STATEMENT OF DEAN DONALD E. DEYO, DEAN OF THE MONTGOMERY JUNIOR COLLEGE, TAKOMA PARK, MD., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES

Mr. DEYO. Mr. chairman, my name is Donald E. Deyo. I am dean of the Montgomery Junior College, Takoma Park, Md. For the past year, I served as chairman of the Legislation Commission of the American Association of Junior Colleges, and also as chairman of the Maryland Association of Junior Colleges. At present, I am a member of the board of directors of the American Association of Junior Colleges, and president of the Junior College Council of the Middle Atlantic States.

I am deeply pleased to have been invited to speak here today to give additional emphasis to testimony already presented in support of S. 1138. The statements made to this committee to date provide an overview of the many values we as a Nation derived from the so-called GI bills.

As an educator, I am impressed with the fact that those persons presenting negative views on S. 1138 chose to minimize or neglect altogether the fact that thousands upon thousands of young Americans became teachers, scientists, engineers, technicians, and other valuable working and educated members of our society mainly because of the assistance they received under the Readjustment Acts passed in 1944 and in 1952. We know that many veterans could not possibly have advanced themselves and developed greater utilization of their personal resources for the Nation if it had not been for these acts. The value of these GI bills in human, personal terms and to our country in terms of increased effective use of brainpower cannot be minimized nor neglected in our present discussions.

As a junior college administrator, I am aware of the responsibility thrust on our schools and colleges to produce more enlightened citizens generally, and to provide the scientists, technicians, teachers, and other professionals we need in increasing numbers today.

Furthermore, as a member of a national professional association, I am deeply concerned about the development of leadership qualities in the youth of our Nation, and it is this specific concern that prompts this statement today.

Leaders emerge from many sources within our society. This is one of the impelling forces of our democratic life. As a Nation, we have the fortunate capacity to direct and encourage leadership abilities wherever they exist.

Our freedom of movement-social as well as geographic combined with our educational resources, among other factors, provide the stimulus to leadership development. We have done rather well in this regard and we shall continue to do so- or at least I hope we shall. We still have a great degree of mobility and our educational enterprises and their offerings are multiplying.

What does trouble many educators, however, is the fact that a large number of able young men and women never get to college or have the chance to develop their talents to the fullest possible extent.

Estimates of the number of top-level high school graduates who do not go on to college approximate 200,000 per year.

College education per se does not, of course, guarantee a person a better or more productive life. It is obvious, however, that college graduates, on the whole, form the main pool from which leadership on the local, State, and National levels is drawn. Further, it is only the college graduate who can qualify for admission to graduate and advanced training and education for which our society and our economy has so great a need. We must do whatever we can to encourage young people to continue their education all along the line. We are already losing many after high school graduation. We cannot afford, as a Nation, to lose more.

Moreover, veterans who have had their service responsibilities come between them and graduate school should be encouraged by every means at our disposal to continue their education at the higher levels. The "Second Interim Report to the President" of the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers outlines another aspect of the shortage of manpower:

The fact is between 1940 and 1955 the population 18 through 21 years of age declined over a million (from 9.7 million to 8.6 million). *** As this "lean generation" completes college and moves into the labor force, there will be by 1965 a numerical decrease from 1955 of almost three-quarters of a million in the number of men age 25-34 in the labor force.

This is the group on which we rely for engineers and scientists. * *** Similarly, in the decade 1965–75, the Nation will face an absolute decrease in the number of men 35-44 from whom we draw our young executives and administrators.

The deep dip in the curve of manpower availability is a serious one. There is little comfort in the knowledge that perhaps in two generations we will have caught up again. Stepping back from the closer scrutiny of national need to view our place in the community of nations, we can see in even bolder outline the overall need for the more creative use of our manpower and brainpower.

Admittedly, we would not want to shape our national educational programs solely to counter those of other countries. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore what is going on around us that may serve as a threat to our position and to our stability as a country.

Some information has just come to me which may be of use and interest to the committee regarding Soviet education, Soviet efforts in higher education.

Even a brief study of Soviet educational efforts in institutions of higher learning indicate that the Government is making very extensive attempts to produce specialists and experts in the field it considers most important.

Perhaps most indicative of this is the fact that no tuition is now being charged students in universities and institutes. This factor, combined with the fact that a great many students are paid stipends to cover their living expenses, tends to minimize costs as a consideration in obtaining higher education. It is true that in some cases the stipends are probably insufficient to cover all the student's expenses. And even those students receiving larger amounts may feel a need to supplement them through some outside source.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that most students receiving stipends could manage to subsist on them in case of necessity. The amount of the stipend varies according to the year of study, the faculty, or the department in which the student is enrolled, the institution, and the

grades which he maintains. For example, the schedule of stipends varies from 210 rubles a month for a first-year student to 315 rubles a month for fifth-year students in the most important institutions of higher learning.

In fields considered to be of lesser importance, the schedule is somewhat lower. Schedules and methods of awarding stipends are discussed in "The High School," published in 1957, pages 429 to 473. There is evidence that the amount of stipends is increased for students in what are considered elite institutions, such as Moscow State University. In addition, recipients of special awards may receive more than the standard amount.

Persons who earn top grades in all their subjects for the preceding semester are awarded a 25-percent increase in the amount of their stipends. It is difficult to ascertain just how extensive the system of stipends is in the Soviet Union. Soviet officials have sometimes claimed that 80 percent of the resident students in higher educational institutions receive these scholarships.

The representatives of American research and educational institutions who visited the Soviet Union last year, however, have reported that more than 80 percent of the students are assisted financially, either in whole or in part.

This is found in the report on higher education in the Soviet Union published by the University of Pittsburgh Press in 1958, page 20.

The number certainly varies somewhat from school to school. It has been said by the Soviets that 97 percent of the students attending Moscow University are on scholarships. That may be true, but the percentage probably would not be nearly so high in most other institutions. The stipends are granted on the basis of grades received on the entrance examinations, and are continued throughout the course of studies so long as the student maintains the required level of performance.

We should take advantage of every opportunity to utilize to the full our educational and other resources in the development of all our leadership potential.

We know that more high school graduates will enroll in college when opportunities for higher education are made accessible. Let me cite one example: In 1947, in Jackson County, Fla., only 7 percent of that year's high school graduates enrolled in college. That same year, a public junior college was established there. This year, 52 percent of the high school graduates began their college careers, 7 percent outside of the county and the rest in the Chipola Junior College.

This is clear-cut evidence that our young people will continue their education if it is within their reach. The Chipola story is being repeated throughout Florida and in other States where similar opportunities are available.

The passage of S. 1138 will bring higher education within the reach of veterans, whether for undergraduate or graduate training. Opportunities for continuing education must be made available to as many persons as possible.

My final point is one that may well have been stated first. This is the matter of equitable treatment of all persons called upon to serve

their country under the selective service arrangements. It is difficult to see how, under present world conditions, a line can be drawn at one point in time and all on one side be listed as deserving and those on the other not.

As long as selective service is in effect, new veterans are entitled to the same type of readjustment assistance already provided to thousands of persons before them.

The concern of the American Association of Junior Colleges was expressed in the following resolution which was passed by unanimous vote at our national convention, March 13, 1959, in Long Beach, Calif.

VETERANS EDUCATION BENEFITS

Be it resolved, That the American Association of Junior Colleges strongly supports legislation to extend educational opportunities to veterans of military service after January 31, 1955.

It is this resolution which gives me my mandate to speak to you today. I thank you for this opportunity to present these views.

Senator WILLIAMS. We thank you, Dean Deyo, for a very compelling statement as to many of the reasons why we feel this legislation is so necessary. Certainly the justice of making these opportunities available has been thoroughly touched by you; our national needs and our requirements demand that we bring forth the best of our brainpower. And, of course, our relative position with respect to the Soviet Union, as you very dramatically told us, has to be considered in this matter.

There is one other aspect of this. I wonder if you would like to comment on the relative income levels of the college graduate compared with the noncollege graduate. I have been told-and I haven't the facts and figures with me-that the GI bill of rights, so called, following World War II has paid for itself in higher income levels. I know I was one of the beneficiaries of the GI bill. I went to law school on it.

Do you agree that there is a substantial increase in income opportunities for those who have had the advantages of a college education? Mr. DEYO. I don't think there is any question about it. I haven't any statistics at my fingertip here, but I seem to recall some such figure as a college education perhaps adding as much as a hundred thousand dolars in a life career to one's income. There is no question but that the veteran who has benefitted from the previous GI bills has been in a position to earn a higher income. This, of course, comes back to the Government and to our society and to our civilization in terms of more effective leadership, a better trained citizenry, and, if one wants to be mundane about it, it also comes back to the Government through increased income, increased tax revenues.

And. in this sense, it certainly can be argued validly that the veteran is paying somewhat for his own education and for his own benefit under the GI bill.

Senator WILLIAMS. I didn't want to suggest that that was the reason for this measure. Certainly, it is not. The other reasons are far more persuasive. But frequently we find that, in choosing programs in terms of preference and priority, some of these dollars-and-cents arguments will move something up farther on the list that is needed. This program is one that is really self-liquidating.

There was one portion of your testimony that I had a question or two about. You quoted the "Second Interim Report to the President" of the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers.

I wonder if you have read their explanation of this decrease in manpower for those age groups for those years there?

It came as quite a surprise to me.

Mr. DEYO. Yes, I have read it. And whereas I would hesitate to quote the document, it seems to me that the line of reasoning used there, as I recall, was that the decline of the birth rate in the years preceding these decades mentioned leads to a smaller force of manpower in these age groups as discussed here. And that, of course, with our increasing birth rate in recent years, in time we will work out of this shortage. But this does not remedy the situation as it is

now.

Senator WILLIAMS. I have a report here from the Bureau of Census dated December 1958. Page 6 of the report deals with this question of relative income. And I would like to take a moment to read a portion of this for the record.

Under the heading "Veterans' Rising Incomes Outstrip Those of Nonveterans.":

During the past decade, the income of World War II veterans has increased more rapidly than that of nonveterans. In 1947, shortly after the end of World War II, the income of veterans in the 25- to 34-year age bracket which included a majority of the veterans was slightly lower than that of nonveterans in the same age group. Between 1947 and 1957 the average income of these veterans (now 35 to 45 years of age) more than doubled from $2,400 to $5,000. And that of the nonveterans rose by about 65 percent, from $2,600 to $4,300. Thus in 1957, the average income of these veterans was about 15 percent higher than that of the nonveterans.

Then we can go on and make probably the correlation and draw the conclusion that educational opportunities had a great deal to do with that.

I think probably later on in the record we will more specifically deal with the college graduate and his income compared to the noncollege graduate.

Is there anything else?

Mr. DEYO. No, I believe not.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Dean Deyo.

Our next witness is Mr. Donald Hoff, president of the West Virginia Association of Business Schools.

We are very pleased to welcome you before this subcommittee today. I am sure you have been made aware of the fact that your two Senators from West Virginia are cosponsors of this measure.

Mr. HOFF. Thank you Senator Williams. Yes, I know and am greatly pleased that the Senators of my State are sponsors of this measure. I was given rather short notice regarding this particular hearing by the president of our West Virginia Business College Association. He was unable to attend. And I am here representing the Association in his stead.