plant Fund section of the Income and Expense Statement, as set forth in the annual financial reports of the University. Estimates of future ex- penditures are based on costs listed in Appendix II under "Phvsica] Facilities Required." For the period 1965-1970 expenditures of S58,967,000 are required. This sum does not include current construction, which is estimated at $6,624,000. Additional expenditures of SU1, 5^3,009 are estimated for the period 1971-1975. The estimates above are in "1964 dollars." The projected plant expenditures shown in the tables, however, are stated in "future dollars" — 1964 dollars increased annually by 1.4 per cent to compen- sate for anticipated annual increases in the price level. The sequence of construction has been developed with these factors in mind: The gradual emergence of "one campus" for the University. The importance of meeting all legitimate long-range needs, for both educational and supporting facilities, by means of a balanced construction program. A realistic assessment of urgent and immediate needs. Further discussion of the building program appears under "Physical Facilities Required." 10 2. Sources of Funds Listed here are the past and anticipated future sources of Plant Fund income. As projected, the category Gifts for Plant represents the sums that must be raised to meet expenditures associated with the pro- jects listed in Appendix II under "Physical Facilities Required." The category Other Income is projected to increase at approximately the same growth rate as determined historically for Gifts to Plant, (approximately 10 per cent per year). The category "Transfers from Funds Functioning as Endowment" re- flects the expenditure by 1968 of the last of these funds for building projects. The category "Tranfers from Other Funds" reflects commitments for work currently in progress and for the construction of projects such as the Library and the Arts Center, as well as agreements with local agen- cies associated with the Hospital for contributions to the construction of future medical facilities. For the construction of dormitories and of the Graduate Center, loans from the Housing and Home Finance Agency of the Federal Government are anticipated and are included in the projections. Gifts from other government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health are incorporated in the projection of the category designated Gifts. SJD||OQ JO SUOI||lfl 12 CM 3 CO ID CX. H o O H 4-> H M d- r-». co W H cn H •V a H u H < O O CO T3 a CO *M C o •"3 w o H 0.D C H C O •H w 3 -a 3 « c 0 H CO -a CO •p z w o c u Ifl M a) w H >■> AN H HJ o w m H H CM O0 CM o CO co lO O lO O <£> o to (O ID H CM CO co 4- H «> ft ' 1 CM 1— 1 cn CO O rH ID 4- CM 00 H Cm ID CO cn CM er> 00 00 cn ft f*** CO cn 00 o cn in r- H CM o CO 3- ID ID rH in CM H in <* • * . i « H 00 cn H H OS r- o o co cn UJ ID CO m CM CO «t o> ft H fH iH H rH /-^ 1 tD [*>. H CO O m cn in (D LO CM r- o m co m m li- in H rH p- 00 cn ft i CO >H . E 05 O 03 CU u •H rH IM rH •H E CD X O o 3 T3 co < c > — ' T3 o C E C ra CO 3 01 O O t? w E cn •H C a) CO CO O i(-i cu +-> 3 O ( m u o w c 3 O c "0 •rH •H w 3 +J G) u >M •r-l CO > Cu a. c 0) X! a) co u •H U O 0) CO C o ->-> D CO d) (-< t« o cu 01 u <4h -C u ■M o. t< o ■M _c Cl. 3 •H +J a 3 C Q. 3 t. 0) ■p X o CJ> o CJ < tJ a-i o u co H CM 13 CN 3 r- CJ> H 2 O 0 M •P H H m W 10 09 rH Ol u 3 H ro O H u «> H < o O co "O a to O u c u ro m 0) W H >« H J ro o 01 •H Ui CD CO h CT> rH O LO CO O in cn •J cn 3- m eft 1 CO ao r-> r- O r> o CO CM H CO rH rH 3" cn (7- «» 1 cn 03 CJI m CM co in CO to CO co r~ CO r- co CN ro CO CO Ol •> cn (T> 01 CO cn CO cn CM CO CN ro CO CO t» CO ro ro CO CO CT> »» H cn a-> cn CO LO 00 ro 00 H CO m O lO o t** H CO cr\ i J , 1 r 1 CO cn *• ft _j o cn o rH rH CN CN o o CM o o cn H CO o cn CO CM CO CN CN CO cn t* •> «» p_i CO LT) CN co CN cn LO CO o cn CO cn CO in lO 00 LO CO CO co H o CN o cn «* » * ,_i c- ro rH H CM o CN o o CM CM CO rH ro ro LO o rH 00 co CM H CM j CM o cn «> «* <^ 1 o o rH rH H cn o ,_| o co o cn cn f» CD in H in o CO H ID m CM o LO H cn « #» * tr» H CO p- rH CO H CO CO rH rH o rp CM o o o O CM CO CO CD cn o in LO (O cn CO LO .—1 o o O cn »> •> •> CM LO CM CN CN C^ CO rH rH CO CO LO O CN O CO r~- m H cn o cn LO H H CO cn CO LO co cn CO cn ft [•» CN ro in to X3 £ M r — s Cm 0) £ 10 o i a> to c u Cm XJ o cu c m 3 rrj c .c. M 4-1 rH LJ Q) -H CL £ EjJ 6 D rH X) 00 c E -Q C J 10 el 3 O fO CU al o o U< O H Oj ,—1 1) u C X W CL, '4-i rui H C (J (j) o •H fc, CJ CO •H 0] rd 3 O o c c rH C T) C ; I 1— I Cu 3 (D rrj •H to Mh •H to ,J to +H to to to 3 CP c 0 4-> 0) c u c -o 4-> H e C(H .G r0 c rrj c ->_) COO a, •H U 2 o H3 C O o f_ ( t-tj H H *H C CO D-i w t-< • • • CM CO TABLE 3 STUDENTS 1* Number of Students Enrolled The historical data for this table reflect the enrollment of regular students for the fall semester and are taken from the summary of enrollment carried in the General Catalogue of Duke University for the academic years 195U through 1963. Projections of the student body were influenced by these consid- erations: As the industrialization of the South accelerates and the per capita wealth of the region rises, a larger proportion of Southern youth of college age will seek higher education. In the period 1965-1975 there will be an increasing demand for scientists, engineers, teachers and doctors, whose education will be continued at the graduate level. At the same time there will be increasing pressure to en- large undergraduate enrollment. From 1957 to 1963, the student body at Duke in- creased by approximately 23 per cent, largely in the graduate and professional schools, while the number of undergraduates remained relatively stable. For 1963 to 1970, it is assumed that Duke will continue to grow at the same rate as in the previous seven years, but that a moderate increase in undergraduates will accompany further growth in the graduate and pro- fessional schools. Such a growth pattern would ensure the continuity of a student body reflecting a balance between strong undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs, and would provide a sound basis for respond- ing to the years of challenge to come. In addition to the needs of the South and the na- tion for increasing numbers of educated men and women, there is an optimum relationship between quality and size of plant and student body. In 195U the physical plant of the University represented an investment of approximately $17,000,000. By 196<+ the investment in physical plant had almost doubled. 15 Moreover, our plant must continue to grow. By 1970, the value of the physical plant will reach $150,000,000. An investment of this magnitude, which is needed for education of high quality, should be utilized through- out the year. To achieve better utilization of facilities and to improve operating efficiency in other areas of fixed costs — such as administration, libraries, and plant operations-further increases in the student body are projected for the years 1970-1975. It is assumed that by 1975 the summer enrollment at Duke will ap- proximate the winter enrollment. For the period 1970 to 1975, the student body is projected to increase by 33 per cent, from 7,87*+ in 1970 to 10,196 in 1975. Increases in the numbers of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students will be roughly proportional to the composition of the student body in 1970. Details of the projections of the student body are discussed in the following paragraphs. Undergraduates . Undergraduates increased from 3,331 in 1957 to 3,653 in 1963, an increase of 9,6 per cent. A 20 per cent increase (to 4,296) by 1970 is postulated. For the period 1970-1975 the number of undergraduates on campus during any fjiven twelve- month period is projected to increase by about 38 per cent from 4,296 in 1970 to 5,926 in 1975, and to make up approximately 55 per cent of the student body. Graduates (Arts and Sciences). Graduate students increased from 463 in 1957 to 1,039 in 1963, an in- crease of 125 per cent; an enrollment goal of 1,500, representing a 37 per cent increase in the number of graduate students by 1970, has been set by the Graduate Affairs Committee. This number is used in the projections. For the period 1970-1975, graduate students are projected to increase from 1,500 to 2,070 in 1975 and to make up approximately 20 per cent of the student body, as in 1970, Professional Students. Professional students increased from 1,281 in 1957 to 1,570 in 1963, an increase of 22.5 per cent. The "Third Progress Report" postulated enrollment of 2,008 for the professional Schools by 1970. The accompanying projections are based on this assumption, except for changes in Medical 16 School enrollment to reflect the thinking in the brochure "Duke University, Medical Center, Develop- ment Program." The distribution of students is pro- jected as scheduled in the "Third Progress Report," except for the Medical School; Medical School enroll- ment is based on more recent projections alluded to above . For the period 1970-1975, professional students are projected to increase from 2,078 in 1970 to 2,500 in 1975. Medical and Nursing School projections are based on estimates in "Duke University, Medical Center, Development Program"; enrollment in other pro- fessional schools is projected to increase by approx- imately 38 per cent. 2. Tuition and Fees The historical data for this table are taken from the General Catalogue of Duke University. Tuition for all students except those in the Divinity School is projected to increase by $100 per year beginning in fiscal year 1966. Duke, like other universities, is faced with constantly rising costs. In the past ten years instructional costs alone have risen from $818 to $1,698 per student. There are many reasons for this growth in educational costs: higher salaries, the rising proportion of students taking graduate work, the need for additional expensive equipment and the trend to specialization characteristic of all of the disciplines. The educational product is being changed and im- proved, but at an increased cost. Since the principal component of instructional costs is faculty compensation, and since an average increase in faculty salaries of almost 66 per cent is expected between 1963 and 1975, a further in- crease in instructional costs per student can be expected. Assuming no growth in student body and no change in the size of the instruc- tional staff, increases in faculty compensation alone would result in 17 an instructional cost per student of over $2,200 by 1970, and $2,700 by 1975. Traditionally Duke has charged relatively low tuition. Nevertheless, the tuition paid by the individual student has followed a fairly consist tent pattern in its relationship with instructional costs. In projecting tuition and fees, it was assumed that this pattern would continue in the future. A more compelling reason than the historic relationship between tuition and instructional costs is the fact that the economic forces leading to increased costs for the University are also reflected in the increasing productivity of society, in rising personal incomes, and in the increasing ability of more and more people to pay for higher edu- cation. Higher education is not only of personal value to the individual but also of great economic value. Tuition increases for the period 1966-1975 were projected on the twofold assumption that people can afford to pay higher tuition charges and that they will do so for an education of high quality. S|uapni3 jo spuosnoqi 19 suoi||ig ui S3jn|ipuadx3 CO LO O LO O — o — — suoi||iji u; y-N'9 20 sjdijoq jo spuosnoqi 21 sjd||oq jo spuDsnoi]^ 22 :* in CD H o ^ Lf) CD rH «< o ro QJ CO C H 3 25 ►"3 UJ Q 01) c H •H CO TJ C CD w rO 0) >H 0 •H e CD ■d ro cn O m m in in rH rH CD CO CD ro O n 10 rH 00 CD r> c» o m CM CM cn r> CM CD to CO CN m o ■X) CD CM CM ro co CM 10 CM cn -p. it »> * - o #> ■H CN H r CO rH -I CO cn m CD ro CT) r-**V CN CD CM CO 'H ro CO UO r> o CM CO t— in H m CO 10 CD in L.0 CM O CD CD r>- CO i to CM 10 / — \ u / Q ID CM CM ro CO CM in CN CD "W m rH H H co — i 10 .-* cn O ro CO rH CD (0 00 CO C*- O r- CM rH it CO CM CO H CD CN 10 rH lO o CD CO CD CM m to CD ;t CM in OU (.JO ;* CM CM CO CM CM m CD CD « H rH rH CO in 10 (0 CO o rH ro CO CD CM CM r- H CO CO 10 H o 00 CN ■* rH (0 CD in O o CO rH cn o to oo m CN in Lfj CO CN rH CO ro CM rr 00 >w* <— 1 rH ro rH in 00 00 m rH CN O CO CN in CO H rH 10 CO O CO o J- o CT> m <*J U J in r> UO o CD r> CD zf 10 oo m rH in LO CN CM rH CO CM CM CO CO CD ■* ri * r rH rH rH ro rH m cm in CD m UJ CN H r» r> p- CD rH CD in (O CD O H 10 CO UJ UJ CM zt UO o m CD CO o in oo m H d- LO O CM H CO CM CN CO cd * r. • H H H ro rH in H cn lO m CO CO m a> ro CO CO CM in rH J- 03 co r- in rH U 1 00 CM CM ro o rH (jD 00 CO LO rH oo 00 CN rH ro CM CM CM rH cn ** #> rH H rH ro ro in in id O rH CO o 3- CN m CD CD CM CO rH CO r- cm CO ro cO CD CM CM CM O rH CD CD CO m ao cj- o ro if" CO r~- CN H ro CM CM o on c< r n m rH rH ro ro rH in #<— > oo to ro r> ^* CN rH CD ro ID CM m rH O CO r- CD r> CD CM cn r— ( CO rH rH CM CM O ro CJ> 00 co m 00 O CO -4* CO 00 CN rH ro CM CM CN o U I v—" rH H rH ro CO rH in (O J- O o u) '*~ > CN m r» 00 CD CM & co ro rH CD in O ID =T rH CN «H CO rH rH CV, o H in CM CD CD m 00 3- O ro •3" ■H- CN rH ro CM CM rH 00 oi #1 * r m rH rH ro CO rH rJ- 00 CM m uO ro rH CM r-- o CO O o rH 00 CD J- cd r- o o CN in CD -H rn o r>- CD r> J- CD in o CN ro iD rH "H co ^H o CO cn r V-r- r« r • rH rH rH ro ro rH w cu o 4) CO c rH CO •• rd al >-■ ^ •H CO CJ 3 c— 1 UJ (p O H •H XI rH Q o CO o TJ rrj CD rH CO to c o u 52 ro c4 00 CO »H o rrj to r0 CO TJ •H rH U. Q Q) £-. r a r, M >. CO 00 U ro to O U +J >, CO w rrl to rH +J c o ro $s to ro +-> CD <_o rH ■M r0 «H ■M •H Oi a, Du CU 3 •H C c H (H C C CO CJ •iH IM w o 13 C -H rd rrj CO (0 < O «H a) •H W O S OS fO •H 00 E ■M 3 Eh TJ t-. 5 £h c O o -t-r *H CO «H rrj O 3 cu a 00 H CJ SE H rrj < to Q >-3 Cm 2 U H CD rH ►J CD X) ro C(H rrj X) rrj +J O +-J r-. • f- O u O b rH £ cn ■ H 23 CO m r- cn H 0 M IT) CO cd H O CO cd CO c 55 UJ Q M D c H •H CO T) C cd w (h rrj cd 0 »H e CD lO O CM to U~l O O o LO CO Li) O LO in cn o rt- CD 1— 1 CN to CD o t o r** o r~ CD O CN CO ct- -) 3- LO H CO tO CD * * * r* # -H in M h r> Cn O 1 o to O H IT) CO H j H CO CT> #» * #" ci H in H h r~ CN J- CN CN IO a> H O 00 O uj LD CM CO r*» d - m i — i U.I v ' rn CO c O ro LO t> CN 00 O H ro rH a 3- H CO ro H m h h r- CD co oo t*~ CQ lO J" to & CN ro O CN CD CN CN d CN CO o d- O r> 00 to o to d CN |> CD O O lO CO rH co d 1 ^ rH CO CD CD • n • «t H H H to fN 00 CN 3" 00 (O C") i"- '• < CN CO CO O CO CN 00 H CN H 10 CO CN ID m H c- d o m 10 CD r*» UD 10 ff> CN to fO CO H CO 01 »t • w »> ft H d° H to CI 00 ID O O tO o in o o a i 00 d 1 O CD O O 01 a o> CM o CO o in I" r*» CN m CD O CO CO d rH CO CO 00 CP •> ♦> w »> ff fH LO CN tO LO CD H co CO CD LO LO CO cd t> h CD en CO H CO d- CN CD J" CD CO lO H CO lO CM ro ro d — i CN CD in CD fH J- O CO t> <— ) o LO CO H H ^ r> 00 in co CD CO cn o o O CN OJ CD CO CM rH to o ro t-» CO ro d H CN CD CO cd rH lO rH r> oo in ro r> o CO ro LO CO CD lO CO o- n J s CO ao o CD CD o H 00 CN LP, CO CO CD CN c*~ i — | rsj O-J CO d CN CO o CD r> * s r • CO a) CO lO CO O ao cn oo in (O 00 r-l tO CD CN CM ro CO H CN c-« CD •> ♦> v-» r-l CO ■— I J- H tO cd m to d CD r> O CO LO O t> CO CD CO m CD CN t> CN O LO CO ro LO o C^ rH O ro io tO iH (O CO rvj CM ro CO H CN r- m CD rH CO >H d or CJ H "O n ry cd c o O TJ 13 '— 1 CO rj V) \J > t> CD 00 t-< 10 "Z O W •H C-t +J CO ^ -M £i C CJ rrj BO C U CO ZD o oo n3 +J rfl ■H +-» •H a, Qj c — > °-> CD IXt t— 4 CO (h 3 C C CO O w U3 O CD "Q O •H CD CO p eg m-h tj tJ rfl •H > X) In rro C c f-> W •H c2 rfl 0) 3 Q-j Q r.i — ' M-J rrl *^ f n * * CO >H '— 1 CD tH CO < ■M M P • O o o < H H 2M ID o r- o O CO O m o CO CN o r-» 1 m co o in rH in o rH rH in oo co O rH O rH O rH cn rH CM X O rH lO ■w CJ> rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CO — * r*-> *■ N r— ^» r-% CO o o in o o o o o o o o o I in m r- LO O in cn o o o in in CN CO H cn CO rH CO rH cn r-l CN X 00 -H CO cn rH H CN r-N — s r— s LO o o in o o o o o o o o o I m m o m o in cn m o O in m i— 1 CO rH cn CO rH 00 .H cO CN X CO rH CO '--=^- CP H rH CD / — ■ 1 o o in O O o o O o o o o O m m c» m o in cn in O o in in CD 00 rH cn CO rH 00 rH CO CN CO rH cn w V^»r w rH rH O r— \ <— s CD o o O O O o o o o o o o 1 in in CO m o m cn in o O in in cn CD rH t-- CD rH CD rH * H CN X CO rH to <^ * cn rH H CO cn .—>•. . — t O) in O O o o o o o o o o O O H I m in m cn LO O m cm in o CM m o CO CD rH CD rH CO rH m o o O O o o o o o o o o o H i m m in cn in o in cn in CD CN in o r- tO rH rH CD rH ^ rH rH O X it rH *> in o cn rH ro w rH a) r» >r*S r— N r— s r— ^ c m in o o o o o o o o o o o o o in o o 3 H l in m m cn in o in cn in o o in O CN o o Uj rH CD Zt rH rH 3" rH H cn • rH W CO H Q 0 in CN 3 rip cn CN C H SrrV W •H C Ti ♦H CD c w m r— N r~> m | O O O O o o o o o o o o o in o o w m in m in cn m o m cn LO o o in o a o o m J" rH d- H if H rH cn • rH W CO rH cn ■w •w' CN H CN m r*S /•■•» r~s /»■•* r— S r*^» H i3 in o o o o o o o o o o o o o m o o l m m in cn m o in cn LO o o in o H m m 0 J- CO rH CO H CO rH CO rH CO rH cn . rH w CN rH VJ ' — - CN Nan* •H cn CN H r«"N r**s in o o o o o o o o o o O O o in o o • m m in cn m o in cn in o o in O rH m in co CO H CO H CO H CO r-< to H cn » H w CN rH m CN cn CM H to H W a) o cj co -P 0 rrj os a) 0) ft) E o < , 6) CU 00 rH •H fj ^ ■M c no •H 0) 2 rd o cm rt rrj ■H •H c Q Q O U co u 3 C C 03 o •H r-f (1) T3 O •H (1) •H w E- C 03 •H > s Eh 3 3 § s Eh W •H £ T3 3 W Q J ts ofe CN 3 a. 25 ro M 0 ro O CN t- IT) CO 0 ro ro O H CO r- CN CN rH H CM CN CD -H CN CN H CN CM CM CN [«• O CO in O CM t> CO O ro ro O rH CO rH H 0 0 rH ro H rv in n »H CN CM rH ro CM CN CM f> O CO ro O CN f> ro CO O ro a' O H CO r- 0 O 0 cn O CN O cd #> r> *» #* •> H CN CN H rH CN CN CN p>» O ro IT) O CN t> CM CO O ro cn O H ro C-» a> 01 ai CO ro H CD CD • #* H H H H H ro H O ro in O CN t> rH CO O ro ro O H CO f~ 00 ro CD C*» ro O 00 CD *=. m w* ,— | rH H rH H CM rH r> en f> O CO ro 0 CN •H O CO 0 CO ro 0 H CO t"» C*» r-~ 00 CO c~- ro c ■ CD **• #1 *J H rH H H H rH rH ro 10 cn t»» O CO ro 0 CN r>. H Ol CO O ro ro O H CO lO CO to ro ro CO CO ID #■< CD ft r> n ft O rH rH H H H rH rH co «r-s (0 CD 'r- C ft) f> O 00 ro O CN 2: 3 ft 00 CO O CO ro 0 rH ro W H (O LD LO r> ro r> ID c, O CD r* •> til rH rH H H H H rH C CO •H c •H C w U3 f> O 00 ro ro '-■1 O 00 O ro cn O rH ro OT CD J- f> ro =t ro If t-i CD n r #• ft! rH rH ■H rH H rH 0) >- H r> O OT ro O CN r> m CO CO O CO cn O rH ro 0 ID ro CO CD CM ro ro CO w CD Fi rH H H rH rH -H r>. O CO ro 0 CM O ro CO a ro CD 0 rH CO CO CN CN CO H CM CN CD #» rH rH H H H H rH 0) CU U* r-l to L, H u a) O CD C 10 O CK CU CD CO „c < C.9 0 +■* CJ X C t) CO CJ M a> 3 c •rH X) rH CU rfl >> >^ a) O T3 to u 4-1 C +J Li c DO rH 3 DO rfl O "H 4-J •H H rH 3 • H C to O •H rH CJ C I) T3 W «H QJ •H CO d nj "O '"0 CO > Lt (4 c rH CD »H O ft) oj w 5 O Uh Q U, J g E CN < Cl, 26 TABLE 4 STUDENT AID BUDGET Financial aid for students consists of outright gifts — scholarships, grants, and awards — and loans. Money for scholarships comes from dona- tions to the University's scholarship program, from income on scholar- ship funds, and from the current operating budget. In addition, students are assisted by gifts and grants from outside sources, primarily govern- ment-supported organizations. Loan funds come from University funds and from the government under the provisions of the National Defense Education Act. Student aid from University resources (scholarships, grants and loans, including loans administered by the University under the provisions of the National Defense Education Act) increased steadily over the past seven years. Total University-supported student aid, as a ratio of Tuition Income, increased from 31 per cent in 1957 to 42 per cent in 1963. Approxi- mately 25 per cent of all assistance was in the form of loans. Assuming the need for student aid does not increase, but rather main- tains the 1963 ratio to tuition income, it is estimated that approximately $8,000,000 in student aid will be required annually by 1975. This estimate is reinforced by these considerations: Between 1964 and 1975 the GNP is projected to increase by approximately 60 percent. At the same time, due to increasing instructional costs, tuition charges are projected to increase by 80 per cent. The average costs for undergraduates for 1964-1965, as listed in the Duke University General Catalogue, 27 are $2,500, of which $1,237 (or 49 per cent) represents tuition and fees. By 1975, average undergraduate costs of $3,800 are projected, of which $2,237 (or 60 per cent) represents tuition and fees. As the need for student aid has grown, the University has assumed increasing responsibility for support of the student aid program, using funds from the current operating budget. The Current Fund contribution for fellowships and scholarships grew from $135,000 in 1954 to $775,000 in 1963. By 1970, if present trends continue, almost $3,000,000 from the Current Fund will be needed for this purpose. A scholarship program costing $3,000,000 annually out of the University's current operating revenues is beyond our resources. At the same time, this program should receive the maximum financial support practicable. The Student Aid budget has been analyzed primarily to determine at what level support for this program from current operating funds could be planned. Since gifts provide a principal part of the support of the Student Aid budget, projections of gifts based on historical data have been made for this purpose only. Student Aid Income 1. Gifts for Fellowships and Scholarships Some caution should be exercised in using these projections of gifts for student aid. These estimates represent a simple extrapolation of historical data. They do not represent the level of giving necessary to sustain a dynamic student aid program, or the level of giving which the University seeks in the future. They represent little more than part of an attempt to analyze need. Gifts for Fellowships and Scholarships are derived from six prin- cipal sources: Individuals Industry Foundations Religious Groups Special Trusts and Foundations Government Analysis of historic data indicates a consistent linear growth pat- tern in gifts from foundations and from special trusts and foundations. A separate category including gifts from individuals, industry, and religious groups yields a similar growth pattern. Projections of these categories are based on the following assumptions: Gifts from individuals, industry and religious groups will conform to the average increase of the two-year moving average from 1954-1963 — $7,000 per year. The basis for the projection is the 1962- 1963 average of gifts from these sources ($145,000). Gifts from foundations will conform to the average increase of the three-year moving average from 1955- 1963 — $11,000 per year. The basis for the projection is the 1961-1963 average of gifts ($127,000). Gifts from special trusts and foundations will conform to the average annual increase for 1955- 1963 — $12,000 per year. The basis for the projection is the average of gifts for the fiscal years 1962 and 1963 ($161,000). Other categories do not show a regular growth pattern. Government gifts grew from $38,000 in 1957 to $49,000 in 1960. There were signifi- cant increases in 1961, 1962, and 1963; the 1963 amount was $217,000. Here there is a growth similar to that of Gifts for Training, but with a three-year time lag. Accordingly, government gifts for fellowships and scholarships will probably stabilize around the 1963 figure, but will grow at about 10 per cent per year. 2. Investment Income Analysis of historic data indicates a growth in principal for scholar- ship funds of approximately 12 per cent per year for the past six years; a 4,7 per cent annual rate of return on principal was also indicated. These factors were applied in projecting Investment Income. 3. Transfers from the Current Fund University Scholarship Program support from the current operating budget grew from $293,000 in 1957 to $775,000 in 1963. Only a portion of this contribution was previously considered as "Expenditures for Fellowships and Scholarships." The extensive University-supported pro- gram of awards for graduate students was not included in "Expenditures for Fellowships and Scholarships" prior to fiscal year 1963, but was reflected as a charge to the operating budget. In future financial re- ports all Current Fund contributions for the Scholarship Program will be included as components of scholarship expenditures. Future transfers from the Current Fund to the student aid program have been estimated on this basis. Student Aid Expenditures 4. Expenditures for Fellowships and Scholarships Historical data indicate that expenditures for grant aid increased from $381,000 in 1954 to $1,756,000 in 1963. As indicated above, over $3,000,000 from the Current Fund will be needed to support the Scholarship Program in 1970, if present trends continue. During the period 1957-1963 student loans increased from $130,000 to $463,000 per year. By 1963 government money administered by the University under the National Defense Education Act loan program accounted 30 for 50 per cent of the loans. At the same time, graduate awards sup- ported by outside sources rather than by University sources increased from $192,000 to $907,000. Since there will be greater dependence on loans in the future, the projected student aid program included both loans and grants. It is assumed that University support for fellowships, scholarships, and awards will be given to the limit of: (a) Gifts for Scholarships (b) Income from Scholarship Funds (c) A contribution from the current operating budget, increasing from $775,000 in 1963 to $1,200,000 in 1970 and to $1,600,000 by 1975. Graduate awards supported by outside funds are projected to increase by approximately the same increment as in the past six years - $133,000 per year; the 1963 figure of $907,000 was used as the projection basis. Loan Program 5 . Loans Amount of Loan . This sum is projected to grow as additional funds are provided from University sources and from the National Defense Loan Fund . University funds for new loans increased from $43,000 in the fiscal year 1957 to an average annual increment of $90,000 for 1961-1963. Reflecting the increasing involvement of government funds in this area, additions to University funds are projected at only $100,000 per year for the period 1965-1975. Federal funds for new loans increased from $2,000 in 1959 to $238,000 31 in 1963. By 1970 approximately $800,000 per year should be available from this source; by 1975, the figure should reach $1,200,000. New Loans for Year . This amount is projected to grow by the same annual increments of new money from University and government sources that were used in projecting the total amount on loan. In addition, estimated repayments have been included in projecting new loans. In 1963 repayments approximated $128,000 per year. By 1970 annual repay- ments of approximately $190,000 are expected, and this should increase to approximately $250,000 annually by 1975. In summary, new loans are projected to increase from $463,000 in 1963 to approximately $1,100,000 by 1970. Of this amount approximately $300,000 would be provided from University sources; University-admin- istered National Defense Education Act funds would provide an additional $800,000. By 1975 annual loans of over $1,500,000 are projected; the University's contribution would approximate $350,000. SJD||OQ JO SUOI||!W 33 CD to cn H H to CO co CJ> to lo in CM to on H r-\ O J" o f> CM 01 cC LO o H in .-! til' CO m lo to r- LO W § ; r : 0) e 0 C to a o c fO c~, > VH -H • H CO C-> O CJ M E- * ■ » rH CM CO 3M 1/1 r» en H O F. ' in (X) en H ►J «*• o c a Q co M < W o S3 w fr- D CO iz; ►"3 Q DE § CO H H D to Q o W H CQ 65 a! < W ►< < CJ CO i — i Im in o .-1 o rH r> f« o J" cr> i> co a> CM rH m fH H -t IS- CD 00 o t> C'- ID CM l fH H CO CM .3- rH o LO r> CO CM (D to en St CD CO -t- —J fH rH rH CO H CO to o CO r> CD in CO CO CD CO LO CN l_J •H f» r» *» O rH CD CO si- CN o rH m m fH rH CO CD rH ro 00 ID d- cm o CD CM d- H CO fH * rH H CM 00 r> IX) r- o ID ID j- CD o ID CD ir> f- CM CD O CO oo fH rH CM ID CO ID CO ID CM rH CJ) co CD O CO CO CM fH M m rH CM in CO CO ID CM ID ID CO rH ID CD CD CO O fH •> CM rH a) +-> o Q rH < r3 o (-T V 0) c ' Q E Q) n ro +-> O Uh W to o W rH CO c c (0 > t— 1 ra +J M •H p U o O Fr- o a 55 • • » n rH CM CO 35 sa p H CO CO in CP c LO cr> o CO y i O ss w < w o CO H Cm LO < •J o Q O CO o CO D O H ro CM -1- CO 0 1 c ^ CO to CO cc , j en CM :± t> J- CM CM rH •» Cr H H CN * CO CM 00 CO CD -+ (0 CD CD O =»• H CO Cn CO ,_| LO CO CO t - CO H IN H H CM i— ( CM o CN LO CO CD CD CM H m CN CD CD CO ro CO CO CO rH 4% H H CM o LO CO CO Q-J CO CD CD o CD CO CD t> CD («. CO O CN CO rJ- co i— 1 m — H CO LO oo CO CD r~- CM cn H rH J- CD iH * • H rH CO CO CD CO rH LO LO 3? CN CD ro o CM CM CD CO CM CO H c CO CO H •1 rH rH C-» H CD o o O CM CM LO cn 01 CD CO CM CD rH CD d- H co rH CO H O rH 0| H CD o o o I LO co o co I I 1 CD 3r CN co 1) 6 I LO ro Q 00 I LO d- LO CD 1 1 I CD CO rH J- 1 1 1 rH .d" r — , | LO CO C_ oo 1 1 i 1 1 CD CN iH ro 1 | rH rn l/J r CO r. Oj •H CI 1 1 rrj i i •H I* 1 1 f. M CD rn r i . ro o CO Q. 1 r , W rH C4 rrj Q ttf +-> rH M 1 M rO S H M , 1 f* r— 1 C < (/) rrj O CO M r- I — 1 J rrj d' > CU CU rrj W H • _J n— 1 fj c: M4 t/D n i •H 1] co CO ■P n3 ,c a) e •H 5 c r- a; •H o H en b0 +J u O W a> cn O u CO s H o W H u r> C2 H „c O "0 4-> u rH H •H H 0 a, rH ir> , 0) o -H O ro 0) 43 at ■M H O ns r-H CO rH O c 4J US a CO rH CO CO •M Q 0) O o o CU O Cm E-i Eh Cm E- w Cm X • > • u J- LO 36 w l-J LO o rH co LP CO o cn CT) CN 1/1 CN rH * *■ ■1 r * J" 1(0 CM CO >f -j cn CD o co f» ID in CM cn CJI CD jj- CO rH «> n •> • 00 H LT) CM p- v'/ f*« co f- o cc r> CO rH cn CO o CM CO i— ( •> n #> » CO rH UO CN CN I / 1 r- ID f* o cn it CM p» rl CO H « m •* <* CO H sf CM CO r"l ID H r- CO CO CO CO cn H rH CO cn ro H o CO H H CD if) o H in ro CO H f~. H cn o ro d- o r- 1 CO cn O rH « m r ' CO If rH cn IT) **M CO &3 CD <; CT> CO CD m cn ,_q ID o O rH o rH 1 1 (j> CO o cn in * Q H •» m O Q CN rH CO rH in CO 1 j fl 1 <; r i t o 00 00 o ID CD CO to H rH CN cn l-J Q CD CO On in in o f , ^ rH m «« Q § CN ro rH uo 1 — | CO r 1 H > — ' f A Q Q ro- o CD CO c in w E- CO CM CM ro CO CD co CM J- CD DC rH CN co « rH m < S3 CD CD CO CD cn CD CO CO r> o r> < (j> CN CO ro CM o rH to CN CM rH d- M to LO CN CO CO ro CD to =r o r- CO cn o (D c^ r- 1 CO rH »> « CSJ Oi rH CO <0 ±j rrj CO »H CO >, p, ;. ; cfl 4_i •H (U •H X! rrl CO o x: 10 (11 {- 1 cu rv 10 cu Q AJ (J p, U +- 1 ■ i rrj tl c_, o rj as !^ r_| o «-l CO rH o Q V-M o O CO T3 r; Q. CO W CuJ J3 cu •H »2 rj &> O p CJ < CJ CO CO to" •rH co 00 Q o CO TJ rj . — ' CO t>> r-H f_, to o pj to rrH [ i c CO TO CO (D CO ro. £h »rH > D, U Tj •H 03 co •H -M •H id CL 1 CO t <-\ *> c_, M K-t JO s Til CO ic (1) 10 < •H CO to > s to o •H o rH (_) r— { r] r- 1 rH H n 1— 1 H B 1 +j cO rH o (D o 0) o r, | to M uo 37 M E- 55 W O D tO CO LO O lo cn o co 0) c •■3 u Q W < w o W 8 < ►J O P o oo Q 00 D o DC H CO CO LD CO CO ID LO CN CO ID en LO CM CN Jtf *> CM CO ^ CM LO ID H CO O CO cn CM H CM CO H •> rH H to CN CO LO ID J- o St :* CD cn CM CO rH O cn co 00 1 r-| CD cn o r- CO CXI CD CM CN rH cn r» on CM O in 10 CO cn u") H CP CO CO O CO LO CO CO CO cn rH rH LO o o O LO CO CO CT> H rH rH LL' CN LO O cn LO CN LO CO CD CO 1 *—| ■3" CN LO CN cn CO rH Pi hj a) >-i Pi C o nJ S-i o o o >. - oi 1-3 Mh 4-> 'H c oo CO o rl CD rH o +J o > < f0 c w +J c n o s • E a LO < 3 o M < CJ (=3 E- to LO e'- er) O m CO o CO W w < w >^ < o to < O Q O CO Q CO D o E- LO CO y — 1 ( ) J* U > CO CO CN LO rH #* H rH •H H zr CO Q-) q (j) f*- J" co CN LO c> LO co rn ,_ i A o rH rH H CO CO r — s I s * CM CM -T CO cn CO CO O CO i— t * * cn H H CN CO U J to 00 rH cn rH CO cn CM i— l * « 00 rH i rH 00 V — ' CO CM o CO 00 cn rH CO CO rH rH A H O 00 1 I rH cn OO CD rH C^ CO o _j r~| CO rH o> CO CN CO CO -4- CO CN o cr» CN CN o it m LO rH 00 — *- •T CO CO CCJ ID CM rH CD CN CD cn rH • r** rH -+- CN CO CO 00 Lj > . ; CD CO 1 — 1 U j CO CO CT> o a -J r> rH CO In 00 „ u -■ . — 1 V — J CD CO -J -4> —J cn d- CM & UD _l CM oan c , m on +-> LJ c +J PL, •H O w w Am er rn 0 > rrt •—1 iH ■H (0 [—1 ■M 8 H • O 0) to !Zi 39 TABLE 5 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES Table 5 gives financial expression to the policies and programs alluded to in the earlier tables dealing with faculty, plant construc- tion, and students. Table 5 is based on the Income and Expenditure Statement as pub- lished in the Financial Report of the University. With minor exceptions the categories and terms of our present accounting system are used in order that the projections may be validated in the future by reference to the regular financial reports. Table 5 follows the format of the annual Income and Expense Statement. In Table 5 income and expenses are grouped into the following general categories: Income and Expense (Educational and General) ; Income and expenses related to the educational pro- gram of the University and for general purposes. Current Income and Expe nse : Income and expenses which pertain to the current operations of the University, other than physical plant construction and acquisition. Non-Educational Income and Expense : Income and expenses which do not relate to the educational work of the institution, such as the student aid program. Consolidated Income and Expense : All income and expense categories, including Educational and General, Non-Educational and Plant Funds. Income : Educational and General 1. Tuition Income Tuition Income is projected to reflect an increase in tuition of i»0 $100 per year per student (except for Divinity School students) begin- ning in fiscal year 1966, and increases in the size of the student body, as discussed under Table 3. Summer session tuition income is included in the projections. For the period 1965-1970 it is extrapolated to grow at the same rate of increase as tuition income from the regular sessions. During the period 1970-1975 income from the summer session will decline and regular tuition will grow, reflecting increased utili- zation of the physical plant in the summer months for regular programs; however, the summer session will continue to provide instruction for special students and teachers. 2. Endowment Income Endowment Income for the general purposes of the University comes from three sources: The Duke Endowment , The General Endowment, and Funds Functioning as Endowment. Analysis of each source has produced the following methods of projecting unrestricted Endowment Income: Income from The Duke Endowment has doubled during the period 1954-1963. The annual increases have been somewhat erratic, and twice there were sharp declines. Annual income from this source is projected to increase by 1975 by approximately 60 per cent above the 1965 level . For the period 1965-1970 income from this source is estimated to grow by an increment of $250,000 per year. This approximates the average increase over the period 1954-1963. For the period 1971-1975 income from this source is projected to increase by $300,000 per year. Income from the General Endowment is based on a return of 5.5 per cent per year on the book value of principal, which will also increase at 4 per cent per year due to gains from the sale of investments. Income from Funds Functioning as Endowment will drop, as the principal of this fund is being steadily invaded and transferred to plant funds. Projected 41 income from Funds Functioning as Endowment declines until 1968, when the fund is closed out. The rate of return on this declining principal is computed at 8.3 per cent (1959-1963 average). "Endowment Income" as projected here is a comparable category to "Endowment Income" as used in University Financial Reports. Included in the total endowment income is income from The Duke Endowment, Funds Functioning as Endowment, and The General Endowment. Income from restricted endowment funds is not included. 3. Other Income Historical material for this category includes the following types of income : Gifts (Educational and General, minus Research and Training) Other Income Forest Operations Investment Income In projecting this category, however, gifts have been excluded, in order to gain perspective as to the dimensions of Duke's dependence on the support of its constituency. Gifts (Educational and General, minus Research and Training) increased from $171,000 in 1954 to over $1,000,000 in 1963. Included in this classification are gifts for: Loyalty Funds Libraries Professorships Current Expenses Faculty Salary Improvement 42 The other categories have increased by an average of $139,000 per year during the period 1954-1963. This increment has been used in making projections. 4. Gifts and Grants for Research and Training Gifts and Grants for Research and Training was considered as one category in making projections. Analysis of historical data indicates that beginning in 1957, grants for training programs have shown a slow but steady increase in amount each year. Since 1959 this increase has averaged $166,500 annually. Analysis of growth in gifts and grants for research shows a more rapid growth pattern, averaging $872,000 per year since 1956. Based on these increments, research and training income of $16,700,000 by 1970 was initially projected— $2 ,900 ,000 in training income, $13,800,000 in research income. Assuming that contributions for research from non-government sources (individuals, industry, foundations) would maintain their current level of approximately $1,000,000 per year, these initial projections called for government agencies to provide by 1970 almost $13,000,000 yearly. Federal sponsorship of University research, as well as Duke's participation in government-financed research programs, was reviewed in order to evaluate these estimates. The increase in federal obliga- tions for research and the impact of these programs on research activity in institutions of higher learning are reflected in the fol- lowing charts, published by the American Council on Education. 43 m o o O 3 to 3 W • Q - 5 s C 0 > M < H < in 1 S o w % u w M CO W CSS u to a M 6 o CJ u o —1 u o to CI o o o O M H < C w H < W o 33 { I Percent Increase in FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS ^ for RESEARCH^ 2 ), Fiscal Years 1956 through 1963 CO C7\ O tr> lti o CT\ C7\ CTi i — I CN CO v£) vO vO w o\ o\ (millions of dollars) % Incr. 7„ Incr. Fiscal Total since Basic since Year Research 1956 Research 1956 1956' $ 844 $ 201 1957 916 9% 25^ 267. 1958 1,034 23 331 65 1959 1,390 65 543 170 1960 1,927 128 741 269 1961 2,337 177 804 300 1962<3) 3, 185 277 1,126 460 1963< 4 > 4,419 424 1,486 639 (1) (2) (3) (4) See footnote L, page 138, Fact Book . "Excludes obligations for (a) increase of R & D plant, (b) pay and allowances of military personnel in research and development, and (c) development." Source VII Estimates, made near midpoint of year, according to appropriations, fund apportionment, advanced stage planning P. 61, source X. Estimates based on The Budget , 1963 , before congressional action. O o CM ■ ■ O c c JJ W C ■H M X rt u < w to fa Pi as Q < c o o > 1— 1 < H <5 to u 3 JJ o o fa 7". M ~J '; < Uj u cn i — i H co H m H < H — < CO fa C o 0 •r-l w -J u c H CJ fa 3 fa — O w ■ r * O ■H O 3 O CJ ta u ■H M a 1 00 W i — i H W to CO Q fa 5 > fa i— i 2 fa 5 o w cj fa b a o w CO ►j fa o oa a 2 Q fa 2 i-i - CO m m ON ON o VO I CA o VO ON CM VO vO (millions of dollars) Year (2) TOTAL Federal Government Industry Inst itutions Own Funds (3) Other non- profit ins 1953-54 450 280 20 130 20 1954-55 480 300 20 140 20 1955-56 530 330 20 155 25 1956-57 650 415 25 180 30 1957-58 780 530 30 190 30 1958-59 • 840 570 40 190 40 1959-60 1,000 720. 40 200 40 1960-61(4) 1,200 890 50 210 50 1961-62( 4 > 1,400 1,050 55 230 65 (1) (2) (3) (4) "Data on sources of funds are based on reports by performers." Sector surveys were made for 1953-54 and 1957-58. For other years, estimates we're derived from available information. "State and local government funds spent for research and development by the colleges and universities ... are included with the ... sector's own funds." "Preliminary." 45 w CJ COM SO Oco r-l <:o o HQ JJ COW OM ►J c2« W a w KM CO fa H CJ M s o o CJ w c H 8 CO m o o OM CT\ CXI zo OH *S OCJ P3Q tu OK H rH 03 0 W •H 56 / — >* CO ro ro rH LO CO cn ro :* l> r- CD CN cQ LO cO CN Cn ' — i co cO CO cn 3" CNI r~N CO cn od CN CM P» CN ro CM CO CD CO It to o ■ — 1 lO cO cn fl * H CO to CM CO CM o CN cn CN cn ro CO CO i— 1 00 Q CN CO CO d- b ro to CO cn #1 Sr. f •H J- o CM i— 1 CD ' rH r""N xf CN CM rH O cn o CO cO CN CD rt CO CO cn CN cn l> co o cn I* CO CO H CO CN cO — ' rH - ' 00 LO LO ro cn CD ro CO c o LO CO O ro d- CO cn * i CO LO H 1 — ' rH N. cn CD H CM rH CO ro rH co H CO CO r- cn lO r~ cn A *. #» *H CO rr rH rH 1 rH CI5 rH ro o O ."J - f» CO rH rH CM CO J" CO CM cn CM rH CO o*- CN i- ro H . — > CN cn cn 3- CM rH CO CN LO r> co cn cn LO co LO cc rH r- cn * rH CN ro CM CO CO H CD CD ft . *> J* *r» ft H o CO o a- CO rH H co m / N CD o UD d r- CN CO CO ca O o CN CO CO H oo O CD ft ft H LO CD co co CO rH CN LO =r LO rH ' "» in CM CM LO co CO m co I> H d OO 1 — \ CN en ft ft rH d CD CN CO 3" CD H CN 1 — ' 3- -~ - r» in CO 33 CO LO r _ ^ , — i CN CN CO CO o co CO LO en ft ft CD LO o H H o cr> CO o oo CO r> o LO CO CD d r- o en ft " ft ft ft +J rH H CN CN CO H H CN ~ — * d- m CO CO S — N en CD CO o CN CN p» H rfl en r> co m co CM CN 1— 1 CO o CS! LO cr, CN CO H CD #» •I ft O 0 rH o 03 CN O CO 00 CO rH CN CO 0) s c O H H CD CO LO CO d CO H in d- W CO H CO d o CD LO TJ CD r. ao C rH CD CN CD CN LO C H CO •H to TJ 3 i G o rH d CN CO d CD a> CN o r> CO CO d- +■> CO CN CO CN rH cO lO to CD o ft ft (A ft C H CO CN o CN CN to rH H 1 — ' 0) o >* r — S rH d C\! CO co -c CO IB CO LO co co H i — i rH a CO CO CO H CN d CO w CD ft ft »H fO" CN in CM CD H ' CN 3" CM O o LO rH in CO O O CD J" CO CO CO CN CO CM H 00 CD ft ft 0i ft rH CO f* H co CM CO H CN .fl a t< ro T3 a> C CO l U a Pi H 2 ro O o 4-> O CD •H X! .c O c 3 C •H C CJ C d) E- W s CJ rc rH CJ O W O 2 • w « • • n cj H CN CO in CO 58 CO CO CT, H 0 +J CO UO W cn t. H rD -a H o H ** i — 1 3 ►H O O c Q co TJ ■H 2 u 0) 4h c c O 0 X 3 CJ w CO Q M C in C rO < •H t/1 w X! j C 0 AB (•in o H CJ CO E- c H rcj o i" H ro O w •H Cjh CO 3" CO O to LO CO CN cc CO Cn iO — ;- — I uO , 1 CN J* o uO CD CD o LD CN O LO CO CO O i — 1 cn * 1 1 — t- -(- CO CN' CN CO to CO CO o cn CO cn n ' — 1 r— ( , 1 , | GO CO CO CO lO CD CO cn cn CD CO CO ID , j » — f CN p — CO cn LO ^o o CO cO CN e'- cn n rH co co CO en i — i cn LO o LT> o CO cO LO co if cn m rH r- CO CN' rH d- CN r-» =1- CD CO *H LO C7> ■M •H c C TJ . U o 1 CD H ' 3 cj rj TJ rg fO CJ 2 O :t r- CM LO iJO e'- =T ro in en m r. H CO JO cn H m H CO CM 00 CD CO 00 CM cn CM =f r»- o CN CO H CD 01 ^» CM ro CO ro CM CM U0 H l> CN ro co w > cn i— i i— 1 ro CD o j j rH p» m CM O r- i— i CM CO =f r» m CM CO CO CD * i-H m CM P- in d- H CO in 01 H cn 01 OO H O CO r- co d- J> c»- ro ro m O CD <** H H H t"» o H CO LO C/3 co CO on (4 o Cn =f O .— . 2 H no cn CM CO ■x) H (0 CD m OO 3 H o 0 H CO o ID LO C Q 00 X) 00 H m «H •H U a C Oh c 0 m =r lO 0 X CO j- > co oo o w ! -o CO UD m m CO xj CD #* Q c H m cn CO H in C TJ oo m W < »H CO X! D C 0 cn cn r- in 0) 43 r» J- in CO CO < o •P cO CO o H w cn z; r >-* C i-H CM cn co J; j rrl co 0) > — ✓ >H .-: CO CN H rd CO +j +J a rc c XI +J CJ o U3 O Cc 2^ < >i Cj O 1 <—i ti co o i— 1 x! ro ro cn n o 01 H o +J 3- J- N m [fl g en tl r—v H ro O H CO -1 3 H o O C a CO ID ■H +J u QJ 4n C Cu C O 0 X 3 cj w '-D 01 -a a 00 c Lrt c rrj < •H CO a -d c 0 co. o JC < o +J t— u CO Ch c 1—1 ro •H QJ ' — 1 ro O 00 •H kD fx ro cn CO 3" tD 00 o lO CO H m CM LO CO -4- -J Q Q w I CN o -3- CO CN CO o lO cn LO 01 * H CM -1 H CO m C7> H in CN CM o o CO 01 CD n #> H CO 1 — 1 co CO CM CO CN co 01 •* o o CO CO lO 1 1 1 i rt u ; O) H in , — j CO CM CN cn CD c-» r» CT> in _j . — i CN CO H CO i— | r-i if) CN CN r_| Lf) CO CO as O a- CM tO m CO CO uo CD cr> CN CN ,_l CN CO ,_: CO CO — j p- CO r- O lO CN Lf) cr> r*» If cn CI H to CO CN CN , — ; . 1 uD o 01 01 CO U0 > H CO cn co CN CO 1 o CO CO LO m ID cn O m CO CO cn A H lO H rH pj ' _o a- Q o m (X> ex — f- cn CO , ; to , — 1 — ' J ■,—> p-« t— o Q CJ i — ! 0 j — j /-\ (J r \ \J 10 ■ i Q u. o CJ o c "O 0) CO H •P r_, Q CJ -a CJ r \ CO rr rH CD in co H to CM in CO CO 01 H t> CO o o CO CM CO o a- m CO H in CO CO CM r» m [*>■ r> CM ro- en c. rH CO m m H JO CO CO rH to cn co CO CM O o CM CO U0 r> ro~ O o to r> rH cm CO e'- uO CO CM to co en UO rH St OO IT- r> r~>. CO cn CO CO r> CM =r CM St CO CM o H to CM uu /— > CO l \ CO JO CO CD r» H o CO UO OO c*» r- rH r> o CO U0 uO LO m rH o cn o CM CM u0 fx. to CO CO CM r— { CM CC' CD *> H m cn CO m H CO to to rH in t> cn cn o co o CM co CM H O st CO t> CO CO rH O in 10 CO CO cn CO CO O cn ■H O CM CM m o CO JO to to UO - — ^ OO 10 CO y cn c o CO CO (0 CO r> JO H DC rH m CT> if JO CO CC m LO CO U0 TJ rH 10 rH o to ~- ro- to O (0 E- cn CP. 3 i—i o o rH to CM CM rH oo C Q LO 10 H •H 2: ■H U CU C Cu c o to cn CM r> >S H JO o o X 3 CO CO r> oo CM LO CO CJ w •"3 CO to CO CN o CM' H LO rH cn #* Q DO C rH rH CM H _o CO ro CO m C ro in in H < •H CO u TJ 3 ►J In C O m Cn H in CM CO' o CO CO JZ ro- cn o rH CM to CO JO < o 10 r> rH rH O O CO CM H o CO cn . — i Ci c CM _o i | 00 1 — I rO i-l a- JO rH CO w >- rH rH cn CM' CM 00 rH o CO rO 10 CO C~> t> r- J- u0 o 03 co CM H o JO w cn H CM o — 1 CO to rH r> CO CM CM' lO uO cn hi rH o H JO I> m CM CM ■3- CO c o •h rx c ■M C ro 'H c CD -rH co CO 0 a. ro E e o t, o o c E- o a o Hj +J c c CJ C W 1—1 rH c 2 0) +J M Q c o 4-> C •p- t u o o c 0 3 t, rH cu •H m a) 6 O ro cn i— l u 4-> -a 0 a m c it P-i S-i co ti Q 3 CJ p ~r Uh o cu o U 3 £, •H IH 04 Hn E- TJ H CO < rH U O 5 CO CO CO Q rrj ! C CO CJ- o +j to +J t— i ■M C ro C rd 0 tN CO 0 o H o c •H rH •H O H Cn u M o CO rH Ss ra O « • • +J o cn o rH CM 0 H rH H H 62 The Total Gap is divided into three categories: Income from New Endowment Gifts for Current Operations Gifts for Plant Expenditures : Educational and General 13. Instructional Costs Instructional Costs accounted for approximately 38 per cent of Expendi- tures, Educational and General, in 1963; as a major item of expenditure this was exceeded only by Expenditures for Research and Training (4-1 per cent ) . Analysis of the historical data showed that future Instructional Costs can be estimated by taking account of future increases in: (1) faculty salary scales (2) the size of the instructional staff and increasing Instructional Costs in proportion. Using these considerations, two factors were developed and applied to instructional compensation for 1963: A "staff growth" factor corresponding to the increase in size of the instructional staff for each school. A "cost of living" factor corresponding to the annual increase over the period 1963-1975 in AAUP salary scales (133.9 per cent for 1963-1970; 122.23 per cent for 1971-1975). Instructional Costs for all schools except Medicine are projected to maintain their historic relation to Instructional Compensation (about 125 per cent). Medical School Instructional Costs are projected at 150 per cent of Instructional Compensation. 63 14, Other Expenditures (Educational and General) (excluding Research and Training) . Included in Other Expenditures are expense for administration, for general operations, and for libraries. Logically these expenses should be proportional to Instructional Costs. Instructional Cost, however, rose by 146 per cent during the period 1954-1963, while Other Expenditures increased by 124 per cent. This variation in growth rate is also reflected in the ratio of Other Expenditures to Instructional Costs. This ratio has fluctuated between 43 per cent and 32 per cent, averaging about 36 per cent. The current (1964) ratio is 39 per cent. The difference in growth between the two categories suggests that activities represented by Other Expenditures did not receive proper financial support over the period; this deprivation is evident in the data. For example, expenses of administration and general operations, including staff benefits, rose from $1,024,000 in 1954 to $2,127,000 in 1963, an increase of 108 per cent. During the same period instructional costs grew from $3,738,000 to $9,210,000 an increase of 146 per cent. At the same time, Library expenses, including staff benefits, rose from $475,000 in 1954 to $1,330,000 in 1964. Although this represents a growth by 180 per cent, almost two-thirds of this increase took place in the last three years, due largely to the growth of the Law and Medical libraries. In an effort to re-establish the proper relation between Other Expenditures and Instructional Costs, we have projected Other Expendi- tures to grow at the same rate as Instructional Costs and to maintain a 39 per cent ratio to Instructional Costs. To compensate for earlier deficiencies in support, an additional $500,000 is programed to be 64 spent by 1970 for these purposes. From 1970-1975, Other Expenditures are projected to continue the 39 per cent relationship with Instructional Costs. 15. Plant Operations Maintenance and Operations Costs for existing facilities are used on the 1965 budget estimate for plant maintenance and operations with an added cost factor of 2 per cent per year to reflect rising prices (averaging approximately 1.4 per cent per year) and increasing labor costs. Maintenance and Operations Costs for new construction are based on the estimated additional cost of each project in the building program. The University will maintain and operate approximately 60 per cent of these facilities, using funds from the current operating budget; the balance will be supported by revenues from related or auxiliary activities (for example, hospital buildings and dormitories). By 1975 annual Maintenance and Operations costs for the University-supported facilities, estimated in 1964 dollars, are expected to reach $2,409,000. Although the projected costs for Maintenance and Operations will increase significantly, these factors are important in evaluating this increase : During the period 1965-1975 the physical plant will more than double in value, from $91,500,000 in 1964 to $188,600,000 by 1975. The additional space will be more expensive to build and maintain; for example, practically all of it will be air-conditioned. Plant maintenance has been subject to stringent economies in the past. This policy has been costly, as recent building renovations have revealed. As buildings get older, and as costs continue to rise, F5 it will be impossible to keep maintenance costs at the current level of 2 per cent of plant value. Even so, the estimated increase in maintenance costs by 1975 is less than one per- centage point — to 2.7 per cent of plant value. 16. Research and Training Programs Approximately 90 per cent of Research and Training income was ex- pended during the past ten years for programs in this area. To derive the expenditure figure this ratio was applied to the projections of In- come for Research and Training. Current Expenditures 17. Expenditures - Educational and General Sum of items 13, 14, 15 and 16. 18. Expenditures - Related Activities (Hospital) Hospital expenditures are projected to grow in accordance with the historic growth rate of 7.6 per cent; also included in the projections was a deficit from hospital operations reaching $500,000 in 1970 and remaining at this level thereafter. 19. Expenditures - Auxiliary Enterprises As in the past, expenditures from Auxiliaries are projected to grow at the rate of 6.1 per cent per year. Consolidated Expenditures 20. Total Current Expenditures 21. Non -Educational Included in this category are expenditures for: Fellowships and Scholarships 66 Transfers Miscellaneous Expenditures for Fellowships and Scholarships are discussed in Paragraph 4 of Table 4. Non-Educational funds are classified in balanced fund groups, in which income and expenditures are always equal. Like other restricted income, Non -Educational Income, not spent during the period in which it is received is transferred into a "bank account" for Restricted Funds; here it is held until it can be spent according to the donor's specif ications 9 Normally, unused restricted income is charged to the income account rather than reflected as an expenditure. To avoid confusion with the Current Fund transfers for the Scholarship Program, Non-Educational Income transferred from the account to restricted funds is included here in the projections of Non-Educational Expenditures. Miscellaneous Non-Educational Expenditures are charged against various restricted funds. After comparing a two-year and a three-year moving average, an annual increment of $38,000 — averaged expenditures over the period 1959-1963 ($505,000) — was used in making projections. 22. Plant Construction and Acquisition This category is discussed in Table 2 and in "Physical Facilities Needed. " 23. Transfers to Principal During the years 1954 to 1957, a portion of the money raised for the Duke Development Fund was added to the principal of certain endow- ment funds. This item represents these transfers. 67 24. Consolidated Expenditures This amount represents total University expenditures for each year covered by the projections. 25. Current Fund Deficit and Net Income This figure represents the results of each year's operation over the past ten years. SJD||OQ JO SUOI||!ft CO CO CJ r*N d< -73 OJ E— rH C Q «H 2: •P W C a. 0 X o CJ s — ' Q m AN u < O o i—l CO CO CD o if) co o ro CJ c ►-3 c •H X) c O W -a c r3 CO 3 o CO CN CN ro H CO CO ID CN CO CD CD CD #» r. *» -H CD ro H CO ro CN) r_j i — | co -,- ro CM CO CN m ro O r* • — i rH cn «* «* «s rH CO ro -1 CO H CM CD CD CN CD ro rH in O O rH CD 3- CD * rH in CO rH rH ro CD lD =}■ fO- CD C CO t> rH CO m co CO vO O CD * rH CN o rH ^-j o <£> CD CD CO o CN m CN' ID 00 CD CD rH rH H 00 CO in O CN a- m lO H O CO LO CO cO co o CD A ■* rH CO rH H CO CO lQ , ; CN =}■ CO o ^o f^. lO ^0 L/3 CD rH CO i — | , 1 S N DO «~H C rrj to DO C Ct) CO d) O < Q CD OS QJ CD CJ "T^ **** ^— • Hj I r - ! • — i r \ ~ KJ * H lO CJ rrt 1 u -i- J r" ffi rrt 'U O CJ hJ O m-3 -M ^ o CJ •H "H 2 < r XI +-» 3 2: £-, t< O (0 +^ n3 C 05 E- O +J 2 < l-H O w w tx CJ CJ CJ o X Q • • * CJ CJ CO -J- n ID rH rH rH rH rH 70 in e'- er H O +J LfJ »r-\ LO LO u cn 2 H m -CD- -H CD H H 3 o 0 C Q ro T3 -H +J w O Mh c C o o X 3 a u -0) w « — - TO Q CJ c m C rO < •H W u TO 3 C 0 Eg C CD t h L 1 1 E- o CO c M m n — r >-> H rO 0 CO •H to O CO LO o 33 CO LO r> CM tq CM to CD rH 00 ^0 cn LO CM ■CM to cn CM CM LO CO =r a-- CO ro o r» o o LO cn iH o CO H CM CM to r» cn ^o to 00 r- O CO o cn C- H J- CO H <7> r* iH cn r> LO H CM tO CM LO C"« lO cn CM LO X' CO r- cn r*» to CO G~J H r> LLC =.- CM H CM LO LO CO o UO tO rH to to 3- =r rH o CM 1 — 1 ro CO cn rH to LO CM CO rH CM d- 31 zr o CM tO rH r> CO to cn *> rH LO CO o H CM d- O lC; ro 00 a> cn CO H CO r- lO CM CM O CO rH cn rH oo LO ro ro rH H H o o CO ro to CO cr CO to lO CO to to o CP H cn ft H CM LO CM r> rH rH oo rH Lf) H CM cn r> to to J- CM CO CO Cn > ro =f cn H i— 1 CM lO zr .-1 H oo LO CM CM o to o cr> CO cn r> tO o 00 H lD CM cn W CO 3 E- « a ■H < o u CO ro u O CJ 3 a ti +J o E-i t Q H ■H ta CO 73 — > T3 00 c 3 ■ 0 C <3> H i o CJ (L4 r u ro •H cx QJ 3 S-. CO +J X a jco +J Q) O W o a •H C od < 3 ti -a •H 2 00 ro 00 a, -o Q CJ c +J H CJ X c Z CD r-H c Pu, CrC W ro to P-i Q x -z. U3 < co cr LO ^0 P» rH ■H H rH rH 71 co to an H 0 4J a- 01 CO . -v cn H d X XI H CD ft H 3 rH o O C Q ro "O •H +J CJ CJ Uh c Dh c O o X o u ►a [Q T3 CJ C m C rrj < •H LO w ~o 1) U c o S QJ jC < c r— a CO 2 c M •H CU H ITJ o oo ■H Cm lO o c^ CO CO H zr CO CO cn H lo CO CTt H co LO CM CO 00 CM CO CO CN CO CO co H Ln LO rH cn •> H H LO 3" CM (M CO CO cn CO H H a- cn LO CO lO co r-l LO cn *> H CO UO CO r-| CM CN CO cn O H =.- CM H Sf if co H CM rH CO CM CO CO cn CO rH CO LO CO 00 cn * ■H r-| — 00 rH rH -J- cn CO 1 H f- H LO CN O lO O H o CM CD H o -j- ro rH , — | LO 0"' CM LO CM ~- 00 rH LO [-» CO cn LO cn A H cc ro CM lTi 1 — 1 _■. LO lO LO CO o CO LO CD CO cn H 00 CO CN 1 1 CM [-» ■CO c^ [v. lO o lO CO cO CO CD *» H CO CN CO , — 1 CO CJ — 1 -J __J C/3 *H fa CO /— L-> QJ CO •r-l CD r* oj CO O •H y C9 1 i (-,-) s 1 • H r i uD > +J J-> H W •H c c M d) < — t 4-* cp O U 2 o •H w C ro ■p rH rH 2 X X) CJ O y < H Z3 « • • o CO cn o CD H O 4-> r*»» CO to 3 CO ro TO H Q) tr* (A H 3 I— I o O E CO T3 ■H 72 +J w c c c o X o CJ w ■--> Q c lO c ro < ■H GO u T3 3 B O AB o o i-h W z C rj 1— 1 0) >' H ro cj W •H r-. CN o o~> CO rH r*» cb rH CN O CD «H LO cn CN CD H cn CO CN CD cn 3- o CN o 00 £^ zt CO [•» o cn f> ft «\ H H m CO CD CO H CO CD CO CO CN CO CD pi o o r*. H C** CN CN cr> H CO o m H CO cn CO CO CO CN cn LO CO ro O cn r* St cn k H CN CO ["•■ st m H r- CO CN H oo t-\ rH co coo CO r- CO r*< CN CO (J > rH CO CN CO zt H CO zt cn CN LD o zt r» i>- ,cn r- CO co co CO cn #i *% H :± H lO CO si - CO ! CO o c*^ o cn r~ r- cn to rH c =t to cn *> H 1—) H CO CO J- H LO tO H to CN CO CO CO o lO CO r» CN H H cn rH r- o CO CO rH in cn CO ri- CD CO CO LO ■ c~- CD zt LO cn * H o m cn CO ■=f o CO 1 CO CO CD r- CO CN LO CM CO 3" LO cn >H CO m LO 1 cW 1 1 o r»> H CO in CM CO .— ; LO CO O CN •H CO CD #* It rH CO CO If) rH CN J" H w 0) c tl o •H +-> +J •H ro 00 o CJ c CO ■H CD XJ d) 4-i CU CO cj •H • -; X lA 4-> > UJ 2 i •H ■H ro > 4-> 4_> 01 •H o n , f-. CJ 4_) 0) 0-i •H C ro o X TJ o CJ •H u 4-1 rH rH CO ro •H ^3 Oh TJ H X 4-) X C o Zi o U3 ro PS < D< as ■ • o CO .00 O rH H H CN 73 TO Q) 70 c •H ■H C o u CJ 00 -O a, X w o o CO CO H O 4-> in W CT) k H 1 — 1 i-H o O ro TJ tu c^ c O Tj co TO 00 a C rc •H W to D c 0 H H ro O CO •H U. CO CO r» O r- CO LO CO cD CD LO CO O CO CO CN cn LO H CO CM r- LO Zt co o cn r~. 00 CN CO CO rH CO 05 #» r-i CN CN r-i P» rH j CO if) cn o LO rH LO C\i CN rH a> CO LO & U0 lO CN CT> **> >H CO CN rH oo ro CO cn ro cn CO cn O CN O CO r> CO -J , i LO Q C7> r>. H LO CN H rH no CN o rH CO C"- CO cn o CO do LO o , | CN ~ CD «\ rH co CN H LO CN LO LO ro O LO CD CO =r CN o ro LO St CD ro r— | CD CD H CN CN CN ! > I rH rH CO CO ■00 ro r- o o LO ro rH lo CN r- cn ro CN CD c- rH r> r-H ro CN CN CN rH H ^0 o CN cO COn cn o H LO 1/0 r- r-i LO rH cr> ■H LO rH CN CO H i CO CX) ro lO CN lO LO CO cn =t ro CN lO co CO con ro cr> rH lo rH rH JO rH LO O •t o O o JO cn LO CO CO CN CO f-i CO 6* oo rH ' i OO rH CO £• CJ o w Ch ro CO O +j 03 +-* f-( o CO -H W rd [H 'r-i Q O -H XJ O n W O 3 o •H +-> -rH E- W CO C]-| rH C -H LO O CJ H C o O g n H M Q S to CL, X a o u s i— i in 01 o in CO 01 o 00 co C M c •h -X3 c W K O >- n3 c w •H Cm W it! H H O TD 4h C CO T3 C m CO 3 O x: -!-> cn CM 01 o O o ro o it Ol ro 00 rH CM co CO cn o rl cn CM CO J- ro rH co 00 r» O O rH rH Ol * ft H (D (D cn rH CO o H CN ro LO O 00 O CO CO CN 10 CD =t Ol n * rH O n m 00 cn 00 CO CO cn CM CO [> to CN t> CM Ol * ft ' LO r-» CO cn CO ro o H CO u- ID o CO cn rH o CD •* I* n 00 O ID rH CO m ro CM o O On CM 01 rH ro ID CM CO cn 9* rH on CO CD CD O O CO cn cn cn rH co 00 iD CD 00 H rH Ol » H CO H in H r~ CN Ol Cm ro 00 in o rH o cD rH o CM CO cn (r. «« H d- o 00 m H CO CD CO CO ID r» r» to CD (D [> in O cn t\ •—i CD CO CO c*^ rH cO cO uO o rH CO m CO CD m ID lO rt O o cn H m ro CM rH ^i- rH CD co o no rH m m CD H ro cO ro H CD H- on A rH rH CO CM m w CO fc. CD 3 sn 4-> -o D •H c +j 00 T3 rO •H w c nd a, 0 CD H X •r-l a. i— l H +-> X Q CJ LJ •H c LJ c 0 U 'O D-. a •H •P c CD X C-i fJ w o -M £J JH (0 C •H rfl 3 O O +J X) Q O a -h •H U TJ w rH E- rH :.: O < j C 3 w Q +j C no a 4 c r- 1 o o '- , y o i-3 E-< a, < o O 00 53 • O O rH CN o CT> c\ CO [-» co CD H ** H CT' . — 1 H r> _,. LO CM CO to o C CO CM cr cd c~> CO 1 — i cc i-H P"" O cc o P» CO to CO to CM o CD i — l rH co cc CO CD zr r- -- , H m o CO o o CD LO CI LO , — | O CO ~? i — ! LO < in CO 0 , CN CD .3" < — I CO , — H rH o o CO o 1 u CC 1 o r> CO o CD CM ■ I m CD CN CD 0'. CO CD oo CM CO 1 CM Cm CO ' 1 00 CM . 1 >-» CN CO r» CD «.:; CD H CO cc o < CD CM CO H CO to u i— 1 GO i-H CM! i — | -J- H LO CM p- LO in CO _ CD o m CD ■ — 1 p- rrj £-« C. W U W CD P , TJ c ! fn o C C •H c J-i CD tD c o 9-) o "H o ij r.i s E- 0 Pi CO. CD to o H LO c -a O CO § CO CD 10 ~ ' c4 C »i < § Ch •H o O •H +J •H CO o ■H -H O ro +-> CO r >-0 o HH 2: W CO K < W < u co M Cm CO Cm < hJ o o Cm o CO Q < CO r: c ac E— CO CD H H rH (D CO CO O") CD CO HO rH o rH ** CM oo uo ^H rH LO CD ■CO CD CN CO H O CD CD r-> cn rH rH CM =r rH rH rH 00 o CO CO CD CD d - o O CO CM H CM rH M CO rH O rH o CM CO H rH CD O CM CD CM cn O r- CN O rH «\ CO H o rH CD ' .3- co O CM LO oo U0 ■ — 1 CD CM CD CD LO c CO co LT> CM co c\ ( [ CD rH Lf) CD CD rH LO CD 1 r» CO CN LO LO ID CM cn CO CD CM CO o H zjr CO rH CO 00 H CD CO lo o CO H CO CD rH H CM H co H _t m rH CO cn CO LO o rH CD CO CD lD Sf o rH CM co LO cn CO LO co o CO E*> CD — f- CD M- rH CM CO CO /» — > p c c c 3 QJ 0.) Cm E W E rj ID 3 Q) CO o c o JL, to t; 3 "O C_( U. C rj rH U (J C_) to CO CO LO C^ P fO 05 o c rH <4h UC -w W) 10 £ C C CO CO 5 »H +J CO «r| P 5 O C P 3 Cm CH •H "O O 4h O l-l •H P C -H •rl »H o O rd W +J Cm O P rl o o rH 0 rH C ' — I rH C < (0 CM ra 3 rtj 03 3 H P o P Cm P P Cm O O o 0 O E- E-i APPENDIX II PHYSICAL FACILITIES REQUIRED ] APPENDIX II Physical Facilities Required Plant needs and ambitions from all quarters of the University have been reviewed and evaluated by the University Planning Committee, the Educational Facilities Committee, and the central administration during recent months. They have been weighed not only in relation to each other but against the goals of the University as a whole. Much thought has been given to problems of priority of needs, necessary sequences in build- ing construction, and possible sources of support as these sources relate to priority of need and construction or renovation sequence. For ex- ample, the projected timing of dormitory construction is based upon the maximum amounts expected from Housing and Home Finance Administration in any one year. Likewise, the projected timing of construction of new science facilities is based in part on anticipated support from the National Science Foundation. We also have the problem of how much can be intelligently planned and constructed in any one vear — even if the funds were to be available. The order in which the proposed facilities are listed below does not represent the priority assigned to individual projects, nor does it rep- resent an estimate of the urgency of individual projects. This list does represent our best current estimate of the probable construction sequence, based upon these considerations and others, such as the estimated avail- ability of funds and the logistical problems inherent in this activity. The order is therefore not a rigid one, but will be subject to review as circumstances require. In considering all proposed facilities, estimated annual maintenance 2 and operations costs have been included. The estimated costs are based upon estimated square footages needed and the types of building proposed. The amounts shown as "not funded" do not take into consideration funds likely to be provided by National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Housing and Home Finance Administration, the Hospital Section of the Duke Endowment, the North Carolina Medical Care Commission, or the various departments of the Medical Center. While funds from these sources cannot bp counted until they are received, it is reasonable to assume that they mav reduce the funds required from ^thor sources. Summary of Needed Facilities 1. Main Library Addition 1 Est. Cost: $6,000,000 The present main library has Amt. Mot Funded: 9,000,000 seating capacity for 900 read- Est. Annual M60: ?5'*,800 ers and book space for R50,000 volumes. Enrollment is in ex- cess of 6,300 students, and a great many volumes have had to be stored in inaccessible and unsatisfactory places because of the lack of book space. The number of graduate students is increasing rapidly, the faculty has increased more than a third in the last decade, and the ex- panding body of knowledge is increasing at a pace far more rapid than ever before. An outstanding library is the most urgent physical need of the University. It is central to the intellec- tual force of the University — a stimulus to study, scholarship, individual growth, and a source of strength to thp communi ty and the region. 1 2. Heating Plant - 1st Phase Est. Cost: $2,500,000 Four of the five boilers in the Amt. Not Funded: 500,000 heating plant on the western end Est. Annual M&0: 27,000 of the campus are more than thir- ty years old, and the load on them is increasing annually as campus construction continues. The first phase of this project in- volves relocating the present West Campus Plant at the site of the Already approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees. 3 V/oman's College plant and ultimately consolidating them into a single operation. The precise size and technology of the plant are now being determined. The first phase of the pro- ject has been approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees, and an architectural and engineer- ing contract has been signed. 3. Dormitories - Undergraduate Men 1 Est. Cost? $5,600,000 For years, Duke has tolerated Amt. Not Funded: 2,600,000 overcrowding in its undergrad- Est. Annual M60: (296, 250) 2 uate dormitories. In addition to the overcrowding has been the need for more faculty coun- selors, housemasters, study spaces, and commons rooms. These latter accommodations are essential if we are to improve substan- tially the academic climate in the undergraduate residence halls for men. Planned in two phases. Phase T is funded. 4. Campus Master Plan - Engineering Phase 1 Est. Cost: $50,000 The consulting architectural Amt. Not Funded: 50,000 firm of Caudill, Rowlett and Est. Annual M60: Scott of Houston, Texas, has been commissioned to prepare a Design Study (complete) and a Phase II Master Plan Development (now beginning). An engi- neering firm has been designated by the Building and Grounds Committee for the development of the ntilities Systems Master Plan. Work on these projects will b«» compl<=tPd in the spring of 1965. 5. Parking and Roads - 1st Phase Est. Cost: $520,000 Amt. Not Funded: 520,000 Est. Annual MSO: 5,000 Parking and Roads - 2nd Phase Est. Cost: $780,000 Amt. Not Funded: 780,000 Fst. Annua] M60: 8,000 parking is accepted these space parking facilities. The parking of automobiles is a major problem. If the pre- sent profile of student auto- mobiles is allowed to continue, it is estimated that an addi- tional 1,400 parking spaces will be needed by 1975. A part of this need is generated by the loss of existing spaces to new buildings (e.g., the Library addition). Unless perimeter will of necessity be multi-level •Already approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees. Estimated annual M&0 costs in parentheses () will be met from sources other than the general budget. ■» 6. Dormitory - Undergraduate Women Est. Cost: $1,750,000 For lack of dormitory space, Duke Amt. Not Funded: 1,750,000 has found it necessary to reject Est. Annual MSO: (93,750) the admission applications of far too many highly qualified women students. A decision has been made to increase the enrollment of women students by approximately 30 per year for four years, thus requiring increased residential fa- cilities. The addition of this building will still not solve the problem of present women graduate students residing in an old frame building, nor the replacements of Jarvis and Avcock — two of the original Trinity College dorm.itories--which must be replaced in the not -too-distant future. 7. C hemistry Building Est. Cost: $4,000,000 The present Chemistry Building is Amt. Not Funded: 4, 000, 000 overcrowded and antiquated. It will Est. Annual H60: 195,750 not allow for program enrichment or enable the department to meet enroll- ment demands. Efforts to recruit needed faculty members have been greatly handicapped, and space for research is woefully inadequate. A new building of approximately 140,000 sq. ft. will be required to meet these needs. Preliminary planning studies are complete and architectural planning is sched- uled to begin in the fall of 1964. 8. Medical Sciences I - 1st Phase- * Est. Cost: $5,235,000 The preclinical sciences form the Amt. Not Funded: 1,830,000 curricular foundation of any medical Est. Annua] Mf-0: 175,000 R school. They are presently housed in 77,800 sq. ft. of space in the original medical school building and in the Bell Research Building. Most urgently in need of space are biochemistry, genetics, physiology and pharmacology, microbiology and immunology, anatomy, and pathology. With the completion of the first phase of this building, for which 50 percent of the funds have been approved by the United States Public Health Service, ap- proximately 70,000 sq. ft. will be made available for the depart- ments of biochemistry and genetics and physiology and pharmacology. This is the first building in the new Medical Center Complex. L Alieady approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees. Indicates that total research income will more than compensate for the estimated increase in annual M&O costs 5 9. Engineering Building Est. Cost: $14,000,000 The present Engineering Building Amt. Not Funded: 4,000,000 was constructed prior to the devel- Est. Annual M&O: 180,000 opment of a graduate and research program in Engineering. A major revolution in engineering science has taken place since the building was erected. Space for pro- grams essential to a first-rate College of Engineering is lacking, and neither the present building nor its site lend themselves to the necessary developments. Relocation is necessary to allow for future expansion. The new building requires approximately 180,000 sq. ft. of floor space. 10. Re novation of Physical Education Facilities for Men - 1st Phase^ Est. Cost: Amt. Not Funded: Est. Annual M60: $350,000 350,000 27,000 Renovation of Physical Facili ties for Hen - 2nd Phase Est. Cost: Amt. Not Funded: Est. Annual MSO: $450,000 450,000 20,000 Stadium. In order not to dis necessary, and to spread the ovations be phased in two sta renovations are needed novj, Fresent physical education facil- ities for men were constructed in 1929, for a total student enroll- ment of 2,832 students and 504 - faculty members. The physical con- dition of these facilities is so poor that description is difficult. Foremost among the needs in this area are additional office space, classrooms, swimming pool, visiting team facilities, and the renovation of Card Gymnasium and the Indoor rupt ongoing programs any more than cost, it is proposed that these ren- ges, although all of the indicated 11. Student Center (East) Est. Cost: $1,200,000 More than five years ago, the build- Amt. Not Funded: 1 ,200,000 ing in which sororities had their Est. Annual. Mf,0: 60,7^0 chapter rooms was condemned. Since that time, various committees and groups, including the Educational Facilities Committee, have confirmed the urgent need for a student center for the Woman's College. It would accommodate not only the panhellenic groups but student activities generally for the Woman's College. Among other facilities, it would include space and pro- visions for the Woman's Student Government, YWCA, and other student organizations, a hookstore and snack shop, social rooms, gameroom, post office, work rooms, music lounges, dining room for special meals, and other multipurpose rooms. Already approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees 6 12. Student Union (West) - Renovation Est. Cost: $200,000 For several years, plans have been Amt. Not Funded: 200,000 developing for a new and expanded Est. Annual Mf,0: — University Center to serve the ex- tracurricular and co-curricular needs of students, faculty, and guest. The first step, however, is to renovate the space in the present Student Union that will be made available with the trans- fer of alumni offices, public information services, and the student placement services to other quarters. The present location of the Student Union is ideal, and the opportunity herein described to expand offices and facilities for student government and student union activities will meet at least the most essential needs for the next decade. 13. Building for English and History Est. Cost: $1,300,000 Many of the departments in the Hu- Amt. Mot Funded: 1,300,000 manities have been spread through- Est. Annual M60: 15,000 out the campus, most are overcrowded, and the departments of English and history in particular, are occupying space in the administration building long needed for other purposes. The old chemistry buildinp., when completely renovated, wil] give these two departments adequate space, ideally located. 14 . Mathematics-Computer Center-Geology Building Est. Cost: $986,000 The present engineering buildinp is Amt. Not Funded: 986,000 of suitable size to accommodate Est. Annual M£0: 12,000 mathematics, geology, and a proposed computer center. With the addition of air conditioning and thp refurbish- ing of the building, a first class facility, well located for its occupants, will result. Geology is now poorly housed and isolated from the other science disciplines, and mathematics is overcrowded in its present quarters in the Fhysics Building. 15. Animal Farm Facil ity Est. Cost: $1 f=>0,000 This research and teachinr facility Amt. Mot Funded: will be located off campus and will Est. Annual M&O: be designed to supplement the main facility (vivarium) on campus. Spe- cial functions to be carried on are: (a) receiving, screening, and holding animals; (b) breeding and maintaining animal colonies; (c) conducting of long term animal ex- periments; and (d) storage of bulk supplies and equipment. The current project contains central services and offices plus one of three proposed wings for animal runs. Funds for this project have recently been provided by the National Science Foundation. Already approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees. 7 16. Phytotron x Est. Cost: $1,300,000 This building, also financed en- Amt. Not Funded: tirely by the National Science Est. Annual MSO: 28,000 Foundation, will make possible precise environmental control for experimental plant growth, a nec- essary condition for the full range of botanical and plant re- search. Architectural and engineering firms have been commission- ed for the project. 17 . Clinical Research Building 11^ Est. Cost: $1,704,000 This research laboratory facility Amt. Not Funded: joins the recently completed Clin- Est. Annual MSO: 56,430 R ical Research I building. It in- cludes three hyperbaric tanks as well as supporting mechanical equip- ment and laboratories. It also provides an additional four beds for the clinical research nursing unit and a special room for a dialysis (artificial kidney) treatment unit. 18. Renovations for Development, Public Relations, and Alumni Affairs Est. Cost: $150,000 Institutional Advancement program Amt. Not Funded: 150,000 activities are spread throughout Est. Annual MSO: many buildings and many locations. Many of them are in spaces earmark- ed for other purposes, i.e, infor- mation services, alumni affairs, and placement services. With modest renovation and air conditioning of the Hanes House, Jordan House, and University House for the Advancement program, all of these operations will be efficiently associated. 19. Telephone Center - 1st Phase Est. Cost: $1,200,000 To insure adequate and efficient Amt. Not Funded: 1,200,000 telephone communication within and Est. Annual MSO: 20,000 without the University the present 2,000-line system must grow to an estimated 7,500-line system by 1975. The switching facilities must be moved from the hospital basement to a separate building outside the Medical Center. The first stage involves the moving of the switching facilities and approximately 35 percent of the ultimate line expansion. lAlready approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees . R ^Indicates that total research income will more than compensate for the estimated increase in annual MSO costs. 20. Service Center - 1st Phas e Est. Cost: $2,400,000 Adequate maintenance shops, storage Amt. Not Funded: 2,400,000 warehouses, and working offices are Est. Annual MSO: 131,250 essential to overall university per- formance. The project is among those already approved by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees, and architects have been employed. Planning through the working-drawing stage will be com- plete by the spring of 1965. These plans envision the relocation of the service area to provide for future expansion of the Medical Center. 21. Arts C enter - 1st Phase Est. Cost: $2,400,000 The proposed Arts Center will embody Amt. Not Funded: 1,492,000 the University's belief that under- Est. Annual M60: 97,500 standing and appreciation of the fine arts is essential to a liberal edu- cation. Because of both inadequate facilities and staff, this aspect of lmke's obligation in the past has been somewhat neglected. Accommodations for both music and art are proposed for the first phase of construction, with accommoda- tions for drama to be included in the second phase. 22. Emperor Tandem Accelerator Est. Cost: $425,000 Application has been made to the AEC Amt. Not Funded: 265,000 for this advanced accelerator. The Est. Annual M60: 19,500 building to house this nuclear re- search device must be constructed if and whpn favorable action is taken. Funds in the amount of $160,000 for such a building have a.lrpadv • been committed by the state of North Carolina. 23. Private Diagnostic Clinic Addition Est. Cost: $150,000 This patient facility is primarily Amt. Not Funded: .150,000 an extension of the Surgical F.D.C. Est. Annual M&O: (8,100) located in the open space between the present building and Baker House. New and expanded space will be pro- vided for patient waiting, business office and the Orthodontic Clinic. 24. Clinical Research III Est. Cost: $2,261,857 A teaching and research facility for Amt. Not Funded: 2,261,857 the study of endocrinology, metabo- Est. Annual M60: 78,030 lism, and human genetics. It will be located near the Medical Science • I building in the new Medical Center complex. It will house laboratories, offices, student facilities and supporting functions. Tunds are now being actively sought for this facility from a particular foundation. 1 25. Cha p el Court Add ition Est. Cost: $U86,000 This hospital facility, to be located Atnt. Not Funded: l »?l,000 in the courtyard behind the present Est. Annual M£0: hospital lobby at the ground and first floor levels, will provide a chapel for services and individual meditation, counseling rooms, and facilities for the chaplains and the teaching program. In addition, some of the existing hospital functions will be expanded to this facility, including the EKG laboratory, personnel office, pharmacy, housekeeping offices, and the main kitchen. Em- ployee locker and lounge facilities will be added. Divinity School Addi tion Est. Cost: $2, 00?, 500 This phase of the Divinity School ex- Amt. Not Funded: 1,657,225 pansion program involves the construc- Est. Annual M&O: 60,000 tion of a new administrative wing, a new chapel and an auditorium wing, and the expansion and alteration of the Divinitv Library. Preliminary architectural plans havp been develop- ed by a commissioned architectural firm. 2 7 , Graduate Resident i al Cent e r Est. Cost: $M, 300, 000 There is o great demand for increased Amt. Not Funded: 300, 000 enrollment at Duke at the graduate Est, Annual MSO: (212,500) student level. It is here that the University's commitment to "balance" assumes special meaning. Present quarters for single graduate students are both inadequate and poorly located; but at the same time, these quarters are urgently needed for medical school personnel. The construction of a new graduate residential center will solve both of these pressing problems. Ac- tual construction of this facility will tentatively be postponed until 1969 because of prior claims on the Housing and Home Finance Administration funds. 28. Building for Education and International Programs Est. Cost: S750,000 The old science building on the Amt. Not Funded: 750,000 Woman's College campus while con- Est. Annual M60: 26,000 veniently located is inadequate as a science building. Laboratory renovation would involve duplication of expensive scientific equipment and space. However, the building can be renovated less expensively for the department of education and for a number of emerping programs in the international field which will assist Duke considerably in advancing these important programs. 10 29 . Nursing Education Facility Est. Cost: $3,400,000 This combination teaching and dor- Amt. Not Funded: 3 s 400, 000 mitory facility will expand existing Est. Annual M£0: 35,000 dormitory facilities, replace an existing dormitory for nurses (Hanes annex) which is beyond the stage of renovation, and provide for increases in enrollment of graduate and special students. Administrative offices and teaching facilities will be separated from student living areas and expanded to provide a larger library as well as more offices and classrooms. The build- ing will also provide needed space for student activities. 30. Hospital Area Renovations Est. Cost: $1,600,000 The 1930 hospital building must be Amt. Not Funded: 1,600,000 modernized, and certain deficiencies Est. Annual M£0: in meeting fire and exit code require- ments must be corrected. The propos- ed renovation program will include nursing wards, laboratories, service departments, diagnostic depart- ments, offices, corridors, mechanical systems, and air conditioning. This work is to be scheduled over several years. 31. Marine Research and Teaching Laboratory - 1st Phase Est. Cost: $1,000,000 Vigorous expansion of the Marine Lab- Amt. Not Funded: 1,000,000 oratory is certain in the decade ahead. Est. Annual M£0: 4 5,000 A more permanent facility and greatly expanded research and teaching space will be required to accommodate the pro- gram. A part of this need stems from the acquisition of the research vessel, Eastward . 32. Marine Laboratory Seawall Est. Cost: $160,000 In order to complete the expansion and Amt. Not Funded: 160,000 stabilization of Pivers Island, on Est. Annual M£0: which the Marine Laboratory is located, the proposed seawall must be completed. Approval of the proposed location of the wall has been obtained from the Corps of Army Engineers. 33 . Marine Laboratory Dormitory Est. Cost: $200,000 Because of the expanding program of Amt. Not Funded: 200,000 marine biology and oceanography, as Est. Annual M£0: (15,000) well as the poor condition of several of the smaller dormitories for grad- uate students at the Marine Laboratory, these new residential facilities are needed now. However, again be- cause of the necessity of planning the sequence of applications to 1 1 Housing and Home Finance Agency for dormitory purposes, it is not planned to request funds for this building until 1969 or 1970. 34. Medical Center - Teaching and Administration Unit Est. Cost; $10,000,000 The vital building complex for teach- Amt. Not Funded: 10,000,000 inp, administration, and student ac- Est. Annual M60: ?'4'i t o?8 tivities will include multipurpose teaching laboratories, student car- rels, lecture rooms, an auditorium, a bookstore, a cafeteria, administration offices, student activities facility, and other essential functions of a Medical School. This is to be a major part of the new Medical Center complex. 35 • Physical Education - Women Est. Costs $800,000 The gymnasium which is still being Amt. Not Funded: 800,000 used for the Women's College was Est. Annual Mf,0 : 50,000 built for a very small Trinity Col- lege. It is grossly inadequate and in poor condition. The women's physical education activities have had to spill over into an old frame building (the Ark), as well as the old dining room and old gymnasium of Southgate. Faculty offices are inadequate and poorly located, and the swimming pool is almost beyond use. Pre-architec- tural planning has been completed and approved by the Educational Facilities Committee. 36. Medical Center Library Est. Cost: $2,800,000 The medical library will house more Amt. Not Funded: 2,800,000 than 300,000 volumes, and will pro- Est. Annual M60: 86,375 vide reading rooms and carrels for medical, nursinp, and para-medical students. The Trent Library and a regional center for the national MEDLARS (Medical Literature Analy- sis and Retrieval System) will be located here. Tt will be strate- gically located so as to serve all medical center personnel in both the new and existing buildings* This center will also serve our region. 37 . Telephone C enter - 2nd Phase Est. Cost: $800,000 Thin phase expands the number of Amt. Not Funded: 800,000 telephone lines and completes the Est. Annual Mf,0: 13,750 automation required to provide an acceptable level of telephone serv- ice for the campus. 38. Medical Sciences I - 2nd Phase Est. Cost: $2,738,320 Amt. Not Funded: 2,738,320 Est. Annual M60: 92,250 This building will provide labora- tories for the research functions of the departments of anatomy, ] ? microbiology, and pathology. These facilities will include re- search laboratories, offices, animal quarters, and supporting functions. The building will join Medical Science I. 39, Service Center - 2nd P hase Est. Cost: $1,600,000 This phase of construction will Amt. Mot Funded: 1,600,000 complete the urgently needed ware- Est. Annual M&O: 53,725 house space that is essential to proper purchasing and service sup- port for the entire University. '+0. Arts Center - 2nd Phase In the area of the Fine Arts, Duke has concluded there should continue to be a strong program of drama within the iramework of the liberal arts. The second phase of the Arts Center will accommodate the drama programs. It will include a small theater, darkrooms , offices, the necessary stage areas, scene and paint shops, rehearsal areas, storage, foyer, and lobby space. While this phase of the construction is planned for a later date, the entire Arts Centpr is bping planned as a coordi- nated unit. Est. Cost: SI, 100, 000 Amt. Not Funded: 1,100,000 Est. Annual M60: U0,000 Ul, Plant Research Area Est. Cost: $150,000 A tract of about twelve acres with Amt. Not Funded: 150,000 a small supporting building is re- Est. Annual M&0: — - quired for certain types of plant growth experiments. The entire area needs to be fenced, with elec- tricity and water services provided. The are^ has been selected and certain programs relating to the facility are already well established in the botany department. 42 • Duke Press Building Est. Cost: $300,000 A building to provide adequate staff Amt. Not Funded: 300,000 offices and book storage is required Est. Annual M&O: In, 000 if Duke is to continue to provide the press services vital to the ad- vancement and distribution of knowl- edge. Presently, the Press is housed in an old wood frame building on the Woman's College Campus with book storage available only in the basement of an administration building. 13 43. Davison Building - Renov ation Est. Cost: $500,000 The present renovation program for Amt. Not Funded: 500,000 teaching areas in the Medical Center Est. Annual M60: 10,000 will be continued. Large areas on both the fourth and first floors need modernization, air conditioning, and improved mechanical systems. Ag nev; buildings are completed, several of the functions will be expanded or relocated. 44, Woman's College Librarv - Renovation Est. Cost: $500,000 Currently, the Woman's College Amt. Mot Funded: 500,000 Library has seating space for only Est, Annual M60: • 280 students, and space for approx- imately 137,000 books. Reading space for at least 450 students is needed. It has limited study carrel space. While the reading rooms are beautifully proportioned, the lighting is poor. The high temperatures and humidity require partial air conditioning simply for the preservation of the books. The present heating system does not permit easy regulation of temperature? in cold weather. An elevator and additional lounge space are also pro- jected. 45. Heating Plant - 2nd Phase Est. Cost: $2,500,000 This phase involves the elimination Amt. Not Funded: 2,500,000 of the old East Campus plant, per Est. Annual M60: 27,000 se, and provides additional steam capacity required by the expansion of the total campus. 46. New Hospital (140 Bed) Est. Cost: $8,000,000 A new patient facility that will Amt. Not Funded: 8,000,000 have supporting functions suffi- Est. Annual M60: ciently adequate ultimately to service 400 beds is planned, al- though only 140 additional beds are contemplated at the outset. All hospital services are to be provided with the exception of certain diagnostic and treatment facilities and certain specialized equipment that should not be duplicated. 47. (Medical Dormitory) - Renovation Est. Cost: $1,272,000 The existing Graduate Center re- Amt. Not Funded: 1,272,000 quires major alterations and addi- Est. Annual M60: tional mechanical services and air conditioning to accommodate the * needs of the Medical Center when the transfer of functions is completed. Dormitory facilities require 14 rearrangement and modernization. Student activity facilities are to be added. The present cafeteria is adequate. 48. Vivarium - Medical Center Est. Cost; $1,600,000 This is a large central facility Amt. Not Funded: 1,600,000 which will contain modern features Est. Annual M£0: 54,000 of design and equipment to provide the best type of care for experi- mental animals. It will include a variety of cage rooms for most types of animals, cleaning facil- ities, supply storage, refuse removal, operating rooms, adminis- tration offices, and special rooms for assignment to specific research projects. It is required as an integral part of the teach- ing and research activities of the Medical Center. 49. Marine Research and Teaching Laboratory » 2nd Phase Est. Cost: $1,000,000 This additional facility is needed Amt. Not Funded; 1,000,000 to accommodate expanded oceanography Est, Annual M60: 45,000 and marine biology research. The national emphasis on marine studies and the availability of large sums of federal money for research in this field make future planning for such expansion appropriate. 50 • Classroom and Administration Building - Woman's College Est. Cost: $2,000,000 As new classrooms are needed for Amt. Not Funded: 2,000,000 the campus generally, it is impor- Est. Annual M&O: 100,000 tant to provide a good portion of them on the campus of the Woman ' s College. Over the past several years, the tendency has been to move both departments and class- rooms from the eastern end of the campus to the western end. There are good academic reasons to reverse this trend. Also, the age and condition of the East Duke building are such as to require future planning for its replacement. When that time comes (about 10 vears from now), a combination classroom and administration building is thought to be the most appropriate replacement. 51. Woman's College Dormitories - Renovation Est. Cost: $1,000,000 Except for Gilbert-Addoms (the most Amt. Not Funded: 1,000,000 recently built dormitory for the Wom- Est. Annual M&O: an's College) all other dormitories for women students are in need of ren- ovation and several structural rear- rangements. Among the more important of these needs are the follow- ing: more public rooms and space for late-night typing, better space and facilities for study in student rooms, better laundry facilities, full-length window screens for first-floor rooms, and better sound- proofing. More small rooms are needed for small groups and study 15 dates » and more lounge areas on each floor for general social purposes. Additional telephone lines and equipment are needed in all dormitories, as are direct outside lines and pay stations for long-distance calls. 52. Parking and Roads - 3rd Phase Est. Cost: $900,000 This is the completion of pre- Amt. Not Funded: 900,000 viously described projects. The Est. Annual M&O: 4,000 problem is sure to be with us throughout the next decade. This list does not include some projects, such as the proposed stadium renovations, because their financing is projected on a different basis from those on the list, and because their timing is to be determined by the avail- ability of funds. Also excluded from the above list is an opportunity for major land acqui- sition which will probably call for an additional $500,000 in capital expend- itures. Duke University Libraries -in iiiii mill D02601457P dzsno9zoa