science and mathematics when the teacher is outstanding they often make him the guidance counsellor. This has certain advantages but it also takes him away from the mathematics and science class rooms. The CHAIRMAN. It practically means you would have to take that teacher out of the particular classroom and transfer him or maybe promote him to some other job. Mr. MAYOR. At least part time. The CHAIRMAN. If it was felt that the teacher should not be taken out of the classroom, because he is doing a wonderful job in the room and is getting fine results with his pupils, the head of the school would be almost helpless to do anything about it; is that right? Mr. MAYOR. That is correct. MORE FLEXIBILITY IN SALARY SCALES The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think there ought to be a little more flexibility, a little more discretion in these matters? Mr. SNYDER. There certainly should. The CHAIRMAN. You are going out to be the president of the University of Hawaii? Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; I am going to have these problems thrown in my lap. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we were your board of trustees, or your legislature out there, which, of course, we are not, you would feel very much encouraged if we gave you more flexibility, I take it? Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. Fortunately, at the university level that flexibility is quite common. The CHAIRMAN. You have much more flexibility at the college and university level than you do in the elementary and secondary schools? Mr. SNYDER. Yes; a great deal more. The CHAIRMAN. As has been so well brought out here, we have heard that our boys and girls are given the idea that science is tough, science is hard. I recall when Dr. Edward Teller was here he spoke about the joy of a job, no matter how hard the work may be, how tough it may be. If you are doing a good job there comes a satisfaction, there comes an inward joy, that more than offsets any toughness of the job; is that not true! Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you gentlemen who are scientists find real joy, do you not, in your work? Mr. SNYDER. We do, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. I might say it has been a real joy to this committee to have you here this morning to hear your statements. You have certainly been wonderfully fine and most helpful and we are indeed most grateful to you. Are there any other questions of the committee? UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Senator SMITH. I was not aware, Doctor, that you were going to Hawaii. I have been out there a number of times and I have watched the university with great interest. It might be called the crossroads of the world. You are going to find students of all races, creeds, and colors. I lunched with the President and we met the young people who were sitting next to us. The color line was solved automatically. You got the reflection of thinking from all parts of the world. It was a most stimulating spot. I suppose you have been there to see it. Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; I taught there 2 years ago, 1 semester. I was out there last week. Senator SMITH. I congratulate you and I congratulate the university for picking a man of your thinking and caliber to go out there. I hope to see you there. Mr. SNYDER. I hope so. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS BY STATES Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Wolfle, do you have a breakdown by States of the percentage of high-school students who do enter college? Mr. WOLFLE. There are some figures. They are not immediately up to date, but I have figures of a few years ago of the percentage of students from each State who go on to college. There is considerable variability from State to State, with Utah leading the list, with a higher percentage of high-school graduates going to college than in any other State. Then they trail off down through 47 others. I will be glad to supply those figures. Senator YARBOROUGH. What is the latest year you have those available? Mr. WOLFLE. 1950 I believe. Senator YARBOROUGH. You do not have any more recent than that? Mr. WOLFLE. No. Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you supply those figures for the record? Mr. WOLFLE. I will be glad to. The CHAIRMAN. We will have them put in the record at this point. (The material referred to follows:) AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, MR. STEWART E. MCCLURE, Chief Clerk, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCCLURE: At the conclusion of Dr. Snyder's testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare last Friday, Senator Yarborough asked for information about the percentage of eligible students from each State who actually attend college. The best source of data with which to answer this question comes from studies conducted by the United States Office of Education at approximately 10 year intervals of college student migration in the United States. Those reports show the number of students who are residents of each State who are in attendance at colleges in that and each other State. Unfortunately, the most recent of these studies was for the year 1949-50, and another is not planned until 1959-60. I have, however, asked the Office of Education to send a copy of the 1949-50 report to Senator Yarborough together with a fall 1956 report and a preliminary statement from the fall of 1957 on the number of college students in each State. These latter reports differ from the migration studies in that they give figures on the number of college students in a State. Since students tend to congregate in those States which have many or more famous colleges and universities and to migrate out of those which have fewer colleges and universities, these figures give a somewhat distorted account of the number of students from each State who are actually attending college. This kind of distortion is avoided in the decennial migration studies, but in 1949-50 another type of distortion was introduced by the fact that that was the peak year of enrollment of World War II veterans. In the book America's Resources of Specialized Talent, which constitutes the report my colleagues and I prepared for the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Training, we published figures showing the estimated percentages of 18 through 21-year-old nonveterans from each State who were enrolled in a college or university anywhere in the United States. We arrived at these figures by taking the total number of students from each State (from the Office of Education student migration study for 1949-50), subtracting figures on veteran enrollment (from the Veterans' Administration), and computing percentages of the total 18-to-21-year-old population (from the 1950 census). The college enrollment has increased since 1949-50, so the percentages would undoubtedly be higher now than they were then. Comparisons among the States are, however, probably still reasonably close to those that can be made with the enclosed table, for the rank order of the States tends to remain reasonably stable over a short period of years. Utah was the leader, with 30 percent of her college-age youth actually in college. The District of Columbia with 28 and New York with 25 percent came next in order. Of the States (treating the District of Columbia as a State) with 22 percent or more in college, 3 were in the East-the District of Columbia, New York, and Connecticut-and 5 were in the West-Utah, Idaho, California, Montana, and Colorado. One, Kansas, was in the Midwest. In terms of proportion of total population (not 18-to-21-year-old population) — the basis used by the Office of Education in their computation of percentages-in the 3 previous migration studies, the top 10 States (exclusive of the District of Columbia) were all west of the Mississippi. Thus in 1949-50, for the first time in many years, an eastern State gained a place among the upper 10. These differences among the States have been decreasing. In 1930 the highest State had about six times as high a proportion as the lowest State. In 1938 the ratio of top to bottom State was about 4, and in 1950 about 3. The States with the smallest percentages in college were mostly concentrated in the South. The secondary concentration occurred in New England, where Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island were all low. There are important ethnic differences in these figures. The Southern States would have had higher percentages in college if only white students and the white population had been considered. New Mexico would have shown up more favorably if Mexicans had been omitted from the calculation, and some of northern New England States if French Canadians had been omitted. How many young men and women from a State attend college is undoubtedly determined by many factors. Data on the elementary and secondary school systems of the several States suggest some of these factors. The number of students in a State who enter college is positively related both to the qualitative goodness of the elementary and secondary school systems and to the financial strength of the public schools. The American Association of School Administrators and the National Education Association have provided information on several measures of the quality of the public school systems of the individual States. Their index of the nonfinancial aspects of the quality of a State school system corresponded closely with the percentage of the youth of each State who attend college. So did a financial index based upon the average salary paid to schoolteachers, the value of school property per classroom unit, and the noninstructional expenditures per classroom. These relationships are to be expected. More college students would be expected to come from schools of high quality, which are strongly supported financially, and which draw upon populations in which the adults are above average in educa tion and the children above average in ability, but there are some striking exceptions. Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island show up reasonably well on one or both of the nonfinancial and financial indexes of their public school systems, but all three send relatively small numbers of students to college. At the other extreme, Utah spends no more money than do any other States, and has a school system which is equaled or outranked by those of eight other States, but Utah sends a higher percentage of its young men and women to college than does any other State in the Union. Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Texas, while less spectacular than Utah, also send considerably more students to college than the statistics on their public school systems would lead one to expect. There are probably a number of intangible factors, such as the cultural characteristics and aspiartions which predominate in each State which are important in producing the differences. I hope that you will give a copy of this letter and table to Senator Yarborough. Sincerely, DAEL WOLFLE, Percentage of 18- to 21-year-old nonveteran students from each State who were enrolled in college anywhere in the United States in 1949-50 Source: From Dael Wolfle, America's Resources of Specialized Talent, Harper & Bros., 1954. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If there are no further questions, again, gentlemen, we certainly thank you and appreciate so much all you have done for us this morning. Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess until Monday morning at 10 o'clock, when our witnesses will be representatives from the National Academy of Science. (Thereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene Monday, February 24, 1958, at 10 a. m.) SCIENCE AND EDUCATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1958 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber, the Capitol, Senator Lister Hill (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Hill (presiding), Yarborough, Smith, and Allott. 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. The members of the committee will recall that our first witness at these hearings was Dr. Detlev Bronk, who is the president of the Academy of Sciences. Today we are very happy to have with us other representatives of the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, Dr. M. H. Trytten, director, Office of Scientific Personnel; Dr. Ralph Cleland, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Personnel; and Mr. R. M. Whaley, executive director, Advisory Board on Education. Gentlemen, we appreciate your being here. We welcome you here. Now we would be delighted to have you proceed in your own way. STATEMENTS OF M. H. TRYTTEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL; RALPH CLELAND, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL; AND R. M. WHALEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD ON EDUCATION, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Mr. TRYTTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You are going to proceed first, Mr. Trytten? Mr. TRYTTEN. Yes. We have a short statement prepared, Mr. Chairman, which we thought we would read first. We have not made made it long because we appreciate the fact that many of these questions have been discussed before and we thought perhaps we could make our best contribution by making a short statement first, and then being available for any questions that the committee may wish to ask. May I state, first, however, that Dr. Bronk, in asking us to come up here, expressed his great regret that he was not able to be here |