01-02 May Book - dpb.cornell.edudpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000044.pdf · Cornell has evolved into one of the top-ranked liberal arts institutions in the world while remaining unwaveringly

Financial PlanOperating and Capital

May 2001

2001 02

2

Printed on Recycled Paper

Published byDivision of Planning and Budget

Cornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14853

May 11, 2001

Michael L. Whalen, Editor

Cornell University is an equal-opportunity,affirmative-action employer and educator.

3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

OPERATING PLAN – HIGHLIGHTS

Summary of Operating Plan 5Composite Operating Plan 6

SPECIAL TOPICS

The Land-Grant University 9

OPERATING PLAN – DETAILS

Endowed Ithaca 22General Purpose Budget 26Contract Colleges 28Medical College 32

CAPITAL PLAN

Capital Projects 34Debt and Debt Service 35Approved Capital Activity 36Planned Capital Activity 38Sources of Debt Financing 40Debt Service by Operating Unit 41

APPENDICES

A Tuitions and Mandatory Fees 42

B Other Student Fees and Rates 43

C Enrollment Assumptions 44

D Undergraduate Tuition, Fees, Room,and Board – Ivy League, Peer, andCommon Acceptance Institutions 45

E Undergraduate Tuition and Fees –Selected Public and Land-GrantInstitutions 46

Tuition and Total Student Costs –Selected Medical Colleges 46

F Average Nine-Month Faculty Salaries –Selected Research Institutions 47

G Undergraduate Financial Aid 48

H New York State Appropriationsthrough SUNY 49

I Indirect Cost and Employee BenefitsBilling Rates 50

J Investments, Returns, and Payouts 51

K Endowment Per Full-Time Student –Selected Institutions 52

L Gifts/Contributions – through 53March 31, 2001

M Cornell Campaign – Payments onPledges through March 31, 2001 54

N Projected Maintenance Funding –Ithaca Campus 55

O Work Force – Ithaca Campus 56

4

ship with the state and SUNY. As you well know,Cornell has evolved into one of the top-ranked liberalarts institutions in the world while remainingunwaveringly true to its land-grant nature. As thestate’s land-grant university we are an engagedinstitution, fully committed to providing New York’sresidents with significant benefits. The four contractcolleges showcase our success in this endeavor—providing exceptional educational experiences forthousands of students every year, performing researchof the highest quality, and extending our knowledgeand experience across New York State and around theworld. As the article notes, the land-grant missionextends throughout the fabric of the institution. Itcan be seen in the instructional, research, and out-reach programs of all of our colleges and even in ourpartnerships with governments and other institutionsto provide economic stimulus for the region and thestate. As one of the president’s priorities, we havebeen working with state officials to highlightCornell’s unique status as the state’s land-grantuniversity and to achieve a fair and equitable treat-ment of this institution as one of New York’s mostprominent universities. We will report subsequentlyon these activities and provide a more completedescription of the current state of Cornell as a land-grant institution.

We have redesigned this booklet to highlight themany ways we are investing financial resources in thepresident’s strategic priorities. These initiativesinclude specific budget allocations in the operatingplan and a suite of capital construction projects,which are either planned or underway, that willfacilitate achieving some of these goals. Obviously,all of these good things cannot be realized in a singleyear; many will require a longer time horizon. We aretotally dependent on the continued support andguidance of trustees, faculty, staff, students, alumni,and friends to fully achieve them.

C. Biddy MartinProvost

This booklet summarizes Cornell University’s 2001-02financial plan, which is being submitted to the Boardof Trustees for review and approval. It includesdetailed budgets for the three operating divisions ofthe university and a summary capital plan. Operat-ing revenue is expected to grow 6.4 percent forendowed Ithaca, 3.7 percent for the contract colleges,and 7.2 percent for the Joan and Sanford I. WeillMedical College and Graduate School of MedicalSciences in 2001-02. Overall, revenues are planned toincrease 6 percent from the current-year forecast, to$1.894 billion, and expenditures to increase 5.4percent, to $1.822 billion. The $36.3 million netdifference after transfers will be added to reserves.

The capital plan, which addresses Cornell’s mostimportant facility needs, shows previously approvedexpenditures of $115.1 million in 2001-02 andestimated expenditures (pending trustee approval) ofan additional $63.1 million in the coming fiscal year.

Cornell’s financial planning for the Ithaca campusfocuses on the following set of strategic priorities:

- Improve undergraduate education, taking full advan-tage of the strengths of a research university.

- Invigorate a few key research areas and increase cross-college collaboration.

- Foreground and enhance developments in thehumanities and social sciences.

- Continue to improve faculty and staff compensation.- Increase information technological capabilities for

faculty, students, and staff.- Revise undergraduate admissions and marketing to

reflect a university-wide image in the market.- Fortify long-term relationship with New York State

and the State University of New York (SUNY).- Maintain broad student access to a Cornell education.- Build greater diversity among faculty, staff, and

students.- Maintain Cornell’s quality by encouraging sound

resource management and carefully plannedimprovements.

The special topic section of this booklet (beginningon page 9) describes the origins of Cornell as NewYork State’s land-grant university and the subsequentcreation of the contract colleges. This article providesa historical perspective on the forces that shapedCornell and continue to influence our thoughts andactions, especially concerning our long-term relation-

INTRODUCTION

5

Sales & Servicesof Enterprises

6.0%


SUMMARY OF OPERATING PLAN

Cornell University’s 2001-02 operating plan is predi-cated on the budget policies approved by the Board ofTrustees and the Board of Overseers. It is intended tofurther the academic mission of the institution and toaddress a set of planning priorities and initiatives.The distribution of revenues and expenditures for the2001-02 operating plan is illustrated below.

Strategic Priorities

The university plans to invest significant resources ina number of Ithaca campus strategic priorities overthe next five years, including specific increases in thecoming year’s operating plan.• Funding for compensation will increase $32.3

million in 2001-02 —$11.5 million for facultyand $20.8 million for staff. This expenditure ispart of a multi-year plan to increase facultysalaries vis-à-vis peer institutions and to raise thelevel of staff pay in relation to external marketbenchmarks.

• The university has invested over $5 million to datein the academic discipline of information sci-

ences. Plans call for an another $5.4 million tobe spent over the next five years, a growth thatwill include the addition of ten new facultypositions by 2005-06.

• The area of materials sciences has seen an invest-ment of $4.6 million to date, with an additional$6.9 million over the coming five years. Includedin the total will be direct funding for research andadministration and operating and maintenancesupport for a new research facility.

• Perhaps most significant has been the investmentin genomics and integrative molecular biology,where $26 million has been budgeted to date andplans call for an additional $53 million over thenext five years. Much of this funding will under-write the set up and renewal of laboratories forcurrent and new faculty.

The investment of university resources for researchare matched by substantial levels of external gift,grant, and contracts funding. In the case of materialssciences, Cornell will receive $19.9 million from theNational Science Foundation over the next five years.Much of the planned funding for genomics andintegrative molecular biology will come from gifts.

2001-02 UniversityOperating Plan

Expenditures$1.822 billion

Colleges &Academic Programs72.0%

Clinical/Hospital ServiceRevenues

17.9%

Revenues$1.894 billion

Gifts7.3%

Investments9.4%

Other Sources5.4%

Tuition & Fees24.0%

SponsoredPrograms20.8%

State & FederalAppropriations

9.2%

Financial Aid6.0%

Student Services5.1%

Administrative& Support

8.6%

Physical Plant8.3%

6


COMPOSITE OPERATING PLAN

Cornell’s composite operating plan is based on the plansof its three divisions: endowed Ithaca, contract college,and medical. The schedule on page 7 shows the overalluniversity plan, while the schedule on page 8 presents thethree divisional components of that plan. These divi-sional plans are illustrated in detail beginning on page 22.

Revenues and Transfers In

Revenues are projected at $1.894 billion, an increaseof 6 percent over the forecast for 2000-01.• Tuition and fee revenues are projected to expand

4.2 percent, based on approved tuition rateincreases. Almost no change is anticipated inenrollment levels.

• The net increase in investment income is expectedto be 14.5 percent. The planned 17.4 percentgrowth in the payout rate for the Long TermInvestment Pool (from $2.30 to $2.70 per share)will be offset partially by a decrease in shorter-term investment earnings.

• Unrestricted gifts for general operations areexpected to decrease 0.6 percent, and restrictedoperating gifts are expected to increase 11.8percent over the forecast for 2000-01. Notincluded in the operating plan are gifts forendowment and capital projects.

• Direct costs of grants and contracts for sponsoredprograms are expected to increase 6.5 percent, to$309.6 million, while indirect cost recoveries areprojected to grow 3.7 percent.

• State appropriations are planned at $154.7 mil-lion, a 5 percent increase from 2000-01, andinclude $152.3 million for the contract collegesand $2.4 million in Bundy Aid. The plan assumessuccess in obtaining state funding for faculty andstaff salary programs and support for facilitymaintenance.

• Revenues from the Physician Organization areprojected to increase $11.3 million, or 4.2 per-cent, over the forecast for 2000-01, due partiallyto the expansion of certain disciplines.

• Sales and services of enterprises (mostly tostudents) are projected to increase 4.8 percent,reflecting rate increases.

• Included in the category of “All Other” is $13.4million of planned income in 2001-02 for the

Qatar initiative in the Joan and Sanford I. WeillMedical College. The corresponding costs of thisactivity are embedded in the category of “admin-istrative and support” (line 34).

Transfers in from funds functioning as endowmentare planned at $6.1 million, most of which will fundthe cost of recent construction.

Expenditures and Transfers OutExpenditures are planned at $1.822 billion, anincrease of 5.4 percent over the forecast for 2000-01.• Expenditures by colleges, research centers, and

other academic programs are planned to in-crease 4.6 percent, to $1.307 billion. Thirty-fourpercent of this total represents the expendituresof the academic and clinical departments of themedical college.

• Centrally recorded financial-aid costs for under-graduate, graduate, and professional students areplanned at $108.6 million, or 5.4 percent greaterthan the forecast for 2000-01.

• Administrative and support costs are planned toincrease $16 million, or 11.3 percent. Ninetypercent, or $14.4 million, of this increase iscentered in the medical college. In turn, $13.4million of the medical college increase representsacademic and administrative support for theQatar initiative. Excluding that initiative, admin-istrative and support costs are scheduled to grow1.9 percent in 2001-02.

• Physical-plant costs are expected to increase 5.3percent from the forecast for 2000-01.

Transfers out to funds functioning as endowment areplanned at $16.8 million, while transfers to plantfunds will total $25.7 million.

Net from OperationsThis plan will produce a $36.3 million net fromoperations, which will be added to current fundbalances. Fifty-five percent of the $36.3 million willbe related to Ithaca campus activity, primarily addi-tions to College of Arts and Sciences, College ofEngineering, and other endowed Ithaca restrictedreserves. The other 45 percent will result frommedical college programs, mostly in the form ofdesignated and restricted funds.

7

Change from00-01 Forecast

99-00 00-01 00-01 01-02 to 01-02 PlanActual Plan Forecast Plan Dollar Percent

(dollars in thousands)Composite Operating Plan


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $412,425 $427,198 $435,789 $454,260 $18,471 4.2%2. Investment Income 139,112 155,210 156,009 178,657 22,648 14.5%3. Unrestricted Gifts 48,832 40,972 47,154 46,883 (271) (0.6%)4. Restricted Gifts 85,877 76,508 82,250 91,931 9,681 11.8%5. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 267,246 293,703 290,661 309,619 18,958 6.5%6. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 77,801 79,994 81,671 84,690 3,019 3.7%7. Institutional Allowances 1,607 1,573 1,467 1,510 43 2.9%8. State Appropriations 143,098 153,266 147,420 154,742 7,322 5.0%9. Federal Appropriations 18,222 18,978 19,433 19,691 258 1.3%

10. Physician Organization (PO) 246,074 245,169 268,710 280,022 11,312 4.2%11. NYPH (purchased services) 54,323 52,465 57,034 58,434 1,400 2.5%12. Sales & Services of Enterprises 104,464 109,598 108,991 114,260 5,269 4.8%13. Other Sources 93,585 88,959 90,298 98,985 8,687 9.6%14. Total Revenues 1,692,666 1,743,593 1,786,887 1,893,684 106,797 6.0%

15. Transfers In from Endowment 22,984 3,483 4,028 6,142 2,11416. Transfers In from Plant Funds 5,054 1,079 1,349 712 (637)17. Total Resources Available 1,720,704 1,748,155 1,792,264 1,900,538 108,274 6.0%

Expenditures & Transfers Out18. Agriculture & Life Sciences 170,546 175,802 178,124 185,041 6,917 3.9%19. Architecture, Art, & Planning 13,597 12,946 13,582 14,018 436 3.2%20. Arts & Sciences 112,023 119,964 119,964 126,458 6,494 5.4%21. Engineering 86,413 92,608 92,108 96,898 4,790 5.2%22. Hotel Administration 37,402 33,848 39,348 41,177 1,829 4.6%23. Human Ecology 38,147 41,012 41,161 42,617 1,456 3.5%24. Industrial & Labor Relations 33,081 32,537 33,641 35,199 1,558 4.6%25. Johnson School 30,651 29,616 31,477 33,066 1,589 5.0%26. Law School 16,266 15,519 17,079 17,981 902 5.3%27. Medical College (academic/clinical) 399,290 403,846 431,363 449,625 18,262 4.2%28. Veterinary Medicine 70,895 77,036 78,385 82,861 4,476 5.7%29. Subtotal Colleges 1,008,311 1,034,734 1,076,232 1,124,941 48,709 4.5%

30. Research Centers 72,769 80,081 76,230 80,092 3,862 5.1%31. Other Academic Programs 92,610 96,085 96,262 101,608 5,346 5.6%32. Centrally Recorded Financial Aid 96,534 102,099 103,083 108,613 5,530 5.4%33. Student Services 81,503 85,326 85,326 92,665 7,339 8.6%34. Administrative & Support 126,326 144,136 141,169 157,119 15,950 11.3%35. Physical Plant 143,364 142,517 143,765 151,351 7,586 5.3%36. All Other 8,951 4,583 6,040 5,329 (711) (11.8%)37. Total Expenditures 1,630,368 1,689,561 1,728,107 1,821,718 93,611 5.4%

38. Transfers Out to Endowment 21,607 13,354 14,142 16,833 2,69139. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 30,647 21,175 19,089 25,672 6,58340. Total Resources Used 1,682,622 1,724,090 1,761,338 1,864,223 102,885 5.8%

41. Net from Operations 38,082 24,065 30,926 36,315 5,389

42. Change in Current Fund Balances 38,082 24,065 30,926 36,315 5,389

8

ChangeEndowed Contract Medical 01-02 00-01 from

Ithaca Colleges College Plan Forecast Forecast

(dollars in thousands)Composite Operating Plan – By Division


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $345,577 $93,871 $14,812 $454,260 $435,789 4.2%2. Investment Income 127,312 20,157 31,188 178,657 156,009 14.5%3. Unrestricted Gifts 34,403 9,469 3,011 46,883 47,154 (0.6%)4. Restricted Gifts 40,341 7,733 43,857 91,931 82,250 11.8%5. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 134,259 101,524 73,836 309,619 290,661 6.5%6. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 35,790 17,873 31,027 84,690 81,671 3.7%7. Institutional Allowances 125 1,385 1,510 1,467 2.9%8. State Appropriations 2,190 152,348 204 154,742 147,420 5.0%9. Federal Appropriations 19,691 19,691 19,433 1.3%

10. Physician Organization (PO) 280,022 280,022 268,710 4.2%11. NYPH (purchased services) 58,434 58,434 57,034 2.5%12. Sales & Services of Enterprises 104,864 9,396 114,260 108,991 4.8%13. Other Sources 46,593 34,080 18,312 98,985 90,298 9.6%14. Inter-Unit Transfers (268) 26815. Total Revenues 871,061 457,139 565,484 1,893,684 1,786,887 6.0%

16. Transfers In from Endowment 5,054 100 988 6,142 4,02817. Transfers In from Plant Funds 712 712 1,34918. Total Resources Available 876,827 457,239 566,472 1,900,538 1,792,264 6.0%

Expenditures & Transfers Out19. Agriculture & Life Sciences 185,041 185,041 178,124 3.9%20. Architecture, Art, & Planning 14,018 14,018 13,582 3.2%21. Arts & Sciences 126,458 126,458 119,964 5.4%22. Engineering 96,898 96,898 92,108 5.2%23. Hotel Administration 41,177 41,177 39,348 4.6%24. Human Ecology 42,617 42,617 41,161 3.5%25. Industrial & Labor Relations 35,199 35,199 33,641 4.6%26. Johnson School 33,066 33,066 31,477 5.0%27. Law School 17,981 17,981 17,079 5.3%28. Medical College (academic/clinical) 449,625 449,625 431,363 4.2%29. Veterinary Medicine 82,861 82,861 78,385 5.7%30. Research Centers 80,092 80,092 76,230 5.1%31. Other Academic Programs 94,499 7,109 101,608 96,262 5.6%32. Centrally Recorded Financial Aid 100,289 8,324 108,613 103,083 5.4%33. Student Services 92,665 92,665 85,326 8.6%34. Administrative & Support 96,877 3,576 56,666 157,119 141,169 11.3%35. Physical Plant 86,509 31,683 33,159 151,351 143,765 5.3%36. All Other 2,867 2,462 5,329 6,040 (11.8%)37. Intra-University Cost Distribution (64,846) 63,646 1,20038. Total Expenditures 818,550 454,194 548,974 1,821,718 1,728,107 5.4%

39. Transfers Out to Endowment 15,053 1,780 16,833 14,14240. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 20,222 4,130 1,320 25,672 19,08941. Total Resources Used 853,825 460,104 550,294 1,864,223 1,761,338 5.8%

42. Net from Operations 23,002 (2,865) 16,178 36,315 30,926

43. Change in Current Fund Balances 23,002 (2,865) 16,178 36,315 30,926

9

THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY

Cornell’s founding in 1865 as New York State’s land-grant university came at a unique confluence of fourcurrents that swirled through the middle of thenineteenth century:• a desire to reform higher education—broadening its

focus and reach, increasing its flexibility, andreleasing it from sectarian influences;

• a federal government that was cash poor but landrich, paying its debts and providing societalinducements by giving away public land;

• a state government with a history of providinglimited support to private institutions of highereducation prior to the emergence of state univer-sities and systems; and

• a set of self-made philanthropists, including EzraCornell, who rose to a position of wealth anddetermined to reinvest some of those riches tobenefit the common good.

The educational reforms, radical and controversial intheir day, have since become the norm. While thefinancial circumstances of the federal and stategovernments have changed, both still devote signifi-cant resources to education. And the cycle of philan-thropy endures at Cornell. Alumni and friendscontinue to provide substantial support for thisinstitution. Still, it is worth reflecting on thesegenerative forces, given the indelible mark they madeon Cornell University’s organization and character.To do so is to revisit what it means to be a land-grantuniversity, what special mandate was conferred bythat appellation, and how Cornell evolved into apremier liberal arts institution while remaining trueto that land-grant spirit.

Educational Reform

The movement to reform higher education hadseveral threads. First and foremost was the drive tocreate a new form of education that would provideinstruction more in tune with the interests of thepopulace at large. Until the middle of the nineteenthcentury, higher education had been dominated bysmall, sectarian colleges where the curriculum, toquote Morris Bishop, “consisted of Latin, Greek, andmathematics, moral philosophy and ChristianEvidences, and timid excursions into very elementary

SPECIAL TOPIC

science. The chief purpose of higher education wastaken to be the disciplining of the mind, with someregard for the professional training of the clergy.” Formore than a hundred years there had been sputteringattempts to expand this curriculum. Then, in 1850, aYale-educated scholar, Jonathan B. Turner, presented ablueprint for an entirely new form of higher educa-tion, making several arguments and proposals.• American society of the time could be roughly

divided into two classes, the professional class(“whose proper business it is to teach the trueprinciples of religion, law, medicine, science, art,and literature”) and the industrial class (“a muchlarger class, who are engaged in some form oflabor in agriculture, commerce, and the arts”).

• While the existing colleges served well the needs ofthe professional class, there was no system ofcolleges designed to support the educationalneeds of the industrial class.

• Higher education for the industrial class should bemodeled after that given to the professional class,but tailored to a different need.

• This education should be based on science, inter-mingled with classical subjects. Key to a science-based curriculum would be “a National Instituteof Science, to operate as the great central lumi-nary of the national mind….”

• Access to these universities would be very broad.“The institution should be open to all classes ofstudents above a fixed age, and for any length oftime, whether three months or seven years, andeach taught in those particular branches of artwhich he wished to pursue, and to any extent,more or less.”

• These universities would be publicly financed butnot under direct control of the executive andlegislative branches of government. Instead, a setof trustees would direct these institutions, and“this board…would be…responsible to no legisla-ture, sect, or party, but directly to the peoplethemselves—to each and every citizen….”

This bold plan formed the basis, in language as wellas detail, of the land-grant act passed by Congresstwelve years later. The prime focus was to be agricul-ture and the mechanical arts—areas that had beenlargely ignored by traditional colleges. Such anagenda should come as no surprise. Agriculture wasAmerica’s prime economic endeavor in the 1850’s,and the Industrial Revolution had brought forth a

10

SPECIAL TOPIC – THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY

veritable cornucopia of mechanical devices—rail-roads, telegraphs, plows, harvesters, presses, firearms,steamboats, indoor plumbing—that transformedmanufacturing and forever changed domestic life.• According to the 1850 census, over half of

America’s labor force was engaged in agriculture.(See table below.) Combined with manufactur-ing, almost 70 percent of all employable individu-als were directly involved in “agriculture and themechanic arts.”

• That same census showed that the value of agricul-tural products totaled $1.327 billion in 1850,while products derived from manufacturing,mining, and the mechanical arts came to $1.013billion. Together, they accounted for over 80percent of the gross national product.

There had been several attempts in New York State tocreate a college adapted to the concepts eventuallyarticulated in Turner’s plan.• A proposal was made in 1822 to introduce a course

at Geneva College (Hobart) “by which the Agri-culturist, the merchant, and the mechanic mayreceive a practical knowledge of what genius andexperience have discovered, without passingthrough a tedious course of classical studies.”This proposal was never set in motion.

• In 1853, the People’s College, which was incorpo-rated in what is now Montour Falls, pledged to“the dissemination of practical science, includingchemistry, geology, mineralogy, and those sci-

ences most immediately and vitally essential toagriculture and the useful arts, and to makeample provision for instruction in the classics.”This college never fully developed because itsprimary benefactor, Charles Cook, withdrew hisfinancial support.

• Also in 1853, a state charter was obtained for theOvid Agricultural College. The college launchedclasses in 1860 but had to suspend them due to aloss of faculty and students, who enlisted to fightin the Civil War. Ezra Cornell became an exofficio trustee of the institution when he waselected president of the New York State Agricul-tural Society. While a trustee, Cornell identifiedthe need for “a suitable provision of our countryfor the education of young men in agricultureand the mechanic arts.”

Open Access

A second reform was the opening of higher educationto more than just America’s wealthy and elite. WhileJonathan Turner’s proposal explored this conceptfrom a class point of view (wealthy men versus poormen), women and minorities were largely excludedfrom higher education at the time. Several experi-ments in women’s higher education prior to 1865included Emma Willard’s Troy Female Seminary,Mount Holyoke, Elmira College, and Vassar College.Also, Oberlin and the State University of Iowa werecoeducational.• In 1819, Emma Willard promoted her vision for a

new form of publicly supported women’s educa-tion by publishing A Plan for Improving FemaleEducation. She argued that “a reform, withrespect to female education, is necessary; that itcannot be effected by individual exertion, butthat it requires the aid of the legislature….”

• Proponents of higher education for women at thetime had to advance their ideas carefully in amale-dominated society. For example, in defenseof her Mount Holyoke Female Seminary project,Mary Lyon wrote in 1836 that it would be “desir-able that the plans related to the subject shouldnot seem to originate with us but with benevo-lent gentlemen. If the object should excite atten-tion there is danger that many good men will fearthe effect on society of so much female influenceand what they will call female greatness.”

Agriculture 4,520,000 54.9%Construction 410,000 5.0Domestics 350,000 4.2Fishing 30,000 0.4Manufacturing 1,200,000 14.5Mining 102,000 1.2Ocean Vessels (transport) 135,000 1.6Railway (transport) 20,000 0.2Teachers 80,000 1.0Trade 530,000 6.4Unemployed 873,000 10.6Total Labor Force 8,250,000 100.0

PercentLabor ofForce Total

Labor Force and Employment by Industry1850 Census, United States

(over the age of 10, free and slave)

11


The driving force that created better education forwomen was not fair play but economics. As states inthe first half of the nineteenth century began tomandate primary public education, they found adearth of well-educated teachers. Men were notalways drawn to the profession. The pay, workingconditions, and community status were often low.Women were recruited to fill the gap, and the newwomen’s seminaries and other institutions trainedthem. However, this form of education was narrowlydefined; women were not yet on par with men intheir ability to access the full range of what highereducation offered.

Higher education for minorities was almost nonexist-ent prior to the Civil War. The few examples include:• The New York Central College, where one-half of

the student body of was comprised of blackstudents. This institution—located in McGraw,New York and sponsored by abolitionists—alsohad at least two minority faculty members.

• Bowdoin and Oberlin Colleges, which both admittedblack students sporadically through the 1830’s.

Both of Cornell’s primary founders were much infavor of extending higher education’s benefits towomen and minority students.• As a state senator, Ezra Cornell supported one of the

bills involved in the chartering of Vassar Collegein 1862, and sent his daughter there in 1866.

• In 1862, Andrew D. White (who would eventuallybecome Cornell’s first president) wrote that it washis aim to help found “a new university, worthyof our land and time.” The first principle govern-ing this institution would be that it would be “aplace where the most highly prized instructionmay be afforded to all—regardless of sex or color.”He further noted that to “admit women andcolored persons into a pretty college would dogood to the individuals concerned; but to admitthem to a great university would be a blessing tothe whole colored race and the whole femalesex—for the weaker colleges would be finallycompelled to adopt the system.”

The Elective System

The third educational reform focused on relaxing therigid and restrictive collar that had dominated theclassical curriculum of most colleges by the 1850’s.

• The spirit of a more liberal approach to highereducation’s curriculum sprang from the Enlight-enment of the eighteenth century, when severalcolleges—including King’s (Columbia), Yale,William and Mary, and the University of Pennsyl-vania—encouraged the study of the naturalsciences and a more open look at history. Accord-ing to Carl L. Becker, “the liberal movement…hadlargely spent its force before the end of thecentury. This was partly because the revolution-ary war had weakened and impoverished thecolleges as well as the country; but chiefly be-cause the revolutionary upheaval, especially inFrance, had discredited the liberal philosophy ofthe pre-revolutionary period.”

• The first half of the nineteenth century found mostcolleges, even those that had experimented witha more progressive curriculum, reverting toconservative approaches. At issue, Becker wrote,was “the traditional conception…of the purposeof learning and the function of colleges in thecommunity…to preserve and transmit ratherthan to increase knowledge; and more especiallyto prepare a select group of young men, taken forthe most part from the educated and governingclasses, for the learned professions by giving thema limited command of the classical tongues, andtransmitting to them the factual knowledge andideas about man and the world….”

• The drive to reform the curriculum came fromEuropean and American scholars who had beentrained in Germany and France, where liberalideas and modern science were taking hold. AsBecker noted, some were “interested in expandingthe American college into centers of research andpublication” while others wanted to liberalize“the course of study in the college itself, by givingmore time and attention…to the modern lan-guages, history, civil and constitutional law, andthose physical sciences that have a practicalapplication to the useful arts and trades.”

• White was one of these scholars, energized by hisstudies abroad and excited by students’ freeelection of courses. As Bishop noted, he “hadseen free election [Lernfreiheit] in successfuloperation in Paris and Berlin and a markedloosening of the curriculum at Michigan,” wherehe taught before coming to Cornell. Later, in hisplan for the organization of Cornell University,

12


White would observe that “the usual impositionof a single fixed course is fatal to any true univer-sity spirit in this country; it cramps colleges andmen….” Thus, White and others (primarilyCharles W. Eliot, then the president of Harvard)began the process that brought about the electivesystem, whereby each student would chart acourse of study that was particularly suited tothat student’s needs and desires.

Nonsectarianism

The fourth higher education reform—freeing it fromsectarian influences—was interwoven with the third.Today, nonsectarianism is associated with the absenceof a particular religious alignment. In the mid-1850’s,however, nonsectarianism meant having no religiousalignment among the various Christian faiths.• The most obvious evidence of sectarianism took the

form of divinity schools at various private col-leges, each designed to educate ministers in aparticular faith. Also, churches provided endow-ments for some colleges, and church memberswere often ex officio members of trustee boards.

• While the end of the eighteenth century saw aloosening of the church-college tie, private highereducation remained Christian endeavor primarily.Perhaps the most revolutionary change occurredin 1779 at William and Mary College when thechair of divinity was eliminated because, as JamesMadison said, “an establishment in favor of anyparticular sect was thought to be incompatiblewith the freedom of a republic.”

• The creation of a number of state universitiescontinued this trend as these institutions soughtto maintain the constitutionally mandatedseparation of church and state.

• According to Morris Bishop, Ezra Cornell “wasroundly accused of atheism…. The religion thatEzra Cornell made for himself was an uncriticaldeism, which dispensed with sin, the atonement,all formal Christian theology.” Ezra took aparticularly dim view of organized religion. “Thegospel as it is preached,” he wrote, “…falls morelike a mildew upon a benighted world, and triesto shield the deformities of the dead and putridcarcass of ‘the Church’ from the penetrating eyeof advancing science and enlightened human-ity…. The steam engine, the railroad and the

electric telegraph are the great engines of refor-mation, and by the time we enter upon thetwentieth century the present will be looked backto as we now look back to the dark ages…. A newera in religion and humanity will have arrived.”

• “A truly great university” was needed, White wrotein 1862, “to afford an asylum for Science—wheretruth shall be sought for truth’s sake, where itshall not be the main purpose of the Faculty tostretch or cut science exactly to fit ‘RevealedReligion.’” Further, such a university would “givea chance for instruction in moral philosophy,history and political economy unwarped to suitpresent abuses in politics and religion.”

Federal Land Policy

When the land-grant act was passed in 1862, thefederal government had just instituted the firstgeneral income tax to help pay for the Civil War.Thus, the government was not well disposed towardfunding a seed-grant effort to encourage the states toundertake a particular form of education. But asstrapped for cash as it was, the nation was land-rich.The bounty derived from the Louisiana Purchase andother territorial negotiations with foreign govern-ments had provided the United States with a hugereserve of public land under the federal government’scontrol. Accordingly, the nation looked to its “landbank” when it needed to discharge a particular debt.• The first such land grants occurred with the Land

Ordinance of 1785, which required that a portionof every new township created from public landsbe set aside for maintaining an elementaryschool. The Northwest Territory Ordinance of1787, which created a similar scheme for highereducation, soon followed.

• According to Roger L. Williams, Congress alteredthis system slightly in 1836, “authorizing onetownship for establishment of a ‘seminary oflearning’ within a given territory, and one otherfor the establishment of a first state universitywithin any given state. The result was that thelocation of the seminary of learning often becamethe site of the first state university.”

• During the nineteenth century, the federal govern-ment routinely provided pensions for militaryvolunteers of various wars in the form of landgrants that could be converted to cash by being

13


sold to speculators on the open market.• To induce railroad companies to expand rail service

in the West and to further aid in the settling ofnew territories, the government gave away vastamounts of public land.

Thus, the land-grant act that sparked Cornell’screation followed a well-established pattern of federal“granting” and inducement.

New York State and Higher Education

Historically, New York State was slow to assume directresponsibility for public higher education. For mostof its history, the state left the business of post-secondary education to private institutions (with theexception of the state's normal schools, which weredevoted to the specialized training of teachers). Evenafter the State University of New York (SUNY) wasformed in 1948, state leaders wove this historicalprecedent into the state's education laws.

In the formulation of plans and recommendations underthis article the state university trustees and board of re-gents shall recognize and foster the historical developmentof higher education in the state which has been accom-plished through the establishment and encouragement ofprivate institutions. [Education Law, sec. 351.]

New York had always managed to live with a verypermeable boundary between public policy andprivate initiative.• Long before the formation of SUNY, the state

provided financial assistance directly to selectedprivate institutions, although such support wassporadic and did not follow from an establishedpolicy. Private colleges that received such supportfrom the eighteenth century up to the time of theCivil War included Kings (Columbia), Union,Hamilton, Geneva, Madison, St. John's(Fordham), Rochester, St. Lawrence, Elmira, andGenesee.

• Up to the time of the Civil War, the state providedoutright grants to educational institutions.Beginning in the 1860's, however, these awardstook the form of quid pro quo agreements, wherethe recipient institution was expected to contrib-ute in some way as part of a joint enterprise (e.g.,capital projects, where the institution was ex-pected to raise matching funds, or operationalgrants, where the institution had to provide freescholarships to state residents).

• Support also took the form of extending credit toprivate educational institutions. Prior to 1846,the approach to such credit was quite liberal.However, several nineteenth century New YorkState constitutional conventions limited thisactivity, while making a specific exception forfunds for nonsectarian educational purposes.

As New York State became the recipient of the pro-ceeds from the land-grant act, its political leaderscrafted a “New York solution” in answer to thequestion of how to handle the grant, imbued withthis historical approach.

Philanthropy for the Common Good

Cornell University’s founding depended totally onthe philanthropy of several men. First among thesewas Ezra Cornell.• Cornell was born in a family of modest means and

spent a fair amount of his life trying to improvehis economic condition. Through a combinationof hard work and serendipity, he became con-nected with the installation of the emergingtelegraph system. According to Becker, Cornellbecame wealthy in spite of himself for “thetelegraph business turned out to be somethingvery near a complete failure while [he] wasactively engaged in promoting it, and became aphenomenal success only after he had retiredfrom active connection with the enterprise.”That retirement came when Western UnionTelegraph Company bought out his businessinterests and left Ezra with significant shares inthe new company. As those shares grew in value,Ezra found himself the recipient of a “goldenstream.” For example, his 1864 second-quarterstock payment was $35,000 (roughly $700,000 intoday’s dollars).

• He then faced an interesting dilemma—what to dowith his excess wealth? As he wrote, “My greatestcare now is how to spend this large income to dothe greatest good to those who are properlydependent on me, to the poor and to posterity.”Eventually, he would donate a substantial portionof his wealth to found Cornell University andwould devote his final years to the cause oflaunching and stabilizing its wobbly beginnings.

Other founders who gave freely to Cornell included

14


John McGraw, Henry William Sage, and Hiram Sibley.• According to Bishop, McGraw, who was born in

Dryden Township near Ithaca, “began dealing intimber from the newly cleared countryside. TheLord prospered him. In partnership with HenryW. Sage, he bought and lumbered great tracts ofland in New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin.” Heparticipated in the founding of Cornell, donatedthe funding for McGraw Hall, and when theuniversity faced potential bankruptcy in 1872, heand others advanced the funds needed to keepthe institution afloat. (See page 16.)

• Sage started out as a merchant, then he joinedMcGraw as a partner in the lumber trade. Whitecalled him “the second great benefactor of thisinstitution,” and Sage provided the funding toconstruct both Sage Chapel and Sage Hall,endowing the latter as Sage College. This collegewas to be, in Sage’s own words, the means bywhich “instruction shall be offered to youngwomen by the Cornell University, as broad and asthorough as that now afforded to young men.”

• Sibley was an instrumental partner in the rise ofWestern Union Telegraph. Among other gifts tothe university, he endowed the Sibley College ofMechanic Arts, providing funds for constructionand ongoing support.

The Land Grant

The land grant that catalyzed the formation ofCornell was nothing more than a gift of the economicvalue of federal public lands by the federal govern-ment to the state governments. Land was simply thecurrency of the gift. The federal government couldhave made an outright grant of cash or even themineral rights to the land. Had the latter occurred,Cornell and other land-grant institutions might havebeen called the “mineral-grant” colleges. In fact, oneof the most valuable assets that Cornell received fromthe land grant was timber rights.

Justin Smith Morrill, a United States representativefrom Vermont, set the land grant in motion in 1857when he introduced a bill to help higher education.The purpose of the bill was to provide for:

…the endowment, support and maintenance of at least onecollege in each state where the leading object shall be,without excluding other scientific or classical studies, to

teach such branches of learning as are related to agricultureand the mechanic arts, as the legislatures of the states mayrespectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal andpractical education of the industrial classes in the severalpursuits and professions of life.

The bill had a bumpy ride through Congress, duemainly to sectional squabbles among representativesof the northeastern, southern, and western states.(Northeastern states were in favor of land grants aspublic policy, southern states mistrusted the motivesof northeastern states as power-grabbing, and westernstates objected to the federal dominance of theirterritories.) The bill was eventually passed but thenwas vetoed by President Buchanan, who objected thatit was too expensive, potentially unconstitutional,and might serve to confuse the federal-state relation-ship. Representative Morrill bided his time andreintroduced essentially the same bill in 1862. Withthe onset of the Civil War, many of the southernstates were no longer represented in Congress and thebill was again passed but with stronger support.President Lincoln signed the measure on July 2, 1862.The act had the following provisions:• Each state was to receive 30,000 acres of public land

within its boundaries for each of its congressionalsenators and representatives. The land could belocated, claimed, and sold for cash, which wasthen to be invested to create a permanent endow-ment to support higher education. If the statehad no public land or if it had an insufficientamount, it would be given an equivalent amountof land scrip. The scrip could be sold on the openmarket to realize the value of the land. (Thegoing rate for such land was $1.25 per acre.)

• All management and investment expense had to beborne by the state, and not from the proceeds ofthe land sale. The endowment created had to beinvested at a rate of not less than 5 percent, andthe state had to make up any investment shortfalland replace any lost principal.

• Proceeds from the endowment, which could not beused for “the purchase, erection, preservation, orrepair of any building or buildings,” had to bemade available for:

…the endowment, support, and maintenance of at leastone college where the leading object shall be, withoutexcluding other scientific and classical studies, and in-cluding military tactics, to teach such branches of learn-ing as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts,in such manner as the legislatures of the States may

15


respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberaland practical education of the industrial classes in theseveral pursuits and professions of life.

The inclusion of “military tactics” was in re-sponse to the dearth of qualified Union officers tofight in the Civil War.

• Each state and territory had two years to acceptthese conditions and five years to complete itssale and fund at least one college in the state withthis mission. (These time limits were extendedafter the Civil War to allow all of the states toparticipate in the program.)

• Land grant designations eventually went to 17institutions in existence in 1862:- five private (Brown, MIT, Rutgers, Vermont, and Yale);- eight state (in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin);and

- four agricultural colleges (in Iowa, Maryland, Michi-gan, and Pennsylvania).

• Between 1862 and 1879 twenty-six land-grantinstitutions were founded:- one private (Cornell);- eleven state (in Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kentucky,

Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, NewHampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia);

- eight A&M colleges (in Alabama, Colorado, Kansas,Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia as well asPurdue in Indiana); and

- six separate black colleges (in Alabama, Arkansas,Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas).

• The 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17.4 million acres ofland, which when sold yielded a collectiveendowment of $7.55 million. By comparison, theHomestead Act (also passed in 1862) allocated288 million acres to promote the settlement ofthe South and West, the various railroad actsprovided about 143 million acres to encouragethe construction of rail lines across the continent,and military bounty grants to veterans totaled 61million acres. Altogether the federal governmentgave away about 1.14 billion acres of its 1.4billion acres of public land during this period.

The Founding of Cornell University

New York State formally accepted the conditions ofthe 1862 Morrill Act on May 5, 1863, and workcommenced immediately to make use of it.

• New York, as the most populous state, received one-tenth of the total grant—about 990,000 acres inthe form of scrip. If it could have been sold at$1.25 per acre, the land scrip could have yieldedan endowment with a principal of $1.24 millionand an annual payout of $61,875.

• Already, advocates of the state’s twenty collegeswere busy vying for this new funding. Chiefcontenders for the land grant were the People’sCollege and the Ovid Agriculture College. ThePeople’s College won out and was authorized toreceive the grant, provided it met certain state-imposed requirements.

• In November 1863, both Ezra Cornell and AndrewD. White were elected as state senators. As it didnot appear that the People’s College would evermeet the terms to obtain the land grant, Cornellintroduced a bill to split the grant between thatinstitution and the New York Agriculture College(of which he was a trustee). Senator White, whowas opposed to dividing (and diluting) the landgrant, bottled up the bill in committee. Cornellinvited White to a trustee meeting of the NewYork State Agriculture College in September 1864,at which Cornell announced his intention todonate $300,000 and a working farm to theCollege if the trustees would relocate it to Ithaca.“I persisted in my refusal to sanction any billdividing the fund,” he later said, “declared myselfnow more opposed to such a division than ever;but promised that if Mr. Cornell and his friendswould ask for the whole grant—keeping it to-gether, and adding his three hundred thousanddollars, as proposed—I would support such a billwith all my might.”

• During a chance meeting with White in January1865, Cornell observed that he had about half amillion dollars more than his family would needand wanted to do something beneficial with it forthe state. White advised him “to establish orstrengthen some institution of higher instruc-tion.” White envisioned an institution wherescientific and technical education would bemarried with studies in history and literature. Asthe two refined their plans, Cornell increased thesize of his gift offer from $300,000 to $500,000.

• On February 7, 1865, White introduced a bill “toestablish the Cornell University, and to appropri-ate to it the income of the sale of public lands

16


granted to this State.” The institution was to benonsectarian and have a mixture of privateindividuals and public officials as trustees. Thechartering of the institution was dependent onCornell making his gift of $500,000. The univer-sity had to “receive annually one student fromeach Assembly district…and give them instruc-tion in any or all the prescribed branches ofstudy…free of any tuition fee.” A fairly fiercebattle ensued as some accused Ezra of being benton a self-aggrandizing agenda. Eventually, thePeople’s College proved incapable of meeting thegrant’s requirements, and Cornell University waslaunched. The university’s charter delineates itspurpose:

The leading object of the corporation hereby createdshall be to teach such branches of learning as are relatedto agriculture and the mechanic arts, including militarytactics; in order to promote the liberal and practicaleducation of the industrial classes in the several pursuitsand professions in life. But such other branches ofscience and knowledge may be embraced in the plan ofinstruction and investigation pertaining to the universityas the trustees may deem useful and proper.

Those words were chosen purposely and carefullyto fit the university’s mission entirely within thelanguage of the federal land grant.

Managing the Land Scrip

In addition to all of the complicated tasks thatdemanded attention in founding a university, theCornell trustees faced an immediate problem—how toderive the maximum benefit from the land scrip.• New York State had been given the land scrip in

trust but was prevented by law from directlypossessing the land of another state. Instead, ithad to sell the scrip to a land speculator whowould carry out the function of locating publicland in another state, laying claim to it (using thescrip as payment), and selling the standing timber(if any) and the land to realize the value of thegrant. As the various states began to sell theirscrip, they gradually flooded the market anddepressed the price. When the New York StateComptroller first began selling scrip in 1864, heobtained 85 cents an acre. He ceased sales,however, when the price fell to 50 to 60 cents.

• The Cornell trustees could have purchased the scripfrom the state and located the land directly.

However, they were unwilling to assume such arisk, given the very shaky financial condition ofthe embryonic university.

• Ezra Cornell stepped in and executed a contractwith the state whereby he would purchase theremaining scrip at the market rate of 60 cents peracre. He would pay half down and supply theother 30 cents per acre upon the sale of the land.Then Cornell did a very clever thing—he pro-posed that, while the 60 cents per acre that thestate would receive would join the funds alreadyon deposit to form the corpus of the land-grantendowment as established by the federal act,anything in excess of 60 cents per acre that hecould realize would be used to create a new anddifferent endowment. The latter would be a giftto the university from Cornell, becoming theCornell Endowment Fund. Cornell got the stateto agree that this second, separate fund was notbound by the federal grant’s restrictions, espe-cially the limitation that grant funds could not beused to construct buildings.

• The land scrip came in 160-acre denominations(one quarter of a square mile). Thus, New Yorkreceived 6,187 pieces of scrip, accounting for989,920 acres. Through a set of transactions, EzraCornell eventually purchased 532,000 acres ofthis scrip. He then set up a land managementoperation centered in Wisconsin, where most ofwhat would be called the Western Lands werelocated. His goal was to hold the land until itappreciated. The cost of this intentional delay (interms of recording fees, management, and taxes)was great, and Cornell bore the negative cashflow from his own resources. When Cornellturned the operation over to the university in1874, his cumulative expenses ($720,438) ex-ceeded revenues ($146,584) and the universityhad to reimburse him for the resulting loss($573,854) by selling some of the Western Landsand dipping into the Cornell Endowment Fund.

• During the 1870’s and 1880’s, the burden of havingmuch of the endowment tied up in a nonproduc-tive asset was huge, and the university faced thepossibility of bankruptcy several times. By 1872,the university was $155,000 in debt. “Theinterest upon which,” observed President JacobGould Schurman in hindsight, “was a seriousdrain upon the annual income of the University,

17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1866 1880 1894 1908 1922 1936 1950 1964 1978 1992

Fiscal Year

Percentof

TotalRevenue

Other Investments

Western Lands

Land Scrip Fund

Founder's Gift


and the principal of which it seemed impossibleto meet.” Only an emergency loan from trusteessaved the institution. In 1880, the university hadto decapitalize its endowment to fund its operat-ing budget. By 1882, Cornell had used over$215,000 of Western Lands principal to fundoperations as it waited for land prices to rebound.

• Through careful management by Cornell’s secondtrustee chair, Henry W. Sage, the Western Landswere eventually made profitable. When all of thetimber and land had been sold and the adminis-tration of the Western Lands was closed in 1935,the university had generated a gross of $6.8million and a net of $5.1 million. While NewYork had received one tenth of the 1862 landgrant, the university’s management of the scripyielded one third of the total grant revenuesgenerated by all the states.

• Aided by emergency aid during hard times, thesequential combination of income from EzraCornell’s original founding gift, the WesternLands, and the Land Scrip Fund fueled theoperation of the university through most of thenineteenth century. (See figure below at right.)

In the 1870’s and 1880’s, several disagreements arosebetween Cornell and New York State over the han-dling of the two trust funds—the Land Scrip Fundand the Cornell Endowment Fund—that were heldand invested by the state comptroller.• The land-grant act specified that investment

management costs associated with a land-granttrust were not to be recovered from the trust butwere to be paid by the state. However, thecomptroller charged premiums to the Land ScripFund contending, as he wrote in 1876, “in theadministration of the various Trust Funds [by thestate], it has been the uniform practice to chargethe income with the cost of all investments inexcess of the face value of the securities….”

• The act also specified that the state had to investthe trust so as to yield at least 5 percent annually,make that income available for the purposes ofthe grant, and make up any deficiency. Yet, in1882 the comptroller announced that no land-grant payments would be made to Cornell fromthe fund “until after the revenue therefrom shallhave first made good the revenue accounts for thedrafts made upon it…for interest, premiums andcommissions on investments already made.”

Percent of Revenue for Cornell UniversitySupplied from Investment Income

• Finally, it was unclear whether the Cornell Endow-ment Fund, which derived its assets from themanagement of the land scrip by Ezra and theuniversity above and beyond what the state couldachieve, belonged to the state or the university.

The first issue was settled in 1890 when a mandamusprocedure instituted against the comptroller wasruled in Cornell’s favor, and the state legislatureappropriated the $89,384 that had been wrongfullywithheld from the university to cover investmentmanagement costs. The famous McGraw-Fiske estatecase settled the second and third issues by: a) findingthat the Cornell Endowment Fund belonged exclu-sively to the university, to be used at the discretion ofthe trustees and b) noting that the state had a duty topay the 5 percent, no matter what it earned on theunderlying investments. As a result, the state con-verted the Land Scrip Fund from a separate trust topart of the state’s general fund and issued Cornell acertificate guaranteeing that the state would pay theuniversity the correct amount “annually thereafter.”So, to this day, Cornell receives a separate paymentfrom the state of $35,100 as its 1862 land-grantincome, an amount virtually unchanged since 1896and slated to remain so in perpetuity.

18


The Concept of a Contract College

Cornell’s founding charter contained no requirementfor New York State to support its land-grant institu-tion. The university’s founders envisioned that theuniversity would be amply funded via the land grant,its other endowments, and various student charges.Two realities quickly changed this view.• The provision of the charter that obligated Cornell

to provide 128 free scholarships to state residentswas successfully reinterpreted by state officials tobe an obligation of 512 scholarships (128 for eachentering class). It was estimated that this freeeducation cost Cornell $150,000 per year by1892, or about one-quarter of its annual budget.

• In the 1860’s, there was little experience in theteaching of agriculture and the mechanic arts andno cadre of trained scholars versed in thesedisciplines from which to draw faculty. Luckily,Hiram Sibley endowed the mechanic arts, provid-ing capital and annual support to launch thatdiscipline. Soon there was also a department incivil engineering, which proved very popularwith students, generating ample tuition revenues.The university created an agriculture departmentand had a working farm, but both proved anemicfor the first twenty years of the university’sexistence, with little student interest and meagerfaculty scholarship. No donor comparable toSibley stepped forward to underwrite agriculture.

When Jacob Gould Schurman became Cornell’s thirdpresident in 1892, he proposed to address these issuesby persuading the state to provide the needed sup-port. He hinged his claim on three arguments.• Cornell was chartered by the state and was subject

to the state’s ultimate supervision.• In accepting the land grant, the state was obliged to

aid the institution receiving proceeds from thegrant (as was done in other states).

• The free education provided to over 500 New YorkState students per year far exceeded the incomefrom the land grant.

In essence, Schurman noted, the state had becomethe beneficiary of the university rather than theuniversity being the beneficiary of the state. Sensingthat Cornell’s disciplines in greatest need of financialsupport coincided with economic interests of thestate that enjoyed broad popular appeal—agricultureand veterinary medicine—Schurman launched a

crusade to garner state funding for these activities.• Schurman’s first success was securing a $50,000

one-time state appropriation in 1893 for a dairyhusbandry building.

• He next obtained funding to create the New YorkState College of Veterinary Medicine, includingan initial $50,000 (in 1894) for needed facilities,to be followed by a subsequent $100,000 (in1895) to complete the building program and$20,000 of annual maintenance (beginning in1896) to support the college.

Schurman then drafted the structure that was eventu-ally adopted by the state legislature governing theadministration of a state supported college by CornellUniversity. This design, which became the manage-ment blueprint for other contract colleges that wouldfollow at Cornell, contained the following provisions:• that the Cornell Board of Trustees would act as the

ex officio board of control for the college;• that while the state would maintain ownership of

all property, facilities, and equipment purchasedby the state, Cornell would have custody andcontrol of these assets;

• that Cornell would maintain sole authority toappoint faculty and staff and would have controlover programs and the curriculum;

• that the university would receive no compensationfor administering the college, and state appropria-tions would be paid directly to the university’streasurer upon the presentation of satisfactoryvouchers from Cornell; and

• that no tuition would be charged to state residentspursuing a veterinary degree, but Cornell woulddetermine the fees paid by other students soenrolled and all of the college’s other fees.

Schurman’s argument in obtaining state support wasanchored to the principle that Cornell, as New York’sland-grant institution, had a right to such funding.“There exists an objection, and in my opinion a veryjust objection against rendering state aid to denomi-national and private colleges,” he wrote in 1892.“But it is different with a University like Cornell, ofwhich the State is the author, the patron, and theproprietor.” Thus Cornell, in close cooperation withthe state, could carry out the state’s objectives in themost efficient and economical manner possible.Schurman saw Cornell as an unusual model in highereducation—a private university with a public mission.

19


The Contract Colleges Bloom

Liberty Hyde Bailey soon emulated Schurman’ssuccess by leading the effort to establish the thirdcontract college at Cornell, dedicated to agriculture.(Cornell’s second contract college was the College ofForestry, established in 1898. Through a misunder-standing over the management of an Adirondackforest tract, the college raised the ire of local residentsand state legislators. It was effectively closed in 1903when Governor Odell vetoed its support bill.)• According to Malcolm Carron, Bailey had “a full-

blown philosophy of agricultural education andits relation to the needs of farm life. With acritical eye he observed the status of agriculture atCornell, which appeared to him…to have onlyminimum trustee support and little prestigeamong the colleges of the University.” Thetrustees reinforced this view, using $65,000 of the$89,384 state Land Scrip Fund lawsuit appropria-tion to build the Law School at Cornell.

• Bailey was appointed dean of Cornell’s endowedagriculture college in 1903, and he launched acrusade to garner state funding for the college.He rallied the support of legislators and New YorkState’s farm organizations. Farmers throughoutthe state, “probably influenced by the extensionwork, had come to look upon Cornell Universityas a friend and the ‘one institution that is tryingto do something for the farmer,’” according toCarron. Through a somewhat tumultuousprocess that involved opposition from a numberof New York’s other higher education institutions,a bill creating the New York State College ofAgriculture at Cornell was finally signed in 1904.

• As Carron noted, “The law founding the newcollege was modeled on the act for the establish-ment of the Veterinary college, but went one stepfurther in requiring the University to convey tothe state the land on which the buildings were tobe erected.” An administration act to govern themanagement of the college, patterned after thelaw enacted for the Veterinary College, waspassed in 1906.

The fourth and fifth contract colleges were theCollege of Home Economics (later Human Ecology)and the School of Industrial and Labor Relations.• Home Economics, in some sense, began with a

conference in Lake Placid, New York in 1899 that

focused on the need for education and outreachin the household arts. In order to generatestatewide interest (and state support) in this field,Liberty Hyde Bailey hired Martha Van Rensselaerin 1900 to create a home-study course in theCollege of Agriculture aimed at assisting ruralwomen and families. The program achieveddepartmental status and then was designated as aschool within the College. In 1925, a bill tocreate a separate College of Home Economics wassigned by Governor Smith.

• According to Carron, the School of Industrial andLabor Relations “grew out of the recommenda-tions made by the…State Joint Legislative Com-mittee on Industrial and Labor Conditions,”which was “created in 1938 to study and investi-gate problems connected with labor and indus-try.” In making its recommendation, the com-mittee noted that Cornell “is the nearest equiva-lent in New York to a state university.” New Yorkofficials approached Cornell about the feasibilityof creating a school focused on this agenda atCornell and received a favorable review. Whileother higher education institutions in New Yorkwere interested in locating this new school ontheir campuses, the bill siting the school atCornell was signed in 1944 by Governor Dewey.

What might have been the sixth contract college atCornell never came to be.• In 1920, at the request of the State Hotel Associa-

tion, the College of Agriculture obtained permis-sion to offer courses in hotel management. Thisprogram migrated with the College of HomeEconomics when the latter split from Agricultureand then coalesced into a department withinHome Economics in 1930. The program was keptfiscally separate, with state resources paying forfacilities and student tuition largely payingoperating costs. In 1954, the state requested aclarification of Hotel Administration’s status,proposing, according to Cornell’s controller, thatit “be made either a state contract college or thatit be entirely separated from…Home Economics.”While as a contract college Hotel Administration’stuition revenues would decline, SUNY wasunwilling to request offsetting state appropria-tions. As a result, the university removed HotelAdministration from Home Economics andestablished it as a separate endowed college.

20


New York, late in the game, finally established a stateuniversity system—SUNY—in 1948, largely in re-sponse to a flood of students from a growing popula-tion and the return of thousands of war veterans.• SUNY was initially a consolidation of existing state

teachers’ colleges, two-year vocational institu-tions, and specialized, baccalaureate colleges.

• As SUNY developed, several once-private institu-tions were added, teachers’ colleges were con-verted to liberal arts institutions, and communitycolleges and new campuses developed. Today,SUNY is the largest comprehensive public univer-sity system in America, with 64 institutions,including Cornell’s four contract colleges.

• Cornell joined SUNY early on, although the ar-rangement was initially viewed as a marriage ofadministrative convenience. Unlike the SUNYstate operated colleges Cornell, rather than SUNY,retained responsibility for the administration ofthese contract colleges. In time, a mutuallybeneficial relationship developed between SUNYand Cornell, with Cornell playing an importantrole in graduate education (awarding 17 percentof all SUNY-conferred Ph.D. degrees), research,and outreach within the SUNY umbrella.

• Each contract college has also enjoyed immensesuccess in its own right. All four have becomerespected leaders in their areas of expertise,educating thousands of students, creating a betterunderstanding of the environment and humansociety, and extending that knowledge through-out New York State, the nation, and the world.

The Land-Grant Mission

Justin Morrill, the author of the land-grant legisla-tion, once remarked that he regretted having theword “agriculture” embedded in the land-grant act.“It is perhaps needless to say that these colleges werenot established or endowed for the sole purpose ofteaching agriculture…. Obviously, not manual butintellectual instruction was the paramount object….Classical studies were not to be excluded, and there-fore, must be included.” Despite this admonition, theland-grant mission of many institutions narrowedgradually to an agricultural emphasis. This changearose, curiously, from the initial lackluster perfor-mance of agricultural departments at most land-grantcolleges (including Cornell). Waning student interest,

a lack of trained faculty, and a paucity of state sup-port for agriculture caused engineering to dominate.The pendulum shifted in the 1880’s due to the effortsof the land-grant institutions (which had formed anational association in 1872) and the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture. According to Roger Williams,the agenda of the association’s first meeting was “theexpediency of asking Congress for additional landgrants for the struggling colleges; the establishmentof experimental farms and stations for the promotionof agricultural knowledge…and the best methods ofcooperating with one another and with the Depart-ment of Agriculture.” These efforts led to a series offederal initiatives (most notably the Hatch Act of1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914) that un-leashed a flow of federal funding for agriculture.While the 1862 land-grant act had instruction at itscore, the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts were especiallyeffective as lenses, refocusing the land-grant spotlighton agricultural research and extension. The CornellCooperative Extension system evolved from theSmith-Lever Act, while the Hatch Act stimulated thegrowth of the two experiment stations at Cornell.Today, all four contract colleges have in place signifi-cant programs of basic and applied research andoutreach, including the Industrial and Labor Rela-tions Extension program.

Despite these swings in emphasis, Morrill as theauthor of the land-grant act and Cornell’s foundersshared a view that it was the applicability rather thanthe specificity of the legislation that was paramount.Land-grant institutions were asked to deploy a liberaland liberating education for a broad swath of society,an education that had practical value. In itemizingthe perceived deficiencies of the day—education inagriculture, engineering, and military science—the actwas not intended to limit institutions in adaptingcurricula to meet evolving needs. A glance at currentemployment patterns demonstrates why that adapt-ability is necessary. (See table on page 21.) Whileagriculture is still a major industry, it engages lessthan 3 percent of the population. Where 70 percentof U.S. workers were engaged in “agriculture and themechanic arts” in 1850, that combination employedless than one-fifth by 1990. America’s economy isnow service-based, highly dependent on informationand communications. The educational needs andinterests of students and society have likewise beentransformed, and these changes are mirrored in

21

Labor PercentForce of Total


Labor Force and Employment by Industry1990 Census, United States

(16 years of age and over)

Agriculture & Fishing 3,115,372 2.5%Construction 7,214,763 5.8Personal Services 3,668,696 3.0Health Services 9,682,684 7.8Manufacturing 20,462,078 16.7Mining 723,423 0.6Transportation 5,108,003 4.1Public Utilities 3,097,059 2.5Financial Services 7,984,870 6.5Business Services 5,577,462 4.5Entertainment 1,636,460 1.3Public Administration 5,538,077 4.5Educational Services 9,633,503 7.8Trade 24,556,692 19.9Other Professional Serv. 7,682,060 6.2Unemployed 7,792,248 6.3Total Labor Force 123,473,450 100.0

Cornell’s curriculum, scholarship, and outreach.

At Cornell, the existence and success of the fourcontract colleges has created a misconception that theuniversity’s land-grant mission has been concentratedin those colleges exclusively. This perception hasbeen reinforced by their specialized state fundingarrangement, creating an artificial boundary betweenthem and the balance of the university. Yet prior tothe creation of the first contract college, all of theuniversity’s colleges and departments viewed them-selves as part of a land-grant mission. In fact, withthe passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890, thedirector of the Sibley College petitioned the Cornelltrustees to have the new $15,000 of land-grantfunding directed to that college instead of the depart-ment of agriculture. As he argued, “the demands forinstruction and legitimate expenditure being greaterby far in this direction.” In reality, the land-grantmission has always been diffused throughout Cornell.It is as much a part of that mission to offer a course in“Race, Gender, and Organization” as it is to teach“Animal Domestication and Behavior.” In a very realsense, Cornell’s motto of being “an institution whereany person can find instruction in any study” is anelegant restatement of that land-grant mission—aproposition that in its simplicity argues that a land-grant university should be expansive, endlesslyadaptable, and always relevant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becker, Carl L., Cornell University: Founders and the Founding.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1943.

Bishop, Morris, A History of Cornell. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1962.

Carron, Malcolm, The Contract Colleges of Cornell University:A Co-operative Educational Enterprise. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1958.

Cornell University, History of the Agricultural College LandGrant of July 2, 1862. Ithaca, NY: Press of the Journal JobPrinting House, 1890.

Cornell University, Laws and Documents Relating to CornellUniversity 1862-1883. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,1883.

Cornell University, Ten Laws Underlying the New York StateCollege of Agriculture at Cornell University. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University, 1906.

Cornell University, Treasurer’s Reports and Financial Reports.Ithaca, NY, 1867-2000.

Cornell University, Trustee Minutes and Miscellaneous Papersof the Board of Trustees and the Executive Committee.Ithaca, NY, 1865-1955.

Draffan, George, Taking Back Our Land: A History of LandGrant Reform. Seattle, WA: Public Information Network,1998. [On-line source] http://www.landgrant.org/forfeiture.html

Eddy, Edward D., The Land-Grant Movement. Washington,DC: American Association of Land-Grant Colleges andState Universities, 1961.

Gates, Paul Wallace, The Wisconsin Pine Lands of CornellUniversity. Madison, WI: The State Historical Society ofWisconsin, 1943.

Halliday, S. D., History of the Agricultural College Land GrantAct of July 2, 1862. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca Democrat Press,1905.

Kendall, Elaine, “Peculiar Institutions” An Informal History ofthe Seven Sister Colleges. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’sSons, 1976.

New York State, Annual Report of the Comptroller of the Stateof New York. Albany, NY, 1865-1903.

Price, Richard Rees, The Financial Support of State Universi-ties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924.

Schurman, Jacob Gould, A Generation of Cornell, 1868-1898.New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898.

State University of New York, History–State University of NewYork, 2001. [On-line source] http://www.suny.edu/About/History_of_SUNY/history_of_suny.html

United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics ofthe United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.

United States Bureau of the Census, Labor Force Status andEmployment Characteristics: 1990. [On-line source] http://factfinder.census.gov/servletBasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP3&_geo_id=01000US

Willard, Emma, A Plan for Improving Female Education. AReprint of the Second Edition of 1819. Middlebury, VT:Middlebury College, 1918.

Williams, Roger L., The Origins of Federal Support for HigherEducation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press, 1991.

22

ENDOWED ITHACA


Revenues are planned at $871.1 million, an increaseof 6.4 percent from the 2000-01 forecast.• Tuition and fee revenues are planned to increase

$11.6 million, or 3.5 percent, from the 2000-01forecast. Tuition increases for endowed Ithacacolleges will range from 4.9 to 6.9 percent. Whileno fundamental enrollment changes are antici-pated, the 2000-01 forecast includes additionalrevenues due to an overenrollment of under-graduate students. (See Appendix C on page 44.)

• Investment income is projected to increase 16.2percent over the 2000-01 forecast due to theplanned 17.4 percent increase in Long TermInvestment Pool payout, partially offset by adecrease in the projected payout amount fromshort and intermediate-term investments.

• The sum of unrestricted and restricted giftsflowing through current funds is expected toincrease by 3 percent over the amount forecastedfor 2000-01, as the level of giving for research andacademic initiatives remains strong.

• The direct costs of sponsored programs andrelated indirect cost recoveries are projected togrow 5 percent in 2001-02 (to a total of $170million), reflecting increased research activity.

• State appropriations for Bundy Aid, which areplanned at $2.2 million, are not expected tochange significantly in 2001-02.

• Sales and services of enterprises are planned toincrease 4.9 percent, to $104.9 million in 2001-02. Growing labor costs, rent, utilities, and otherservices (which are reflected in the expenditurebudgets of these operations) will drive priceincreases for goods and services sold.

Transfers in from funds functioning as endowmentare planned at $5.1 million, and will be used to funddebt service and project costs of recent construction.Transfers in from plant funds will support deferredmaintenance projects, debt service payments, andenvironmental health and safety operational costs.

Expenditures and Transfers Out

Net expenditures are planned at $818.6 million, an


increase of 4.9 percent over the forecast for 2000-01.• College expenditures are expected to increase $16

million, or 5.1 percent, due to growth in salariescombined with research expansion in the Col-leges of Arts and Sciences and Engineering.

• Research centers have planned expenditures of$80.1 million, a 5.1 percent increase that reflectsgrowth in external research support.

• Other academic program expenditures are pro-jected to increase 5.8 percent. Included in thiscategory is expanded programmatic support forComputer and Information Sciences.

• Financial-aid expenditures are planned to increase$4.7 million, or 5 percent, in 2001-02, reflectingthe impact of rising tuition rates combined withCornell’s commitment to increase the diversity ofits student body.

• Student services costs show an 8.6 percent growthover the 2000-01 forecast as a result of increasesin labor, overhead, and debt-service costs.

• Administrative and support costs are planned toincrease 1.5 percent from the 2000-01 forecast.While the 2001-02 plan includes additional costsfor enhanced staff salaries, this growth will bepartially offset by minimal growth in administra-tive systems expenditures.

• Physical plant expenditures are planned to in-crease 4.5 percent from the 2000-01 forecast,reflecting increases in staff salaries and otherinflationary factors.

• Cost distributions for accessory instruction andadministrative and support costs are planned toincrease 3.2 percent and 5 percent respectively.Distributed unrestricted financial-aid costs willincrease 7.2 percent due to the increases incontract college tuitions.

Transfers out to funds functioning as endowment of$15.1 million and to plant funds of $20.2 millionwill provide for future programmatic support andcover planned maintenance, future classroom renova-tions, and other capital plan projects.

Net from Operations

This plan is expected to result in a $23 million netfrom operations. Most of this total representsadditions to designated and restricted fund bal-ances resulting from gifts and grants that will beexpended in the future.

23



(dollars in thousands)Endowed Ithaca – Summary


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $314,946 $326,437 $333,937 $345,577 $11,640 3.5%2. Investment Income 99,289 109,535 109,535 127,312 17,777 16.2%3. Unrestricted Gifts 29,934 30,028 35,190 34,403 (787) (2.2%)4. Restricted Gifts 41,212 31,992 37,380 40,341 2,961 7.9%5. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 113,791 133,399 127,899 134,259 6,360 5.0%6. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 32,511 34,096 34,096 35,790 1,694 5.0%7. State Appropriations 2,168 2,089 1,976 2,190 214 10.8%8. Sales & Services of Enterprises 96,263 100,537 100,000 104,864 4,864 4.9%9. Other Sources 45,925 43,021 45,021 46,593 1,572 3.5%

10. Inter-Unit Transfers 1,476 (3,778) (6,362) (268) 6,094 (95.8%)11. Total Revenues 777,515 807,356 818,672 871,061 52,389 6.4%

12. Transfers In from Endowment 20,335 2,540 2,540 5,054 2,51413. Transfers In from Plant Funds 4,844 1,079 1,079 712 (367)14. Total Resources Available 802,694 810,975 822,291 876,827 54,536 6.6%

Expenditures & Transfers Out15. Architecture, Art & Planning 13,597 12,946 13,582 14,018 436 3.2%16. Arts & Sciences 112,023 119,964 119,964 126,458 6,494 5.4%17. Engineering 86,413 92,608 92,108 96,898 4,790 5.2%18. Hotel Administration 37,402 33,848 39,348 41,177 1,829 4.6%19. Johnson School 30,651 29,616 31,477 33,066 1,589 5.0%20. Law School 16,266 15,519 17,079 17,981 902 5.3%21. Research Centers 72,769 80,081 76,230 80,092 3,862 5.1%22. Other Academic Programs 86,289 89,115 89,343 94,499 5,156 5.8%23. Centrally Recorded Financial Aid 88,501 94,450 95,552 100,289 4,737 5.0%24. Student Services 81,503 85,326 85,326 92,665 7,339 8.6%25. Administrative & Support 83,458 99,459 95,459 96,877 1,418 1.5%26. Physical Plant 86,460 76,798 82,787 86,509 3,722 4.5%27. Endowed Ithaca All Other 6,650 2,856 3,856 2,867 (989) (25.6%)28. Gross Expenditures 801,982 832,586 842,111 883,396 41,285 4.9%

Intra-University Cost Distribution29. Accessory Instruction (15,327) (15,970) (15,970) (16,487) (517) 3.2%30. Administrative & Support (36,906) (38,342) (37,338) (39,216) (1,878) 5.0%31. Financial Aid (11,048) (8,531) (8,531) (9,143) (612) 7.2%32. Net Expenditures 738,701 769,743 780,272 818,550 38,278 4.9%

33. Transfers Out to Endowment 14,218 10,474 10,474 15,053 4,57934. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 28,136 16,459 16,459 20,222 3,76335. Total Resources Used 781,055 796,676 807,205 853,825 46,620 5.8%


Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances37. General Purpose 50 29 (29)38. Designated 10,942 5,787 6,640 11,517 4,87739. Enterprise/Service (1,086) (1,165) (1,165) 1,140 2,30540. Restricted 11,733 9,677 9,582 10,345 76341. Net Current Fund Changes 21,639 14,299 15,086 23,002 7,916

24

Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $252,114 $1,181 $1,001 $8,868 $27,719 $25,5442. Investment Income 65,312 929 7,055 4,703 4,112 4,4823. Unrestricted Gifts 5,050 175 1,241 2,668 335 1,4894. Restricted Gifts 18 23 3,460 7,045 365 8085. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 135 17,100 38,100 2046. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 35,7907. Institutional Allowances8. State Appropriations 1,855 135 1209. Federal Appropriations

10. Sales & Services of Enterprises11. Other Sources 5,901 774 1,223 746 11,299 23712. Inter-Unit Transfers 404 5,313 6,284 476 36813. Total Revenues 366,040 3,621 36,393 68,414 44,441 33,252

14. General Purpose Budget Allocations (444,200) 10,013 94,876 36,554 227

15. Transfers In from Endowment 482 1,39516. Transfers In from Plant Funds 3 39117. Total Resources Available (78,160) 13,634 131,272 105,841 44,441 34,874

Expenditures & Transfers Out18. Salaries & Wages 7,399 71,788 54,666 17,654 17,29719. Employee Benefits 2,242 21,073 16,789 5,125 4,77520. Undergraduate Financial Aid 47 80 1,469 3,83321. Graduate Financial Aid 1,341 14,853 6,115 498 1,37122. General Expense 2,867 16,043 15,744 10,833 8,81623. Capital Expense 122 2,324 2,115 1,096 80724. Debt Service 297 2,13825. Gross Expenditures 14,018 126,458 96,898 41,177 33,066

Intra-University Cost Distribution26. Accessory Instruction (12,726) (1,077) (2,129)27. Administrative & Support (56,291) 12 9 3,167 4,21328. Pooled Financial Aid (9,143)29. Net Expenditures (78,160) 14,030 126,467 96,898 43,267 35,150

30. Transfers Out to Endowment 101 45231. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 2,485 55832. Total Resources Used (78,160) 14,030 126,568 99,835 43,825 35,150

33. Net from Operations (396) 4,704 6,006 616 (276)

Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances34. General Purpose35. Designated (201) 833 663 259 63136. Enterprise/Service37. Restricted (195) 3,871 5,343 357 (907)38. Net Current Fund Changes (396) 4,704 6,006 616 (276)

General ArchitecturePurpose Art & Arts & Engineering Hotel JohnsonBudget Planning Sciences Admin. School

Endowed Ithaca – Detail(dollars in thousands)


25


Centrally TotalOther Recorded Admin. Endowed Endowed

Law Research Academic Financial Student & Physical Ithaca IthacaSchool Centers Programs Aid Services Support Plant All Other (see p. 23)

$18,086 $11,064 $345,577 1.3,345 212 8,292 22,256 1,308 179 4,985 142 127,312 2.

22 3,120 500 3 6,800 13,000 34,403 3.1,203 1,455 5,564 6,611 1,468 171 12,150 40,341 4.

255 68,605 3,615 5,889 255 101 134,259 5.35,790 6.

7.80 2,190 8.

9.6,566 64,031 3,954 30,313 104,864 10.

290 866 13,850 4,640 1,222 5,545 46,593 11. (951) 2,518 (3,415) 6,518 7,335 (4,199) (20,919) (268) 12.22,308 73,678 48,656 35,256 78,223 12,962 43,444 4,373 871,061 13.

421 5,033 45,835 65,033 20,942 81,437 51,145 32,684 14.

32 3,145 5,054 15. 318 712 16.

22,729 78,711 94,523 100,289 99,165 94,399 98,052 37,057 876,827 17.

10,847 34,313 40,990 34,323 52,049 38,554 450 380,330 18.3,277 11,065 12,012 10,546 20,133 13,939 136 121,112 19.

337 67,808 26 73,600 20.344 29 936 32,481 7 57,975 21.

2,990 33,372 28,314 33,054 16,257 10,169 2,280 180,739 22.523 1,313 11,411 302 4,416 502 1 24,932 23.

499 14,407 4,022 23,345 44,708 24.17,981 80,092 94,499 100,289 92,665 96,877 86,509 2,867 883,396 25.

(25) (530) (16,487) 26.4,435 378 2,785 (2,643) (879) 5,598 (39,216) 27.

(9,143) 28.22,391 80,092 94,877 100,289 95,450 94,234 85,630 7,935 818,550 29.

14,500 15,053 30. 109 15 6,826 25 10,204 20,222 31.

22,391 80,201 94,892 100,289 102,276 94,259 95,834 22,435 853,825 32.

338 (1,490) (369) (3,111) 140 2,218 14,622 23,002 33.

34.455 (1,490) (13) (235) (12) 1,155 9,472 11,517 35.

17 135 988 1,140 36.(117) (356) (2,893) 17 75 5,150 10,345 37.338 (1,490) (369) (3,111) 140 2,218 14,622 23,002 38.

26

GENERAL PURPOSE BUDGET

The endowed Ithaca general purpose budget is theuniversity’s central operating fund, supporting the generalpurpose colleges, central administrative and supportservices, and most unrestricted financial aid. Expenseallocations rather than expenditures are shown in thisbudget, as some allocations are expended in non-generalpurpose accounts or will be expended in future fiscal years.Focusing on changes in allocations more accuratelyreflects the decisions made in managing these resources.


Revenues are projected at $366 million, an increase of4.3 percent from the 2000-01 forecast.• Tuition and fees are projected to grow 1.9 percent

over the 2000-01 forecast. The undergraduateand graduate tuition rates will increase 4.9percent, from $24,760 to $25,970. The budgetreflects a 2001-02 planning target of 7,150undergraduates in the Colleges of Architecture,Art, and Planning; Arts and Sciences; and Engi-neering. Enrollments above plan in prior yearscreated a tuition surplus for 2000-01 that is notreflected in the 2001-02 plan. Should suchoverenrollments reoccur, any surplus tuition willbe added to a reserve that was created to providea financial buffer against enrollment swings.Graduate enrollments in those colleges areexpected to marginally increase in 2000-01, to a2,315 target level. (See Appendix C, page 44.)

• Investment income is expected to increase 12.8percent over the in-year forecast, due to theplanned 17.4 growth in Long Term InvestmentPool payout (to $2.70 per share). Partially offset-ting this growth will be a decrease in the pro-jected payout amount from short and intermedi-ate-term investments.

• Indirect cost recoveries from sponsored programsare projected to increase 5 percent over theforecast for 2000-01, based on an expectation ofcontinued growth in research volume. Recoveryrates have been negotiated through 2002-03, andare expected to remain stable at 57 percentthrough that year.

No transfers in from funds functioning as endow-ment or plant funds are planned.


Allocations for Expenditure andTransfers Out

Gross expense allocations will total $444.2 million, a4.4 percent increase over the 2000-01 forecast.• College allocations are planned to increase $7.8

million, or 5.8 percent, from the 2000-01 forecast,due to a substantial increase in faculty and staffsalary support and inflationary growth in generaloperating costs.

• Research center allocations are planned at $5million, a 3.7 percent increase over the 2000-01forecast. In addition to this amount, the univer-sity has reserved $2.8 million of limited-termfunding that will be transferred to the appropriatecenters during the fiscal year. (These reserves areincluded in the ‘all other’ category.)

• Unrestricted funding for undergraduate financialaid is planned to grow 4.9 percent from the 2000-01 forecast. The 2001-02 allocation will becombined with restricted gift and investmentincome to bring the total university grant supportfor centrally recorded undergraduate financial aidto $67.8 million. (See line 20, page 25.) Unre-stricted funding for graduate financial aid willincrease 4 percent. Total university support forcentrally recorded graduate financial aid isplanned at $32.5 million. (See line 21, page 25.)

• The category of ‘general purpose all other’ in-cludes allocations for investment services, mem-berships, special programs, and the universitycontingency as well as funding for strategicpriorities. Approximately $18.5 million of thesefunds will be transferred to other budget linesduring the fiscal year. (These transfers create thefluctuation between what is planned on this lineand its net value at the end of each fiscal year.)

• Cost distributions to operating units in all threedivisions of the university will increase 4.7percent over those made in 2000-01.

No central transfers out to funds functioning asendowment or plant funds are planned for 2000-01.

Net from Operations

As proposed, gross expense allocations less net costdistributions will equal resources available, yielding azero net from operations and no change in currentfund balances.

27



General Purpose Budget(dollars in thousands)


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $235,084 $239,940 $247,400 $252,114 $4,714 1.9%2. Investment Income 52,141 59,293 57,900 65,312 7,412 12.8%3. Unrestricted Gifts 4,205 4,163 4,950 5,050 100 2.0%4. Restricted Gifts 2 17 17 18 1 5.9%5. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 32,492 34,096 34,096 35,790 1,694 5.0%6. State Appropriations 1,801 1,769 1,605 1,855 250 15.6%7. Other Sources 4,308 5,227 5,000 5,901 901 18.0%8. Total Revenues 330,033 344,505 350,968 366,040 15,072 4.3%

9. Transfers In from Endowment10. Transfers In from Plant Funds11. Total Resources Available 330,033 344,505 350,968 366,040 15,072 4.3%

Allocations for Expenditure12. Architecture, Art, & Planning 9,132 9,241 9,440 10,013 573 6.1%13. Arts & Sciences 85,805 88,463 89,663 94,876 5,213 5.8%14. Engineering 34,682 34,591 34,591 36,554 1,963 5.7%15. Johnson School 231 221 221 227 6 2.7%16. Law School 750 409 409 421 12 2.9%17. Research Centers 6,811 4,814 4,855 5,033 178 3.7%18. Other Academic Programs 43,833 43,501 43,516 45,835 2,319 5.3%19. Undergraduate Financial Aid 43,049 44,947 44,942 47,150 2,208 4.9%20. Graduate Financial Aid 17,990 17,187 17,187 17,883 696 4.0%21. Student Services 20,823 19,660 19,864 20,942 1,078 5.4%22. Administrative & Support 77,069 74,971 78,947 81,437 2,490 3.2%23. Physical Plant 48,494 50,105 49,674 51,145 1,471 3.0%24. General Purpose All Other 17,387 33,420 32,285 32,684 399 1.2%25. Gross Expense Allocation 406,056 421,530 425,594 444,200 18,606 4.4%

Intra-University Cost Distribution26. Accessory Instruction (12,267) (12,879) (12,467) (12,726) (259) 2.1%27. Administrative & Support (52,759) (55,615) (53,657) (56,291) (2,634) 4.9%28. Financial Aid (11,047) (8,531) (8,531) (9,143) (612) 7.2%29. Net Cost Distribution (76,073) (77,025) (74,655) (78,160) (3,505) 4.7%

30. Transfers Out to Endowment31. Transfers Out to Plant Funds32. Total Resources Used 329,983 344,505 350,939 366,040 15,101 4.3%

33. Net from Operations 50 29 (29)

Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances34. General Purpose 50 29 (29)35. Designated36. Net Current Fund Changes 50 29 (29)

28

CONTRACT COLLEGES


Revenues are projected at $457.1 million, an increaseof $16.5 million from the 2000-2001 forecast.• Income from tuition and fees will increase $6.2

million, or 7 percent, due to rate increases of 10.5percent and 6.2 percent for resident and nonresi-dent undergraduate tuitions, respectively. Com-pounding this growth will be a slight increase inthe proportion of nonresident undergraduates.

• Investment income is expected to increase $2.2million, or 12.2 percent above the forecast for2000-01. Increased investment balances, addi-tions to endowments, and the planned increasein the Long Term Investment Pool payout willdrive this growth.

• Unrestricted gifts and restricted gifts are projectedto increase by 5.4 percent and 3.9 percent respec-tively, based on an extrapolation of current givingtrends and assuming no new major gifts.

• Direct funding for sponsored programs is pro-jected to increase $9.8 million, or 10.7 percent,with research program growth occurring in allfour statutory colleges, especially in the fields ofgenomics and the life sciences.

• Although a new state budget is not expected untillate summer, state appropriations for the fourcontract colleges are currently planned to in-crease $7.1 million, or 4.9 percent. (See AppendixH, page 49.) This plan includes $4.1 million forfaculty and staff salary programs and $2.1 millionfor facility renovations.

• Income from other sources is projected to decrease$3.8 million, or 10.1 percent. Most of thischange is due to a correction in the way in whichinterdepartmental earnings were classified in theCollege of Veterinary Medicine (CVM). In prioryears these transactions were shown as revenues;beginning with the 2001-02 plan they are dis-played as an expense in the benefiting depart-ment and as a reduction in expense for CVM.


Net expenditures are planned at $454.2 million, anincrease of $20.3 million, or 4.7 percent, over theforecast for 2000-01.

• The gross expenditure increase for the contractcolleges (including the Geneva ExperimentStation) is expected to be $14.4 million, or 4.3percent. This total includes the amount neces-sary to cover increases in faculty and staff salariesand the filling of vacant faculty positions andassociated start-up costs. In addition, the Collegeof Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) will incurincreased costs for the renovation of EmersonHall, the College of Human Ecology (CHE) plansnew equipment and relocation costs for VanRensselaer Hall, and CVM plans significantresearch equipment purchases.

• The $190 thousand growth in other academicprograms (the County Cooperative ExtensionAssociation) reflects anticipated federal funding.

• Centrally budgeted administrative and supportexpenditures are planned to increase $155thousand, or 4.5 percent, from the 2000-01forecast, due largely to the increased cost ofemployee benefits.

• Physical plant expenditures are planned to in-crease by $2.7 million, or 9.4 percent, due mainlyto higher utility costs and a number of facilityrenovations. (Some of these renovations havecapital plan counterparts.)

• The $278 thousand increase for contract college allother expenditures is largely the result of vehiclepurchases for the contract college fleet.

• Intra-university cost distributions for accessoryinstruction, administrative and support costs, andfinancial aid are expected to grow 3.2 percent,4 percent, and 7.2 percent respectively. Thefinancial-aid increase would have been largerwere it not for the additional payout from schol-arship endowments expected in 2001-02.

Transfers out to funds functioning as endowmentare planned at $1.8 million by CALS and CVM. The$4.1 million transfer to plant funds will be made byCVM for a building project at the Baker Institute forAnimal Health.

Net from Operations

This plan will produce a $2.9 million negative netfrom operations, drawing $5.1 million from desig-nated fund balances and adding $2.2 million togeneral purpose and restricted fund balances.


29



Contract Colleges – Summary(dollars in thousands)


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $83,346 $86,161 $87,710 $93,871 $6,161 7.0%2. Investment Income 16,013 17,148 17,961 20,157 2,196 12.2%3. Unrestricted Gifts 14,957 8,144 8,986 9,469 483 5.4%4. Restricted Gifts 8,158 7,159 7,442 7,733 291 3.9%5. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 83,713 88,963 91,671 101,524 9,853 10.7%6. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 17,068 17,155 17,844 17,873 29 0.2%7. Institutional Allowances 217 168 82 125 43 52.4%8. State Appropriations 140,689 150,973 145,240 152,348 7,108 4.9%9. Federal Appropriations 18,222 18,978 19,433 19,691 258 1.3%

10. Other Sources 42,110 40,081 37,915 34,080 (3,835) (10.1%)11. Inter-Unit Transfers (1,476) 3,778 6,362 268 (6,094) (95.8%)12. Total Revenues 423,017 438,708 440,646 457,139 16,493 3.7%

13. Transfers In from Endowment 1,066 32 347 100 (247)14. Transfers In from Plant Funds 210 270 (270)15. Total Resources Available 424,293 438,740 441,263 457,239 15,976 3.6%

Expenditures & Transfers Out16. Agriculture & Life Sciences 170,546 175,802 178,124 185,041 6,917 3.9%17. Human Ecology 38,147 41,012 41,161 42,617 1,456 3.5%18. Industrial & Labor Relations 33,081 32,537 33,641 35,199 1,558 4.6%19. Veterinary Medicine 70,895 77,036 78,385 82,861 4,476 5.7%20. Other Academic Programs 6,321 6,970 6,919 7,109 190 2.7%21. Administrative & Support 5,391 3,398 3,421 3,576 155 4.5%22. Physical Plant 29,093 34,767 28,953 31,683 2,730 9.4%23. Contract College All Other 2,301 1,727 2,184 2,462 278 12.7%24. Gross Expenditures 355,775 373,249 372,788 390,548 17,760 4.8%

Intra-University Cost Distribution25. Accessory Instruction 15,327 15,970 15,970 16,487 517 3.2%26. Administrative & Support 36,133 37,565 36,561 38,016 1,455 4.0%27. Financial Aid 11,047 8,532 8,532 9,143 611 7.2%28. Net Expenditures 418,282 435,316 433,851 454,194 20,343 4.7%

29. Transfers Out to Endowment 5,119 2,625 3,413 1,780 (1,633)30. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 697 3,596 1,310 4,130 2,82031. Total Resources Used 424,098 441,537 438,574 460,104 21,530 4.9%

32. Net from Operations 195 (2,797) 2,689 (2,865) (5,554)

Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances33. General Purpose (1,528) 1,860 4,206 709 (3,497)34. Designated 3,083 (3,531) (897) (5,060) (4,163)35. Restricted (1,360) (1,126) (620) 1,486 2,10636. Net Current Fund Changes 195 (2,797) 2,689 (2,865) (5,554)

30

SubtotalAgriculture Geneva Agriculture Industrial

& Life Experiment & Life Human & LaborSciences Station Sciences Ecology Relations

Contract Colleges – Detail(dollars in thousands)

Notes: * Excludes the cost of employee benefits that are paid by New York State directly and not recorded by Cornell.


Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $53,200 $53,200 $20,598 $13,7732. Investment Income 10,600 275 10,875 1,924 1,1783. Unrestricted Gifts 7,100 400 7,500 330 2394. Restricted Gifts 4,200 450 4,650 438 8455. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 47,000 6,000 53,000 11,133 4,3916. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 8,375 575 8,950 2,060 4637. Institutional Allowances 100 100 58. State Appropriations 46,657 12,050 58,707 10,067 11,8109. Federal Appropriations 10,375 1,135 11,510 4,607

10. Sales & Services of Enterprises11. Other Sources 11,900 736 12,636 1,586 7,62512. Inter-Unit Transfers (4,723) 220 (4,503) 212 36213. Total Revenues 194,784 21,841 216,625 52,960 40,686

14. General Purpose Allocations

15. Transfers In from Endowment 10016. Transfers In from Plant Funds17. Total Resources Available 194,784 21,841 216,625 53,060 40,686

Expenditures & Transfers Out18. Salaries & Wages 98,838 14,192 113,030 26,082 21,15219. Employee Benefits * 10,815 1,037 11,852 2,689 1,27920. Undergraduate Financial Aid 1,338 1,338 473 8121. Graduate Financial Aid 4,172 108 4,280 1,496 57322. General Expense 41,320 5,364 46,684 9,966 11,77423. Capital Expense 6,424 1,233 7,657 1,715 34024. Debt Service 200 200 19625. Gross Expenditures 163,107 21,934 185,041 42,617 35,199

Intra-University Cost Distribution26. Accessory Instruction 879 879 223 9827. Administrative & Support 22,535 129 22,664 8,203 4,55528. Pooled Financial Aid 5,619 5,619 2,290 1,21629. Net Expenditures 192,140 22,063 214,203 53,333 41,068

30. Transfers Out to Endowment 700 80 78031. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 13032. Total Resources Used 192,840 22,143 214,983 53,463 41,068

33. Net from Operations 1,944 (302) 1,642 (403) (382)

Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances34. General Purpose (268) (268) 254 (129)35. Designated 444 (82) 362 (455) (393)36. Enterprise/Service37. Restricted 1,500 48 1,548 (202) 14038. Net Current Fund Changes 1,944 (302) 1,642 (403) (382)

31


$6,300 $93,871 1.6,100 10 70 80 20,157 2.1,400 9,469 3.1,800 7,733 4.

33,000 101,524 5.6,400 17,873 6.

20 125 7.19,282 3,863 3,192 30,077 15,350 48,619 152,348 8.

336 3,218 20 20 19,691 9.10.

11,800 14 24 395 433 34,080 11. (600) 28 1,490 1,049 2,230 4,769 268 12.85,838 7,109 4,726 31,150 18,045 53,921 457,139 13.

14.

100 15.16.

85,838 7,109 4,726 31,150 18,045 53,921 457,239 17.

43,500 6,001 2,693 4,693 268 7,654 217,419 18.3,501 621 9 2,049 2,058 22,000 19.

1,892 20.3,000 9,349 21.

28,800 487 883 26,976 (815) 27,044 124,755 22.4,000 5 960 965 14,677 23.

60 456 24.82,861 7,109 3,576 31,683 2,462 37,721 390,548 25.

15,287 15,287 16,487 26.2,510 34 50 84 38,016 27.

18 9,143 28.85,389 7,109 3,610 31,683 17,799 53,092 454,194 29.

1,000 1,780 30. 4,000 4,130 31.90,389 7,109 3,610 31,683 17,799 53,092 460,104 32.

(4,551) 1,116 (533) 246 829 (2,865) 33.

839 13 852 709 34.(4,551) 277 (533) 233 (23) (5,060) 35.

36.1,486 37.

(4,551) 1,116 (533) 246 829 (2,865) 38.

General ServicesOther Admin. Contract Subtotal Total

Veterinary Academic & Physical College General StatutoryMedicine Programs Support Plant All Other Services (see p. 29)

32

MEDICAL COLLEGE


Revenues for the Joan and Sanford I. Weill MedicalCollege and Graduate School of Medical Sciences areprojected at $565.5 million, an increase of 7.2 percentover the forecast for 2000-01.• Tuition and fees are budgeted to increase $670

thousand from the forecast. Medical collegetuition will increase 3.1 percent, from $27,650 to$28,500, while tuition for the Graduate School ofMedical Sciences will increase 3.1 percent, from$20,180 to $20,800. Compounding this growthwill be a small increase in the effective level oftuition-paying student enrollments.

• Restricted gifts are expected to increase $6.4million, to $43.9 million. Included in thisprojection is $4.8 million for the Strategic Plan.

• Direct costs of grants and contracts for sponsoredprograms are planned at $73.8 million. Thisincrease includes a 4.7 percent rise in federallysponsored programs and no growth in foundationand private health agency support. The growthin federal programs is due primarily to theactivity of newly recruited faculty, includingthose faculty hired through the Strategic Plan.The increase in direct program support will resultin a corresponding $1.3 million growth infacilities and administrative (indirect) costrecoveries.

• Revenues from the Physician Organization (PO)are projected at $270.7 million, an $11 million, or4.3 percent, increase from the 2000-01 forecast.This growth reflects the expansion of the Depart-ment of Neurological Surgery, the impact of theWomen’s Health Center, and the maturation ofprograms added in recent years.

• Services purchased by the New York PresbyterianHospital (NYPH) are projected to increase 2.5percent over the 2000-01 forecast, to $58.4million.

• The establishment of the Weill Medical College inQatar has added $13.4 million in anticipatedrevenues. This represents funding based on thebudget approved in the Qatar agreement to createthe educational and administrative structure forthe school being established in that country.

Transfers in from funds functioning as endowment,which are planned at $988 thousand, will supportfaculty recruitment in the academic departments.


Net expenditures are planned at $549 million, anincrease of 6.8 percent over the forecast for 2000-01.• Academic department expenditures, including the

Physician Organization, are planned to increase$18.3 million, to $449.6 million. This growthwill be due mainly to higher Physician Organiza-tion expenditures and more support from invest-ment income and restricted gifts.

• Administrative and support costs are budgeted at$56.7 million, a growth of 34 percent from the2000-01 forecast. Most of this increase is due tothe establishment of the medical school in Qatarand its related central support services (e.g., vicedean, human resources, etc.). Excluding theimpact of Qatar from both the 2000-01 forecastand the 2001-02 plan reveals an 8.5 percentgrowth in all other administrative and supportcosts.

• Physical plant costs are expected to increase 3.5percent, to $33.2 million, reflecting higher utilityand building maintenance costs, new off-siteadministrative offices, and the annualized cost ofresearch space in the Whitney Building.

Transfers out to plant funds, which are planned at$1.3 million, represent funding for capital acquisi-tions and renovations by the Physician Organization.

Net from Operations

This plan will produce a $16.2 million net fromoperations, which will be added to current fundbalances. The general purpose fund is expected tocomplete the year with no change in fund balancewhile the other three fund groups are projected toachieve operating surpluses.


33

Revenues & Transfers In1. Tuition & Fees $14,133 $14,600 $14,142 $14,812 $670 4.7%2. Investment Income 23,810 28,527 28,513 31,188 2,675 9.4%3. Unrestricted Gifts 3,941 2,800 2,978 3,011 33 1.1%4. Restricted Gifts 36,507 37,357 37,428 43,857 6,429 17.2%5. Sponsored Programs (direct costs) 69,742 71,341 71,091 73,836 2,745 3.9%6. Sponsored Programs (indirect costs) 28,222 28,743 29,731 31,027 1,296 4.4%7. Institutional Allowances 1,390 1,405 1,385 1,3858. State Appropriations 241 204 204 2049. Physician Organization (PO) 237,029 236,063 259,605 270,651 11,046 4.3%

10. Institutional Development (PO) 9,045 9,106 9,105 9,371 266 2.9%11. NYPH (purchased services) 54,323 52,465 57,034 58,434 1,400 2.5%12. Sales & Services of Enterprises 8,201 9,061 8,991 9,396 405 4.5%13. Qatar 2,390 13,357 10,967 458.9%14. Other Sources 5,550 5,857 4,972 4,955 (17) (0.3%)15. Total Revenues 492,134 497,529 527,569 565,484 37,915 7.2%

16. Transfers In from Endowment 1,583 911 1,141 988 (153)17. Transfers In from Plant Funds18. Total Resources Available 493,717 498,440 528,710 566,472 37,762 7.1%

Expenditures & Transfers Out19. Medical College (academic/clinical) 399,290 403,846 431,363 449,625 18,262 4.2%20. Centrally Recorded Financial Aid 8,033 7,649 7,531 8,324 793 10.5%21. Administrative & Support 37,477 41,279 42,289 56,666 14,377 34.0%22. Physical Plant 27,811 30,952 32,025 33,159 1,134 3.5%23. Expenditures 472,611 483,726 513,208 547,774 34,566 6.7%

Intra-University Cost Distribution:24. Administrative & Support 774 776 776 1,200 424 54.6%25. Net Expenditures 473,385 484,502 513,984 548,974 34,990 6.8%

26. Transfers Out to Endowment 2,270 255 255 (255)27. Transfers Out to Plant Funds 1,814 1,120 1,320 1,32028. Total Resources Used 477,469 485,877 515,559 550,294 34,735 6.7%


Additions to/(Withdrawals from) Current Fund Balances30. General Purpose 2,031 128 355 (355)31. Designated 2,526 2,138 2,186 3,454 1,26832. Enterprise/Service 378 903 833 1,014 18133. Restricted 11,313 9,394 9,777 11,710 1,93334. Net Current Fund Changes 16,248 12,563 13,151 16,178 3,027



Medical College(dollars in thousands)


34

CAPITAL PLAN

CAPITAL PROJECTS

The university’s capital plan includes a projection ofcapital activity over the next five years, a schedule forthe repayment of external debt, and a budget for therepayment of intra-university loans by operatingunits. The schedule of capital activity (pages 36 to39) includes projects or project groupings withbudgets greater than $2 million that are beingplanned within the next five years. These projects arein various stages, from fully approved projects withconstruction underway to those that are still in themost preliminary phases of discussion. Projects havebeen separated into those with approval to pro-ceed through the capital project process and thosewhere needs and plans have been described butapproval to proceed has not been given. Theproject schedules detail anticipated funding, and aregrouped according to priority. Endowed Ithaca andcontract college projects are intermingled, while themedical college projects are shown separately.• The Board of Trustees and the administration have

approved $547.1 million for the planning, design,and construction of capital projects and theacquisition of certain capital assets. In the case ofcontract college projects, the approved budgetincludes the amount allocated by the StateUniversity Construction Fund (SUCF) as part ofits five-year capital budgeting process. Eachcontract college project is brought through theuniversity’s capital approval process as it proceedsthrough design and construction phases.

• Of the approved and planned project costs, $276.1million has been spent to date. If future projectsand phases are approved as shown, expendituresduring 2001-02 will total $178.2 million. The sumof all capital projects in process or under discus-sion is $1.572 billion, with $839.6 million ofexpenditures planned during the next five years.

The schedules highlight plans for addressing theuniversity’s strategic initiatives through investment incapital facilities and equipment. (See table at right.)Projects directed toward the Ithaca campus’s empha-sis on undergraduate education and living environ-ment, strategic research areas, information technol-ogy, and undergraduate admissions and marketingmake up more than $500 million, or 63 percent, ofthe list of approved capital activity on the Ithaca

campus, and another $271 million, or slightly morethan half, of the planned capital activity.• Projects to improve undergraduate education and

create a living/learning environment includemajor reconfiguration of the university’s residen-tial campuses, extensive renovations to HelenNewman and White Halls, a new classroomaddition to Statler Hall, and renovations toclassrooms around the Ithaca campus.

• Support of strategic research areas includes theconstruction of Duffield Hall for the fields ofnanofabrication and material science, theplanned construction of a life sciences technologybuilding, and a variety of renovations creatinglabs and support facilities for genomics research.Also included in the planning category is thepotential of a substantial new facility for chemis-try and chemical biology.

• Significant investment in the university’s informa-tion technology infrastructure is planned. A pilotproject to rewire the campus and upgrade thespeed and capacity of the data network is inprogress in a limited number of buildings. Plansfor a complete network upgrade, as well as otherinformation technology infrastructure improve-ments, will proceed based on the experience andknowledge gained from the pilot effort.

• The construction of a new visitor center and therelocation and reconfiguration of the mainundergraduate admissions office highlight effortsto improve Cornell’s image and marketing.

• Major capital projects addressing the program needsof a variety of units include the construction ofnew facilities for the Laboratory of Ornithologyand the Department of Architecture, the secondphase of major renovations to School of Indus-

University Priorities – Ithaca Campus(dollars in millions)

Undergrad. Ed. 301.5 47.0 348.5Research 185.9 105.0 290.9Information Tech. 6.9 119.0 125.9Admissions 10.0 10.0Subtotal Priorities 504.3 271.0 775.3

Program 114.6 51.1 165.7Renewal 184.7 213.8 398.5Total 803.6 535.9 1,339.5

Approved Planned Total(see p. 36) (see p. 38)

35

CAPITAL PLAN

trial and Labor Relations facilities, additions tothe James Baker Institute and Martha VanRensselaer Hall, and a number of constructionand renovation projects for the Department ofAthletics and Physical Education.

• The university will continue its efforts in themaintenance and renewal of the buildings andinfrastructure of its physical plant. Included inthis category are the renovations of Mann Libraryand Bailey Hall, renovations and an upgrade ofthe fire protection systems in the residentialfacilities, a variety of facilities improvements forthe Plantations, and a large group of plannedmaintenance and utilities projects.

More than half of the funding for capital projectsdepends directly on external resources.• Gift and grant funding is projected at $603.9

million, or 38 percent of the total. The estimatedvalue of gifts in hand or pledged for theseprojects in 2001 dollars is $326.3 million, leaving$277.6 million in 2001 dollars to be raised,should all of these projects be undertaken.

• New York State funding for projects for the contractcolleges accounts for 13 percent, or $205.7million, of total project costs. Approved projectsinclude those which are part of the current SUCFfive-year capital plan. Projects listed on theplanned capital activity schedule are those thatare expected to be requested in the next five-yearcycle, beginning in 2002-03. The ultimate scopeand timing of contract college projects is depen-dent on state appropriations for these purposes.

• Funding from enterprise operations and generalpurpose or unit resources cover $352.1 millionand $186.9 million respectively.

• The source of funding for a small group of projectshas still to be determined. Those unfundedamounts, totaling $223 million, might come fromexternal grants or gifts or utilize other universityresources.

• Based on an analysis of project expenditures andfunding availability, the university expects tofinance $396.8 million of project costs usinglong-term debt. This total excludes debt issuedby New York State to finance contract collegeprojects and short-term bridge financing that isoften used accommodate a lagged delay in giftreceipts. Short-term financing is often metthrough the use of commercial paper.

DEBT AND DEBT SERVICE

The proceeds from various university debt issuancesand borrowings provide for the debt financing needsof the university’s capital projects. Debt allows theuniversity to undertake capital projects when cashfunding is not available at the time capital expendi-tures are made and to spread the cost of a project overseveral fiscal years. It is also to the university’sfinancial benefit to take advantage of the low cost oftax-exempt debt.

The university’s external debt includes tax-exemptand taxable borrowings. It does not include debtissued by New York State for contract college projects.Debt service on these projects is paid directly from aconsolidated State University of New York debt-service appropriation and is not included in theuniversity’s budgets or financial statements.• It is anticipated that the university will have $545.6

million of external debt at the beginning of the2001-02 fiscal year. (See line 22 on page 40.) Ofthe total debt, $520.6 million finances capitalassets and $25.0 million finances educationalloans for Cornell students. During 2001-02, theuniversity is scheduled to pay an estimated $57.5million in principal and interest.

Cornell has established a $100 million credit line fortax-exempt commercial paper to meet the need fornew financing for the Medical College Strategic Planand other projects where variable-rate financing is themost effective option, such as gift-funded projectswhich require bridge financing. The university maychoose to swap portions of the commercial paperdebt to a fixed rate in the future. Internal debt, suchas reloaning the balances in the university’s bondpools, will continue to be used as an alternate sourcefor some projects and will provide additional flexibil-ity in choosing the source of project financing.

Unit Debt and Sources of Debt Repayment

The schedule on page 41 identifies outstanding debtand budgeted debt service by operating units. Adistinction is made between debt service budgetedand paid directly by an operating unit and thatbudgeted and paid by central university resources forthe benefit of operating units.

36

(dollars in thousands)Approved Capital Activity

PV Gifts Gifts General FundsEst. In Hand/ To Be Purpose/ SUCF/ To Be

Budget Pledged Raised Unit Enterprise Match. Ident.

CAPITAL PLAN

1. W. Campus Residnt. Init. $177,000 $88,500 $88,5002. N. Campus Residnt. Init. 65,000 65,0003. Classroom Renovations 17,000 17,0004. Helen Newman Hall 15,000 15,0005. Statler Hall Addition 13,480 8,350 5,1306. White Hall Renovation 12,000 10,800 1,2007. Engr. Classrooms/Labs 2,000 500 200 1,3008. Undergrad. Education 301,480 97,350 119,630 19,500 65,000

9. Life Sciences Tech. Fac. 90,000 90,00010. Duffield Hall 58,500 56,560 1,94011. Engr. Quad Reconfig. 4,000 4,00012. Transgenic Res. Fac.–I 6,200 6,20013. Transgenic Res. Fac.–II 15,000 15,00014. Emerson Hall Renov. 7,000 4,880 2,12015. Plant Sci. Greenhouses 5,165 5,16516. Research 185,865 66,760 1,940 4,880 7,285 105,000

17. Wiring Campus–Pilot 6,932 6,93218. Information Tech. 6,932 6,932

19. University Visitor Center 8,000 8,00020. Admissions Reconfig. 2,000 2,00021. Admissions 10,000 2,000 8,000

22. Lab of Ornith. Bldg. 26,500 22,180 4,32023. Architecture Facility 25,000 13,000 12,00024. I&LR Renovation-II 21,806 1,525 1,175 19,10625. Baker Institute Addn. 12,500 5,000 7,50026. Van Rensselaer Addn. 10,800 500 10,30027. Collyer Boathouse 6,500 12 6,48828. Athletics Proj. <$2 mil. 4,400 4,40029. Schoellkopf Hall 4,100 1,500 2,60030. Wrestling Facility 3,000 1,500 1,50031. Program 114,606 44,717 39,983 500 29,406

32. Planned Maintenance 46,930 46,93033. Mann Library Renov. 24,500 22,500 2,00034. Radiation Disposal Site 16,954 1,695 15,25935. Bailey Hall Renovation 13,100 2,000 500 10,60036. Fire Protect. Sys. Upgrade 12,624 12,62437. Student Housing Ren.-IV 11,616 11,61638. Chem. Waste Disp. Site 10,371 7,467 2,90439. Plantations Master Plan 10,202 8,702 1,50040. Heating Plant Projects 5,350 5,35041. Schurman HVAC/Necropsy 5,036 5,036

37

CAPITAL PLAN

(dollars in thousands)Approved Capital Activity (continued)



(dollars in thousands)Approved Capital Activity Cash Flow

Endowed Contract Shared MedicalIthaca Colleges Projects College Total

Notes: • Est. = estimated; PV = present value; SUCF = State University Construction Fund; TBD = to be determined.• Shared projects are those that have both endowed Ithaca and contract college involvement.

42. Steam Line Projects 4,500 4,50043. Misc. Utility Proj. <$2 mil. 4,230 4,23044. Bard Hall HVAC 4,000 4,00045. Telephone Switch 3,850 3,85046. Vet. Waste Mgt. System 2,613 2,61347. Chilled Water Line Proj. 2,550 2,55048. Geneva Greenhouses 2,188 2,18849. PCB Transformers 2,082 2,08250. N. Campus Steam Line 2,000 2,00051. Renewal 184,696 10,702 2,000 64,322 42,490 63,182 2,000

52. Ithaca Campus 803,579 219,529 163,553 91,202 114,422 99,873 115,000

53. Strategic Plan 132,341 74,706 11,300 46,33554. Deferred Maintenance 26,090 4,778 21,31255. Information Systems 22,652 22,65256. Imaging Center 21,291 14,387 6,90457. Chair. Recruit.–Renov. 17,752 17,75258. Columbia Cornell Care 12,000 12,00059. Medical College 232,126 101,093 22,982 85,399 22,652

60. Total Approved Projects 1,035,705 320,622 186,535 176,601 137,074 99,873 115,000

1. To Date 101,990 25,500 14,055 132,464 274,0092. 2001-2002 94,790 34,741 5,670 22,181 157,3823. 2002-2003 83,964 23,836 6,400 18,075 132,2754. 2003-2004 94,805 8,313 8,400 38,250 149,7685. 2004-2005 69,443 1,300 6,600 16,431 93,7746. 2005-2006 54,642 500 4,725 59,8677. Post 2005-2006/TBD 58,630 110,000 168,6308. Total Expenditures 558,264 93,690 151,625 232,126 1,035,705

9. Approved Budget 198,579 87,190 28,244 232,127 546,140

10. Long-Term Financing 107,861 88,591 196,452

38

(dollars in thousands)Planned Capital Activity



CAPITAL PLAN

1. Willard Straight Ren./Exp. $32,000 $32,0002. Warren Hall Renovation 15,000 3,000 12,0003. Undergrad. Education 47,000 35,000 12,000

4. Chem./Chem. Bio. Fac. 75,000 75,0005. Riley Robb Renov.-I 7,000 7,0006. Nutr./Human Bio. Labs 5,000 3,000 2,0007. Animal Health/Housing 3,800 3,8008. Geneva Ag. & Food Tech. 3,700 3,7009. Geneva Food Sci. Renov.-I 3,000 3,000

10. Vet. Faculty Recruit. Labs 3,000 3,00011. Bruckner Lab Renov. 2,500 2,50012. Human Ecology Labs 2,000 1,200 80013. Research 105,000 3,700 4,200 22,100 75,000

14. Wiring Campus 84,630 84,63015. Data Network Edge 13,635 13,63516. Server Farm 6,000 6,00017. Data Network Backbone 4,278 4,27818. Common Infrastructure 3,623 250 3,37319. Voice Infrastr. Upgrades 2,816 2,81620. Mainframe Computer 2,000 2,00021. Public Labs 2,000 2,00022. Information Tech. 118,982 10,250 108,732

23. Van Rensselaer Renov.-I 15,000 15,00024. CURW Expansion 10,000 10,00025. Indoor Athl. Practice Space 7,000 7,00026. Fredonia Vineyard Lab 4,000 2,400 1,60027. Moakley Renov./Expan. 3,000 3,00028. Barnes Hall Renovation 3,000 3,00029. Phi Gamma Delta 3,000 3,00030. Athletics Proj. <$2 mil. 2,075 2,07531. Johnson Museum Renov. 2,000 2,00032. Delta Kappa Epsilon 2,000 2,00033. Program 51,075 2,000 29,475 16,600 3,000

34. Boiler/Gas Turbine 40,000 40,00035. Stocking Hall Renov.-I 25,000 25,00036. Sibley Hall Renovation 20,000 20,00037. Student Housing Ren.-V 18,781 18,78138. Gannett Renov./Expan. 18,000 18,00039. Dining Fac. Upgrades 16,220 16,22040. Olin/Uris Library Renov. 10,000 10,00041. Transportation Projects 9,281 9,28142. Sibley Parking Garage 9,000 9,000

39

CAPITAL PLAN

(dollars in thousands)Planned Capital Activity (continued)



(dollars in thousands)Planned Capital Activity Cash Flow

Endowed Contract Shared MedicalIthaca Colleges Projects College Total

Notes: • Est. = estimated; PV = present value; SUCF = State University Construction Fund; TBD = to be determined.• Shared projects are those that have both endowed Ithaca and contract college involvement.† Planned but unapproved capital projects for the Medical College are not reflected in this schedule.

†

43. South Ave. Park Garage 7,000 7,00044. Fernow Hall Renovation 6,000 6,00045. Rice Hall Renovation 5,000 5,00046. Geneva Greenhouses-II 4,000 4,00047. Greenhs. Repl./Repairs 4,000 2,400 1,60048. Ives Faculty Bldg.-I 3,000 3,00049. Boiler 2 Replacement 3,000 3,00050. Condensing Turbine 3,000 3,00051. Barton Hall Roof/Exterior 3,000 3,00052. Plant Sci. Air Handling-II 3,000 3,00053. Surge 1 Renovation 2,500 2,50054. Harford Farm Roof Repr. 2,000 2,00055. Foundry Renovation 2,000 2,00056. Renewal 213,782 22,400 106,282 55,100 30,000

57. Total Planned Projects 535,839 5,700 91,075 10,250 215,014 105,800 108,000

58. Total of All Projects 1,571,544 326,322 277,610 186,851 352,088 205,673 223,000

1. To Date 1,342 762 2,1042. 2001-2002 16,838 3,950 20,7883. 2002-2003 31,463 11,300 42,7634. 2003-2004 40,052 9,100 49,1525. 2004-2005 58,030 13,050 71,0806. 2005-2006 44,573 18,138 62,7117. Post 2005-2006/TBD 222,041 65,200 287,2418. Total Expenditures 414,339 121,500 535,839

9. Approved Budget 385 542 927

10. Long-Term Financing 200,349 200,349

40

Actual Forecast ProjectedInterest Maturity Balance Balance Debt Service PaymentsRates Date 6/30/00 6/30/01 01-02 02-03 03-04

Sources of Debt Financing(dollars in thousands)

Notes: • The total outstanding debt and the sum of debt service payments for 2001-02 shown above are differentfrom the corresponding totals shown on page 41 due to: a) timing differences; b) proceeds of debt issuesused to pay issuance costs; c) proceeds deposited into reserves to pay future debt service or fund projectmaintenance; d) proceeds and interest earnings on deposit in construction funds; e) debt costs, includingcompounded interest, to be recovered from future interest payments on operating unit debt; f) debtincurred for student loans that is not reflected in operating unit balances; and g) debt owed to the centraluniversity by internal borrowers.

CAPITAL PLAN

External Debt

Tax-Exempt

1. Series E 5.00% 2001 $550

2. Series 1986 5.00% 2015 18,335 18,335 917 917 917

3. Series 1990B Variable 2025 59,800 59,600 2,446 2,435 2,424

4. Series 1992 Education Loan 6.30–6.80% 2009 7,025 6,106 1,387 1,395 1,400

5. Series 1993 Education Loan 4.80–5.50% 2007 4,794 4,253 792 792 795

6. Series 1993 4.80–5.10% 2005 16,310 9,990 8,578 700 695

7. Series 1995 Education Loan 5.10–6.15% 2011 15,402 14,635 2,113 2,110 2,105

8. Series 1996 4.75–5.40% 2014 120,585 110,810 15,376 14,745 14,118

9. Commercial Paper Variable 2028 9,300 65,000 2,600 2,600 2,600

10. Series 2000A 4.00% 2029 67,250 67,250 4,035 4,036 4,034

11. Series 2000B 4.63% 2030 88,135 86,715 5,486 5,488 5,488

12. IDA Series 2000 4.60–6.00% 2030 50,000 49,275 3,495 3,495 3,493

13. Total Tax-Exempt 457,486 491,969 47,225 38,713 38,069

Taxable

14. Series 1987B 11.11% 2012 17,625 16,885 2,650 2,649 2,642

15. Capitalized Leases 2020 14,365 14,042 1,500 1,500 1,500

16. Foundation Line of Credit 0.00% 2003 15,000 10,000 5,000 5,000

17. Sallie Mae – Series 1999 5.75–6.50% 2019 7,095 6,885 603 605 605

18. Urban Development Corp. 0.00% 2029 3,625 3,500 125 125 125

19. DASNY Commercial Paper Variable 2012 2,065 1,951 240 242 244

20. Other Various 2004 763 355 155 155 48

21. Total Taxable 60,538 53,618 10,273 10,276 5,164

22. Total External Debt 518,024 545,587 57,498 48,989 43,233

41

Endowed Ithaca1. Architecture, Art & Planning $2,3392. Arts & Sciences 3,195 8,245 297 534 8313. Hotel Administration 21,685 20,602 2,138 2,1384. Johnson School 16,903 13,1605. Law School 6,386 6,119 622 6226. Total Endowed Ithaca Colleges 50,508 48,126 2,435 1,156 3,591

7. Biotechnology 11,609 11,123 1,130 1,1308. MOCVD 684 401 18 160 1789. Theory Center 3,625 3,500 127 127

10. Wilson Laboratory 2,664 3,017 652 65211. Research Centers 18,582 18,041 18 2,069 2,087

12. Athletics & Physical Education 5,133 5,880 29 185 21413. Library 7,733 3,552 467 46714. All Other 3,083 2,587 471 112 58315. Other Academic Programs 15,949 12,019 500 764 1,264

16. Campus Life 103,531 166,031 14,127 14,12717. Fraternities/Sororities 2,730 2,729 211 21118. Gannett Health Center 651 251 69 6919. Student Services 106,912 169,011 14,407 14,407

20. Information Technologies 8,067 7,643 3,990 480 4,47021. Real Estate 8,432 22,460 2,149 2,14922. All Other 814 1,242 14 1,249 1,26323. Administrative & Support 17,313 31,345 6,153 1,729 7,882

24. Transportation/Mail Service 11,374 11,798 1,814 75 1,88925. Utilities/Maintenance/Grounds 91,793 98,770 9,095 1,404 10,49926. All Other 1,560 1,364 342 34227. Physical Plant 104,727 111,932 11,251 1,479 12,730

28. Endowed Ithaca All Other 17,625 16,885 2,648 2,648

29. Total Endowed Ithaca 331,616 407,359 34,764 9,845 44,609

Contract Colleges30. Agriculture & Life Sciences 2,220 2,093 200 99 29931. Human Ecology 2,147 2,057 196 19632. Veterinary College 65 10 60 6033. Total Contract Colleges 4,432 4,160 456 99 555

Medical College34. Research 26,605 24,016 2,348 2,34835. Residences 8,251 8,946 1,044 1,04436. Clinical Care 2,092 1,980 256 25637. Administrative & Support 71 11,879 760 76038. Total Medical College 37,019 46,821 4,408 4,408

39. Total University 373,067 458,340 39,628 9,944 49,572

2001-02 Debt ServiceOutstanding Balance Unit Central

2/29/00 2/28/01 Budget Budget Total

Debt Service by Operating Unit(dollars in thousands)

Notes: † These debt service payments are pending receipt of gifts; portions of the interest are being compounded.

†

†

CAPITAL PLAN

†

42

Academic-Year TuitionsEndowed Ithaca

1. Undergraduate $21,840 $22,780 $23,760 $24,760 $25,970 4.9%2. Graduate – Full 21,840 22,780 23,760 24,760 25,970 4.9%3. Johnson School (new MBA students) 25,600 27,600 29,500 6.9%4. Johnson School (cont. MBA students) 23,460 24,300 25,600 26,900 29,500 9.7%5. Law School (entering students) 27,300 29,200 7.0%6. Law School (2nd year students) 27,300 28,650 4.9%7. Law School (3rd year students) 23,100 24,100 25,500 26,800 28,150 5.0%8. Cornell Abroad Tuition (per term) 13,800 14,200 14,650 15,300 15,600 2.0%9. International Program Tuition (per term) 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,550 3,600 1.4%

10. International Program Tuition (full year) 6,000 6,200 6,800 7,100 7,200 1.4%

Contract College11. Undergraduate – Resident 9,300 9,850 10,330 10,830 11,970 10.5%12. Undergraduate – Nonresident 17,950 18,900 19,900 20,900 22,200 6.2%13. Graduate – Full (non-Veterinary) 10,850 11,500 12,100 12,700 13,910 9.5%14. Graduate – Reduced (non-Veterinary)15. Veterinary – Resident DVM 14,000 14,500 14,900 15,400 16,540 7.4%16. Veterinary – Nonresident DVM 18,800 19,600 20,100 21,100 22,240 5.4%17. Veterinary – Graduate 11,500 12,000 12,400 13,000 14,140 8.8%

Medical Campus18. Medical College 25,000 26,200 27,000 27,650 28,500 3.1%19. Graduate School of Medical Sciences 18,240 19,115 19,700 20,180 20,800 3.1%

Mandatory Student FeesIthaca Campus

20. Undergraduate Activity Fee 74 88 88 92 92 0.0%21. Graduate and Professional Activity Fee 36 48 48 50 50 0.0%

Medical Campus22. Health Service Fee 400 425 450 450 500 11.1%

Administrative FeesIthaca Campus

23. Administrative/Special Fee* 4,290 4,480 4,670 4,870 5,108 4.9%

Changefrom

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 00-01

APPENDICES

TUITIONS AND MANDATORY FEES

Notes: † In 2000-01 new MBA students in the Johnson School paid a higher tuition than continuing students.◊ Beginning in 2001-02 incoming, 2nd year, and 3rd year Law School students will pay differential tuitions.§ Except as noted below, undergraduate resident tuition is also used as the tuition for existing master of

professional studies programs.¶ Effective in 1999-2000 the undergraduate nonresident tuition became the tuition for newly created master

of professional studies programs. New programs in CALS (statistics) and ILR now use this rate.* The administrative/special fee covers the assignable administrative and support costs for children of

employees attending Cornell under the pre-1983 Children’s Tuition Scholarship Program and is also usedin calculating the distribution of tuition to certain programs (Cornell-in-Washington, FALCON, Rome,Engineering Coop, Master of Engineering).

A

†

◊◊◊

¶§

43

Notes: • The undergraduate acceptance deposit is a one-time payment made by newly accepted students which isreimbursed as a tuition credit during the first semester of enrollment.

† Beginning in 2001-02, undergraduate applications received by December 1st will carry a reduced $50 feewhile those received after December 1st will continue to be charged at the current $65 fee.

• Beginning in 1997-98 the College of Veterinary Medicine began using the Veterinary Medicine CollegeApplication Service (VMCAS) to process all applications. In addition to VMCAS fees ($130 plus $20 foreach additional school to which application is made), the applicant pays a supplemental $65 Cornell fee,which is recorded by the university.

• The Military Science course rate shown here is for non-Cornellians only.• The late registration fee is $200 after the third week, then $25 per additional week over six weeks. No

charge is made prior to the third week.• The summer session course tuition for 2001-02 is applicable in the summer of 2002.• The summer session registration fee, due after the preregistration deadline but before the late registration

deadline, is $25. Students who enroll after the third class day of a session pay the $25 registration fee andlate fees of $75 for the first week; $100 for the second week, and $25 for each additional week.

B

OTHER STUDENT FEES AND RATES

Changefrom

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 00-01Ithaca Campus

1. Acceptance Deposit – Undergraduate $200 $200 $200 $200 $2002. Active File Fee – Graduate (per term) 200 200 200 200 2003. Application Fee – Undergraduate 65 65 65 65 50 (23.1%)4. Application Fee – Graduate 65 65 65 65 655. Application Fee – Johnson School (US) 90 90 90 150 200 33.3%6. Application Fee – Johnson School (international) 120 120 120 150 200 33.3%7. Application Fee – Law School (JD degree) 65 65 65 65 658. Application Fee – Law School (PhD degree) 75 75 75 75 759. Application Fee – Veterinary Medicine 40 40 40 40 65 62.5%

10. Candidate for Degree Only Fee – Graduate 35 35 35 35 3511. Cornell Card Annual Fee 10 10 10 10 1012. Doctoral Thesis Fee – Graduate 85 110 110 110 11013. Extramural Study Course Tuition (per credit) 570 600 625 650 65014. Extramural Study Military Science (per course) 15 15 15 15 1515. I.D. Replacement Fee 15 15 15 15 1516. In-Absentia Fee – Graduate (per term) 200 200 200 200 20017. In-Absentia Fee – Johnson School (per term) 75 75 75 75 7518. In-Absentia Fee – Law School (per term) 75 75 75 75 7519. Late Registration Fee – General 200 200 200 200 20020. Late Thesis Filing Fee – Graduate 100 100 100 100 10021. Summer Session Course Tuition (per credit) 535 570 600 625 650 4.0%22. Summer Session Registration 50 50 50 50 50

Medical Campus23. Application Fee – Medical College 75 75 100 125 12524. Application Fee – Medical Sciences 50 50 50 50 50

†

44

C

ENROLLMENT ASSUMPTIONS

Fall 00 01-02 Fall 01 01-02 ProjectedActual Overall Projected Full-Time Equivalent

Registrar Enrollment Registrar Tuition-Paying EnrollmentsEnrollments Targets Enrollments Resident Nonres. Total

Notes: • Fall 2000 enrollments are semester-end figures; fall 2001 registrar enrollments are tenth-week projections.• Tuition revenues are based on full-time equivalent enrollments, which account for any tuition prorations.• The contract colleges charge lower undergraduate and professional tuition rates to residents of New York

State; endowed Ithaca colleges do not, and their enrollments are shown in the “resident” column only.

Undergraduate—On-Campus1. Agriculture & Life Sciences 3,104 3,039 3,079 2,033 1,026 3,0592. Architecture, Art & Planning 493 476 488 437 4373. Arts & Sciences 4,288 4,164 4,254 4,089 4,0894. Engineering 2,711 2,716 2,717 2,572 2,5725. Hotel Administration 804 752 769 770 7706. Human Ecology 1,344 1,305 1,351 866 434 1,3007. Industrial & Labor Relations 706 690 708 436 238 6748. Internal Transfer Division 39 53 50 52 529. Subtotal On-Campus 13,489 13,195 13,416 11,255 1,698 12,953

Undergraduate—Off-Campus10. Cornell Abroad 156 272 170 250 25011. Cornell-in-Washington 20 45 40 43 2 4512. Field Study/Other Programs 49 56 54 48 14 6213. Rome Program 49 47 49 47 4714. Subtotal Off-Campus 274 420 313 388 16 404

15. Total Undergraduate 13,763 13,615 13,729 11,643 1,714 13,357

Professional16. Johnson School (MBA) 616 629 629 629 62917. Law (JD) 545 548 548 548 54818. Medical College (MD) 404 401 401 401 40119. Veterinary Medicine (DVM) 320 319 320 249 70 31920. Total Professional 1,885 1,897 1,898 1,827 70 1,897

Graduate21. Agriculture & Life Sciences 942 888 905 888 88822. Architecture, Art & Planning 183 160 160 160 16023. Arts & Sciences 1,086 1,155 1,155 1,155 1,15524. Engineering 1,011 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,00025. Hotel Administration 122 123 123 123 12326. Human Ecology 200 200 201 200 20027. Industrial & Labor Relations 181 158 158 158 15828. Johnson School 38 41 41 41 4129. Law 52 60 60 60 6030. Graduate School of Medical Sciences 232 228 228 228 22831. Veterinary Medicine 97 91 92 91 9132. Total Graduate 4,144 4,104 4,123 4,104 4,104

33. Total Enrollment 19,792 19,616 19,750 19,358

45

Brown University $25,186 $26,184 4.0 Columbia University $32,706 $33,888 3.6MIT 25,000 26,050 4.2 New York University 32,132 33,562 4.5Columbia University 24,974 25,922 3.8 Brown University 32,280 33,530 3.9Tufts University 24,751 25,714 3.9 Boston University 32,230 33,494 3.9Dartmouth College 24,774 25,653 3.5 Tufts University 32,126 33,394 3.9Duke University 24,750 25,630 3.6 University of Chicago 32,068 33,309 3.9Princeton University 24,630 25,430 3.2 University of Pennsylvania 32,132 33,242 3.5University of Chicago 24,234 25,239 4.1 MIT 31,900 33,225 4.2Yale University 24,500 25,220 2.9 Dartmouth College 31,983 33,210 3.8University of Pennsylvania 24,230 25,166 3.9 Georgetown 31,995 33,168 3.7Harvard University 24,407 25,128 3.0 Johns Hopkins University 31,530 33,115 5.0Boston University 24,100 25,044 3.9 Harvard University 32,164 33,110 2.9Johns Hopkins University 23,660 24,930 5.4 Cornell (Endowed) 31,605 33,032 4.5Cornell (Endowed) 23,848 24,852 4.2 Duke University 31,838 33,020 3.7Washington University 23,634 24,745 4.7 Yale University 31,940 32,880 2.9Northwestern University 23,496 24,648 4.9 Stanford University 31,110 32,653 5.0Stanford University 23,229 24,622 6.0 Princeton University 31,599 32,636 3.3New York University 23,456 24,336 3.8 Washington University 30,861 32,379 4.9RPI 22,955 24,213 5.5 RPI 30,335 32,072 5.7Georgetown 23,295 24,168 3.7 Northwestern University 30,612 31,968 4.4University of Rochester 22,829 23,695 3.8 University of Rochester 30,341 31,455 3.7Carnegie Mellon University 22,300 23,022 3.2 Carnegie Mellon University 29,110 30,050 3.2Cornell (Contract-nonres.) 19,988 20,992 5.0 Cornell (Contract-nonres.) 27,745 29,172 5.1U. Michigan (nonres.) 20,393 20,973 2.8 U. Michigan (nonres.) 26,007 26,753 2.9U. Virginia (nonres.) 16,775 17,409 3.8 U. Cal.-Berkeley (nonres.) 22,487 22,927 2.0U. Cal.-Berkeley (nonres.) 14,221 14,661 3.1 U. Virginia (nonres.) 21,192 22,176 4.6Penn. State Univ. (nonres.) 13,710 14,562 6.2 Penn. State Univ. (nonres.) 18,750 19,942 6.4Michigan State (nonres.) 12,620 13,056 3.5 Cornell (Contract-res.) 18,175 19,102 5.1Rutgers (nonres.) 10,874 11,382 4.7 Rutgers (nonres.) 17,174 17,901 4.2Cornell (Contract-res.) 10,418 10,922 4.8 Michigan State (nonres.) 16,918 17,528 3.6SUNY-Buffalo (nonres.) 9,554 9,555 0.0 SUNY-Buffalo (nonres.) 15,348 15,559 1.4SUNY-Binghamton (nonres.) 9,316 9,316 0.0 SUNY-Binghamton (nonres.) 14,832 15,088 1.7SUNY-Buffalo (res.) 4,654 4,655 0.0 SUNY-Buffalo (res.) 10,448 10,659 2.0SUNY-Binghamton (res.) 4,416 4,416 0.0 SUNY-Binghamton (res.) 9,932 10,188 2.6

Tuition & Mandatory Fees Tuition, Fees, Room & BoardInstitution 99-00 00-01 % Institution 99-00 00-01 %

D

UNDERGRADUATE TUITION, FEES, ROOM, AND BOARDIVY LEAGUE, PEER, AND COMMON ACCEPTANCE INSTITUTIONS

Notes: • Institutions are ranked in descending order of rates for 2000-01.• Institutions with different resident and nonresident tuitions are indicated “res.” and “nonres.” respectively.• “Common acceptance” refers to those institutions that also accepted students who eventually matriculated

at Cornell.

46

Washington University $31,000 $32,960 6.3 University of Pennsylvania $46,855 $48,440 3.4Columbia University 29,548 30,968 4.8 Duke University 45,670 46,800 2.5University of Pennsylvania 29,760 30,830 3.6 Columbia University 45,040 46,215 2.6Yale University 29,200 29,800 2.1 Washington University 43,336 45,497 5.0Stanford University 28,548 29,706 4.1 Johns Hopkins University 44,060 45,345 2.9Harvard University 27,000 28,000 3.7 Harvard University 43,550 44,900 3.1University of Rochester 26,900 28,000 4.1 Yale University 43,925 44,755 1.9Cornell 27,000 27,650 2.4 Cornell 43,500 44,500 2.3Duke University 26,700 27,600 3.4 Stanford University 40,257 43,971 9.2Johns Hopkins University 26,000 27,000 3.8 University of Rochester 42,010 43,060 2.5Case Western University 28,350 26,475 (6.6) Chicago Pritzker 39,846 42,971 7.8Chicago Pritzker 25,074 26,328 5.0 Case Western University 43,750 42,220 (3.5)Univ. of Pittsburgh (res.) 21,354 22,495 5.3 Univ. of Pittsburgh (res.) 37,194 37,877 1.8

Resident NonresidentInstitution 99-00 00-01 % Institution 99-00 00-01 %

E

SELECTED PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONSUNDERGRADUATE TUITION AND FEES

Tuition Total Student CostsInstitution 99-00 00-01 % Institution 99-00 00-01 %

SELECTED MEDICAL COLLEGESTUITION AND TOTAL STUDENT COSTS

Notes: • Institutions are ranked in descending order of rates for 2000-01.

Notes: • Institutions are ranked in descending order of rates for 2000-01.• Student costs include tuition, fees, room, board, transportation, insurance, and miscellaneous expenses.

Cornell (Contract) $10,418 $10,922 4.8 Cornell (Contract) $19,988 $20,992 5.0University of Vermont 8,044 8,288 3.0 University of Vermont 19,234 19,832 3.1Pennsylvania State Univ. 6,592 7,018 6.5 Univ. of California (Davis) 14,208 14,686 3.4University of Connecticut 5,404 5,596 3.6 Pennsylvania State Univ. 13,710 14,562 6.2Michigan State University 5,255 5,432 3.4 University of Connecticut 13,922 14,370 3.2University of Massachusetts 5,212 5,370 3.0 University of Wisconsin 13,052 14,189 8.7University of Illinois (Urbana) 4,770 4,994 4.7 University of Massachusetts 13,366 13,623 1.9University of Minnesota 4,649 4,877 4.9 University of Minnesota 12,789 13,463 5.3SUNY-Buffalo 4,654 4,715 1.3 Indiana University 12,920 13,461 4.2SUNY-Albany 4,453 4,625 3.9 Michigan State University 12,620 13,056 3.5SUNY-Binghamton 4,416 4,416 0.0 Purdue University 12,348 12,904 4.5Indiana University 4,212 4,405 4.6 Ohio State University 12,087 12,732 5.3Ohio State University 4,137 4,383 5.9 University of Illinois (Urbana) 11,862 12,442 4.9Univ. of California (Davis) 4,034 4,072 0.9 University of Texas (Austin) 9,608 10,025 4.3Purdue University 3,724 3,872 4.0 Iowa State University 9,564 9,974 4.3University of Wisconsin 3,738 3,791 1.4 Texas A & M University 9,647 9,824 1.8University of Texas (Austin) 3,128 3,575 14.3 SUNY-Buffalo 9,554 9,615 0.6Texas A & M University 3,167 3,374 6.5 SUNY-Albany 9,353 9,525 1.8Iowa State University 3,004 3,132 4.3 SUNY-Binghamton 9,316 9,316 0.0

47

Cal Tech $33,680 Cal Tech $73,994 Harvard University $109,893Stanford University 33,490 Harvard University 71,439 Stanford University 106,547Harvard University 33,214 Stanford University 69,991 Cal Tech 104,305Rutgers University 32,350 MIT 67,458 University of Chicago 103,098UC–Berkeley 32,090 Univ. of Pennsylvania 65,674 Princeton University 102,889Univ. of Pennsylvania 32,044 Princeton University 65,668 Univ. of Pennsylvania 102,606MIT 31,912 Yale University 65,411 New York University 99,920Johns Hopkins Univ. 31,823 University of Chicago 64,912 MIT 99,416Univ. of North Carolina 31,514 New York University 64,094 Yale University 98,598Yale University 31,477 Carnegie Mellon Univ. 63,969 Columbia University 98,257UCLA 31,371 Duke University 63,388 Northwestern Univ. 97,670New York University 31,363 UC–Berkeley 62,964 Duke University 94,887University of Chicago 31,335 Univ. Southern Calif. 62,584 UC–Berkeley 94,316Univ. Southern Calif. 31,149 Columbia University 62,528 UCLA 93,714UC-San Diego 31,087 Rutgers University 62,435 Carnegie Mellon Univ. 90,543Northwestern Univ. 31,079 Northwestern Univ. 62,213 Cornell (Endowed) 89,584Columbia University 31,036 Johns Hopkins Univ. 61,047 University of Michigan 88,959University of Virginia 30,981 Georgetown University 60,993 Univ. Southern Calif. 88,629University of Michigan 30,821 UCLA 60,932 University of Virginia 88,490Georgetown University 30,297 University of Michigan 60,672 Georgetown University 87,773Princeton University 30,201 Cornell (Endowed) 60,430 Dartmouth College 86,813Cornell (Endowed) 30,127 UC-San Diego 59,515 UC-San Diego 86,708UC–Davis 30,006 University of Virginia 59,258 Rutgers University 86,369Purdue University 29,750 Dartmouth College 58,568 Univ. of North Carolina 85,817Ohio State University 29,683 University of Maryland 58,321 University of Maryland 84,828Penn. State University 29,583 UC–Davis 56,551 University of Illinois 81,272University of Illinois 29,554 Ohio State University 56,325 Brown University 81,248Cornell (Contract) 29,084 Brown University 56,285 Johns Hopkins Univ. N/AUniversity of Maryland 28,887 Purdue University 56,076 UC–Davis 81,101Carnegie Mellon Univ. 28,885 Cornell (Contract) 55,874 Univ. of Minnesota 79,801Texas A&M 28,881 Univ. of North Carolina 55,619 Univ. of Wisconsin 79,261Duke University 28,797 University of Texas 55,409 University of Texas 79,252Univ. of Washington 28,502 Penn. State University 55,028 Penn. State University 78,768Univ. of Minnesota 28,258 University of Illinois 54,549 Ohio State University 78,274Brown University 28,249 Univ. of Minnesota 53,981 Cornell (Contract) 74,961Michigan State Univ. 28,118 Univ. of Wisconsin 52,689 Purdue University 74,509Dartmouth College 28,023 Michigan State Univ. 52,239 Univ. of Washington 73,991Univ. of Wisconsin 27,719 Texas A&M 51,719 Texas A&M 73,972University of Texas 27,636 Univ. of Washington 51,370 Michigan State Univ. 73,643

F

Notes: • The average faculty salary for each institution (including contract college faculty at Cornell) was computedusing the mean salary by academic rank (assistant, associate, full) and weighting those figures for thenumber of endowed Ithaca faculty for each rank. Twelve-month salaries were converted to a nine-monthappointment basis; extra compensation and summer salaries were excluded.

Source: Academe (Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors)

SELECTED RESEARCH INSTITUTIONSAVERAGE NINE-MONTH FACULTY SALARIES

Institution 80-81 Institution 90-91 Institution 00-01

48

Percent AverageChange Annual

from Growth87-88 99-00 00-01 00-01 01-02 Forecast Rate fromActual Actual Plan Forecast Plan to Plan 87-88

G

Sources of Funding(dollars in thousands)

UNDERGRADUATE FINANCIAL AID

Financial-Aid Population(on- and off-campus)

Notes: • The family contribution and federal and state sources of financial aid shown are for students who demon-strate a financial need. Financial-aid amounts are shown as computed and as awarded.

• Enrollments are as of the third week of classes, and exclude in-absentia and extramural students.

All Undergraduates1. Total Enrollment 12,958 13,669 13,555 13,590 13,729 1.0% 0.4%2. Number with Need 5,173 6,667 6,780 6,500 6,560 0.9% 1.7%3. Percent of Total Enrollment 39.9% 48.8% 50.0% 47.8% 47.8%4. Number with Grant Aid 3,815 5,204 5,180 5,282 5,340 1.1% 2.4%5. Percent of Total Enrollment 29.4% 38.1% 38.2% 38.9% 38.9%

6. Minority Undergraduates7. Minority Enrollment 2,436 3,739 3,740 3,677 3,720 1.2% 3.1%8. Percent of Total Enrollment 18.8% 27.4% 27.6% 27.1% 27.1%9. Number with Need 1,558 2,585 2,590 2,540 2,570 1.2% 3.6%

10. Percent of Minority Enrollment 64.0% 69.1% 69.3% 69.1% 69.1%

Family Contribution1. Parental $22,189 $55,422 $58,193 $55,642 $58,758 5.6% 7.2%2. Student 7,819 15,970 16,449 15,113 15,959 5.6% 5.2%3. Subtotal 30,008 71,392 74,642 70,755 74,717 5.6% 6.7%

Federal Government4. Grants 5,143 8,428 8,452 8,192 8,345 1.9% 3.5%5. Loans 11,192 30,650 32,144 30,156 32,591 8.1% 7.9%6. Work/Study 2,769 4,874 4,950 4,967 5,267 6.0% 4.7%7. Subtotal 19,104 43,952 45,546 43,315 46,203 6.7% 6.5%

State Government8. Grants 4,903 5,165 5,427 5,379 5,379 0.7%9. Work/Study 692

10. Subtotal 5,595 5,165 5,427 5,379 5,379 (0.3%)

Other External11. Grants 2,663 6,037 6,313 6,677 7,015 5.1% 7.2%12. Subtotal 2,663 6,037 6,313 6,677 7,015 5.1% 7.2%

Cornell13. General Purpose Grants 12,157 43,049 44,947 44,942 47,150 4.9% 10.2%14. Designated Grants 594 4,123 3,419 2,338 2,391 2.3% 10.5%15. Gifts/Endowment Grants 7,770 18,291 21,453 19,879 21,110 6.2% 7.4%16. Loans 130 1,833 1,861 1,800 1,888 4.9% 21.1%17. Work/Study 1,846 4,874 4,950 4,967 5,267 6.0% 7.8%18. Subtotal 22,497 72,170 76,630 73,926 77,806 5.2% 9.3%

19. Total 79,867 198,716 208,558 200,052 211,120 5.5% 7.2%

49

99-00 00-01 00-01 01-02Actual Plan Forecast Plan

NEW YORK STATE APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH SUNY

Sources of Funding for Contract Colleges(dollars in thousands)

H

Notes: • Cornell receives New York State appropriations through the State University of New York (SUNY) anddirectly from the state. The bulk of appropriations flow through SUNY. Those that do not—and are notrepresented on this schedule—include Bundy Aid, student work-study reimbursement, and some studentfinancial-aid funds. Also excluded from this schedule is state support that is received through grants andcontracts with state agencies.

• This schedule excludes the value of employee benefits provided by New York State and debt service onfacilities provided through SUNY.

† Tentative estimate, for planning purposes only.

†

†

Base Appropriation

1. Original Base Appropriation Traditional state appropriation administered $129,119 $130,411 $130,411 $136,923 through SUNY and used for the general purposes of the contract colleges

2. SUNY/Contract Colleges Negotiated/Planned Increase For inflation and fixed costs 4,696 1,460 934 Salary improvement programs 4,091 3,134 4,702 4,102

3. Actual/Projected State Budget Status prior to legislative actions 133,210 138,241 136,573 141,959

4. Executive Budget Cut State-initiated adjustments—as distributed to campuses by SUNY

5. Other Budget Actions (2,799) 350

6. Revised Base Appropriation Planned funding level, with revisions, that is used as 130,411 138,241 136,923 141,959 the base for the subsequent year’s funding request

Additional Planned State Funding Through SUNY

7. Cooperative Extension For county support 3,363 4,101 3,863 3,863

8. Legislative Program Support 870 510 882 795

9. SUNY Program Support For programs such as academic equipment replacement 3,137 2,130 1,787 1,807 and underrepresented minority fellowships

10. Special Funds for Renovating Facilities 2,908 5,991 1,785 3,924

11. Subtotal of Additional Planned State Funding 10,278 12,732 8,317 10,389

12. Total Actual/Projected State Appropriations through SUNY for the Fiscal Year 140,689 150,973 145,240 152,348

50

Employee Benefits RatesEndowed Ithaca

1. Full 37.00% 38.00% 37.50% 35.00% 33.00% 33.00%2. Minimum Plus 20.75 20.75 20.75 20.75 20.75 20.753. Minimum 10.25 10.25 10.25 10.25 10.25 10.254. Zero 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Contract Colleges5. Federally Reimbursed (restricted funds) 30.49 31.65 34.12 28.83 31.30 32.91 32.916. All Other Funds (where applicable) 37.93 40.73 39.29 36.24 35.46 35.46 35.78

Medical Campus7. General 32.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 29.00 28.008. Postdoctoral Fellow 22.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 23.00 22.00 20.009. NRSA Postdoctoral Fellow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10. Temporary Employee and Student 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.50

Indirect Cost RatesEndowed Ithaca

1. On-Campus 62.75% 61.09% 55.03% 62.56% 57.00% 57.00% 57.00%2. Off-Campus 36.45 30.64 23.07 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.003. Off-Campus – Arecibo Observatory 14.06 13.16 13.72 13.13 5.20 5.20 5.204. Other Restricted Funds 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

Contract Colleges5. On-Campus – Research 57.65 56.81 55.13 61.56 59.00 59.00 59.006. Off-Campus – Research 23.50 24.31 23.60 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.007. On-Campus – Educational Services 64.05 66.47 64.70 60.05 63.00 63.00 63.008. Off-Campus – Educational Services 17.72 20.02 16.66 22.95 26.00 26.00 26.009. On-Campus – Research – Geneva 46.42 46.07 44.42 50.29 53.70 53.70 53.70

10. Off-Campus – Research – Geneva 16.48 13.84 16.02 24.48 26.00 26.00 26.0011. New York State 12.30 12.30 12.30 12.30 12.30 12.30 12.3012. Other Restricted Funds 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

Medical Campus13. On-Campus 69.80 72.95 74.50 74.50 74.50 69.50 69.5014. Westchester 42.90 39.56 47.94 47.96 48.03 43.00 43.0015. Clinical Research Center 39.40 54.51 37.08 37.40 37.45 36.00 36.0016. Off-Campus 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.0017. Other Restricted Funds 17.50 17.50 17.50 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.0018. Industrial Agreements – Clinical Trials 40.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.0019. Industrial Agreements – Research 40.00 73.00 74.50 74.50 74.50 69.50 69.50

INDIRECT COST AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BILLING RATES

Notes: • Shown are the billing rates used in each fiscal year—actual cost rates vary.§ In 1996-97 endowed Ithaca reduced the number of employee benefits billing rates. The general and

academic rates were combined into a “full” rate. A “minimum plus” rate was created for postdoctoralassociates and when mandated benefits plus either retirement or health care are provided. A “minimum”rate is used when only mandated benefits are provided or when tips or bonus payments are made. A“zero” rate is applied in special cases, such as for academic-year student wage payments.

95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

I

§§§§

51

INVESTMENTS, RETURNS, AND PAYOUTS

J

6/30/99 Percent 6/30/00 Percent ChangeTotal of Total Total of Total from 98-99

Investments at Fair Value(dollars in thousands at year end)

Notes: * DASNY (Dormitory Authority of the State of New York) holdings represent bond proceeds held at custodialbanks and certain debt service reserves.

1. Working Capital $86,326 2.4% $47,940 1.2% ($38,386)2. Intermediate-Term Investments 306,156 8.6% 356,740 8.6% 50,5843. Long Term Investment Pool 2,760,263 77.6% 3,287,965 79.3% 527,7024. Separately Invested Securities 302,830 8.5% 311,810 7.5% 8,9805. Life Income Pools 22,393 0.6% 22,345 0.5% (48)6. DASNY Holdings * 39,405 1.1% 88,008 2.1% 48,6037. Other Purposes of Investment 43,739 1.2% 34,436 0.8% (9,303)8. Total 3,561,112 100.0% 4,149,244 100.0% 588,132

Notes: • Total returns for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 net of investment management fees were 12.2 percent and 18.5percent respectively.

6/30/95 6/30/96 6/30/97 6/30/98 6/30/99 6/30/00Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

Long Term Investment Pool

1. Market Value (MV) Per Share $31.28 $36.71 $41.51 $47.65 $51.16 $58.162. Annualized Gross Total Return 18.8% 22.6% 17.6% 18.5% 12.5% 18.8%3. Payout per Share $1.10 $1.16 $1.22 $1.38 $1.85 $1.944. Shareholder Payout (in millions) $48.64 $53.70 $58.81 $68.47 $95.71 $106.685. Payout as a Percent of June 30th MV 3.5% 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 3.6% 3.3%6. Number of Shares (in millions) 45.5 47.6 49.0 50.9 54.0 56.5

Percent98-99 99-00 Change Change

Endowment – Net Assets(dollars in thousands at year end)

Notes: † Unconditional written or oral promises to donate funds in the future that will be treated as endowment.* Funds that the university neither possesses nor controls but which provide Cornell income or in which the

university has a residual interest in the assets.

1. True Endowment & Unspent Earnings 1,968,564 2,326,857 358,293 18.2%2. Funds Functioning as Endowment 807,479 943,765 136,286 16.9%3. Subtotal Under Cornell Investment Management 2,776,043 3,270,622 494,579 17.8%

4. True Endowment – Contribution Receivable † 36,638 52,513 15,875 43.3%5. Funds Held in Trust by Others * 93,060 113,793 20,733 22.3%6. Subtotal Funds External to Cornell 129,698 166,306 36,608 28.2%

7. Total University Endowment 2,905,741 3,436,928 531,187 18.3%

52

Princeton University $255,600 Princeton University $1,007,978 Princeton University $1,308,523

Harvard University 166,000 Harvard University 795,092 Harvard University 1,050,995

Rice University 145,000 Rice University 696,873 Yale University 926,921

Yale University 125,300 Yale University 661,572 Rice University 800,299

Stanford University 86,800 Stanford University 456,774 MIT 666,067

Dartmouth College 85,800 MIT 441,031 Stanford University 657,905

MIT 84,700 Emory University 432,649 Emory University 486,485

Washington University 77,200 Washington University 365,425 Dartmouth College 477,449

University of Rochester 77,000 Dartmouth College 327,950 Washington University 411,366

University of Chicago 74,700 University of Chicago 246,845 University of Chicago 342,089

Columbia University 62,900 Vanderbilt University 190,155 Vanderbilt University 240,313

Emory University 62,800 Columbia University 186,666 Duke University 238,550

Johns Hopkins Univ. 55,900 Northwestern Univ. 174,702 Northwestern Univ. 223,328

Northwestern Univ. 39,900 Univ. of Pennsylvania 166,262 Columbia University 218,867

Vanderbilt University 34,900 Brown University 156,658 Brown University 187,756

Univ. of Texas System 34,600 University of Rochester 154,157 Cornell 181,541

Carnegie Mellon Univ. 33,600 Cornell 151,548 University of Rochester 176,164

Brown University 31,800 Duke University 150,329 Univ. of Pennsylvania 162,181

Cornell 29,900 Johns Hopkins Univ. 132,878 Johns Hopkins Univ. 159,477

Duke University 26,900 Carnegie Mellon Univ. 94,885 RPI 117,966

Univ. of Pennsylvania 23,100 RPI 83,426 Carnegie Mellon Univ. 109,368

RPI 20,900 Univ. of Texas System 75,175 Univ. of Texas System 92,607

Tufts University 12,800 Tufts University 54,840 Tufts University 61,860

Boston University 5,000 Boston University 28,462 Boston University 39,855

Institution 84-85 Institution 98-99 Institution 99-00

ENDOWMENT PER FULL-TIME STUDENTSELECTED INSTITUTIONS

K

Notes: • Institutions are ranked in descending order of endowment per full-time student for each year.• Endowment per student calculated based on endowment value as of June 30th of the fiscal year divided by

the full-time equivalent enrollment for the previous fall semester. Because enrollment data for the fall of1999 was not available from TIAA-CREF as this document went to print, enrollments as of the fall of 1998were used in the 1999-2000 endowment per student calculations.

• Endowments include true endowments, funds functioning as endowment, and (beginning in 1995-96)funds held in trust by others. Endowments exclude living trusts and pledges.

• Figures for Cornell are based on total full-time enrollments for all divisions (endowed Ithaca, contract, andmedical).

Source: NACUBO Endowment Study, TIAA-CREF.

53

General Operations1. Unrestricted $42,195 $10,237 $44,782 $97,214 $86,364 $10,8502. Temporarily Restricted 9,719 11,153 2,176 23,048 65,305 (42,257)3. Total General Operations 51,914 21,390 46,958 120,262 151,669 (31,407)

Financial Capital4. True Endowment 35,480 3,027 6,172 44,679 53,386 (8,707)5. Funds Functioning as Endowment 8,797 5,312 159 14,268 31,617 (17,349)6. Life Income Funds 3,454 1,539 22 5,015 5,584 (569)7. Trusts Held by Others 1,632 (1,632)8. Loan Funds 83 122 205 177 289. Total Financial Capital 47,814 9,878 6,475 64,167 92,396 (28,229)

Physical Capital10. Cash Gifts (1,942) 504 1,007 (431) 88,164 (88,595)11. Gifts in Kind 4,033 150 4,183 5,480 (1,297)12. Total Physical Capital 2,091 654 1,007 3,752 93,644 (89,892)

13. Financial Statement Total 101,819 31,922 54,440 188,181 337,709 (149,528)

Adjustments14. Gifts from Outside Trusts 4,274 1,692 (235) 5,731 (14,233) 19,96415. Gift Annuities 697 151 848 1,157 (309)16. Split-Interest Agreements 2,890 1,500 26 4,416 7,103 (2,687)17. Insurance Premiums Not Booked 4 (4)18. Pledges (net present value) 27,130 (2,041) 12,704 37,793 (100,537) 138,33019. Timing Differences (881) (1,189) (4,366) (6,436) 1,403 (7,839)20. Other21. Total Adjustments 34,110 113 8,129 42,352 (105,103) 147,455

22. Gift Records Total 135,929 32,035 62,569 230,533 232,606 (2,073)

Notes: • This table reconciles contributions as displayed in the financial statements (line 13) to cash gifts as reportedfrom the Gifts Records System (line 22). The reconciling adjustments between the two records are detailedon lines 14 through 20.

• Lines 14 and 17 show the present value of gifts from outside trusts and insurance premiums that in allcases were not recorded in the financial statements. Lines 15 and 16 identify trusts in which the univer-sity shares an interest with the donors. While the gifts are reflected at full value in the Gift Recordssystem, Cornell’s financial statements recognize the liability owed to the beneficiaries of these trusts. Line18 reflects the net present value of unconditional promises to give (pledges) that were recorded in thefinancial statements but not treated as cash gifts in the Gifts Records System. Lines 19 and 20 identifyother periodic adjustments between the two records.

• Some of these exclusions—all of which are based on the application of reporting standards appropriate foreach record—are entire (e.g., the inclusion of pledges in the financial statements and the exclusion of suchpromises from the cash gifts of the Gifts Records System). Others are partial (e.g., the recognition in thefinancial statements of the interest that beneficiaries may have in split-interest agreements).

GIFTS/CONTRIBUTIONS – THROUGH MARCH 31, 2001

L

Status by Division(dollars in thousands)

Change00-01 99-00 from

Endowed Contract Year to Year to 99-00Ithaca Colleges Medical Date Date Y-T-D

54

Total Raised Total PledgeThrough Raised Payments Pledge Balance as12/31/95 as a on Pledges Balance a Percent

Campaign Including Percent Through as of of TotalGoals Pledges of Goal 3/31/01 3/31/01 Raised

Status by Unit(dollars in thousands)

CORNELL CAMPAIGN – PAYMENTS ONPLEDGES THROUGH MARCH 31, 2001

Notes: • Amounts shown are derived from records kept in the gift-tracking systems maintained by Alumni Affairsand Development.

• The goals for Agriculture & Life Sciences and Human Ecology included $2.05 million and $5.35 millionrespectively for the Division of Nutritional Sciences. The goal for Architecture, Art, and Planning included$4 million for the Real Estate Program.

• The March 31, 2001 pledge balance was calculated by subtracting payments on pledges from the amountraised as of December 31, 1995. Where payments to date exceed that total raised, a negative pledgebalance is shown (although there may be outstanding balances on individual gift pledges in a category).

Status by Category(dollars in thousands)

M

1. Agriculture & Life Sciences $97,050 $138,005 142% $135,585 $2,420 2%2. Architecture, Art & Planning 19,500 23,097 118% 21,683 1,414 6%3. Arts & Sciences 200,000 169,812 85% 150,985 18,827 11%4. Engineering 230,000 211,723 92% 189,810 21,913 10%5. Hotel Administration 55,000 26,146 48% 22,044 4,102 16%6. Human Ecology 22,350 33,977 152% 30,837 3,140 9%7. Industrial & Labor Relations 20,500 22,800 111% 19,998 2,802 12%8. Johnson School 50,000 50,473 101% 39,118 11,355 22%9. Law School 18,500 22,285 120% 20,611 1,674 8%

10. Medical College 200,000 298,293 149% 280,771 17,522 6%11. Veterinary Medicine 37,500 46,775 125% 43,170 3,605 8%12. Subtotal Colleges 950,400 1,043,386 110% 954,612 88,774 9%

13. Athletics & Physical Education 14,500 21,524 148% 23,975 (2,451) (11%)14. Library 75,000 53,682 72% 54,037 (355) (1%)15. Johnson Museum 10,000 19,188 192% 17,942 1,246 6%16. Ornithology 9,000 13,358 148% 11,328 2,030 15%17. Plantations 8,500 9,861 116% 8,878 983 10%18. Shoals Marine Laboratory 1,000 3,826 383% 1,828 1,998 52%19. Subtotal Other Academic 118,000 121,439 103% 117,988 3,451 3%

20. Other Institutional 181,600 342,269 188% 306,929 35,340 10%

21. Total 1,250,000 1,507,094 121% 1,379,529 127,565 8%

1. Position Support $256,250 $146,018 57% $121,882 $24,136 17%2. Program Enhancement 606,750 643,250 106% 640,144 3,106 0%3. Facilities 175,000 129,699 74% 119,810 9,889 8%4. Undergraduate Student Aid 75,000 101,287 135% 110,572 (9,285) (9%)5. Graduate Student Aid 100,000 106,300 106% 98,548 7,752 7%6. General Use 37,000 222,416 601% 246,139 (23,723) (11%)7. Pending Designation 158,124 42,434 115,690 73%

8. Total 1,250,000 1,507,094 121% 1,379,529 127,565 8%

55

Status by Division(dollars in millions)

Notes: • This table provides a projection of building maintenance activity, the funding of maintenance costs fromoperating and capital plans, and the inventory of unfunded maintenance through 2005-06. Excluded areutilities, parking, and information technology projects. The projected year-end inventory of unfundedmaintenance is for planning purposes only, to illustrate the potential need for maintenance resourcesbeyond those already identified in operating and capital plans.

• There are three categories of building maintenance: routine, preventive, and planned. Maintenance needsand projects are identified annually. Most routine and preventive activities are funded and completed.Some planned maintenance is deferred due to timing issues or lack of funding.

• “Maintenance projects” include routine and preventive activities, and additions to the planned mainte-nance inventory. For endowed Ithaca and residence facilities a projection of maintenance projects from2001-02 through 2005-06 using a model developed by the Association of Higher Education FacilitiesOfficers is shown. For the contract colleges only currently identified planned maintenance projects areincluded in the projection.

• “Operational funding” is that portion of total maintenance funding that is expended on routine andpreventative activities and planned maintenance, and includes the use of operating reserves. It excludescertain administrative costs and debt service.

• “Capital funding” is from projects proposed in the capital plan, not all of which have been approved orfunded. The impact of capital funding is shown in the year the project is expected to be completed.

PROJECTED MAINTENANCE FUNDING – ITHACA CAMPUS

Actual Forecast Plan Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj.99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

N

Endowed Ithaca1. Beginning Inventory $86.2 $88.3 $103.0 $108.6 $112.1 $117.5 $122.52. Maintenance Projects 15.5 28.0 20.0 20.2 20.4 20.6 20.83. Operational Funding (12.9) (13.3) (13.9) (14.4) (15.0) (15.6) (16.2)4. Capital Funding (0.5) (0.5) (2.3)5. Year-End Inventory 88.3 103.0 108.6 112.1 117.5 122.5 127.1

Residence Facilities6. Beginning Inventory 17.2 15.2 15.1 17.3 19.4 20.6 23.07. Maintenance Projects 7.9 8.2 9.1 9.6 10.2 11.0 11.78. Operational Funding (4.4) (3.9) (4.4) (4.6) (4.8) (5.1) (5.3)9. Capital Funding (5.5) (4.4) (2.5) (2.9) (4.2) (3.5) (3.5)

10. Year-End Inventory 15.2 15.1 17.3 19.4 20.6 23.0 25.9

Contract Colleges11. Beginning Inventory 72.9 72.3 73.0 73.7 73.0 72.8 74.112. Maintenance Projects 5.0 5.5 5.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.513. Operational Funding (4.0) (1.8) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5)14. Capital Funding (1.6) (3.0) (3.3) (6.2) (6.2) (5.2) (8.1)15. Year-End Inventory 72.3 73.0 73.7 73.0 72.8 74.1 73.0

Ithaca Campus Total16. Beginning Inventory 176.3 175.8 191.1 199.6 204.5 210.9 219.617. Maintenance Projects 28.4 41.7 34.6 36.8 38.1 39.6 41.018. Operational Funding (21.3) (19.0) (19.8) (20.5) (21.3) (22.2) (23.0)19. Capital Funding (7.6) (7.4) (6.3) (11.4) (10.4) (8.7) (11.6)20. Year-End Inventory 175.8 191.1 199.6 204.5 210.9 219.6 226.0

56

Full-Time and Part-Time Headcounts Ratio ofAcademic Staff Nonacademic Nonacademic

Faculty Other Staff Total to Academic

WORK FORCE – ITHACA CAMPUS

O

2000-2001 Work Force Distribution

Change in Nonacademic Staff Change from 85-8685-86 90-91 95-96 00-01 Number Percent

1. Agriculture & Life Sciences 376 357 1,190 1,923 1.622. Architecture, Art, & Planning 55 5 37 97 0.623. Arts & Sciences 503 222 308 1,033 0.424. Engineering 208 58 208 474 0.785. Hotel Administration 40 19 226 285 3.836. Human Ecology 89 90 247 426 1.387. Industrial & Labor Relations 46 88 152 286 1.138. Johnson School 47 5 85 137 1.639. Law School 32 11 61 104 1.42

10. Veterinary Medicine 114 100 590 804 2.7611. Subtotal Colleges 1,510 955 3,104 5,569 1.26

12. Research Centers 117 282 399 2.4113. Other Academic Programs 10 92 597 699 5.8514. Subtotal Other Centers 10 209 879 1,098 4.01

15. Total Academic Units 1,520 1,164 3,983 6,667 1.48

16. Student Services 12 883 89517. Administrative & Support 1 1,305 1,30618. Physical Plant 670 67019. Subtotal Support 13 2,858 2,871

20. Total Work Force 1,520 1,177 6,841 9,538 2.54

21. Agriculture & Life Sciences 1,252 1,303 1,117 1,190 (62) (5%)22. Architecture, Art, & Planning 27 27 29 37 10 37%23. Arts & Sciences 301 315 295 308 7 2%24. Engineering 205 238 219 208 3 1%25. Hotel Administration 169 245 225 226 57 34%26. Human Ecology 276 304 254 247 (29) (11%)27. Industrial & Labor Relations 116 146 119 152 36 31%28. Johnson School 46 55 62 85 39 85%29. Law School 38 47 51 61 23 61%30. Veterinary Medicine 600 621 531 590 (10) (2%)31. Subtotal Colleges 3,030 3,301 2,902 3,104 74 2%

32. Research Centers 267 357 342 282 15 6%33. Other Academic Programs 525 597 594 597 72 14%34. Subtotal Other Centers 792 954 936 879 87 11%

35. Total Academic Units 3,822 4,255 3,838 3,983 161 4%

36. Student Services 723 875 841 883 160 22%37. Administrative & Support 1,071 1,249 1,273 1,305 234 22%38. Physical Plant 571 664 614 670 99 17%39. Subtotal Support 2,365 2,788 2,728 2,858 493 21%

40. Total Support Staff 6,187 7,043 6,566 6,841 654 11%