The witnesses who follow us are experts in this field of technicians. Senator YARBOROUGH. I mean "terminal" in nature rather than preparatory to college work.

Could you tell us how many scientists there are in the United States today?

Mr. ROBBINS. No. We do not have any statistics on that. There are statistics available, of course, from numerous sources which will probably be made available to the committee.

TECHNICAL INSTITUTES

Mr. DUNN. I have one other comment on the technical institute program, again from the viewpoint of the engineering group. I think in too many cases it is interpreted that a technical institute is a substandard type of education. I think there are too many inferences like that. This, in my estimation, is not true. It is a different type of education. It attracts a different type of person, not the less capable but the person who has an interest in working with his hands and direct supervision of accomplishing engineering construction and engineering designs, and so forth.

I do not believe that anyone should infer at any time that this is less high quality education than engineering, but it is an education for a person with a different interest.

We have a technical institute in our institution. We have had considerable opportunity to observe it. If a person fails engineering, he does not go to the technical institute to succeed there. He fails primarily because he lacks the interest and the ability to apply himself.

The technical institute requires a person of capability and interest in the particular field of activity in which they are trained.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you say, Dr. Dunn, that the technical institute requires a student with as high intellectual capabilities as the student in junior college?

Mr. DUNN. Å different kind of intellectual capability.

I do not know how we could define it. Certainly it is a capable person.

DELEGATION OF STEELWORKERS

Senator MURRAY. I would like to interrupt the proceedings this morning. We have a very substantial delegation of steelworkers, district 9 steel workers, who are here in Washington for a legislative conference. We welcome them here today.

We think the steelworkers have made a splendid contribution to better relations between management and workers. I recall that a short time after they had been recognized by the United States Steel Co., Myron Taylor said that after only 1 year of cooperation between the workers and the management, the relationship between management and labor in the steel industry was never so good as it was at that time.

We are very proud to have the delegation visit us here this morning. I congratulate them and wish them success in their conference. Senator PURTELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice of welcome to the delegation, a substantial one, here. It is nice to know that they took time out this morning to come over to these hearings

on our educational problems. I, too, want to compliment them for their gathering here, their deliberations.

I think that one of the interesting things about the delegation is that there are three members with it, Mr. Chairman, who served, I understand, and went to high school with one of the members of our staff, Roy James. So you have three classmates in this group of steelworkers.

If we can be of any service to you in offering the services of our office, my office, and, I am sure, the office of the committee, we stand ready to be of that service.

COMMENDATION OF STEELWORKERS

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a word of congratulations to the Steelworkers for the interest they have shown in their Government. I think, despite the good citizenship that they have shown and the high quality of contribution they are making to the industrial success of America, it means an even greater contribution when they come in and see the Government firsthand. You can see how we operate when we consider how to spend your tax dollars and what fields are most critical to make those allocations. I did not know that you would be here, but I am extremely pleased to welcome you into the halls of Government. Your money is going into this effort.

The CHAIRMAN (resuming chair). We have a lot of fine steelworkers in my State of Alabama. I only wish some of them were here today. We are certainly glad to have you gentlemen here from Pennsylvania. We congratulate you on your interest, taking the time to come here and see how your Government-this is your Government-operates, how it works.

INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKER OF GUAM LEGISLATURE

We are also happy to have with us this morning the Honorable Antonio B. Won Pat, speaker of the Guam Legislature. In Guam they have the unicameral system. Mr. Won Pat, as speaker of the legislature, is the highest elective official in the government of Guam. We are delighted that you are here this morning, Mr. Won Pat, and, as the speaker of the Guam Legislature, we would be honored to have you come up and sit here with us.

There are no further questions, Dr. Dunn.

I want to say I regret very much I did not have the privilege of hearing your statement. I had to attend a meeting of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce and do a little testifying myself. (A statement by the National Society of Professional Engineers, October 17, 1957, entitled "The Engineering Shortage," follows:)

THE ENGINEERING "SHORTAGE"

Statement by the National Society of Professional Engineers, October 17, 1957 Within recent weeks, related developments have provided fresh evidence for those who contend that there is a severe shortage of engineering and scientific personnel and, at the same time, for those who maintain that there is not a shortage. This contradictory situation has existed since 1949 when one of the largest engineering graduating classes in history led to predictions of an over

supply-followed a year later by the Korean war, the increase in defense spending and the subsequent high demand for engineering and scientifie personnel.

Since then, many leaders in public life and industry have expressed a fear that the output of trained engineering talent has been lacking in numbers to the extent that the Nation's security is in jeopardy, and have called for various forms of "crash" programs to produce more engineers. Others have contended during this period that the shortage was synthetic, or highly exaggerated. Recently, defense budget cuts caused the layoff of a number of aircraft employees, including some 1,000 engineers. This resulted in extensive publicity to the effect that the shortage was over and that more engineers would be laid off as further cuts were made in defense spending. Now, the launching of the Russian earth satellite has resulted in even more extensive statements and publicity that the United States is trailing Russia in scientific achievements because we have not produced enought engineers and scientists compared to the USSR. New demands are being voiced for "crash" programs to train larger numbers of engineers and scientists. Some leading members of Congress have stated that they will move for extensive Federal scholarship programs when the legislators resume their work next January. In the face of this "on-again off-again" situation, the engineering and scientific professions and the general public are understandably confused and uncertain.

The validity of each point of view regarding the supply of engineers depends on interpretation and analysis of data which has been published in great detail and variety. Despite this wealth of information, however, both points of view probably can be defended if the definitions of two terms "engineer" and "shortage"-are made by the respective groups.

The National Society of Professional Engineers has observed and studied the various statements, reports and analyses during this period. We recognize an obligation to the Nation's economy, the engineering profession and to the young people who may be considering the choice of an engineering career, to lend assistance in the clarification of these conflicting viewpoints, and to the extent possible to assist in the selection of the best alternatives in the future.

It is most important that the Nation not rush into hastily improvised actions having to do with the education of engineers which would only aggravate a complicated and difficult condition that cannot be solved by spur-of-the-moment solutions.

Based on close observation of the engineering profession's growth and intimate experience in professional engineering activities, NSPE believes that the following factors are sound observations for future guidance:

(1) Special action to increase today's supply of engineers is not considered necessary or desirable since engineering enrollments are at an all-time high and are continuing to increase.

(2) An artificial stimulation to further increase enrollments in engineering will severely handicap institutions that devote adequate attention to the capable students.

(3) Assumption that Russia launched the earth satellite before the United States solely because it had trained more scientific personnel in recent years than this country, we believe is not valid and could lead to unwise and damaging decisions. We believe it would be more logical to assume that the controlling factors were priorities assigned to money and emphasis, rather than a shortage of technical personnel in the United States.

(4) Emphasis now more than ever should be placed on quality rather than quantity. Potential engineers should be better grounded in fundamentals when they enter the engineering educational program and should be better informed as to the qualifications essential for an individual to become a successful engi

neer.

(5) In view of the present limitations of facilities and faculties, the substantially increased enrollments in our engineering institutions are causing serious difficulties at the present tme. Any program which will substantially add to the present number of students must include means to resolve these limiting factors. (6) It should be emphasized that projects such as the earth satellite, guided missiles, etc., depend on highly advanced technology-a mere increase in numbers of those with first degrees will not provide the type of highly advanced technical knowledge which is necessary. It should also be noted that any program based on present needs will not succeed in solving today's technological

problems. A program starting today will not produce a single highly qualified engineer or scientist for at least 6 years.

(7) Experience has shown that we have wasted engineering talent by using it at a level below that which it is capable of performing. Improved utilization of engineering talent can do more for an immediate need than any other single program.

The CHAIRMAN. I also want to say at this point that there is no member of this committee who is a more faithful member or has a greater interest in the subject of education which we are now considering than Senator Gordon Allott, of Colorado. He was very anxious to be here this morning, but other duties made it necessary for him to go to other committees.

We are delighted to have had you here, and I can assure you, sir, that I will read your statement with great interest, and, I am sure, with much benefit.

Thank you very much.

We now have the representatives from the Coordinating Committee on Scientific and Engineering Technicians, Dr. E. H. Rietzke, president, and accompanied by Dr. Karl O. Werwath, president of the Milwaukee School of Engineering, and Dr. K. L. Holderman, assist ant dean, school of engineering, Pennsylvania State University.

We welcome you gentlemen here. We are happy to have you. Doctor, we would be delighted to have you proceed in your own way, sir.

STATEMENT OF E. H. RIETZKE, PRESIDENT, COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS; ACCOMPANIED BY KARL 0. WERWATH, PRESIDENT, MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING; AND DR. KENNETH L. HOLDERMAN, ASSISTANT DEAN, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. RIETZKE. We are very pleased to have followed Dr. Dunn in this proceeding because I believe that we can answer some of the questions that were asked of him about this particular field. We would like to speak mostly from our personal experience rather than relying on philosophy too much. I think we should answer some of the questions that have been asked of the last witness.

Educators themselves have had sufficient difficulty over the years in trying to definitely define the area of technical institute education and the proper designation for its graduates that I believe a brief clarifying statement would be helpful.

STANDARDS FOR TECHNICAL INSTITUTE

It was not until the formation of the National Council of Technical Schools in the spring of 1944 that such an attempt was really made, although the Wickenden report for the American Society for Education some years earlier was a monumental job. The National Council for the first time established specific standards, both educational and ethical, for such institutions.

I might say that at that time most of the States had laws regulating trade schools and vocational schools. One of the biggest prob

lems was to try to separate the institutions of higher learning from the trade-school category.

In the fall of 1944 the Engineers' Council for Professional Development, which had been for a number of years the recognized accrediting body for the curriculums of engineering colleges, established a technical institute subcommittee under the chairmanship of Dean H. P. Hammond of Pennsylvania State University.

Dean Hammond was considered, I ain sure, over the years one of the greatest engineering educators.

This committee developed, over a period of several years, the following definition, which I should like to read, from page 2 of the 1957 Bulletin, entitled "Technical Institute Programs" and request that this bulletin be made a part of the record. The definition reads as follows:

DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTE PROGRAMS

Curricula to be considered are technological in nature and lie in the posthigh-school area. They differ in content and purpose from those of the vocational school on one hand and from those of the engineering college on the other. Curricula in this field are offered by a variety of institutions and cover a considerable range as to duration and content of subject matter, but have in common the following purposes and characteristics:

1. The purpose is to prepare individuals for various technical positions or lines of activity encompassed within the field of engineering, but the scope of the programs is more limited than that required to prepare a person for a career as a professional engineer.

2. Programs of instruction are essentially technological in nature, based upon principles of science, and include sufficient post-secondary-school mathematics to provide the tools to accomplish the technical objectives of the curricula.

3. Emphasis is placed upon the use of rational processes in the principal fundamental portions of the curricula that fulfill the stated objectives and purposes.

4. Programs of instruction are briefer, and usually more completely technical in content than professional curricula, though they are concerned with the same general fields of industry and engineering. They do not lead to the baccalaureate degree in engineering. Such designations as Engineering Aide, Technical Aide, Associate in Engineering, and Engineering Associate are appropriate designations to be conferred upon the graduates of programs of technical institute type. 5. Training for artisanship is not included within the scope of education of technical institute types.

CREDITS NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH COLLEGE CREDITS

This definition points out above all else that these programs are in large measure highly specialized and highly practical in content. As a rule, they do not fall into the academic pattern of the conventional collegiate program, even though the technical level of the technical institute program may be in many cases equal to or in excess of that of some 4-year college programs. The excellence of many of these programs is primarily because they are not patterned to conform to the exchange of credits with conventional collegiate programs. I think that is something that cannot be stressed too highly. Some university-connected technical institutes do not receive credit for transfer to the engineering curricula of their own university. On the other hand, many technical-institute graduates do in fact receive very large proportionate credit from leading universities, either directly or by examination.