OCR Text |
Show Marriott Fund Report Page 6 IV. ANALYSIS I have just completed analyzing a one in ten sample pulled from the Marriott acquisitions file. This sample was taken on a strict numerical basis pulling every tenth slip in the file. It produced 1,160 slips. Appendix I gives the breakdown which was produced by this sample. The left-hand column shows colleges and/or departments arranged alphabetically followed by the number of slips in the sample and the percentage which this represents of the total. The right-hand column is arranged in descending order from the department with the highest percentage down to the departments with the lowest percentage. This breakdown indicates that the number of Marriott purchases made in the Science/Engineering and Math areas has been only about 4.2 percent of the total while our normal Monographs Order allocation to these areas represents about 12 percent. At the same time, it indicates that the two departments of History and Languages have had the benefit of more than 50 percent of the Marriott acquisitions while we only give these two departments about 2 2 percent of our monographs allocation. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that_ the entire Evans history of science collection has been counted in this tabulation as a benefit to the History department. Approximately 100 slips representing items from the Evans collection'showed up in this sample. If these were evenly divided between History and Science, the Science/Engineering and Math areas would have nearly 9 percent of the total while History and Languages would be reduced to about 26 percent. Another note on this analysis is that whereas one year ago I was able to identify only 20 areas which had received .benefit of the Marriott money, that number has now risen to 33 and,' since seven areas . are represented by only one or two slips, it is possible that five to ten. other areas are represented in the total Marriott file but with such a small number of slips that they were not picked up by our sample. I would further note that the analysis given here involves only numbers of items and gives no indication of prices paid. Because of the generally higher prices of items in the Sciences and Engineering, some of the apparent imbalance would probably be eliminated if a thorough breakdown by expenditure could be made. For example, a check of all 594 items in the sample for the History and Languages departments show-only 22 items costing more than $50. This 4 percent of the total compares with5 of 45 items in the Science/Engineering and Math areas or 11 percent. Continuing to assume that our sample is valid, and projecting these figures through the entire collection, we might find that compared to our current |