University of Texas at Austin
Libraries Home | My Account | Sitemap | Help

University of Texas Libraries

Issues facing Collections

Collection Development Subject Polices

Bibliographer Directory

Center for American History

Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center

Tarlton Law Library: Jamail Center for Legal Research

Contact Information

Research Services Division
The University of Texas Libraries
PCL 3.310
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78713-8916
(512) 495-4330
FAX (512) 495-4397

Get Help
For research and services questions:
· Ask a Librarian

1997 Association of Research Libraries Statistics
for the University of Texas Libraries


Rank-Order Statistics Tables and graphs for the University of Texas at Austin were drawn from the ARL's Interactive WWW site. More variables are available for manipulation and analysis.

Total Holdings and Expenditures

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Volumes
1. HARVARD13,617,133
2.YALE 9,932,080
3.ILLINOIS, URBANA 9,024,298
4.CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 8,628,028
5.TORONTO 8,487,179
6.TEXAS 7,495,275
7.CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 7,010,234
8.MICHIGAN6,973,162
9.COLUMBIA6,905,609
10.STANFORD6,865,158

*In 1996, Texas was 5th at 732,9663 volumes. See Volumes held by UT-Austin from 1986-1997.

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Expenditures
1.HARVARD$17,546,513
2.YALE $14,777,000
3.STANFORD $14,149,584
4.MICHIGAN $13,886,446
5.TORONTO$12,725,439
6.CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY $10,364,871
7.COLUMBIA $10,226,909
8.PENNSYLVANIA STATE$10,193,897
9.CORNELL $9,687,056
10. MINNESOTA $9,510,723
22.TEXAS $8,055,708

*In 1996, Texas was 29th, $7,128,615.

Books

RankAcademic Institution Monographs Purchased
1.CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 155,010
2.YALE135,936
3.TORONTO 134,769
4.PRINCETON85,662
5.NORTH CAROLINA 73,030
6.NEW YORK 67,428
7.CHICAGO 66,690
8.ILLINOIS, URBANA64,901
9.OHIO STATE 60,133
10.WISCONSIN 59,376
14.TEXAS54,789

*In 1996, Texas was 21st, 47512. See Monographs purchased by UT-Austin from 1990-1997.

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Monographic Expenditures
1. STANFORD$7,631,338
2. HARVARD $6,887,391
3. TORONTO$ 5,226,120
4. MICHIGAN $5,037,478
5. CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES$4,783,935
6. CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES$4,258,522
7. COLUMBIA $3,845,806
8. YALE$3,737,000
9. WASHINGTON $3,400,634
10. CHICAGO $3,348,883
25.TEXAS$ 2,283,691

*In 1996, Texas was 28th, $2,265,511.

Serials

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Current Serials
1.HARVARD100,991
2.CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 94,364
3.ILLINOIS, URBANA90,985
4.CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY79,283
5.MICHIGAN69,165
6.COLUMBIA64,924
7.CORNELL 61,773
8.YALE53,345
9.WASHINGTON52,960
10. TEXAS 51,379

*In 1996, Texas was 10th, 51,562.

RankAcademic InstitutionSerials Purchased
1.COLUMBIA40,323
2.WASHINGTON36,494
3. TORONTO36,057
4.MICHIGAN 34,623
5. MINNESOTA 32,998
6.WISCONSIN32,740
7.INDIANA28,632
8.NEW YORK 28,323
9. GEORGETOWN27,182
10.TEXAS 26,761

*In 1996, Texas was 9th, 27,209.

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Serial Expenditures
1.MICHIGAN$7,977,877
2.HARVARD$7,426,185
3. STANFORD $6,518,246
4. TORONTO$6,507,988
5.COLUMBIA$6,381,103
6.PENNSYLVANIA STATE $5,906,631
7.OHIO STATE$5,842,795
8.MINNESOTA $5,696,475
9.CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY$5,580,936
10.YALE$5,576,000
16.TEXAS$4,968,884

*In 1996, Texas was 28th, $3,996,248. Serials and monographic expenditures have increased dramatically. See Monograph and Serial Costs in ARL Libraries 1986-1996
.

Public Services

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Reference Transactions
1. WAYNE STATE 980,009
2. OHIO STATE674,112
3. ILLINOIS, URBANA 503,657
4. TEXAS 489,979
5. INDIANA 488,631
6. CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 479,130
7. PENNSYLVANIA STATE 458,379
8. PITTSBURGH 453,922
9. BRIGHAM YOUNG 436,317
10. TORONTO 413,913

*In 1996, Texas was 6th, 489,984.

RankAcademic Institution Total Circulation
1. BRITISH COLUMBIA 3,806,278
2. WASHINGTON 2,837,171
3. TORONTO 2,482,871
4. TEXAS 2,451,468
5. CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 2,057,143
6.FLORIDA 1,690,298
7. NORTH CAROLINA 1,671,520
8. TEXAS A&M 1,602,349
9. OHIO STATE 1,489,137
10. INDIANA 1,453,938

*In 1996, Texas was 4th, 2,367,982. Service trends since 1991 in ARL libraries indicate icreases in circulation of materials, increases in interlibrary loan, reference transactions and library instruction. See Service trends in ARL Libraries 1991-1996.

Population Served

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Teaching Faculty
1.PENNSYLVANIA STATE 3422
2.WASHINGTON 2939
3.MICHIGAN 2858
4.TORONTO2801
5.OHIO STATE2635
6. COLUMBIA 2571
7.NORTH CAROLINA2417
8.TEXAS A&M 2327
9.TEXAS2239
10. NEW YORK2238

*In 1996, Texas was 9th, 2,227.

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Fulltime Students
1.PENNSYLVANIA STATE57,682
2.TEXAS 42,029
3.OHIO STATE39,054
4.TEXAS A&M 38,633
5.TORONTO 38,246
6.FLORIDA 33,838
7.WISCONSIN< 33,717
8.CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 33,622
9. ILLINOIS, URBANA33,571
10. RUTGERS 33,481

*In 1996, Texas was 2nd, 41,382. ARL statistics indicate a profound increase in Inter Library loan from 1986-1995 and a steady increase in volumes held by ARL libraries. See Resources per Student in ARL Libraries 1985-1995 and Supply and Demand of Materials in ARL Libraries 1986-1996.

Staffing

RankAcademic Institution Professional Staff
1.HARVARD 415
2.YALE201
3.CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY191
3.STANFORD191
5.COLUMBIA171
5.ILLINOIS, URBANA171
7.TORONTO 159
8.WISCONSIN154
9. MICHIGAN 151
10.PENNSYLVANIA STATE140
12. TEXAS 134

*In 1996, Texas was 11th, 141.

RankAcademic InstitutionSupport Staff
1.HARVARD 593
2.TEXAS 381
3.TORONTO 369
4.PENNSYLVANIA STATE331
5.YALE 311
6.STANFORD 298
7.MICHIGAN 295
8.CORNELL 288
9.CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 279
10.COLUMBIA 256

*In 1996, Texas was 2nd, 364.

RankAcademic InstitutionTotal Staff
1.HARVARD 1008/
2. TORONTO 528
3. TEXAS 515
4. YALE 512
5. STANFORD 489
6. PENNSYLVANIA STATE 471
7. MICHIGAN 446
8. CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 442
9. COLUMBIA 427
10. ILLINOIS, URBANA 418

*In 1996, Texas was 6th, 599.

Need to contact a bibliographer?