xt7gf18sbw8k https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7gf18sbw8k/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 20051113 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2005-11-dec13. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2005-11-dec13. 2005 2011 true xt7gf18sbw8k section xt7gf18sbw8k 

Meeting of the Board of Trustees University of Kentucky
1:00 P.M.
December 13, 2005 18th Floor Patterson Office Tower
Accompanying items:
President's Report and Action Items
PR 1              President's Report to the Trustees
PR 2              Personnel Actions
PR 3              Proposed Revisions to the Administrative Regulations
PR 4              Proposed Amendment to the Governing Regulations
Academic Affairs Committee Report
AACR 1        Candidates for Degrees
AACR 2       Change in Name of the Department of Geology
AACR 3       Change in Name of the College of Agriculture
Finance Committee Report
FCR 1           Anonymous Gift and Pledge
FCR2          William F. Beaven Pledge
FCR 3          James R. Bovd Gift and Pledge
FCR 4          Leo P. Branstetter Estate Gift
FCR 5          lola W. Harding Gift and Pledge
FCR 6          Sarah Scaife Foundation Gift and Pledge
FCR 7          James and Diane Stuckert Gift
FCR 8          Doris S. Bailey Trust Gift
FCR 9          Thomas W. and Janet R. Lewis Gift and Pledge
FCR 10        Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust, Inc. Gift
FCR 11         University of Kentucky Top 20 Business Plan
FCR 12        Acceptance of Interim Financial Report for the University of
Kentucky for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2005
FCR 13        Authorization to Acguire Property for Bio-Medical Research Building
FCR 14        2005-06 Budget Revisions
FCR 15        University of Kentucky 2006-08 Capital Request Status Report
FCR 16        Patent Assignment Report
FCR 17        Capital Construction Report

Top 20 presentation Capital Projects presentation

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Tuesday, December 13, 2005.
The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky met at 1:00 p.m. (Lexington time) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, in the Board Room on the 18th Floor of Patterson Office Tower.
A.        Meeting Opened
Mr. James Hardymon, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. and asked Ms. Pam May, Secretary, to call the roll.
B.         Roll Call
The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll: Mira Ball, Stephen Branscum, Penny Brown, Jeff Dembo, Marianne Smith Edge, Rebecca A. Ellingsworth, Ann Haney, James Hardymon (Chair), Pamela May, Billy Joe Miles, Roy Moore, Phillip Patton, Steven Reed, Frank Shoop, Myra Leigh Tobin, JoEtta Wickliffe, Russ Williams, and Barbara Young. Absent from the meeting were: Dermontti Dawson, and Billy Wilcoxson. The university administration was represented by President Lee T. Todd, Jr., Interim Provost Scott Smith, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Frank Butler, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Michael Karpf, Executive Vice President for Research Wendy Baldwin, and General Counsel Barbara W. Jones.
Members of the various news media were also in attendance. A quorum being present, the Chair declared the meeting officially open for the conduct of business at 1:07 p.m. and proceeded to explain that the conduct of business at the meeting would deviate from the order on the agenda. After passage of the consent items, Mr. Hardymon will call on President Todd to present FCR 11 during his president's report, although voting on acceptance of the proposal would not take place until Ms. Wickliffe gave her Finance Committee report. In addition, there would be no Investment Committee report, as there was no meeting of the group in December.
C.         Consent Items
Mr. Hardymon also stated that there were some consent items on the agenda that he would handle at this time. They include the minutes of October 25, the personnel actions of PR 2, and FCR 1 through FCR 10. He called for a motion to accept the consent items. Ms. Ball so moved, and Ms. Haney seconded the motion. Comment was heard from President Todd who addressed a question about PR 2 brought to his attention by Dr. Dembo. Dr. Dembo had noticed that on the first page of PR 2, the current title of Dr. William Turner was incorrectly written. The mistake was corrected on an addendum sheet supplied to board members at the meeting. President Todd also took the opportunity to explain the reason for the change in title, stating that Vice President for University Engagement and Associate Provost for Multicultural Affairs would more accurately reflect Dr. Turner's job duties. Engagement is a very popular term used for such positions at universities due to a Kellogg

Foundation major study about the engaged university. Further, changing the word initiatives to engagement would better amplify that we are going to be a much more engaged university with the state, as well as give us better alignment with other universities. In addition, the term is more descriptive of the fact that we are now going to be engaging all of our university resources to promote diversity and diversity-related issues. Mr. Hardymon called for a vote, and the consent items passed without dissent.
The consent items follow:
Minutes         October 25, 2005
PR 2              Personnel Actions
FCR 1            Anonymous Gift and Pledge
FCR 2            William F. Beaven Pledge
FCR 3            James R. Boyd Gift and Pledge
FCR 4            Leo P. Branstetter Estate Gift
FCR 5            lola W. Harding Gift and Pledge
FCR 6            Sarah Scaife Foundation Gift and Pledge
FCR 7            James and Diane Stuckert Gift
FCR 8            Doris S. Bailey Trust Gift
FCR 9            Thomas W. and Janet R. Lewis Gift and Pledge
FCR 10          Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust, Inc. Gift
Mr. Hardymon then called upon President Todd for his report. D.        President's Report to the Trustees (PR 1)
President Todd first stated that the provost search process is moving forward. Terry S. King from Kansas State University and Kumble Subbaswamy from Indiana University were selected by the search committee and have made campus visits. He hopes to make a selection very soon and be able to close the process. He wanted to be sure to give an update to the Board at this time.
President Todd stated that he would give a brief overview and called attention to the following items in PR 1:
Rehabilitation Counseling Program Ranks 6th Internationally President Todd said that he is pleased to announce an important ranking. UK's rehabilitation counseling program was ranked 6th out of 901 international institutions in research productivity. The ranking was the result of a study published in the fall 2005 issue of Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, the flagship journal in the field.
Patterson School Receives Top Ranking
The Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce has been ranked 18th among universities in the United States with master's degree programs in international relations by the magazine Foreign Policy. UK is the only program in the South to be on the list. This ranking makes them solidly in the Top 20.

$5 Million Grant Received to Establish National Clearinghouse Crystal Collins-Camargo, clinical faculty of the College of Social Work, is the principal investigator on a recently awarded $5 million, five-year grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau.
IHDI Receives $5.2 Million Grant from State Division of Child Care UK's Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute, which is very heavily involved in research, received a $5 million grant to look at child care resources and improving the quality of early parent education programs.
Men's Chorus Garners National Attention
Our men's chorus was one of only 10 collegiate choirs chosen to perform at the educators' national conference in Salt Lake City. There were over 200 applications for those positions.
President Todd concluded his PR 1 report by urging board members to read the other parts of PR 1, which contain many other important news items and awards for UK personnel and students during the recent weeks.
E.         Proposed Revisions to the Administrative Regulations (PR 3)
President Todd asked that the board turn its attention to PR 3, an administrative regulation change that was first brought to the Board on October 25 which clarifies the procedures for determining residence. As this is the second reading for the change, President Todd requested approval of the revision to AR III-1.1-4.
Mr. Hardymon called for a motion to pass PR 3, and Mr. Shoop so moved. Ms. Smith Edge seconded. The motion passed with no dissent.
F.         Proposed Amendment to the Governing Regulations (PR 4)
President Todd stated that PR 4 is a proposed amendment to the UK Governing Regulations that brings into UK's operating parameters the standards of the Sarbanes Oxley Act. NACUBO has recommended that universities comply with the spirit of Sarbanes Oxley and issued an advisory and provision for this act that makes it unlawful for a public company officer or director to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead an auditor in the performance of an audit. NACUBO recommends that this issue be addressed in an institution's code of conduct and code of ethics as a specific violation. Thus, the revision to the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct presented in PR 4 is proposed to make our regulations compliant with the recommendations of NACUBO. The Audit Subcommittee agreed with this proposal, and it was recommended by Treasurer Henry Clay Owen. Dr. Todd requested passage of PR 4.
Mr. Hardymon asked for a motion, and Mr. Reed responded, seconded by Mr. Miles. Mr. Hardymon then gave Mr. Owen an opportunity to comment on PR 4. Mr. Owen

responded that the only comment he would make is that this would complete the university's compliance with all of the best practices that were recommended by NACUBO for colleges and universities as they relate to the provisions of Sarbanes Oxley. With the implementation of PR 4, UK should be in full compliance with all the best practices.
James Hardymon called for a vote on PR 4, and it passed without dissent.
Dr. Todd stated that he wanted to give an update on some diversity actions that have occurred since the Board of Trustees meeting in October. In the area of student recruiting and enrollment management, UK has under way a full analysis and an external review of its recruitment efforts. External consultants will present a professional market analysis for helping us with our recruiting process. We want to analyze the quality and the quantity of the scholarships that we offer. UK has the lowest relative percentage of our education dollars in general budgets for scholarships, and we need to look not only at increasing that but also at how to target the provision of a diverse and competent student body. A comprehensive analysis of student success will be conducted to determine what factors are important for student success, an effort to improve retention across the board. UK will try to close the gap for African American retention. Vice President for Institutional Equity Terry Allen conducted three diversity training workshops for the entire enrollment management staff. Over 200 members attended.
In the recruiting area, Dr. Todd has created a diversity enrollment team which combines Dr. William Turner's multicultural group's recruiting efforts with those of Admissions Director and Registrar Don Witt's group. Six of eight new positions have been filled. Fifty-five candidates have applied for the position of diversity enrollment coordinator, a joint position shared by the Turner and the Witt recruitment groups. A committee will select 10 from that group of applicants, and the position should be filled soon. We have increased the operating budget for student recruiting. We have also hired an additional 7 students of color to work in the Visitor's Center at UK, and the university has already felt an impact from this action because 500 students have visited the university in what is called the Come See for Yourself Program. The staff is now making personal calls as follow-up to those 500 students to see what their reaction is and to see if they have any remaining questions or anything we can help them with. We are looking at a new holistic review process that is being implemented to increase the parameters that we look at, so that we go beyond the ACT and the GPA to include such factors as leadership, special talent, and contributions to community diversity.
We have added three new admissions officers because that process is going to be time consuming. We will look at all applications, not just the African American ones. The University Senate has approved our revised admissions process and the criteria.
President Todd met on October 31 with approximately 40 members of the African American faculty. He stated that he plans to announce during the week of the Board meeting a task force on racial diversity and equity. Bill Turner will be asked to chair the task force, and he will be appointing members to that task force shortly thereafter.

One of the recommendations from the October 31 meeting was that the President disband the Commission on Diversity. President Todd met with that commission recently, and they felt strongly that they look at a wider range of diversity than just the African American situation. They want to continue meeting, and President Todd will allow them to continue. The Commission on Diversity has selected co-chairs. President Todd wants them to begin immediately looking at the diversity task force report that Dr. Deneese Jones prepared with input from many people across campus so that we can begin implementing its recommendations. President Todd has requested that Vice President Connie Ray and her office help monitor progress made in implementing the report.
On December 12, a contracting seminar was held for minorities, including blacks and women, to look at current building projects on campus. The presenters expected about 50 people to attend; 200 showed up. They went through in very great detail all of the opportunities to bid on various campus projects. Dr. Todd was pleased to report that BBSRB building statistics showed 21 percent of the work on that project went to minority firms. In student housing, 12.3 percent went to minority firms and women-owned companies. The Memorial Coliseum project under way has 7 percent minority and women firms, with a very large number of small firms involved. President Todd feels strongly that the support of small businesses and minority-owned businesses is a very important thing the university can do for the local community to promote and support diversity. He thanked Bob Wiseman and his group for their attention to the use of such businesses.
President Todd then spoke to the board about the Top 20 Business Plan that will be voted on in FCR 11.
Mr. Hardymon stated that to give the Top 20 plan the emphasis it needs, he decided to ask the president to discuss it extensively during this part of the meeting. A motion and the vote will come during the Finance Committee report later in the meeting. Board members were encouraged to ask questions or make comments either during the time the president is speaking or during the time when Ms. Wickliffe presents the FCR. He stated that the two board members who were not in attendance have already participated in a special session with the president.
President Todd began by recognizing the team of personnel who were instrumental in putting the Top 20 plan together. He asked each to stand and be recognized for their important part in the year-long process of preparation of the report. He called the names of Elizabeth Baker, Mark Denomme, Angie Martin, Connie Ray, Jolynn Noe, and Bill Swinford. He requested a round of applause for them, which was given by all in attendance. President Todd also thanked others: Scott Smith, Frank Butler, and Ernie Yanarella. He thanked everyone for the tremendous effort that they had made and for their excellent work.
President Todd continued, stating that there has been a lot of coverage on this plan, for which he is very appreciative. The process was initiated in a 1997 act by the governor and the legislature to challenge UK to become a Top 20 university. At that time, the community colleges were removed from the University of Kentucky, and UK was challenged to go forward and pursue this plan. President Todd feels that the implementation of the plan

is up to the UK Board, its faculty, and its staff. He stated that if we go to sleep one night and wake up the next morning and say that we are not going to pursue this, that will be it. It's really up to us. It is our responsibility to bring to the state and to the leaders of the state why it is vitally important for the state of Kentucky, not just this institution, to have a Top 20 institution and for us to strive to achieve that purpose.
At that point, he began a slide presentation, which he used throughout most of the remainder of his address.
FCR 11 is a financial document. It lays out in broad terms the numbers of faculty and students that would be involved in achieving Top 20 status and the financing modes needed in order to pursue this challenge. The Top 20 Business Plan will be followed by the Strategic Plan that will start up next semester. Preparation of the strategic plan will be different from last time. The strategic plan is what will actually put into place the needed operating principles to drive this plan to fruition.
President Todd is pleased with the progress that has been made at this institution over the past eight years, and he hopes the Board shares his pleasure in those achievements. There was no definition of exactly what Top 20 would be. There was no plan put in place when it was legislated in 1997. Had the legislators spelled out some of the things that they wanted UK to achieve, it is likely that UK would already have exceeded those goals. Enrollment has gone up 10 percent, although it has been held down somewhat in the past few years because of lack of budget. Graduation rates have performed extremely well, growing from 48 percent to 60 percent. A lot of work has gone into that, and there is still more work to do.
Research expenditures started at under $125 million and are now almost $300 million, a clear testament to the faculty and the staff of this institution. Our endowment has gone from under $200 million to its current level of around $556 million as of last month, even during a time of dot com failures, 9-11, and the Enron debacle. The way that UK's supporters have stepped up is extremely impressive. We have taken the number of endowed chairs from 22 to 95 and endowed professors from 45 to 210. To achieve this type of improvement was one of the principal reasons for passage of Bucks for Brains, to try to let us catch up with the number of endowed positions in our benchmark states like North Carolina and others, the states with institutions that are in the Top 20.
One of the points that must be made is: Why does it make a difference if Kentucky has a Top 20 institution? Kentuckians seem to know exactly "who we should play in basketball, how we should play, why we lost the [2005] North Carolina game. . . ." But people need help in the discovery of how they could benefit by having a Top 20 university in the state. President Todd remarked that he had written an op ed piece on this topic that appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal and that will be published in the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Categories really spell it out, however. Median household income, population on Medicaid, below-poverty-level population, and populations with bachelor's degrees-these statistics are key in explaining the benefits of having a great educational institution.

Comparing state averages to averages of Top 20 states, the ones that have Top 20 universities, reveals that the Top 20 states are above the national average where it is good to be above it, and they are below the national average where it is good to be below it.
Kentucky on the other hand is just the opposite. Nineteen percent of its people on Medicaid, whereas the Top 20 states show 14 percent. If Kentucky could get to 14 percent, it would save $850 million a year on Medicaid. Looking at these categories is quite convincing. After seeing this presentation last week, Mr. Hardymon pointed out that if you chose four of these categories and if the Top 20 states were good in some and not good in others, you might think there is no correlation. But the fact that in all four of these cases the Top 20 are better than the national average leads to a conclusion that it is a good thing to be a Top 20 state, and this state needs to aspire to be so.
Legislators and other leaders around the state who have seen the Top 20 plan have appreciated that there has been a strong attempt to spell out the plan using measurement. We looked at how the AAU ranks universities, at how Lombardy Center measures things, and at how U.S. News and World Report compiles its statistics. We talked to our deans about what we should and should not measure, and this is what it boiled down to. We put undergraduate education first. That is really the lodestar for this university. We cannot take our eyes off the undergraduate education situation. And in looking at that domain we will measure three things:
     The entering ACT/ SAT scores will tell us: Are we attracting quality students; are we building that reputation where we get the best in the country.
    Are we maintaining our student-faculty ratio? This is one thing that has gone awry in the past few years. With strong emphasis on recruiting and little money to hire and retain good faculty, our student-faculty ratio has deteriorated. Having large quantities of research dollars does not make up for a worsening student-faculty ratio.
    We also look critically at the six-year graduation rate: the state of Kentucky is severely behind in the number of baccalaureate degree holders. Bringing people in to attend UK is only part of the equation; they have to graduate.
In graduate education we measure the number of doctorates granted and the number of post-doctorate appointments to UK because these measure the quality of research programs and whether our institution is attracting post-docs to come here to work with our scientists, writers, engineers, and performers.
Faculty recognition is measured by counting the number of citations in refereed scholarly publications. We don't measure publications alone; if nobody cites a publication it probably means that it is not the kind of publication that is going to build a reputation. The more citations an institution has, the better the view by the academic community of the quality of work. Likewise, we measure faculty awards that are awarded on a national basis.
Research is also important. It is divided into federal and nonfederal categories. Winning federal research dollars means that a scholar has competed with everybody across the nation.

The statistics we will use for ranking institutions, including UK, break these measures of success into two separate departments. President Todd presented charts displaying nine measures and four domains, on which the Top 20 team did a statistical analysis comparing UK to 88 public universities chosen because they receive over $20 million worth of federal research funds. These are research universities, and they are public. Doing an analysis for each of those yields curves.
UK is represented by the 49* position in terms of ACT scores and graduation rates. Having the chart, we know who is in front of us, and who is behind us. We know the names of all those dots. And we know what we have to work on.
In graduate education, we are 34 . When we look at faculty recognition we are 37 We are highest in federal-nonfederal research, where UK is 35th in federal and nonfederal amounts. The composite of these two measures is a ranking of 26.
We roll these four graphs into one, and we come out with what we call the composite rating. And as of now, we are 35th. We were 40th in 1997 when House Bill 1 was passed, so we have moved up 5 positions. The business plan shows two time lines. The line for 2012 shows our goals for overtaking the 8 dots immediately above us. The line for 2020 shows where we want to hit that curve.
Slope of the curve shows the difficulty in overtaking the next institution. The graph shows that when you start up that curve it gets a little steeper, and then that curve becomes even steeper. We can take some consolation, however, in having quantitatively stated what it takes for us to move; we can measure it every year. We will measure the numbers. Stillwater, the consulting group we used, did an excellent job of coming up with the technique for doing this measurement. They can run the numbers for us and report back to us. We can see where we stand.
To go one level deeper for each of these parameters, we have a chart showing the 6-year graduation rate. We do a gap analysis, and in 1997 we were ranked 64* with a 48 percent graduation rate. The 20th position had 68 percent. If you look at the 7-year span, the institution already in a Top 20 position moved just 4 percentage points. We have gone up 12, so we feel that we can close that gap over time.
Using the Strategic Plan, we intend to look at what to do. We have to close the gap. Choices could include to add more winter term courses, recruit better students, or to add more advising. It is our task to determine what would work best.   And that is why we will be laying out operational plans using the expertise of our faculty and staff to examine that gap and see how we can close it.
Unfortunately, among our competition, nobody is sitting still. There are major states around this country that are making huge investments in research, even in the current difficult economic situation. UK has made a pretty big jump in its research dollars, about $40 million in each of 5 years. While UK went up $40 million, the 20* position university went up $60 million, so that gap has even gotten wider. But again, this is a gap we can

analyze, and we can start setting some strategies about how do we go about eliminating the gap.
Most of our benchmarks are bigger than we are. Size does make a difference because when the rankings look at research volume, they don't care that Ohio State has twice the faculty UK does. They just look at the raw numbers and how much research they do.
Several drivers became apparent as we went through this plan, we have to be bigger. The Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) projected some time ago that UK needs to produce more baccalaureate graduates, 6,200 per year. Adding additional baccalaureate students while maintaining an acceptable student-faculty ratio requires an institution to have more faculty.
This analysis first says that we have got to increase the number of faculty and then increase enrollment. It would not be fair to the faculty in this institution for us to boost the enrollment without adding faculty first. This plan shows that we will not increase the size of our freshman class until 2008. But we plan to add 27 faculty members a year for the next 15 years to get the number of faculty we need to work our student-faculty ratio into where we want it to be.
To continue to improve the quality and the diversity of the undergraduate students, UK must improve the financial support it offers. It is not acceptable to sacrifice quality to achieve quantity. We propose that we are going to increase the number and the percentage of out of state students. We are going to do that in a targeted way, to go after quality. But we have to improve financial support to continue to pursue quality.
We must also increase the average instructional faculty salary to the benchmark median. The Strategic Plan we are operating under now, in one of the places we will fail on the current strategic plan, says that we want to get faculty salaries to 90 percent of the median. The Top 20 plan says that by 2012 we want to be at the median for our benchmarks. We are projecting a 5.5 percent increase for faculty over the first six years of this plan.
At the same time we have got to maintain competitive staff salaries and benefits. Keeping staff at such a level means we can retain and add to the expertise that is needed to make this dream a reality.
Growth targets for 2012 include: undergraduates would grow by 6,200, graduates by 750, and post docs by 375. For faculty, growth is to the level of 625; 125 of those would be research faculty, and 500 would be instructional faculty who would, in addition, do research. We want our research expenditures to grow to about $768 million.
We tried to calculate a financial gap for 2012 through 2020. If we get no state fund increases over this time period and we have a flat tuition rate increase of 4 percent, in 2012 we would need $218 million in our general fund budget to keep us on this plan.

We know that Kentucky is not a wealthy state, but we know that we can increase our annual giving. Currently, many of our scholarships come out of our general fund. If annual giving can increase scholarship endowments, or if research dollar increases are able to allow investment through overhead contributions, or if we can count on hospital and clinical services to continue producing additional revenues, that is, if by some method we can project by 2020 that contributions will furnish $21 million to our budget to offload expenses that are presently impacting the general fund, the goal is achievable.
By internal reallocation, we are projecting $2 million in savings a year throughout this plan. We will continue to cut costs wherever we can. We will be looking at efficiencies that we can generate in order to allow us to make our contributions. And we feel that by 2020 such savings will accumulate to about $30 million per year that will contribute toward our growth under this plan.
It is important to tell people when we lay out this plan that UK is picking up 40 percent of its cost. If UK received $18 million from the state (CPE has already recommended $13.7 million for us, so this is only an additional $4 million), this amount could be coupled with a reasonable (below 10 percent) tuition increase, then we could proceed with this plan. If, however, we get $10 million from the state, in order to get the same amount of usable money in our budget, we would have to have a 14 percent tuition increase. The alternative is to give up some of the ambitious numbers like pay increases. This Top 20 plan represents the first time we have really shown a quantitative relationship between the state budget and tuition.
UK's starting point [referring to the chart]: we had last year in our base this amount of money, and the state gave us $18.6 [million] additional dollars-$5 million of that to go for specific needs and only $13.6 million toward our operational budget. The line showing the current allocation carries over to become a new yellow bar for our base for the year 2007. What our plan calls for is $17.7 million in the first year of the next biennium and $18.7 million the following year. That is $4 million more this year than the CPE request and $5 million more during the second year, a total of $9 million above CPE's request. This $9 million is an important increment.
CPE's method of benchmarking does not take into consideration the economic models of the institutions that we are facing. CPE compares us, our state appropriation, and our tuition to our benchmarks' state appropriation and tuition. This methodology is used for all the universities in the state. We look fairly close to our benchmarks using these measures.
What this technique fails to take into consideration is the fact that our benchmarks, back when our endowment was around $420 million, enjoyed average endowments of $1.2 billion. And when our federal research money was $100 million, their federal research measured $250 million. The overhead from vastly more research dollars and larger endowment incomes has afforded such institutions about $100 million a year for a long time and thus enabled them to get to where they are