Do academic administrators make decisions about resource allocation differently depending on the discipline receiving the funding? Does an administrator's academic identity influence these decisions? This study explored those questions with a sample of 1,690 academic administrators at doctoral-research universities. Participants used fictional summaries of academic program reviews. The summaries had scenarios of increased-resources and shrinking-resources involving hard versus soft and pure versus applied disciplines. Administrators were forced to choose among them for funding decisions. Results showed that a hard-applied discipline, mechanical engineering, was evaluated as significantly more likely to receive additional resources and to be exempted from cuts than examples from other disciplinary groups: physics, English, and elementary education. Decisions varied significantly with participants' home disciplines, but not their longevity in academe or in administration. (Contains 4 figures and 7 tables.)