SCIENCE AND EDUCATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1958

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in the District of Columbia committee room, P-38 in the Capitol, Senator Lister Hill (chairman) presiding.

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

Committee staff present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Roy E. James, assistant chief clerk; and John S. Forsythe, general counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order.

We are very happy to have with us this morning the representatives of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association. Our first witness will be Dr. John T. Caldwell, at present the president of the University of Arkansas.

may say that Dr. Caldwell is an old friend of mine. Before Arkansas kidnaped him and took him away from us, he was president of what was then our State Women's College in Montevallo, Ala. Since he left, and on his recommendations, it is now a coeducational institution and one of our highest and one of our best in the State of Alabama. The doctor certainly had a very fine and outstanding record there. I know he is doing splendid work in Arkansas.

Doctor, we are happy to welcome you here this morning. I will be glad now to have you proceed in your own way.

STATEMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND STATE UNIVERSITIES AND THE STATE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION, DR. JOHN T. CALDWELL, DR. RUSSELL I. THACKREY, DR. O. C. ADERHOLD, DR. JOHN D. WILLIAMS, STANLEY MCCAFFREY, AND CHARLES MCCURDY

Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you, Senator Hill. I appreciate so much those kind remarks that I do not deserve.

Gentlemen, I have here with me this morning other members of the two associations for whom I speak. Let me introduce them to you. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you introduce them to us.

Mr. CALDWELL. On my right is Dr. Russell I. Thackrey, executive secretary of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities. Next to him is Dr. O. C. Aderhold, president of

the University of Georgia. We also have with us Dr. John D. Williams, chancellor of the University of Mississippi; Mr. Stanley McCaffrey, vice president of the University of California; Mr. Charles McCurdy, executive secretary of the State Universities Association. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you. There is also present Mr. Charles Dobbins, of the American Council on Education.

Mr. CALDWELL. And Miss Jeane Sheetz, assistant to the secretary of the land-grant association.

The CHAIRMAN. A North Carolinian.

Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, my testimony represents the views of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association. I am chairman of the Federal legislative committee of the land-grant group, and have been authorized by the State Universities Association to testify on their behalf. They are a separate organization. The views of the two associations are identical on the main questions before you.

MEMBERSHIP OF ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED

A brief word on the membership of the two associations I am certain will be of interest to you. Combined membership of the two groups is 93 colleges and universities. The American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities has 70 member colleges and universities, including 68 land-grant institutions, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the State University of New York. The State Universities Association has 24 members, all State universities which are not land-grant institutions. The State University of New York belongs to both associations. Otherwise, there is no duplication in membership. A majority of the land-grant institutions are the State universities of their States, while in other States this is not true. For example: The University of Wisconsin is a landgrant State university; while in Iowa we have two major institutions the State University of Iowa, which is not land-grant; and Iowa State College, which is. The University of Arkansas is a landgrant university; but in Alabama we have the University of Alabama as the State university, with Alabama Polytechnic Institute and the Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical College, at Normal, as the land-grant institutions.

HIGH PROPORTION OF DOCTORATES GRANTED

The combined membership of the two associations enrolls roughly one-fourth of all students in United States higher education. In the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering, which currently are of particular concern to the Congress and the American people, they represent by far the largest single segment of American higher education. More than half of all doctoral degrees in all fields are granted by the land-grant colleges and State universities. The figure is substantially higher in science and related fields. More than half of all engineering degrees at the undergraduate level, more than half of all doctorates in mathematics, are granted by the members of the two associations.

NATIONAL ACTION WITHOUT INTERFERENCE

National action played a major role in either the establishment or development of all these institutions. Both the Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set aside Federal land for schools, including seminaries of higher learning, as they were called. The Land-Grant Act of 1862 created a national system of land-grant institutions specifically to meet the needs of a nation whose system of higher education clearly was inadequate, and particularly so in the fields of basic and applied science essential to the development of agriculture and industry.

Our members thus have had long experience in relationships with the Federal Government, and are appreciative of the role which national action can play in education, without interfering with the predominant role of the State, local communities, and private organizations in education.

BILLS REPRESENTING LONG-RANGE ATTACK

Your committee has before it a number of proposals for Federal action to help solve some of our pressing educational problems. I will devote most of my detailed comments both to the provisions of, and omissions in, Senate bills 3187 and 3163. These two proposals have similar broad purposes, and are the result of extensive and intensive study and consultation. Their authors are nationally known for their sincere and intelligent interest in educational problems over a period of many years. We are fully aware of the many elements that must be considered in framing educational legislation which has a reasonable prospect of becoming law. We find much to commend in these proposals; and in calling attention to omissions and making suggestions for change, we have earnestly tried to avoid selfish interest and captious criticism.

Both bills, with some exceptions which I shall mention, represent a long-range attack on educational problems, with heavy emphasis on the improvement of science, mathematics, and language instruction in our elementary and secondary schools. Neither piece of legislation, again with 1 or 2 exceptions, contains provisions which will substantially improve our scientific and technological effort and our competitive position in the world in which we live, during the next 10 years. Doctoral-degree candidates of 7 to 10 years from now will come from the class entering college next fall. The quality and adequacy of college faculties and facilities are the essential determinative factors of the quality and quantity of our highly trained leadership over the next decade, and, indeed, will always be major factors. I will return to this point later after analyzing some of the provisions of the bills before you, with particular emphasis on their effect at the college and university level. We are not commenting on the elementary or secondary provision.

GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS-AID TO GRADUATE SCHOOLS

Title VII of S. 3187 provides for a system of national defense fellowships; and title IV of S. 3163 provides for expansion of graduate education, including a system of fellowships. The provison of addi

tional and substantial graduate fellowships is essential in both the long and short run. It will have an early impact on our supply of highly qualified personnel. Baccalaureate-degree graduates, particularly in science, engineering, and mathematics, have many immediate and well-paying offers of employment in industry. The alternative road to a doctoral degree and qualification for high level basic and applied research and teaching is long and the financial problems, serious, particularly at the normal time of marriage and establishment of a family.

PREFERENCE FOR TITLE IV OF S. 3163

There are substantial differences in the two titles referred to, and in general, we favor the provisons of title IV of S. 3163 over those of title VII of S. 3187, for the following reasons:

1. S. 3163 provides for direct aid to graduate schools for their strengthening and expansion on the basis of a planned program. This aid is needed.

2. S. 3163 provides that its fellowships will be awarded through graduate schools, rather than directly to the individual who would then choose his graduate school provided it would admit him.

This provision is highly desirable, both in itself and as a corrective to the effect of other fellowship programs sponsored by the Federal Government. Most governmental fellowships, including those conducted in past years by the National Science Foundation, award the fellowship to the individual and pay a stipend plus the customary fees of the institution attended. This method has had a strong tendency to concentrate able graduate fellows in a relatively few institutions which have "prestige" not necessarily related to the relative quality of their graduate programs.

We need to strengthen and expand graduate schools through the Nation and one very practical way to do it is to give aid to qualified graduate schools and award some fellowships through the graduate schools.

We do not advocate awarding all Federal graduate fellowships this way, but there is a clear case for applying a corrective to the present Federal tendency to concentrate qualified students and Federal support in a few institutions, many of which were greatly expanded with Federal funds as a wartime measure-World War II.

NO RESTRICTION ON GRADUATE FIELDS

S. 3187 provides for selection of graduate fellows and determination of fields to be stressed by a national council, and its committees. In this program we believe there should be no restriction as to fields, at least at the doctoral level, as between the natural sciences, applied sciences, and the humanities and social sciences. Distinguished scientists and engineers took part in considering our recommendations on this point, and they were unanimous in opposing restriction of fellowships to the natural sciences and their applications.

Science teaching in our elementary and secondary schools may need special attention to correct an imbalance. This is not true of graduate instruction, including provision for fellowships. Strengthening is needed across the board, and all fields should participate.

ACTUAL COST OF PROVIDING GRADUATE EDUCATION

4. S. 3187 calls for payment to the institution of a sum representing the actual cost of providing graduate education for each fellow and not in excess of $1,000, provided the amount paid is actually charged to the student.

S. 3163 presumably would cover the cost of education in the direct grant to the institution for its overall expansion program. We welcome recognition of the fact that graduate education is expensive to the institution. We are not certain whether the reimbursement provided in S. 3187 is limited to the customary fee charged by the institution, but assume it is. If so, we oppose this method as a basis of reimbursement.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to interrupt you, Doctor, but I will say it is not limited to the usual fees, but to the cost to be determined. Mr. CALDWELL. That is fine. I am glad to have it corrected that it is not in there. We are pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman.

PAYMENT LIMITED TO $1,000

The CHAIRMAN. I will say this about it to give you the full picture: There is a limitation of $1,000, but under that ceiling of $1,000 it provides payment of the actual cost.

Mr. CALDWELL. Not the fees they charge?

The CHAIRMAN. No, no.

Mr. CALDWELL. Do you understand the point of this association? We feel that would produce a strong pressure toward raising those fees.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. CALDWELL. It will make it necessary for more and more students to have fellowships and scholarships in order to attend college.

The CHAIRMAN. The clear intent of our bill, I know, is to pay the graduate institution the actual cost of education subject to the limitation of $1,000.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS

Mr. CALDWELL. Basing payment to institutions on the amount of their customary fees to all students discriminates against those institutions which, through private or non-Federal public resources, make it possible for many students to attend college without outside help. Large-scale Federal programs which pay institutions their customary fees produce strong pressures toward raising those fees, making it necessary for more and more students to have scholarships and fellowships in order to attend college.

In the case of most public universities, the major share of the cost of Federal programs is thrown on the States. If the Federal Government is to pay all, or a part, of the institutional cost of education, it should be by (a) payment of the actual estimated cost, (b) by direct grant as provided in S. 3163, or (c) by a flat payment known not to exceed cost. There should be no special bonus to an institution because it charges high fees.