Conversely, some technical institutes grant very little credit for work done in leading engineering colleges because the higher degree of specialization in the technical institute finds little it can accept from the conventional collegiate program.

I might say at this point I do not know if many other schools get students of that type, but we do get a sprinkling of graduate engineers. For example, some electrical engineers want to get some quick practical technical background in electronics.

KINDS OF DEGREES AUTHORIZED

Thus, it would be very unwise to write legislation that ties qualification for technical-institute participation to credit acceptance toward the baccalaureate degree. Many technical institutes are authorized by their State departments of higher education to grant associate degrees. That is an increase in strength.

In 1945, less than 10 curriculums of 3 technical institutes were accredited by ECPD. In the latest issue of the ECPD Bulletin, just placed in the record, 109 accredited curriculums of 35 technical institutes are listed; 107 of these specialized programs are offered by resident instruction, 2 by correspondence. A number of the resident programs are available by either day or evening classes.

The type of control of these 35 leading technical institutes is significant because it points up some of the problems involved in writing legislation that will permit the prospective student to take advantage of the best training available in the specialized field of his choice, and, for reasons of national security, make maximum use of all available facilities.

TYPES OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTES

Ten of these listed institutions are private, endowed, nonprofit; 10 are proprietary, taxpaying; 7 are college connected; 5 are State operated; 2 are industry connected; 1 is municipally operated.

It should be noted that approximately one-third of the leading technical institutes whose curriculums are accredited by the highest accrediting agency in the country in their field pay taxes rather than receive subsidies.

It should further be noted that this group contains some of the leading institutions in the critical fields of aviation and electronics-the very institutions that, in the critical early days of World War II, because of the extreme flexibility of their controls, were able to quickly expand their facilities and staffs, often before contracts could be negotiated and wholly at their own risk, to take over heavy loads of specialized military training.

I know of one such school in California that, on the personal word of Gen. Hap Arnold that money ultimately would be obtained, stretched the credit of the institution and the personal credit of its president to the limit to expand its facilities, and ultimately trained 30,000 men for the Air Force.

Another such school in Kansas City, on similar assurances and without contracts to cover, took over 7 hotels, built a second school in Georgia, and, during the war, trained 30,000 radio technicians for the Signal Corps. Following the war training program, this school was almost forced into bankruptcy by renegotiation.

WARTIME EXPERIENCE OF ONE INSTITUTE

My own school here in Washington took the first pilot class of 125 students for the Signal Corps in August 1941. I might say those were all in private housing in the area of the school. We are almost crazy, and so was the Army.

After Pearl Harbor, my military enrollment jumped to 875 by August of 1942. I then built in Silver Spring, Md., in 10 weeks in the middle of the winter, in a 7-acre corn field, facilities to school, house, and feed 700 students at a time. This was done largely on personally borrowed money, with no assurance at all that contracts would refund these amounts.

During the war, my institution trained 5.000 radio technicians and, operating under the contract as a branch of the University of Marylaned, trained 3,000 civilians under the engineering science war manpower training program for war industry.

It should be noted that these are only three of a number of such cases, cited because I am personally familiar with the details-and, further, that these schools were subject to the same 95-percent excessprofits tax in effect all during the war for all industry and could not possibly profit from the risk taken.

I do not know of a single proprietary type of school that expects or wants any Government appropriation of any type or for any purpose. They do want their superior educational programs to be available to ambitious young men on an equal basis with other technical institutes, if scholarships or other student aids are provided, just as in the case under Public Law 550 (Korean GI bill) on which I testified before this same committee several years ago at the personal request of Congressman Teague.

What are the real needs for engineering and scientific technicians graduated from technical-institute programs?

QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED

The Coordinating Committee of Scientific and Engineering Technicians, on whose behalf I am testifying, recently sent a letter and questionnaire to the administrators of 666 technical schools and junior colleges. I will not take time to read the covering letter. I would like to list the names of the people who signed the letter:

Jesse P. Bogue, executive secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges.

Maynard M. Boring, Chairman, Advisory Board on Education, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

Walter M. Hartung, vice chairman, National Council of Technical Schools.

Kenneth L. Holderman, chairman-who is here-technical institute division, American Society for Engineering Education.

Donald Irwin, regional manager of security, engineering service, General Electric Co.

Paul H. Robbins-who testified today-executive director, National Society of Professional Engineers.

Karl O. Wermath, president, Technical Institute Foundation.

BASIC POLICY STATEMENT

This is a basic policy statement on which this group wanted to see if they were thinking along the right lines and if there was any concurrence in the need for this type of training. I would like to read the policy statement:

The technological team in the United States includes three basic types of technical personnel: The scientist and engineer, the scientific and engineering technician, and the craftsman. This policy concerns primarly the scientific and engineering technician.

The demand for scientific and engineering technicians is more severe than the demand for scientists and engineers. An improvement in quality and an increase in the number of scientific and engineering technicians are among the most direct methods of improving the effectiveness of our scientific and engineering efforts.

In facing the critical problems of today and those of our developing technological economy, three basic principles are recognized by all authorities regarding scientific and engineering technicians:

1. To be most effective, the education of these technicians must be closely related to science and engineering rather than to vocational trade training. 2. This education should be provided by institutions of higher learning through full-time, 2-year, organized occupational curriculums generally leading to an associate degree.

3. Foundation, private and/or Government assistance to higher education should include assistance to institutions qualified to provide the education of scientific and engineering technicians.

RESPONSES RECEIVED

Of the 660 who received this on February 11, 276 answered. There was not a dissenting opinion.

I had a telegram from Mr. Hartung yesterday, in which he brought out that that number has now exceeded 300, and they are still coming in. There has not yet been a dissenting opinion among the people, although, frankly, there are not 660 technical institutes in the United States. That includes junior colleges and quite diversified types of schools which may have some interest in this matter.

It should be noted that these replies came from 41 States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, and the Canal Zone.

I can give some indication of the current need from personal knowledge. A recent letter from the head of a leading technical institute in the aeronautical field in Los Angeles (Northrup Aeronautical Institute) told me that, of their latest graduating class, all but three had been promptly placed in spite of the severe cutbacks in the aviation industry. The average starting salary was about $450 per month. The other three had not been heard from and had not requested placement service, so it may be assumed they, too, were promptly employed. In the case of my own school, serving the electronics field, and the aviation field in the missile departments, the current average starting salary is in excess of $425 per month and the average graduate has a choice of at least 4 or 5 jobs. Recently, the head of 1 firm was in my office trying to get 2 mature electronic engineering technicians for a highly classified job to start at $700 per month.

CONFUSION IN JOB DEFINITIONS

The evidence of the demand for scientific and engineering technicians by industry has been confused by the lack of modern job defini

22201-58-42

tions to meet the needs of a radically changing technology and of some recognized central agency that could collect authoritative information. Surveys over the years generally indicate that industry requires from 1 to 5 engineering technicians (with a generally accepted average of about 3) for each graduate engineer. The ratio of graduates of recognized technical institutes to those of engineering colleges is just about the reverse.

To get this picture into better focus, two steps have been taken during the past year. To better define the jobs of scientific and engineering technicians, the Department of Labor, under a grant from the National Science Foundation, is making a survey in technical institutes and industrial organizations to bring the Dictionary of Occupational Titles more up to date in this era of rapid technological changes.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that that is a most important job. In some industrial organizations they have no definition whatsoever. Everybody in one case from the floor sweepers up is called a technician. Trying to pin this thing down has been most difficult, as far as the demand has been concerned.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION SURVEY

The United States Office of Education has been making a survey of technical-institute graduates similar to that for engineering colleges. Conducted on an annual basis, this will ultimately point up supply and demand and will indicate the strengths and inadequacies in this area of higher education.

One of the outstanding lessons industry has learned during the past 10 or 15 years I would almost say the past 5 years-in which the shortage of engineers and scientists has been acute is the better utilization of all technical personnel, both engineers and engineering technicians.

In many companies, engineering technicians are performing many of the same duties earlier done only by graduate engineers.

Further, company after company has learned that it has on its payroll many smart young technicians who, by upgrading training either by evening school or by advanced correspondence study, can be developed into excellent engineers who acquire the title and perform the duties of full-fledged engineers even though they lack the baccalaureate degree to hang in the office. By far, the most important function of some outstanding technical institutes is the administration of such programs.

FALLACY OF LIMITING AID

This points up the fallacy, in the interests of national security, of limiting aid specifically to programs leading to a baccalaureate degree. The institutions I am referring to here are those that offer technical-institute programs which have met the accreditation standards of Engineers Council for Professional Development.

I would not want to imply by any means that those are the only good technical institutes. They are the only ones during the past few years who have taken the necessary steps for accreditation. Some junior colleges have their own accrediting agencies.

More and more is the trend in such technical institutes to grant, through authorization of their State boards of higher education the associate degree. Those institutions which offer curriculums accredited by ECPD have, for some years, been listed by the United States Office of Education in its publication Higher Education. Such institutions definitely, and on their own merit, without regard to the transfer or nontransfer of credits, should be included as institutions of higher education in any Federal legislation.

STATE DETERMINATION OF NEEDS

If it is determined that over the years ahead, in the interests of national security and the national economy, the existing technical institutes are insufficient to meet the demands for engineering technicians by industry and Government, the individual States should be encouraged to establish such institutions of higher education to meet their own needs as determined by their own departments of higher education.

This policy has proved sound in the past, as evidenced by the technical institute system in New York State, the statewide system of technical institutes in Pennsylvania administered by the Pennsylvania State University-and, by the way, by Dr. Holderman hereand the system of approximately 200 junior colleges in California,

et cetera.

We believe that the States themselves should determine their own needs and that if such determination indicates a need, the program should be placed specifically under the jurisdiction of the State board for higher education and Federal funds, if any allotted accordingly.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTES

If legislation is developed to support undergraduate studies, by scholarship or otherwise, it is the earnest recommendation of this committee that students of technical institutes be given the same opportunities as those of other institutions of higher education. Further, any legislation designed to afford advancement and assistance to faculties of any institutions of higher education should be equally applicable to faculty members of technical institutes.

SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS

I have several documents that I believe might help you on figures, that should be placed in the record. One is the technical institute pamphlet of ECPD. The second points up jobs and salaries in this field. This is a survey made by the Southern Technical Institute, which is a branch of Georgia Tech, on salaries of graduates. The third is the survey of the Pennsylvania State University, of the College of Engineering and Architecture, on the 2-year associate degree program. The fourth, I believe, will verify some of these things much more than can be brought out here. It is the final report of Mr. Werwath, submitted to the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers. He was chairman of the task force working on supporting personnel, and he did an outstanding job. He boiled down a lot of