|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE
The concept that scholarship and advanced research training should be conducted
jointly in institutions of higher learning has been a major tenet of most leading U.S.
universities for more than a century. This tenet, imported with significant modifications
from the great European universities, not only promotes a university-based model for the
development of new knowledge, but also stimulates faculty to gain the forefront in
contemporary science. As a result, this dual emphasis on new knowledge and pedagogy has
established a unique inter-dependence between education--including advanced research
training--and research in the United States; universities educate new generations of
teachers, researchers, and other professionals, as well as produce fundamental knowledge
for science and social, economic, and cultural development.
Figure 1~1: Leading U.S. Research Univerelties Based on the
Number of Distinguished Faculty, 1906*
Harvard
Columbia
C h ic ago
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
Ca lifer n id
Yale
Michigan
MIT
W isco ns in
Pe n nsy Iva n ia
Stanford
Princeton
M innesota
Illinois
Avg. of 150 others
From J.~. Cattell, Science, 1906
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
By the end of the 19th Century, about 15 U.S. colleges and universities had
undergraduate enrollments of sufficient size to organize their faculties into specialized
departments (Figure 1-1~. From the beginning, external funding was critical for
university-based research but generally limited to small endowments and government
appropriations for agricultural experiment stations.2
After World War One and throughout the 1920s, the academic research enterprise grew
significantly through two sources: Increased numbers of faculty due to rising
undergraduate enrollments (Figure 1-2), and the emergence of external sponsors for
1-3
OCR for page 6
research. These sponsors were, principally, philanthropic foundations, which awarded
block grants to major private universities, and industries, which underwrote programmatic
grants in their areas of commercial interest. Direct federal support remained small. Much
of the private funding, however, was short-lived. The Great Depression of the 1930s
significantly reduced private sector support, and academic research entered a decade of
doldrums that did not end until the onset of World War Two.
Figure 1~2: Growth of U.S. HIgher Education and Major
Soctoeconomic Influences, 1900-1988*
1 0000000
1 000000
1 00000
Economic .
Stagnation .
Space exploration,
cold war, health research
~ .
Ester ~iS~nent of .Federe ~
extramural R&D programs
_ , /.,
- EstaDIllfrrRnt of Rusts End . .
- Federal. has, business education . ~ _~
~ · l.- X7 . Baby Boom 0 2? years
4.8%An~uaiGrowtO ~
- \/ Depression We II Korea . Vietnam
~ \ ',
, . . . . .
- . `.Annual. Degree.s Granted
we !
. .
: :
.
10000 Ilililillilililililililililil.ililililil.ililililililililill i . 1
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
~ Measured by bachelors and first professional degrees. Source: National Science Foundation.
The Second World War was a turning point. Academic scientists greatly assisted the
national government during the war and, with the war's end, national policy-makers
perceived a direct link between the seminal role basic research had played in ending the
hostilities and the need to develop creative solutions to major social problems.3
After the war, federal policy-makers acted to put in place an enterprise that could
direct the contributions of research to national needs. They made two historic decisions
that fundamentally re-shaped the academic research enterprise: First, the federal
government assumed primary responsibility for the quality and quantity of basic research
in the United States and, second, the government identified the universities as the primary
locus for the increased basic research activity.
The first decision, in effect, established university reliance on the federal government
for financial support. In 1960, the President's Science Advisory Committee explained the
rationale for this decision:
14
OCR for page 7
Whether the quantity and quality of basic research and graduate education in the United
States will be adequate or inadequate depends primarily upon the government of the United
States. From this responsibility the Federal Government has no escape. Either it will find the
policies--and the resources--which permit our universities to flourish and their cluties to be
adequately discharged--or no one Will.4
The second decision meant, in operational terms, that U.S. basic research and graduate
education would be carried out as joint university activities. A 1964 report of the National
Academy of Sciences described this teaching-research relationship as fundamental to the
success of U.S. science. The report recommended against placing basic research in non-
university laboratories and strongly opposed hiring distinguished scientists for non-
teaching university research positions:
Graduate education can be of highest quality only if it is conducted as a part of the
research process itself. The research must not be in the form of mock problems; it must be a
part of the exploration of the unknown, with all the uncertainties and challenges that go with
it. By the same token, research can remain truly a quest, with freedom to follow
unexpected lines, if the tentative conclusions of recent scientific research are tested in the
interplay of ad sauced teaching.5
Over the past three decades, the two decisions have been tested by strain and tension--
direct results of changing patterns in financial support, employment of academic
personnel, and student enrollments. Each decade has presented policy-makers with a
unique set of challenges, problems, and opportunities.
~ 958 to ~ 968: Expansion
Between 1958 and 196S, the major challenge was the management of growth. By 196S,
academic institutions conducted half of the nation's basic research, up from 30 percent in
1958 (Figure 1-3).* In addition, academic research more than doubled its share of the
nation's economy, growing from 0.10 percent to nearly 0.25 percent of the gross national
product during the same period (Figure 1-4~.
With rapid growth in funds for basic research, total academic research and
development expenditures more than tripled, from under $2 billion (in 1988-constant
dollars) in 1958 to nearly $7 billion in 1968 (Figure 1-5~.** The greatest growth rates
occurred in the life and social and behavioral sciences (Figure 1-6~. Academic research
personnel in public universities that award doctoral degrees grew from 13,000 to 23,000.7
In private doctoral universities, the growth was similar, from 12,000 researchers in 1958 to
*Figures 1-3 through 1-20 begin on page 1-11.
**Unless otherwise noted, all data regarding academic research include the following broad academic fields: life and health
sciences, physical sciences, environmental sciences, engineenng, mathematics, computer sciences, and social and behavioral sciences.
1-5
OCR for page 8
23,000 in 1968 (Figure 1_7~.6 With increased funding, average combined operating and
capital expenditures per researcher rose from $85,000 to $170,000 (Figure 1-~.
Two driving forces produced this extraordinary expansion: One, a substantial increase
in the number of faculty (Figure 1-9) due to surging university and college enrollments
and, two, urgent and substantial increases in federal investment in academic research--
fueled by anxiety over the national security, desire for international leadership, and
recognition of general domestic problems.
But if the Cold War, Sputnik, and concern over cancer and heart disease provided the
impetus, the burgeoning U.S. economy provided the means. From 1958 to 196S, annual
federal contributions to academic research increased five-fold, from $1 billion (1988
dollars) to $5 billion (Figures 1-10 and 1-1 1~.
The federal share of public doctoral universities' research funds increased from 53
percent to nearly 75 percent; for private doctoral universities, the federal share increased
from 66 percent to 82 percent (Figures 1-12 and 1-13~. The preponderance of growth in
federal R&D spending occurred in non-defense agencies (Figure 1-16~.
Simultaneously, a rapidly growing job market for college graduates and the maturation
of the post-war baby boom doubled the size of the U.S. higher education system, rapidly
expanding the institutional base for academic science and technology. Between 1958 and
196S, total higher education enrollments rose from 3 million to more than 7 million, as 2-
year colleges firmly took their place in the education system. But the universities that
offered doctoral programs grew also. Enrollments in public doctoral universities, for
example, doubled from 800,000 to 1.9 million during the decade, while private doctoral
university enrollments grew from 440,000 to 650,000 (Figure 1-17~. The increase is more
striking for advanced degrees awarded during this period. Annual Ph.D. degrees granted in
the sciences and engineering from public institutions nearly tripled, rising from 3,300 to
9,000 per year, and those granted by private institutions doubled' from 2,500 to 5,300
(Figure 1-18~.
1968 to 1978: Steady-State
In contrast to the previous decade, the major challenge for the period between 1968 and
1978 became managing steady-state funding for the academic research enterprise. The
decade began with an expanding guns-and-butter federal budgetary policy and ended with
national belt tightening. Accounting for inflation, total academic research expenditures
for the decade showed no real growth, fluctuating around $7 billion (1988 dollars); as a
share of the gross national product, academic research declined from 0.25 percent to 0.21
percent (Figures 1-4~. When inflation is accounted for, annual federal contributions to
academic research declined from $5 billion in 1968 to $4.7 billion in 1974, then increased
again to $5 billion in 1978 (Figures 1-10 and 1-1 1~.
During the period, the federal share of public doctoral universities' research funds
decreased from 75 percent to 60 percent; for private doctoral universities' the federal
share decreased from 82 percent to 77 percent (Figures I-12 and l-13~. While the number
1~
OCR for page 9
of research personnel in public doctoral universities continued to grow, from 23,000 to
32,000, for private doctoral universities, the number declined from 23,000 to under 20,000
(Figure 1-7~. With flat funding, average research expenditures (operating and capital) per
academic researcher hovered around $160,000 (1988 dollars) (Figure 1-~.
A major legacy of the leveling off of federal research funding was doubt raised about
the continued federal stewardship of basic research in the United States.7 Many factors
underlay the changing pattern of federal support, including rising general inflation,
economic recession, the end of the manned moon mission, the Vietnam War, increased
budgetary competition from other federal programs, and a re-assessment, by both
government and universities, of the relationship between the federal government and the
universities. In the view of some policy-makers, the institution building objective had been
achieved by the 1970s, perhaps even over-achieved, and attention should be turned to the
management of the expanded enterprise. Others in the academic research community
feared that a long-term steady-state in federal support would reduce both the size and
quality of the enterprise. Policy debates focused on cutbacks in federal support--primarily
for student fellowships, facilities, and equipment--and increasingly restrictive regulations
for monitoring the expenditure of federal research dollars by universities.
The institutional base for academic research also approached steady-state. While
enrollments continued to grow rapidly in comprehensive universities and 2-year colleges,
enrollments stabilized in doctoral research universities by 1973. In the public doctoral
universities, total enrollments reached 2.5 million; private doctoral universities enrollments
slowly increased to 700,000 (Figure 1-17~.
With an approaching steady-state in faculty positions and uncertain federal financial
support for research, the production of Ph.D. degrees in the sciences and engineering
began to drop. Annual Ph.D. degrees granted in the sciences and engineering from public
institutions peaked in 1973 at 12,500, then declined 10 percent to 11,100 by decade end.
Production in the private institutions fared worse, declining 18 percent from a high of
6,500 in 1973 to 5,300 in 1978 (Figure 1-18~.
Together, the uncertainties of funding and university enrollments generated doubts
about continued federal commitment to basic research and the ability of universities to
remain its primary locus.
~ 978 to ~ 988: Diversification
The years from 1978 to 1988 saw a dramatic diversification in the academic research
enterprise. The fears expressed in the previous decade that the enterprise would contract
did not prove out. Rather, a new infusion of research dollars spurred a broader range of
academic institutions to develop research capacity and participate in the enterprise. (See
Figures 1-14 and 1-15.) Competition for faculty and research support increased; so did
competition for students as the enrollment inertia of the previous decade continued.
In inflation-adjusted dollars, support for academic research nearly doubled, rising to
more than $13 billion in 1988 from less than $S billion (1988 dollars) in 1978 (Figure 1-5),
1-7
OCR for page 10
and reached an all-time high 0.27 percent of the gross national product, up from
0.21 percent in 1978 (Figure 1-4~. Annual federal contributions increased from $5 billion
to $S billion (Figures 1-10 and 1-11~. The number of research personnel--faculty and non-
faculty--in public doctoral universities grew from 32,000 to 40,000; in private doctoral
universities, personnel increased from below 20,000 to more than 22,000 (Figure 1-7~. With
increased funding, average expenditures per academic investigator rose from $160,000 to
$220,000 per year (Figure 1-~.
The sources of funding support also diversified, adding fuel to the questions and
doubts about continued federal responsibility for academic research. While federal
funding grew over the decade, non-federal funding grew even more dramatically. From
1978 to 1988, the federal share of academic research support declined from 66 percent to
60 percent (Figures 1-10 and 1-11~. Among private doctoral universities, the federal share
decreased from 75 percent to 73 percent, while among public doctoral universities, it
dropped from 60 percent to 53 percent (Figures 1-12 and 1-13~.
In contrast to the decline in federal share, university-generated research funds grew
from 12 percent to 18 percent.8 The most significant factor in this trend in university
funding was the willingness of public universities--especially those aspiring institutions
who were just beginning to develop a research base--to allocate their own resources to
cover a significant share of the indirect costs associated with externally sponsored
research.9
Industry also took a larger role, nearly doubling its slice of academic research funding
from 3.7 percent to 6.5 percent. The industry support tends to be concentrated in certain
research areas and certain institutions; in these instances, it is becoming an influential
force.
Although the over-all state government share of academic research funds held steady at
~ percent, several state governments dramatically increased their individual contributions
to academic research.~° While much of this support focuses on applied research to meet the
needs of local industries, it has the potential for developing future basic research capacity
at scores of campuses where earlier it scarcely existed.
The diversification in sources of research support reflected significant and
fundamental changes that were occurring elsewhere in the research enterprise--the
decentralization of scientific research from a small number of academic centers that
dominated the enterprise before World War Two to a wider array of institutions, and, in
the political arena, a sudden determination by civic leaders in many areas of the country
to enhance the research capacity of local universities for economic development purposes.
Premier research universities, of course, continued to dominate most fields of science, but
infusions of state funds enabled aspiring public institutions to achieve real annual growth
rates in research funds in excess of nearly 5.5 percent--higher than that of the top-20
research universities.
While the academic research enterprise continued to expand, however, the number of
students stabilized at about 2.7 million per year for public universities and 750,000 per
year for private universities (Figure 1-17~. The Ph.D. degrees granted in science and
1~
OCR for page 11
engineering by public institutions increased to 13,600 in 198S, up from 11,200 in 1978.
Ph.D. degrees granted by private institutions grew from 5,300 to 6,600 per year. (Figure
1-18~. This renewed growth in Ph.D. production is primarily due to a rising enrollment of
foreign students in the natural sciences and engineering (Figures 1-19 and 1-20~.~2
If it was not clear earlier, it became so by the end of the 1979-1988 decade: The historic
relationship between university research and graduate education was under stress from
virtual steady-states in university enrollments and the over-all production of new doctoral
researchers, on the one hand, and mounting pressure to expand basic research activities,
with or without instructional components, on the other. With the over-all ratio of students
to faculty remaining constant over the past decade, expansion occurred in part by creating
extra-departmental research centers and institutes and hiring non-teaching researchers to
operate them.~3 While graduate education in the United States continues to include
significant research components, what appears to have changed is the extent to which
expanding academic research programs include instructional components.
With regard to undergraduate education, all of these factors combine to provide
disincentives to teaching. The increasing scale and organizational complexity of much new
academic research activity, a faculty salary system that increasingly rewards research
accomplishments, and federal policies which favor research over educational programs
further exacerbate this situation. Some aspiring research universities, in response, have
developed two-tier faculty systems--one tier for non-teaching research "superstars and the
other for teaching faculty.
Forces for Expansion and Diversification
The expansion of resources for the academic research enterprise during the past decade
was spurred by powerful new expectations for science and technology--improvement in
international competitiveness, aggressive state and local economic development, and
growing research competition among the universities and colleges themselves. Unlike the
expansion during the 1960s, which largely concentrated on institution building in the
then-existing university research community, the current expansion is more the result of
diversification--a continuing broadening in the number of institutions participating,
increases in the number and types of organizations funding extra-mural research, and a
broadening in the national research mission, particularly in support of such social
problems as health, the environment, and economic competitiveness.
Concern for improving the nation's international competitiveness has generated
expectations that universities, in partnership with industry, will provide scientific and
technological breakthroughs in key commercial areas. At the federal level, for example,
the country~s dependence on the research enterprise takes on a new intensity as major
international competitors' investments in research grow at a faster pace than ours--
signaling an intensification in economic rivalries. But the federal government isn't alone
in its renewed interest in academic research; industry also is demonstrating interest, a
significant portion of which represents an increased reliance on universities for entree to
basic research frontiers. New commercial technologies, in turn, generate and make possible
1-9
OCR for page 12
the exploration of new basic research avenues. To achieve these mutual interests,
industries are augmenting the research capacity of U.S. universities.
State and local officials increasingly urge their public universities to contribute to
regional development through applied research and cooperation with resident industries;
they recognize that local academic research is often a magnet, drawing high-tech
industries and new jobs to an area. As the economic benefits of academic research catch
public attention and imagination, political leaders press for a larger and geographically
broader academic research enterprise. In addition, some federal research appropriations
are earmarked for specific locations, often on a basis of economic development or local
scientific research agendas.
Competition among universities also helps to drive the current expansion in research.
The major universities are enlarging their research capacity to maintain their competitive
standing. Aspiring research universities are under great pressure to develop research
capacity; they are also at some financial risk, whether they opt to develop research
capacity or not. If they seek to attract a prestigious scientific and engineering faculty,
they must invest resources heavily in state-of-the-art research facilities and
instrumentation; in a competitive academic labor market, even promising younger faculty
members can now demand university resources for their research projects and time to
establish their research careers before undertaking teaching duties. If, on the other hand,
universities do not seek to expand their research capacity, they now jeopardize financial,
political, and community support for their institutions.
1-10
OCR for page 13
Flgure 1~3: Dlatrlbutlon of U.S. Baslc
Research Expendllures by Performer
(See Figure 2-20~*
100~q
807n
Percent 0,30%
~ 1 007.
~so~
40X
2070
0%,
1953 1959 1965
1971 1977
1~3 Academic ~1 Industry
Federal 1= Other
607a
54070
2070
0x
19831 989
Flgure 1-5: Academic R&D Expenditures
By Type of R&D
(See Figure 2-23~*
2
1 n
8
Flqure 1~4: Total and Federal Academic R&D
Funds as Percents of the
Gross National Product
(See Figure 2-~.
Percent
0.257.
0.20%
0.~57.
0~1070
0~0570
0~00%
n Ant.
/ ~ 0.2s%
/ ~/
~%_Ala--` ,/ ~
_
0.15%
o.1o%
A_'
,_,
I
/
J./
/
,
, . ' ' ' ' ' 1' " " 1' ' ' ' ' 1' ' ' ' ' 1' ' " ' 1' ' ' ' '
1 9s3 1959 1 96s 1971 1977 1983
Total ~~~~ Federal
0.05%
0.00x
989
Flours 1~6: Dlatrlbutlon of Academic R&D
Expendllures by Science and
Engineerlng Field
(See Figure 2-30~*
o
1 953 1 957 1961 1965 1 969 1973 1 977 1981 1985 1989
~3 Basic Research ~ Applied Research
=3 Development
~ See corresponding figure in Part Two for data sources and definition of terms.
P.n~
207.
ox .
1958 1 963
80~
~40,.
HA BOX
1968 1973
:__.
07.
1978 l 983 1988
Llfe EM Pll~leal EM Engin.erlng
O Environ ~1 Hath/Comp ~ Socbl/Other
OCR for page 14
Flgure 1~7: Investigators (FTE) In Doctoral
Institutlons by Institutlon Governance
(See Figure 2-74) ~
7n ~
~ -
60
50
40
Thousands
70 250
, .,
~ ~ 60
.
;
.
.
+ - ninilil : ~0
~ ~" ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 l ~_
20 4119
rl ~ r . I I I I I I I I rT'_~'
I I I I I I I,, . I I ~ -
_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ i~ ~ ~ ~'
~/~
10 ~
~o
200
150
30 100
20
0
Flqure 1-8: Academic R&D ExpendItures
per FTE Investigator
by Type of Expenditure
(See Figure 2-45~*
S1988 Thousands
250
200
50
~ 100
50 ~
//~ sn
~//~/~//~////~///~///~/~/ ~o ~ ~,v ~''1' ,V~' 1~ , , .V 1 ~ ~ - ~v 1 ' 4;
~0 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
1958 19631968 1973 19781983 1988
E=l Operoting Funds ~ [quipment
[~] Private gg~ Public E:3 a.D Fociliti.e
Figure 1~: Academic Faculty
by Institution Type
(See l?igure 2-64~*
ROO r
_ _
600
400
200 ~*R*+
__ _ T
O ~
Thousands
800
6nn
doo
200
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
e~ Doctorol ~31 Comprahensive =1 Two-Y.or
~See corresponding figure in Part ~vo for data sources and definitions.
1-12
OCR for page 15
Figure 1~10: Academic R&D
Expenditures by Source
(See Figure 2-27~*
t1 988 Billions
~ r
12
1
A
Figure 1~11: Dlstrlbutlon of Academic R&D
Expenditures by Source
(See figure 2-28)'
14
0 r'~rY~Y~r~~1 0
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
=3 Federol O State/Locol ill Industry
~3 Own Funds ~ Other
Figure 1~12: Distribution of Public
Doctoral Instit~nlon R&D Revenues
by Source of Funds
(See Figure 2-34~*
~ 007.
80
Sty.
d0%
207
07.
~ 958 ~ 963
1968 1973 1978 1983
EN Federal O Sta1~/Locol EN Industry
Al Own Funds ~ Other
Figure 1-13: Distribution of Private
Doctoral Institution R&D Revenues
by Source of Funds
(See figure 2-32~.
anti
..
i'
~ anti
:_.
00
1 988
60%
407.
20 ~ \~\\\~\~\~\\\\~\\~\~ 207: 20
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
60X 60X
40% 407.
EN Federal O Sto1~/Locol Al Industry
=1 Own funds ~ Other
resee corresponding figure in Part livo for data sources and definitions.
1-13
1 007
~ 60z
~407.
\ 207.
1958 1963
~-
o~
1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
E=] Federol O Stote/Locol ED Indust~
[=l Own Funds ~ Other
OCR for page 16
121
'oL
Figure 1-14: R&D Expenditures- among
Doctoral Instit~dione*
S1988 Billions
~ 10
1' 1007.
Figure 1-15: DIstrlb~nlon of R&D Expenditures
among Doctoral Institutlons*
Percent
~ 100z
]80%
20?
O ~//////////////////////~ O 07
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988
~ Largest 20 3 Next 40 1~3 Next 125
'/~ 20X
7 ~ ~/////////~///////////////////~ OF
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988
1~3 Largest 20 ~ Next 40 ~ Next 125
Figure 1~16: DIstributlon of Federal Academic R&D Funding
by Federal Agency, 194~1988**
1 00~
80%
6070
40%
Percent
~ ? ~ /~
070
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
At/
~31 NIH ~ DOD HI DOE/AEC
Gus NSF ~ NASA/NACA e] OTHER
~ Source: National Science Foundation. ~ 20 includes the 20 doctoral institutions with the largest R&D expenditures. Nest 40
includes the nact 40 institutions with largest R&D expenditures, and Natt 125 includes all other doctoral institutions.
**Source: National Science Foundation.
1-14
OCR for page 17
Figure 1-17: Enrollment In Academic
Institutions by Institution
Type and Governance
(See Figure 2-78~*
14~
'2t
got
at
6 ~
0
12
1 n
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
Doctorc! Private Doctoral Public Al Compr - ensive Priv
Compreh Pubil~- 2-Year Private e 2-Year Pubilc
Figure 1-19: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded In
Engineering by Citizenship
(See Figure 2-106~*
Thousands
2
~ - ~ 4
~ O
1 960 1 965 1 970
. . ,
1975 1980 1985
~ US Citizens ~] Non-US (Perm Visa)
EM Non-US (Teacup Ala)
3
~0
*See corresponding figure in Part TWo for data sources and definitions.
1-15
Figure 1~18: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded In
Science and Engineering by
Institution Governance
(See Figure 2-94~.
Billions
on
O
Thousand
j14 25 ___
2s
A)
5
0
. s
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988
1~3 Private ~ Pubilc
Figure 1~20: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded In
Natural Sciences by Citizenship
(See figure 2-104~*
Thousands
~ ' , ~
6
4 ~
C2
o
1960 1965 1970
1975 1980 1985
1~1 US (:lilzens EM Non-US (Person Vlea)
if Non-US (damp Vim)
12
_ 1 ~
8
at:
~ O
OCR for page 18
Representative terms from entire chapter:
private doctoral
