SUPPLEMENT A

Complying with requests from a number of sources, the American council has prepared a supplemental analysis showing the answers from private and from public institutions to questions No. 1 and No. 2. The breakdown which follows seems to show no significant variation from the previous tables in which public and private institutions are shown in a single figure.

Statement of attitude on principle toward a general Federal scholarship program

Statement of approval, or desire for modification, of committee statement of

SUPPLEMENT B

DESIRABLE FEATURES OF A FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

(A statement prepared by the subcommittee on national scholarship policy and approved on November 30, 1956, by the committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government for reference to the membership of the American Council on Education).

General objective

The objective of a Federal national scholarship program should be to offer the opportunity of college education to qualified students who would otherwise be denied it for lack of financial resources. Therefore, Federal funds should not be used to encourage students financially able to attend an adequate institution merely to seek admission to other institutions at a higher cost.

Guiding principles

1. Students should be selected on the basis of ability and achievement with stipends graduated according to need.

2. The student should have complete freedom to choose his own program of studies within the requirements set by the individual institution. Scholarships which are not restricted as to field of study are fairer to the individual because they permit him to develop his best abilities; they are better for the Nation because they insure a natural flow of qualified persons to all occupations.

3. Stipends, up to a maximum amount set generally for the program, should be sufficient to enable the student to attend an eligible college providing a course suitable to him.

4. However, the student should not be denied the opportunity to attend any recognized college or university properly accredited under the auspices of a regional accrediting association. For this reason, acceptance of a national scholarship should not preclude acceptance of supplementary assistance from other sources.

5. There should be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, or sex.

Administrative procedures

1. The standards for selection should be determined by the Office of Education in consultation with an advisory council appointed for this purpose, but the program of selection would be administered by the individual States under the supervision of educational authorities.

2. A fixed percentage quota (e. g., 7 percent in 1956 to produce 100,000 scholarships should be selected from the secondary school graduating population of each State according to federally determined standards. For example, those students selected for their ability and achievement by the local educators of each State would take a national test (or a federally approved test or tests). Each State would then fill its quota from the high scorers within that State. 3. The selection of "national scholars" should be made during the students' junior year to afford them the opportunity to plan their last year of high school work accordingly and to permit colleges to use their own funds to best advantage in aiding other qualified students. Provision should be made for awards to qualified seniors whose financial situation has deteriorated since the principal selection in the junior year.

4. Payment of the stipend should be made directly to the student.

5. The scholarships should be awared only to undergraduates and for a maximum of 4 years.

6. Provisions should be made to pay demonstrable administrative costs incurred by both State agencies and institutions.

Estimated cost of a general Federal scholarship program

If the central aim of a Federal scholarship program were to help each year 100,000 talented high school graduates, the number currently estimated as unable to continue their education largely for financial reasons, the net cost of the program would be as follows:

Assuming no adjustments were made for increasing enrollments or growing private funds, the total annual cost of the program in the fourth year would be four times the amount shown in each case. For example, if 100,000 students were awarded scholarships with a maximum of $750, and an average of $500, the annual cost when the program was in full effect on a 4-year basis would be $200 million plus the costs of administration

FEDERAL DEGREE GRANTING DRAWS MORE OPPOSITION

When Dr. Ward Darley, executive director of the Association of American Medical Schools, testified for the council against H. R. 3516, to authorize the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research to award advanced degrees (see this bulletin, vol. VI, No. 8), he read a letter from Dr. Ernest L. Stebbins, president of the Association of Schools of Public Health, which said in part: “It is our belief that enactment of this legislation is unnecessary for the provision of adequate instruction in the fields of public health, and that there are at least potential dangers to the standards of education in the fields of public health." More recently, Dr. Stebbins has written Chairman Vinson, of the Armed Services Committee, to inform him that "the Association of Schools of Public Health unanimously voted in opposition to the provisions of this bill. I am writing to you now merely to confirm the testimony presented by Dr. Darley at the time of the committee hearing."

Dr. Darley at the same hearing read a telegram from Dean Ralph A. Sawyer, at the University of Michigan, president of the Association of Graduate Schools in the Association of American Universities, which expressed opposition on the

basis of communication with a majority of the board of directors. Dean Sawyer has recently written Congressman Kilday to inform him of the results of further communication with representatives of the association's members. His letter says in part, "Since then I have been in further communication with the members of the executive committee of the association and with individual deans and I am directed to confirm our opinion that this move would be an unfortunate and undesirable one. It is generally recognized as bad educational policy for higher degrees to be conferred by agencies which do not have the status of educational institutions approved by the accrediting organizations of the country. In particular, it seems to us highly undesirable for degrees to be awarded in medical fields by an institution which does not have an educational structure, a permanent faculty, a definite educational policy and standard of admission and performance, or an affiliation with a recognized medical school. The Walter Reed Hospital is certainly not recognized as an educational institution. Its staff, though often of high caliber, is not permanent and is subject to abrupt and unpredicted change or transfer of personnel. As far as we know, there is no permanent or continuing board to ensure high standards of work and adequate programs of courses and research. The degrees conferred would certainly not be recognized as representing any transferable credit toward a degree in any graduate school belonging to the Association of Graduate Schools. If academic degrees are to be conferred for work done at Walter Reed Hospital, arrangements should be made with one of the recognized institutions of higher learning in Washington to approve, administer, and grant the degrees. If this arrangement cannot be made, then the appropriate procedure would be for Walter Reed Hospital to give a certificate of performance to individuals who have worked there, and not to confuse the situation by the pretense that they are awarding an acceptable and recognized higher degree. In most instances I believe a certificate would adequately fulfill the needs of individuals who have done work at the hospital and it would be recognized everywhere for what it actually isan honest statement of work performed.

"On behalf of the Association of Graduate Schools I then wish to protest against the action proposed in H. R. 3516 and to express the hope that other provisions than the awarding of degrees can be made to recognize training programs at the Walter Reed Hospital."

Similar action on behalf of dental education has been announced in a telegram from Dean Marion W. McCrea of the Dental School, University of Maryland, secretary of the American Association of Dental Schools:

"The American Association of Dental Schools membership, consisting of all dental schools in this country, voted at its annual meeting March 24-27, 1957, to reiterate its position taken in 1953 that it is opposed to the proposal that degrees in dentistry and allied health professions be awarded by military and other governmental agencies and services. The association is therefore opposed to H. R. 3516. The granting of academic degrees at the graduate level should continue to be limited to recognized universities and other academic institutions."

Opposition both to H. R. 3516 and to H. R. 2409, which would permit the granting of academic degrees by the Judge Advocate General's School, has been expressed by the Midwest Conference on Graduate Study and Research in the following resolution:

"Whereas the awarding of graduate degrees has long been recognized in this country as exclusively the function of the graduate schools of American colleges and universities; and

"Whereas the awarding of graduate degrees by hospitals or other Government agencies must inevitably result in the cheapening of degrees already granted and the opening up of endless opportunities for government bureaus to grant degrees; and

"Whereas our colleges and universities stand ready to assist any American government agency in improving and extending its education and/or research programs, and many institutions have worked out satisfactory cooperative arrangements: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Midwest Conference on Graduate Study and Research, composed of 100 colleges and universities offering graduate study, is opposed to H. R. 2409 and H. R. 3516."

The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow we will have with us the Council of Chief State School Officers, Dr. A. John Holden, president, who is State commissioner of education of Vermont, and Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the council.

The committe will now stand in recess until 10 tomorrow morning. (Thereupon at 12:30 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene Wednesday, February 19, 1958, at 10 a. m.)

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1958

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the Capitol, Senator Lister Hill (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Hill (presiding), Murray, Yarborough, Smith, Allott, and Cooper.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Roy E. James, assistant chief clerk; John S. Forsythe, general counsel; William G. Reidy and Michael J. Bernstein, professional staff members.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order.

We are very happy to have with us this morning Dr. A. John Holden, State commissioner of education, Vermont, and president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, and an old friend who is executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Dr. Edgar Fuller.

Gentlemen, we welcome you here, and we would be delighted to have you proceed in your own way.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENTS OF DR. A. JOHN HOLDEN, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS AND STATE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, VERMONT; AND DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am A. John Holden, State commissioner of education of Vermont and president of the Council of Chief State School Officers. As you know, the council is composed of the State superintendents or State commissioners of education of all the States plus the chief State school officers of Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Canal Zone. We are here to testify for the council.

The members of this council will have major responsibility for the administration of whatever educational bills before your committee may be passed by the Congress, particularly as they relate to the elementary and secondary public schools. The administrative responsibility of each chief State school officer in his own State, under the terms of all the major bills which are before your committee, Mr. Chairman, would be much more extensive than the administrative responsibilities of all the officers of the United States Office of Educa