College and Research Libraries The 1986 College Library Standards: Application and Utilization David B. Walch There have been several iterations of college library standards and guidelines since the 1920s. The 1986 College Library Standards, written by an Association of College and Research Libraries' committee, were to address developing concerns in academic libraries. These concerns include collections and staff formulae, budget, audiovisual collections and services, networking, and cooperative associations. This article provides a comparison between the 1975 and 1986 editions of the College Library Standards and summarizes the changes made. It also analyzes the results of a survey of 215 academic libraries. The purpose of the survey was to determine tlte use and effectiveness of the stand- ards. The results show that the standards are widely used, and that there is keen interest in the application and further development of tlu standards. Specific recommendations for changes are made. n 1982, an ad hoc committee was appointed by the Asso- ciation of College and Re- search Libraries (ACRL) to review the 1975 edition of The College Library Standards. The committee was charged "to recommend revision which would bring them up to date and make them more generally useful." 1 Particular concern was expressed about the cur- rentness of the collection formula (For- mula A), staff formula (Formula B), and the budget standard (6 percent of the institution's general budget). Matters re- lating to non print collections and services, as well as networking and cooperative as- sociations which had not been included in the 1975 standards, also needed to be addressed. 2 From 1982 until the pub- lication of the 1986 standards, the ad hoc committee worked to meet its charge to review and revise each stand- ard in light of developing technology, net- working, resource sharing, and audio- visual materials. A COMPARISON OF THE 1975 AND 1986 STANDARDS Although few substantial changes were made in the 1986 standards, many commonalities remained between the two. The same number of standards were enumerated in the same order, and they remained quantitative in nature. The formula concept for determining adequacy of collection, staff, and size of library was left intact, although some formula ingredients changed. A review of the major changes and differences is highlighted below: • Standard 1: Objectives. No major changes. • Standard 2: Collections. A major differ- ence between the two editions of the standards was in what was to be counted in Formula A as volumes. The 1975 standards included only print and microform volume equivalents as items to be counted. The 1986 stand- ards allowed books and microforms, David B. Walch is Dean of Library Services at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407. 217 218 College & Research Libraries as well as videocassettes, films, videodiscs, sound recordings, film- strips, loops, slide-tape sets, graphic materials (including maps), computer software, and slides. Also, the 1986 standards permitted libraries to count the number of items borrowed through interlibrary loan or through other re- source-sharing arrangements. • Standard 3: Organization of Materials . Slight modifications were made in Formula 3. The 1975 standards stated, "The catalog may be developed either by a single library or jointly among several libraries." This was omitted entirely in the 1986 edition. The 1975 standards also stated, "Patrons .shall have direct access to library materials on the shelves." Though this portion of the standard was omitted, the 1986 standards did state that materials placed in storage facilities "shall be readily accessible to users." The change was made because some aca- demic libraries were having to cope with off-site storage. • Standard 4: Staff. The 1986 standards were somewhat more explicit in stat- ing as part of Standard 4.4, ''The sup- port staff shall be no less than 65% of the total library staff, not including student assistants." On the same issue, the 1975 standards state that "librari- ans will seldom comprise more than 25- 35% of the total Full Time Equivalent (PTE) library staff." The 1986 standards also added an extensive list of "Sup- plementary Staffing Factors to Be Con- sidered," including hours of service, computer-based services, audiovisual services, and size and configuration of facilities. • Standard 5: Service. A 1975 standard that referred specifically to "the provi- sion of inexpensive means of photo- copying" was omitted from the 1986 standards because photocopy service is a universal service currently pro- vided in nearly all academic libraries. The 1986 standards also included a separate standard reiated to coopera- tive programs. In the 1975 version, this was incorporated into the interlibrary loan standard. May1993 • Standard 6: Facilities. There was a minor modification in Foimula C. The 1975 version recommended 25 square feet per study station and one-fourth of the sum of the space needed for readers and books dedicated to office, operational, and equipment activities. The 1986 version recommended 25 to 35 square feet per study station and one-eighth ·of the sum of the space needed for readers and books dedi- cated for office, operational, and equipment activities. • Standard 7: Administration. The 1986 standards omitted two standards that were included in the 1975 version. One referre~ to keeping statistics for purposes of planning and informa- tion, and the other dealt with the need to seek out and utilize cooperative programs. • Standard 8: Budget. The major change in the 1986 standards was a separate standard addressing the need for budget augmentation if the library has responsi- bility for "acquiring, processing~ and servicing audiovisual materials and mi- crocomputer resources}'3 In summary, the changes between the 1975 and 1986 standards were slight. They included the opportunity to count all types of audiovisual materials plus items borrowed through interlibrary loan in Formula A; a recognition of off- site storage; allowance for an increase in the square feet per library study stations; a decrease in the amount of space as- signed for office/ operational activities and equipment; and a recognition of the need to increase the budget if the library is responsible for audiovisual and micro- computer services. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Because these changes were made, the committee wanted to determine if the 1986 standards were meeting the needs of those whom they were designed to serve, such as institutions defined by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa- tion as Liberal Arts Colleges I and II and Comprehensive Universities and Col- leges I and 11.4 In order to determine this, a survey of institutions from these classi- College Library Standards 219 TABLEt FACULTY : LIBRARIAN RATIO Carnegie I comprehensive public Carnegie I comprehensive private Carnegie I liberal arts private Total Carnegie I Carnegie II comprehensive public Carnegie II comprehensive private Carnegie II liberal arts private Carnegie II liberal arts public Total Carnegie II Total-all institutions fications was made. The survey was pre- pared and reviewed by members of the Standards Committee of the College Li- brary Section of ACRL. The committee consisted of Lynne Chmelir, Rebecca Dixon, Claudette Hagle, Diana Parker, and David B. Walch. The survey was sent to twenty-one institutions for pretesting. This process resulted in some minor modifications. The survey was then submitted to the ACRL office for review, and that, too, resulted in minor changes. The final ver- sion of the eight-page questionnaire was distributed to 236level I institutions and 200 level II liberal arts and comprehen- sion institutions. Two hundred and fif- teen questionnaires were returned, mak- ing for a response rate of 41.8 percent. In many respects, the survey parallels one that was done by a College Libraries Sec- tion Committee in 1979 and that was reported on by Larry Hardesty and Stella Bentley. The committee conducted a survey of 300 institutions on the use and effectiveness of the 1975 standards. The results were reported in the ACRL' s Second National Conference of 1987.5 SURVEY RESULTS The initial part of the survey sought demographic data, such as student en- rollment, faculty size, number of librari- ans and library support staff, and number of majors offered at the ba- chelor's, master's, and Ph.D. levels. The FTE FfE Faculty Librarian Ratio 19,291 691.9 27.9 : 1 3,406 129.8 26.2 : 1 2,822.4 153.3 18.4 : 1 25,519.4 975 26.2 : 1 1,258 51.3 24.5 : 1 2,027 91.1 22.3 : 1 2,630 127.5 20.6 : 1 379 18.5 20.5 : 1 6,294 288.4 21.8 : 1 31,813.4 1,263.4 25.2 : 1 survey also sought responses regarding the various units reporting to the chief 'library administrator, including audio- visual services, academic computing, and computing labs. Other data col- lected related to number of volumes (print, microform, and nonprint), oper- ating expenditures, and annual growth of the book collection. Below is a sum- mary of information gleaned from re- sponses to the survey. Ratio of Librarians to Faculty Standard 4 and Formula B specifically address standards related to library staff, and are considered later. However, because Formula B is based only on en- rollment, collection size, and growth of the collection, it is of interest to know the ratio of librarians to faculty. To the author's knowledge, this ratio has not been available, except for select library groups that collect their own data, such as the Association of Research Libraries (see table 1 ). External Units Reporting to Library Administration Over the past several years, more and more library directors have been given administrative responsibility for activi- ties not normally incorporated within the traditional library. Chief among these activities are audiovisual units. A previous study of sixty randomly selected academic institutions showed 220 College & Research Libraries May1993 TABLE2 UNITS REPORTING TO LIBRARY ADMINISTRATORS Carnegie I comprehensive public Carnegie I comprehensive private Carnegie I liberal arts private Carnegie II comprehensive public Carnegie II comprehensive private Carnegie II liberal arts private Carnegie II liberal arts public Total Percent TABLE3 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF THE 1985 STANDARDS Knowledge of Standards % Thoroughly familiar 18.9 with details Very familiar with general 39.3 context Familiar in general 34.0 Aware but not familiar 7.3 Not familiar at all 0.5 Use of Standards To justify improvement to 10.2 physical plant To justify library budget 15.9 To justify staff expansion 12.9 To justify collection upgrade 12.5 To justify improvement of 9.4 services in general To prepare accreditation and/ 18.1 or institutional self studies To orient/ educate college 15.2 administration Have not used 4.9 Other 0.9 that 33 percent of audiovisual directors reported to a library administrator.6 This survey of 215 institutions showed a somewhat higher percentage (see table 2). The survey also made it clear that there has not been a rush to merge aca- Audiovisual Archives AcComp. Comp. Labs 31 24 0 5 10 16 0 0 13 17 2 1 8 8 2 5 9 12 0 0 33 31 4 6 2 3 0 106 111 9 17 49.3 51.6 4 7.9 demic computing activities administra- tively with the library. Also noted is the small percentage of libraries that have and are responsible for computer labs. Knowledge and Use of the 1986 Standards The Hardesty /Bentley survey re- vealed that 61.6 percent of the respon- dents were either "very'' or "thoroughly" familiar with the 1975 standards. The sur- vey of the 1986 standards showed a nearly identical trend, with 58.2 percent being "very" or "thoroughly'' familiar. Table 3 also shows that the three major uses of the standards related to accreditation, arguing for budget augmentation, and education of college administrators. This contrasts sharply with the Hardesty /Bentley sur- vey, which indicated that the greatest use of the 1975 standards was to upgrade the collections and to improve services. It should be noted that, in general, more use is made of the standards by the smaller institutions, such as Carnegie Type II, than by the larger schools. The directors of the smaller institutions have more knowledge of the standards than do their counterparts on the larger cam- puses. Standard 2: Collections In an attempt to recognize the increas- ing growth and utilization of audio- visual material and microforms, the 1986 standards included a count of these types of materials within the collection College Library Standards 221 TABLE4A FORMULA A- COLLECTION Too High Adequate Too Low 5 4 3 2 Survey of 1975 Standards (No Audiovisual or Interlibrary Loan)* 9.9% 16.5% 46.2% 9.9% 8.2% Survey of 1986 Standards (includes Audiovisual and Interlibrary Loan) 7.7% 10.8% 45.9% 16.0% 19.6% * Percentapes in 1975 do not equallOO percent since that survey also included a percent for "no opinion' (3.8 percent) and "no response" (5.5 percent) TABLE4B 1986 FORMULA A-"GRADED" COLLECTION SIZE 66.0%-Grade A 18.2%-Grade B 9.4%-Grade C 6.4%-Grade D formula, such as Formula A. The stand- ards also provided a means for items borrowed through interlibrary loan and other resource-sharing arrangements to be counted in Formula A. Standard 2.2 stated that "audiovisual holdings may be counted as bibliographic unit equiv- alents and this number should be added to that for print volumes and volume equivalents in measuring a library's col- lection against Formula A." 7 The stand- ard then provided ''bibliographic unit equivalents" for various audiovisual formats. For example, one videocassette or fifty slides equals one bue. Microform holdings were also counted in the formula with one microfilm reel, or ten pieces of any other microform, equaling one volume. The allowance made for adding audiovisual items to the formula count caused some respondents to consider the formula requirements as ~oo low. For ex- ample, one library director observed that "the number of audiovisual materials, maps, microforms, etc., give the collec- tion an inflated rating." This may be a contributing factor to the data in table 4A, which compares responses to the Hardesty /Bentley survey of the 1975 standards to those of the current survey. While the percentage finding the formula "adequate" was nearly the same, the per- (9Q-1 00% of volumes called for in Formula A) (7.>-89% of volumes called for in Formula A) (6Q-74% of volumes called for in Formula A) ( D-59% of volumes called for in Formula A) centage of those finding the 1986 formula "too low'' was double that of the respondents to the 1975 formula. Table 4B further reflects this by showing that two- thirds of all the institutions surveyed have "Grade A" collections. For instance, they have 90 to 100 percent of the holdings required by formula (see tables 4A and 4B). Standard 4.3: Staffing Formula The same staffing forrnula is used in both versions. The recommendation that the support staff compose "not less than 65 percent of the total library staff" was also similar to the 1975 statement that "librarians will seldom comprise more than 25-35% of the total PTE library staff.''8 As noted in table SA, the majority of the respondents to the 1986 and the 197S standards surveys deemed the standard as adequate. Table SB suggests that academic libraries find it far more difficult to meet the standard for staffing than the standard for book collections. For instance, only 33 percent meet the Grade A level for staff, while 66 percent achieve that same grade for book collec- tion size. Table SC also notes that more . than 70 percent of the academic libraries do not meet the 6S percent recom- mended level of support staff (see tables SA, SB, and SC). 222 College & Research Libraries May 1993 TABLE SA FORMULA B -=-STAFF Too High Adequate Too Low 5 4 3 2 Survey of 1975 standards • 10.4% 15,4% 52.2% 10.4% 6.6% Survey of 1986 standards 7.4% 18.7% 53.2% 12.3% 8.4% • Percentages in 1975 do not equallOO percent since that survey also included a percent for "no opinion" (0.5 percent) and "no response" (4.4 percent). TABLESB 1986 FORMULA B-"GRADED" STAFF SIZE 33.0%-Grade A 21.9%-Grade B 25.2%-Grade C 19.9%-Grade D TABLESC SIZE OF SUPPORT STAFF 21.1% have 65% or more of staff in support staff positions. 19.7% have 60-64% of staff in support staff positions. 19.2% have 55-59% of staff in support staff positions. 14.8% have 50-54% of staff in support staff positions. 18.2% have 0-49% of staff in support staff positions. Standard 6.1: Space Formula The major change in Formula C, which is the facilities formula, dealt with the space required for staff. In 1975 the formula recommended that the space re- quired for such administrative purposes as staff offices, work areas, catalogs, files, and equipment equal one-fourth of the sum of the space required for readers and books. The 1986 standards recom- mend that only one-eighth of the ~urn of the space required for readers and books be devoted to administrative purposes. Both formulas noted that the space re- quired for audiovisual purposes should be added .to the calculations. The 1986 space formula also specified that space required for microforms, bibliographic instruction, and equipment and services (90-100% of staff called for in Formula B) (75-84% of staff called for in Formula B) (60-74% of staff called for in Formula B) (50-54% of staff called for in Formula B) associated with library technology also be added to the formula. The major in- gredients of the formula, such as the al- location of space for readers and books, remained primarily the same. Table 6A compares the 1975 response to that of 1986. Table 6B indicates the grade achieved by academic libraries as measured. against Formula C (see tables 6Aand 6B). Usefulness of the Standards Although some standards were deemed more useful than others, each of them received high marks for their value as a standard. Standard 2 (collections) was seen as being most useful when consider- ing the high end of the "usefulness" scale. Standard 8 (budget) was considered the next most useful. Both of these standards have specific quantitative ingredients. The · survey of the 1975 standards also showed Standard 2 to be the most useful, followed by Standard 7 (administra- tion). Standard 3 (organization) was deemed the least useful in both surveys. Table 7 shows the response to the ques- tions regarding usefulness (see table 7). Related Concerns The survey also suggested five addi- tional areas for potential development of standards. These five areas included per- formance measures, database access, re- source sharing, microcomputers, and College Library Standards 223 TABLE6A FORMULA C-SPACE Survey of 1975 standards* Survey of 1986 standards Too High 5 5.5% .5% Ad~uate 4 3 7.7% 65.9% 7.2% 69.7% Too low 2 1 6.6% 4.4% 16.4% 6.2% • Percenta~es in 1975 do not equal100 percent since that survey also included a percent for "no opinion' (8.8 percent) and "no response" (1.1 percent). TABLE6B 1986 FORMULA C- "GRADED" SPACE 49.5% =Grade A (90-100% of the net assignable area called for by the formula). 19.1% =Grade B (75-89% of the net . assignable area called for by the formula). 21.1% = Grade C (60-74% of the net assignable area called for by the formula). 10.3% =GradeD (50-59% of the net assignable area called for by the formula). online catalogs. As noted in table 8, the majority of those responding indicated the development of standards for data- base access and resource sharing would be most useful (see table 8). Directors also recommended as many as fifteen other areas, from document delivery to hours, that needed to be con- sidered for inclusion within the stand- ards. The audiovisual services area was mentioned the most. Although the initial charge given to the 1982 ad hoc com- mittee specifically mentioned the need for addressing audiovisual concerns, the perception among some respondents was that more needs to be done. One of the difficulties the committee faced in its consideration was the paucity of audio- visual research needed to provide suffi- cient rationale that supports the quan- titative_ measures that characterize the standards. A final question on the survey asked which type· of standard-quantitative or qualitative-best meets the needs of the profession. It is interesting to note that the 1979 university library standards re- flected a qualitative nature. The fore- ward to the 1989 standards, however, states, "By far the most important of these [issues discussed by the committee responsible for the 1979 standards], was the question of whether standards should be quantitative or qualitative. In the end we concluded that neither ap- proach was appropriate." 9 Similar dis- cussions were held by the committee that developed the 1986 standards. The decision in that instance was to continue with a quantitative approach. An over- whelming majority (64.5 percent) of the survey respondents expressed the desire to retain a quantitative approach; 25.6 percent favored a qualitative style; and TABLE7 USEFULNESS OF EACH STANDARD Useful Modestly Useful Useless Standard 5 4 3 2 1- Objective 29.4 31.6 30.5 6.9 1.6 2 - Collection 36.7 35.7 20.1 6.0 1.5 3 - Organization 21.4 30.0 39.0 6.9 2.7 4- Staff 34.9 32.8 22.7 8.6 1.0 5- Service 30.2 36.4 24.0 7.3 2.1 6 - Facilities 34.0 35.1 20.9 6.8 3.2 7- Administration 28.0 33.3 28.6 6.9 3.2 8- Budget 33.3 37.0 23.8 4.8 1.1 224 College & Research Libraries May 1993 TABLES PRIORITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS High Standard 5 Performance measures 27.3 Database access 34.7 Resource sharing 34.8 Microcomputer 20.9 Online catalogs 35.5 9.9 percent said they would like to see the incorporation of both. REMAINING ISSUES The 1986 edition of the College Library Standards is ·in its seventh year. The·sur- vey showed that as many as 95 percent of the respondents found the standards to be "useful" to "very useful." Because of such a high rate of use, it is important that the standards remain current and viable. The results of the survey discussed here, plus the limited number of articles found in the literature relating to the 1986 standards, point to some areas that, at the very least, need tweaking and in some instances require fresh thought and approach. These areas are sum- marized below. Rationale for Quantitative Measures As previously noted, a substantial num- ber of respondents favored the quantitative nature of the standards. However, current research and rationale to support the quan- titative criteria are lacking. If such speci- ficity is going to be articulated, then there needs to be current supporting docu- mented research. The quantitative meas- ures that need rationale include: • Standard 2.2, Formula A (collection size). • Standard 4.3, Formula B (staff size and composition). • Standard 6.1, Formula C (library building). • Standard 8.1, library budget. One library director, Hans E. Bynagle, succinctly stated his concern with the lack of rationale by noting: The quantitative components of the Standards tend to be useful for politi- cal leverage only as long as no one 4 32.8 35.7 36.3 31.6 30.0 Medium Low 3 2 1 25.2 10.1 4.6 23.6 3.0 3.0 18.9 8.5 1.5 32.2 8.7 6.6 25.5 6.0 3.0 inquires into them too closely. If any- one asks the basis for any quantitative standard, one is usually at a loss to reply. I am not aware of anything ever published to explain the basis of any of the numerical formulas. I urge your Committee to undertake to "make public" in some fashion the rationale for each such standard. There are, of course, risks in such exposure, but in the long run it will enhance the credi- bility of the Standards and of those who appeal to them. 10 The current Standards Committee will be challenged to develop objective ratio- nale for any quantitative measures they use. David Kaser also noted this weak- ness and spoke to the need for doing more research in developing the stand- ard. He stated: Research findings, of course, which can substitute sure and certain knowl- edge for opinion, belief and faith, should provide the proper founda- tions for quantitative standards. The advent over the last couple of decades, slow though it may have been, of more sophisticated and powerful research methodologies onto the library scene augurs well for future standards- makers. Optimizing and regression techniques, modeling, input/ output analyses, and other research processes utilizing the capabilities of the com- puter, all promise better and more tenable standards in the years ahead. 11 Counting Audiovisual and Microforms The attempt to give credit to recognize audiovisual materials and microforms as an integral part of the library collec- tion has resulted in making the collec- tio·ns formula less challenging. As noted previously, by counting these types of mate- rials, two-thirds of the institutions sur- veyed have Grade A collections. More than 70 percent found the formula to range from adequate to too low. While microforms and audiovisual materials need to be recog- nized, it would appear that an adjustment in the formula is needed. Furthermore, technological developments that make full-text access available online have the potential for impacting collection size. The "Richness" of the Staffing Formula The survey showed that as many as 66 percent of academic libraries are under- staffed, according to Formula B. How are these libraries coping? Is there a substan- tial difference in the level of basic serv- ices being offered between libraries that are well endowed with staff and those that are not as richly blessed? Soon after the 1986 standards were published, two articles appeared that analyzed the staffing formula with the actual staffing levels in two statewide systems. Phillip M. White found that of the nineteen li- braries in the California State University system, only 68 percent had what Formula B called for, only one fell into the Grade A category, and fourteen were graded Cor lower.12 Ronnie W. Faulkner also compared the West Virginia Public- Colleges against Formula C. He found that those institutions had 66 percent of the number of librarians called for and 52 percent of the recommended support staff. He concluded that "the formula for staffing seems excessively liberal," and that "while there seems to be no doubt that the college libraries are under- staffed, little is to be gained by arguing that the situation is worse than it is in reality." 13 The analysis of library staffing in these two statewide systems suggests that Formula Band the two-to-one ratio may require a more thorough review and accompanying rationale. Additional Areas for Standards Development Respondents to the survey indicated that standards relating to database access and resource sharing would be useful. There appears to be additional interest in College Library Standards 225 incorporating standards that would ad- dress audiovisual issues more directly. Al- though reference to, and consideration of, audiovisual matters was give~ in Stand- ards 2 (collections), Standards 6 (facilities), and Standards 8 (budget), there still ap- pears to be the need for greater and more precise focus in this area. CONCLUSION The survey of libraries regarding the 1986 College Library Standards indicated that they are of value and are being used. Their quantitative nature continues to appeal to the vast majority of those who use them. Yet, the survey suggests a need for revision, which is something that goes beyond mere editing. As the Col- lege Libraries Standards Committee as- sumes its task, it should be aware of the challenge others have faced in develop- ing and revising standards. The venera- ble Robert B. Downs stated in his Report of the Committee on University Library Standards to the Association of Research Libraries in January 1975: Several years ago when Stephen McCarthy called me to ask if I would serve as ~hairman of the Joint Com- mittee (ARL/ ACRL), I thought that it was an excellent idea and I accepted without hesitation. I thought that standards have been a useful tool in college libraries and various other types of libraries, so why not for university libraries? My innocence and naivete soon came in for several rude shocks. 14 While Downs did not elaborate on the "rude shocks" encountered, similar senti- ment was later echoed by David Kaser, who served on the ACRLad hoc committee to revise the 1959 Standards. He noted: Much of the persistent frustration at the academic library community's in- ability to fashion tenable standards for itself can probably be attributed to the fact that it looks so deceptively easy. Like defining "pornography," the un- wary falls easily into the trap of assum- ing that, given a little time and motivation, any modestly informed per- son could do it. Many knowledgeable librarians have tried unsuccessfully to make standards, however, and the 226 College & Research Libraries very high failure rate among these ef- forts bespeaks clearly the formidable character of the task.15 While the difficulties of making the standards effective, timely, and mean- May1993 ingful are clearly articulated by Downs and Kaser, it is a task worthy of the chal- lenge and one that will continue to benefit the profession and the college libraries that they serve. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Association of College and Research Libraries, College Library Standards Committee, "Standards for College Libraries," College & Research Libraries News 47(Mar. 1986): 189. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid., 199. 4. Carnegie Comprehensive and Liberal Arts Type I and II institutions are described as follows: Comprehensive Universities and Colleges I. These institutions offer baccalaureate pro- grams and, with few exceptions, graduate education through the master's degree. More than half of their baccalaureate degrees are awarded in two or more occupational or professional disciplines, such as engineering or business administration. All of the institutions in this group enroll at least 2,500 students. Comprehensive Universities and Colleges II. These institutions award more than half of their baccalaureate degrees in two or more occupational or professional disciplines, such as engineering or business administration, and many also offer graduate educa- tion through the master's degree. All of the colleges and universities in this group enroll between 1,500 and 2,500 students. Liberal Arts College I. These highly selective institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges that award more than half of their baccalaureate degrees in arts and science fields. Liberal Arts College II. These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges that are less selective and award more than half of their degrees in liberal arts fields. This category also includes a group of colleges that award less than half of their degrees in liberal arts but, with fewer than 1,500 students, are too small to be considered comprehensive. 5. Larry Hardesty and Stella Bentley, "The Use and Effectiveness of the 1975 'Standards for College Libraries': A Survey of College Library Directors," in Options for the '80s, Association of College and Research Libraries, Second National Conference, 1981. 6. David B. Walch, "Academic Libraries and Campus Computing Organizations: Rela- tionships after the First Century," in Building on the First Century, Association of College and Research Libraries, Fifth National Conference, 1989. 7. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Standards for College Libraries," 193. 8. Ibid., 195. 9. Association of College and Research Libraries, University Library Standards Com- mittee. "Standards for University Libraries: Evaluation of Performance," College and Research Libraries News 50(Sept. 1989):679 10. Correspondence to Jacquelyn McCoy, Chair of the Ad Hoc College Library Standards Committee, from Hans E. Bynagle, Library Director of Whitworth College, Spokane, Wash. May 20, 1985. 11. David Kaser, "Standards for College Libraries," Library Trends 31(Summer 1982): 17. 12. Phillip M. White, "College Library Formulas Applied," College & Research Libraries News 46(Summer 1986): 202. 13. Ronnie W. Faulkner, "West Virginia Public Colleges and the Latest ACRL Standards," West Virginia Libraries 39(Summer 1986): 32. 14. Association of Research Libraries, "Minutes of the Eighty-Fifth Meeting," Jan. 18, 1975, 69. 15. Kaser, "Standards for College Libraries," 7.