by the deadline. And an indication that rather than 40 or 50 percent of the applicants actually registering in the fall we might expect 70 to 80 percent even.

This, then, faced us with the proposition of having as many as 4800 students, or 4500 students wishing to attend when we had been planning and doing our faculty recruiting and our renovation of temporary facilities and so on on the basis of 1300 which we always knew we could go a little above.

So at its last meeting, the Board in addition to the two actions which Mr. Horsky mentioned, that is, saying that 2400 students was as many as we could recruit faculty for since we are right in the heart or a little bit past the peak of the faculty recruiting zone now even, and since there is a six-month lag or so on the renovation of facilities we are renovating will peak out on capacity at something around 2400, that we have chosen that figure-I cannot defend that figure over 2300 or 2500 really, but-and in addition to that, that we would explore with the District government the procedures for amending our 1969 budget to allow us to handle 2400 students rather than 1300. It is not a direct proportional increase because some of the money for the lower enrollment was in the form of planning and crankup money to get us started. So although we are nearly doubling the number of students we are not in any sense nearly doubling the budget-now we are faced with the problem of how to select those students who will get the first offers of admission.

First of all, before I go into that side of it, I would like to allay some fears that the number 2400 sounds a great deal lower than the number, say, 5,280, but some 20 percent of the students who have applied would not accept an offer even if tendered.

Secondly, there are some students in the large group who desire educational programs that are the strengths of the Institution so as we do the pre-registration counseling and admission work with these students, some of them will, I think, elect to apply to the Institution rather than to us.

Thirdly, the parttime-fulltime question is a difficult one for us to determine. We have interviewed many of our students. They say they want to be fulltime but then they also say that they wish to work quite extensively, so it could be that not all of the students will be fulltime which will open up other opportunities for students on a fulltime equivalency basis to fill those positions.

Then, last, we will have a certain amount of attrition in the student body during the three quarters of the academic year, and we intend to fill back up to the original 2400 on those basis which are not used by those students who do not continue after the first quarter.

So that all-in-all, we think that we will be able, with 2400 spaces, to offer admission to just under 90 percent of the applicants, but they would not all be able to be offered admission. Some of them might be asked to start in January instead of this fall.

So that now the question is how to determine who gets first shot. We want very much for our student body, the first year, to be representative of the student body in subsequent years, because we are doing a considerable amount of curriculum experimentation. Our faculty recruiting and faculty evaluation is based on teaching rather than a research function with a student body that will have a very wide variety

of readiness for college. So, therefore, we do not wish to use methods of selecting the students that will cause the student body to be sharply, say, stronger students or weaker students or older students or younger students or male or female or veterans or nonveterans or any of the other factors that we might have used to do the selection.

So we really boiled it down to only two possibilities: One, chronological date of receipt of application which we do have on record, or a random process to assure the most representative sample of the total application group.

We had to reject the chronological factor for several reasons. Much of this application traffic resulted from a series of visits which I paid to the high schools of the District telling the students about the college and explaining the program. But I did not do those all on the same day, of course, so that they were strung out over a period from the 10th of November to the 10th of January, but all but one of them was done before the Christmas holiday. But it would be very unfair to the one school where I did not go until after the Christmas holiday because there were more than 2400 applications by the time I went to that school as an example. So that for that reason and for the fact also in some of the schools the counselors held the applications of the students for several weeks, assembled, cleaned them up and then sent them in, that sort of changed the date really that these students had applied. So we proposed then a random selection process where all students who applied before the deadline have an equal opportunity to be number one in the list. They also have an equal opportunity to be number 5,280, which happens to be the number of feet in a mile and we often think how long that line would be.

Now, we will use the number as a sequence, sequence number to all the students in for pre-registration and counseling. If we find that some of the students, for example, thought they were seniors in high school but turn out to be really only juniors they are not eligible to start next fall because they have not achieved high school graduation. So as we counsel along, then we will determine the eligibility of the student and determine whether or not he might have a better opportunity for the program he wants in another institution, and then continue to call them in in the order of this sequencing by random

process.

Now, as Mr. Horsky said, the decision of the Board to approve this method is tentative and will be considered for its second reading as we say tomorrow at the Board meeting.

Mr. SISK. Well, thank you. I appreciate that explanation.

Mr. WALKER. I appreciate your statement Dr. Farner. I just want to make this observation, Mr. Chairman. I was a little concerned when I read about this method of selecting students, because I was hopeful that you would at least do some screening. Otherwise I think you will pass over many young people who are capable of doing college work. So I was just hopeful that you would at least do a certain amount of screening to avoid that.

I am not saying that I am against these young people who have not done so well in their high school days. I would like to see them, if possible, given an opportunity because we know by experience that many high school students who did not do so well in high school do well in college.

Dr. FARNER. Yes.

Mr. WALKER. I do not mean for this to be a guideline or anything, but by the same token, I still would hate for your to pass over those who have the aptitude to do well.

Thank you, very much.

Dr. FARNER. May I make a couple of comments on that point? We hate to turn anybody away. We hate to turn the ones who did not do well in high school away for the following reason, that if we turn them away, as the only public institution for the District of Columbia, they really have no place else to go. The stronger students can acquire scholarships and admission at other institutions. On the other hand, we certainly do not want to turn away all strong students deliberately and have a student less able than the total application group.

We are going to explore at our Board meeting tomorrow possibly measures of asking other institutions in this general metropolitan area to help by receiving some students solve this dilemma for us. We may be able to go out and actually ask some neighboring colleges to take some students from us on a tuition basis. We are exploring every possible way we can to make sure that nobody is turned away next year.

Now, one important statistic about our college, our application group that affects this is the fact that more than 60 percent of our applicants are not in high school now. This means some of them are out of high school several years. So to use their high school records, which might have been weak on the basis of a time, say, for years ago, when their motivation was much different, now they are attempting to either reduce their employment or drop their employment entirely and try to go to college, three or four years after high school, start college three or four years after high school, and this shows a great deal of motivation, and to use high school records on those students as a decider of whether they could or could not try would be difficult, I think.

Mr. SISK. Very good. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HARSHA. I certainly appreciate your explanation because I shared the same misgivings about this lottery method that I think my colleague did. At least from the newspaper reports, it looked on the surface of it you would be preempting the fellow that had worked hard in high school so he could get in college

Dr. FARNER. That is right.

Mr. HARSHA. and showed outstanding ability. Certainly you must give some recognition to achievement in high school as you screen these people. I would assume, from your explanation, that academic ability will be taken into consideration.

I think it is also fair to say, is it not, that if you had a student body of average people, they probably do not learn as much as if you have it mixed or have some people in there with special skills or outstanding skills.

Dr. FARNER. That is right.

Mr. HARSHA. Because they provide incentive for the average student, is that not so?

Dr. FARNER. That is true.

Mr. HARSHA. If you get a little encouragement and leadership from seeing the student next to you doing something well, maybe you try a little harder. It gives you a better academic program overall, does it

not?

Dr. FARNER. Yes, we agree. That is the reason we want this total spread of the application group.

Mr. HARSHA. Well, I appreciate your explanation, and I certainly feel much relieved.

Mr. HORSKY. Let me add only one thing that is perhaps implicit in what Dr. Farner has said but has not been made explicit. We do not anticipate allowing this to happen again. This was a gross misjudgment of the need for this school in this District, and our freshmen class next year will be adequately budgeted to take care of all applicants.

Dr. FARNER. When I first arrived, I raised the estimate from very low figures up to the 1300. There has been a massive underestimate, I think, over the years that the need for the two colleges has been studied of the potential student demand, and now we are really sort of proving that point in a sense.

Mr. SISK. All right. Did you have any further questions?

Mr. HARSHA. No.

Mr. SISK. Well, gentlemen, we appreciate very much your coming before the Committee this morning and your fine statement. I might say that so far as I know this concludes your testimony. However, I would hope, Dr. Farner, that you and Dr. Wiegman, and Mr. Horsky as far as that goes, would be prepared, maybe, to answer some questions. As I say, not all members of the subcommittee were here this morning. I might say, on the statement which has now been made a part of the record, of Dr. Farner and Dr. Wiegman submitted on pages three, four, five and six, I think they do set forth a very eloquent plea and a very good reason for making of this school and land-grant college. And, of course, we have precedents in all the states as we provided in the Hawaiian Act which has been mentioned, of course, the cash in lieu of land, but if there are further questions, why you gentlemen will be here in the city and available in the future if you are needed.

Mr. HORSKY. We will be available.

Mr. SISK. Yes, Dr. Wiegman.

Dr. WIEGMAN. Mr. Chairman, one final comment. We view the timing of this legislation as very important because now is the time to begin recruiting faculty and extension workers to help carry out the intent of this legislation. So any particular movement on this would be very much appreciated.

Mr. SISK. Well, I think it is understood that there was come urgency, at least you people felt that, and let me say this, that the Committee will hope to move along as expeditiously as possible. I think what we will probably try to do this morning, if possible, is to finish the testimony on it and then as soon as possible, the Committee will go into Executive Session and attempt to write up the bill or any changes, and I do not understand at least at the present time there has been any proposed amendments, but at least try to get the bill reported to the full Committee as soon as we can properly proceed. Thank you gentlemen.

Mr. HORSKY. Thank you.

Dr. FARNER. Thank you.

Mr. SISK. The complete statement of Dr. Farner and Dr. Wiegman will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK FARMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE AND DR. EUGENE WIEGMAN, DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting Dr. Eugene Wiegman and me to testify regarding the bills, HR 15280 and S. 1999, to "Amend the District of Columbia Education Act", the authorization to provide the District of Columbia with its own land grant institution. We wish also to thank this Committee for the wisdom it has shown in recommending the passage of PL 89-791, the law which created the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute. We are, at long last, able to provide the citizens of the District with public higher education so that they may better meet their own expectations and qualify for positions through which they can contribute more fully as citizens of this city and nation.

The Federal City College plans to open its doors to 2400 students this September, staffed by a faculty of 100, a student service staff of 53, and a small administrative staff. The college will be temporarily housed in the old Securities Exchange Commission Building at Second and "D" Streets, N.W., just a few blocks from here. The Washington Technical Institute is now housed at the old Bureau of Standards Building on Connecticut Avenue, N.W. The reception of these two institutions by the community; students, citizens, Commissioner 'Washington, the City Council and Congress is gratifying. We know we are needed and we will do our utmost to fulfill the great responsibility which we have assumed.

PL89-791 states that the Federal City College is authorized by the Congress to offer a four year program in liberal arts and sciences acceptable toward a bachelor of arts degree, including courses in teacher education; a two-year program (i) which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree or for a degree of associate in arts, and which may include courses in business education, secretarial training, and business administration, or (ii) in engineering, mathematics or the physical and biological sciences which is designed to prepare a student to work as a technician or at a semiprofessional level in engineering, sciences, or other technical fields which require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles or knowledge; eudcational programs of study as may be acceptable for a master's degree; and courses on an individual, noncredit basis to those desiring to further their education without seeking a degree.

The Washington Technical Institute is authorized to offer programs in vocational and technical education designed to fit individuals for useful employment in recognized occupations; and vocational and technical courses on an individual, noncredit basis.

WHY A LAND GRANT COLLEGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?

The enabling legislation establishing the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute is broad in scope, but land grant college status for the Federal City College is needed for three important reasons:

1. Land grant college status would, through the Morrill Act and the BankheadJones Act, provide the funds necessary to broaden the curriculum so that the Federal City College could offer expanded and strengthened programs of urban extension courses.

For example, programs of study could be offered in environmental science, dietetics, child care, home economics, horticulture and youth development to name a few. Programs of study already established could be broadened to offer additional course work in physical sciences to train, at least on the two year level, young people interested in careers in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry in cooperation with the National Arboretum. Land grant college status would permit an expansion of curriculum offerings in mathematics and engineering. 2. Land grant college status would provide the necessary funds to extend the college into the community in many of the same ways that land grant colleges are serving in your respective States. The Federal City College would be a center for the use of citizens, community organizations and Government. It would be the catalyst for discussions between specialists and lay citizens of community problems to help plan for further development of the city. Noncredit course, seminars, and workshops for interested citizens to help them upgrade their skills