UK’s Share of the Total State Appropriation
` hile its support from the private sector for Higher Education
was making spectacular gains, the University was (Percentage)
experiencing some severe setbacks in other fiscal — , VV     V pv·; _ ; . V A
    ·.     ._:A Q l.__`.__L_ _ ' ___V _!_A_A   in _V V
During the decade UK’s share of the higher AY}.·Y   V KV   A       
education budget shrank from well over half of the           if K _ ·
total to only two·fifths of the whole a decade later, a ·.  p_’_   V       ’ ~·Vl .A Z P e ` ‘ `
relative loss of about 25 per cent. The percentage of     ( if   ir;   -  lil T V   V
I general fund revenues for higher education remained   t-':_-   A ‘ .A f   _ Ve   A ._
~ relatively constant during the decade but the       * 'll’ ,   J j   Y K . V ~
admission of two institutions to the system proved    ..¥`·_—e¥'é~A—$#‘eV eh  es~»y     Y ~- l —
particularly damaging to UK’s financial position.     i’_ii:_»'   Vy—— fi -i»Vi [A -,ie         V A
Throughout the Seventies, meanwhile, UK     i.;   , ° _`i__ AA . i
oontinueti to provide inetnuotion to e Steady 35 por     ..fi    ,·»‘    g:»‘ £iE;;E§;.§  . e _,,, ; ·_gi 5- _ V a . e
cent of the students enrolled in Kentucky’s system of    ff ,'`· i   ·tVa   ‘_'.` 3   ,;‘l   gvii QA:   p {     · _
public higher education. Plainly, something had to     _i,iit       A   .
give. The thing that gave most was the relative level     =‘’   .   V   V- · ‘ A
of UK faculty salaries. A     4.·v.   »..·»= ; .v_. A · an   A 4
At the start of the Seventies, salaries on the         iils f   C F e ‘
Lexington campus were just $23 below the average of    _..if— t     ` . E
UK’s benchmark institutions in surrounding states.     V,__i.  3       Af   A .
By the end of the decade, the difference was over    Q"“ _.V»,.   Q _,,_     A  
$1,600. This pattern of decline was repeated in the     {
community college system, where UK salaries       ·V Ai ¤ [ — · zi »  
dropped comparatively during the decade from $412    T i:.`     ft t‘   V L
beneath the benchmark average to more than $1,900         i vi_- V. - . l
““d°’ that fig“'°·     .*.»   · ·t`i· Y V e {
Ae the Seieetiee eeeee the eeieveeeeie eeeieiee     Varga   .t.   eto.; . ...a t     e . t
as regards faculty salaries was clearly a serious threat     A .`‘ee‘   `K    
to the Univomitfe oontinuod progress.    i};=*$ lt-   ‘_=.;~ X 25 -e.=.-'   *`‘.··= · —an.     · 3
    i‘»e    -*-i.‘ ` »t.en~   . i
.     ‘i‘l ii  _-ee ' ’.‘· 9   · i  
 Y;     .ti*    iii?   ·‘“. . ,i»° _ ,t.‘ 2 l
 ES;. more detailed look at how the University has       Vp_Vq A A· Q 3
fared during the past decade will be found in the         K  
institution’s principal components—the Division of  ii .     ...° *‘J-i  
Coiiogon the Community Coiiogo System, and the       i
Medical Center.    
i
A 5
I 7