In 1955 about 75 percent of the aid provided undergraduates (exclusive of veterans' benefits and ROTC) came from and was administered by institutions of higher education. An additional 10 percent from outside sources was probably administered by the institutions. By 1960 about 55 percent of the aid was provided by institutions while roughly 80 percent of the funds were administered by them. A forecast of this trend indicates that by 1970 institutions might be administering 70 percent of the funds but might be providing from their own resources less than 20 percent of the total available. The complexity of the institutions' responsibilities will be greatly increased by the need to adjust to the regulations and requests of the various external agencies providing the needed funds and by the great increase in the percentage of students and by the range of students affected. 16. The basic concept that has guided student aid activities-that students shall be selected on the basis of ability and promise and that the amount of assistance given shall be determined according to their need-may be expected to continue as a strong guiding philosophy in 1970. If there is any change, it will be to increase the attention given to the students' need for assistance. Determining undergraduate student aid needs for the year 1970 is a necessary adjunct to the listing of these assumptions. If demands for education and charges for it continue to rise, if family incomes continue to fight a losing battle with living costs, and if at the same time we are striving to further democratize our colleges and universities, what will be the needs of students in 1970 for financial support beyond that which parents can provide? This is a large, compound, and complex question. The amount the American public can afford to spend on higher education five years from now can be estimated by making a number of additional assumptions, some readily accepted, some hypothesized, about the future of higher education.1 By relating the estimate to the projected cost of higher education to families in 1970, it is possible to produce what may be called the national family dollar deficit for undergraduate higher education. More simply stated, this is the total amount of money American families presumably will find it impossible or extremely difficult to pay out of their individual pockets for their children's college education. For 1970, this deficit is projected as $3,339,578,924. If as a nation we wish to reduce this deficit through the use of student aid to at least the same relative point as in 1960, our total 1970 national student aid expenditure will need to be $1,903,560,000-a sum more than four times the amount spent in 1960. For Where can the money come from? One possible supposition is that the various resources that existed in 1960 could be increased by a factor of four. state, federal, corporate, and various private sources this increase would not be unrealistic. Colleges, which provided nearly half the total aid support in 1960 from their own funds, were able to increase aid nearly 50 percent in the 1955-60 period! If they could retain this challenging trend of a 50 percent increase each five years, there would still be an aid deficit in 1970 of at least $500 million. Seemingly this sum would have to come from outside the college community. either from new programs or from greater efforts on the part of the existing programs. [From the Oregonian, July 9, 1966] HIGHER EDUCATION BOARD ASKS $108 MILLION FOR BUILDINGS The Board of Higher Education will ask the 1967 Legislature for authority to spend about $108 million for new buildings during the 1967-69 biennium, more than three times as much as spent for buildings during the past two years. The board's building affairs committee approved the request Friday, and gave Portland State College needs high ranking on the priority list. The requested outlay calls for about $74 million from the state general fund, with the rest to be financed from bonding and about $14.5 million in federal grants and other funds. The last Legislature granted $15.5 million from the general fund for higher education building. 1 Rexford G. Moon, Jr., "Determining Aid Needs for 1970: A Model," College Board Review No. 54, Fall 1964, pp. 11-13. Roy Lieuallen, chancellor of the State System of Higher Education, said the unusually big request for the coming biennium is caused by two major factors: 1-Enrollment in Oregon's public colleges and universities has grown much faster than expected and budgeted for. 2-The 1965 Legislature allowed only half of the building needs required by higher education, and $30 million of unallowed building requests are reflected in the 1967-69 needs. Jack Hunderup, building planning director for the System of Higher Education, said the building projections are designed to take care of existing space shortages and to prepare for a 57,285 enrollment expected in the fall of 1970. Enrollment in the state system schools will reach about 46,200 this fall. The building requests the board will make to the Legislature allow for the following new construction and building improvement work: Portland State College, $18.6 million; Oregon State University, $28.5 million; University of Oregon, $27.5 million; University of Oregon Medical and Dental Schools, $10.8 million; Southern Oregon College, $9.4 million; Oregon Technical Institute, $4.1 million; Eastern Oregon College, $2.5 million; Oregon College of Education, $3.3 million; Division of Continuing Education, $700,000; and about $2.3 million for land acquisition, architectural work and planning. Nearly 80 building projects are proposed. Some members of the board said "it is only dreaming" to expect that the Legislature will grant the full request; but Board Member Ancil Payne countered: "It's our obligation to tell the Legislature what the needs are, and let them determine how much can be allowed. Some day the people of Oregon are going to have to wake up to their obligation to meet these needs-we might as well start The academic affairs board also indicated that about $92.5 million will be needed for higher education building in the 1969-71 biennium; and about $76.7 million for the 1971-73 biennium. Projects the board is requesting are as follows, with numbers in parentheses indicating the priority given each project on the systemwide list: PORTLAND STATE COLLEGE (1) College services building, $980,000; (2) Completion of State Hall, $3,585,000; (3) Pedestrian traffic and cooling improvements to South Park Hall, $205,000; (6) Second science building, $6,830,000; (17) Eight-floor parking lot, $1,165,000; (38) Third science building, $5,570,000; (70) Completion of College Center. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (10) Business and science building, $3,780,000; (15) Administration building, $3,670,000; (19) Computer Center, $915,000; (24) Utility tunnel, 365,000; (25) Forestry building, $2,365,000; (27) Earth sciences building, $2,420,000; (28) Central heating boiler, $130,000; (29) Cafeteria addition, $1,140,000; (30) New dormitory, $1,825,000; (41) Married student housing, $1,470,000; (42) Dormitory at Yaquina Bay marine studies, $245,000; (44) Agricultural science building, $1,130,000; Library building, $1,735,000; (54) Physical plant complex, $2,060,000; (55) Batcheller Hall remodeling, $485,000; (59) Production technology building, $2,180,000; (62) Residence hall remodeling, $140,000; (66) Weatherford Hall remodeling, $620,000; (67) New residence hall, $1,115,000; (71) Student health service expansion, $100,000; (77) Purchase of agricultural research quarters, $50,000. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON (9) Third addition to science building $3,860,000; (11) Women's physical education teaching building, $1,460,000; (18) Classroom building with offices, teaching center and allied arts, $1,645,000; (31) Building for law expansion and library, $2,600,000; (33) Administration service building, $2,230,000; (39) Laboratory building for marine biology at Charleston, $750,000; (40) Dormitory for Charleston marine study, $325,000; Men's physical education building and tennis courts, $275,000; (50) Mental retardation clinic, $1,645,000; (53) Warehouse and service building, $225,000; (56) } Behavioral science center, $2,830,000; (57) Music building addition, $905,000; (58) School of education building, $1,265,000; (61) Addition to biology and physical sciences, complex, $2,985,000; (63) Animal laboratory, $410,000; (64) Dormitory, administration and recreation center, $725,000; (65) New dormitory and kitchen, $2,150,000; (79) Parking structure, $1,180,000. SOUTHERN OREGON COLLEGE (4) Central Heating plant addition, $335,000; (8) Additions to Green Springs dormitory, complex, $1,900,000; (16) Fine arts building, music, $1,360,000; (32) Addition to 'F.G.H.' units of dormitory, complex, $1,550,000; (43) Married stu dent housing, $395,000; (46) Britt Student Center addition, $1,295,000; (47) Education building, $1,285,000; (52) Physical plant building, $630,000; (73) Campus landscaping, $110,000; (5) Remodel library, $520,000. UO MEDICAL SCHOOL (14) Teaching hospital addition, $5,665,000; (22) New cafeteria, $425,000; (49) Mental retardation center. $4,260,000; (53) Incinerator plant, $75,000: (60) Alterations to 5th floor of Medical School bldg., $280,000; (69) Completion of two floors of women's dormitory, $90,000. OREGON TECHNICAL INSTITUTE (7) Dormitory addition, $1,230,000; (20) Two more wells, $105,000; (21) Leeture hall and student center addition, $575,000; (34) Laboratory building addition, $1.875,000; (74) Parking lot. $130.000; (75) Physical education facilities, $100,000; (76) Landscaping and sidewalks. EASTERN OREGON COLLEGE (23) Women's PE building addition, $855,000; (36) Relocate and expand heating plant, $535,000; (37) New Education building, $820,000; (78) Married student housing, $245,000. OREGON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (12) Central heating plant improvement, $85,000; (13) Science building. $1715,000; (26) Dormitory No. 7, $700.000; (60) Dormitory No. 8, $725,000: (72 Street constructions on campus, $65,000. Additional anticipated outlays call for $3 million in land acquisition, architec tural services and planning, and $725.000 for an office and medical studies building for the division of continuing education. (The following tables relevant to the Oregonian article contain funds dra secured from the Office of Education.) Funds allocation for State of Oregon, title I (P.L. 88–294) U.S. Department of Health. Ednestion and Welfare: Office of Edzestion: Buf Eiger Ki tion: While D Status R Jame 30. 1965. Eustia, and Welfare: Ofice of Education: Bures of Eiger Ritescia 18. Department of Each Eineston and Welfare: Office of Edzestion: Bureau of Eigher Rüttester. “Estimated Distribution of Funds"; June 30, 1968. DIVISION OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS Obligations to institutions of higher education in State of Oregon under title II of HEFA of 1963 Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR WAYNE: The enclosed copy of a letter I have received from Mr. Allen L. Walker, Director of Financial Aid at the University of Vermont, is selfexplanatory. I would appreciate your making his letter a part of the record on this matter. Sincerely yours, GEORGE D. AIKEN. THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: There is some indication that funds for National Defense Student Loans will be discontinued and completely replaced by the new Insured Loan Program recently established through the Higher Education Act. I would like to encourage you to consider the impact of such action. Although it may appear that all students will be able to borrow under the Insured Loan Program, I feel that this program does not provide the best method of providing financial assistance to students and furthermore broadens the possibility that those students who really need loans may be unable to borrow because of lack of adequate reserves needed to guarantee these loans. If financial need is not a factor (outside of the fact that interest will have to be paid by students whose parents have an income of over $15,000), then many people will be able to borrow in spite of the fact that they could finance an education without such assistance. This could very substantially increase the number of people who borrow. If more people borrow then there is a strong likelihood that the Insured Loan Program may be handled on a first-come, first-served basis; and when the reserves for any given state are exhausted, everyone else will be denied loans regardless of their need for assistance. Naturally, many people are unable to borrow under the National Defense Student Loan Program because of insufficient funds, but it seems obvious that those who do receive loans are the ones who really need them. National Defense Loans consistently have gone to students who demonstrate need for assistance. It seems evident to me that the National Defense Program needs to be continued until such time as it can be determined whether or not the new Insured Loan Program will be effective. I would like to request that careful consideration be given before the National Defense Student Loan Program is abandoned in favor of a program that may or may not provide equal coverage. Sincerely, ALLEN L. WALKER, Director of Financial Aid. |