a matter of curiosity, students from Wisconsin and Montana have thus far maintained the highest retention rates.)

The causes for the dropouts in the Talent Search program are as follows: Academic (14); transfer by students in good academic standing to less demanding colleges (5); change of professional goals (3); expulsion (1); family problems (2); marriage (1); emotional disturbance (1); military service (1); homesickness (1).

Of the total of 29 dropouts, the 14 who did not return for academic reasons were .not able to maintain an average better than 1.75 on a 4-point scale. As far as we were able to determine, however, these failures were caused less by a lack of intellectual ability than by a lack of motivation. Each of these students entered the college with a high-school record closer to A than to B. The mean SAT's of the dropout group were Verbal, 589; Mathematical, 615. Listed below is the SAT -distribution of the academic failures:

Of the 106 Small School Talent Search students who entered the college in the classes of 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967, 3 have graduated and 74 are still in residence. Their academic averages for each year are listed below. They should be interpreted against the background of the average performance for all .students in the college of 2.46 for 1963–64:

The improved performance of each group of students in the program each year is evident. Although all four groups have begun slowly, and in their freshman year performed below the average for the college as a whole, they have obviously succeeded in adjusting to a demanding academic environment and are now performing at a level consistent with, and in most instances better than, the average of the total college group.

CURRICULAR AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In June 1964, three of the original group-the Class of 1964-were awarded bachelor's degrees. They have begun advanced study with fellowship assistance in the fields of education, anthropology, and medicine.

Talent Search students have participated extensively, and at times with distinction, in the extra-curricular life of the university community. During 1963-64, a SSTS member of the Class of 1965 was elected President of the University's Student Government; a number are first-string basketball and track men. Both men and women are in debate, dramatics, tutoring, athletics, publications, orchestra, and campus politics. Four have been appointed to the University's Maroon Key Honor Society, limited to 30 members.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much for your comments today, Mr. Havighurst. We appreciate your taking time to testify before the committee.

Mr. HAVIGHURST. Thank you.

Mrs. GREEN. The next witness is Dr. Stanley F. Salwak, the executive director, Committee on Institutional Cooperation of the Big Ten universities and the University of Chicago.

President Beadle, do you want to join Mr. Salwak?

STATEMENTS OF GEORGE WELLS BEADLE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, AND STANLEY F. SALWAK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION OF THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Mrs. GREEN. We are pleased, President Beadle, that you would take time both yesterday and today, to come to this hearing and to make comments on this legislation. We are very grateful to you.

Mr. BEADLE. I am glad I could come. As I explained, I will not make a statement, but I will be here if I can be of any help. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you.

Will you proceed with your testimony in any way you wish, Mr. Salwak.

Mr. SALWAK. Thank you.

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you as the representative of the CIC and speak on behalf of our university presidents in support of title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Perhaps really the most useful contribution I can make, and hopefully something worthwhile to testimony, that this subcommittee is compelling, is to talk a little about what we have done within CIC, or the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. Very quickly, I should like to add that within this experience we have had, of course, a good deal of frustration; we have had failures, we have had some successes in the developments of cooperative projects, and I feel that these experiences, too, will be worth sharing with developing institutions, as outlined in H.R. 3220. The CIC was established in 1958 by the presidents of the 11 universities, Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, and Wisconsin. Each president appointed an administrative official from his institution to constitute the CIC. Really, the CIC functions in much the same way as does a board of trustees of any single university.

I should like to discuss some of the cooperative efforts of the CIC as they specifically relate to proposals for joint activities that might be supported under section 304 of title III entitled "Developing Institutions." In this section it is proposed that the Commissioner of Education be authorized

to make grants to developing institutions and other colleges and universities to pay part of the cost of planning, developing, and carrying out cooperative arrange ments which show promise as effective measures for strengthening the academic programs of developing institutions.

Many of the cooperative relationships envisaged by this bill have been undertaken by the CIC, and administrators and faculty members of our universities have said that such cooperative relationships have added real strength to their academic programs.

The first activity suggested for coverage under the grant program in section 304, for example, is the "exchange of faculty or students."

With respect to the exchange of students, the CIC 2 years ago established a pioneer program called the traveling scholar plan. Under this plan, graduate students in any field-and that includes our professional schools-can apply to take short-term work at another CIC university. More than a hundred students have already taken advantage of this program in disciplines as diverse as political science, comparative literature, veterinary medicine, physics, and mechanical engineering. But numbers are hardly the most important factor; what counts, as far as the CIC is concerned, is that at a time when much is being said about the depersonalization of higher education, our universities have developed a plan with minimal redtape, personalized to fit the need of the individual student, whether it be for course offerings, research opportunities, unique laboratories, or library facilities. The traveling scholar plan enables our students to get the benefit of the most excellent facilities available throughout our 11university complex without the prohibitive cost to the university or to the taxpayer of duplicating expensive laboratories or maintaining a whole battery of courses and specialists in every field. That is humanly impossible in this day and age for a number of reasons. I believe that such a plan for developing institutions is a must on both graduate and undergraduate levels if they are to survive.

To illustrate the possibility of exchanging faculty members-which is also proposed for support under this section-I might mention that a group of our anthropologists has recently completed a highly successful experiment in giving a joint seminar in a specialized field at one of our universities. Not all the talent could be marshalled at one campus, so the idea was to bring them to the institution where the seminar was held. I believe that similar programs, providing for the exchange of faculty members among developing institutions, as well as between these institutions and the stronger colleges and universities, will greatly aid the development of quality programs, particularly where there is, for various reasons, a dearth of qualified faculty members in a given field.

The need for helping developing institutions through faculty improvement programs-the next item proposed for coverage under this section-has come to the attention of the CIC time and time again. Only one example is the small grant we have given to the Association of Midwestern College Biology Teachers for the purpose of seeking methods through which CIC institutions can assist smaller colleges in the region in improving biology teaching. For one reason or another they did not have the faculty. But far more work and more adequate funding are needed in this area.

To carry it a step further, there is a great need for the pooling of faculty members from a number of institutions to work together on the revision and improvement of curriculums. The faculties of individual departments are doing this sort of thing, but this is not enough; experience has shown that some of the best results stem from interinstitutional effort, because no one institution has the strength in all specialties necessary to provide a comprehensive review of course content. In this area of introducing new curriculums and curricular materials the third cooperative activity proposed for support under section 304-the CIC has been quite active. Groups in educational psychology, economics, geology, education, and other fields have been working together to improve course content, and several of these are

46-153-65-55

giving particular attention to the development of courses or partial courses on videotape. That is to record experiences that perhaps might be shared on other campuses.

Perhaps the most advanced of our course content improvement groups is the Social Science Education Consortium, now an independent organization which grew out of a conference sponsored by the CIC. This group, which includes faculty members from our universities and several other institutions in the region, is working with educators at the elementary and secondary school level to bring about a revision in the social studies comparable to the recent advances in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics.

With respect to videotape, or television, incidentally, we do not feel that we necessarily need to wait until joint courses are produced to engage in cooperative activity. Most of our universities have already produced costly television courses on their own. They are utilizing them on their respective campuses. The CIC is planning to catalog these courses and have them centrally located for use not only by CIC schools but also by sister institutions within the respective States of member universities, such as state Colleges, junior colleges, and so forth. Funds under title III for the support of such activities are highly recommended.

Finally, I should like to mention two CIC programs which illustrate the possibilities for cooperative activity described in section 304 as the "joint use of facilities, including necessary books, materials, and equipment." I mention this to indicate how cooperation might come about among different institutions. The first is our cooperative Far Eastern Language Institutes, given in the summer at various CIC institutions on a rotating basis. These institutes are staffed by faculty members from CIC institutions as well as scholars from several other major universities, who use this opportunity to compare and evaluate their individual programs and work together in the development of new instructional materials. We found that the teaching materials, the instructional materials, were just not available to teach the kind of program, to introduce the kind of program, that they felt should be introduced to the students, so they took it upon themselves in a joint effort to compare such instructional materials, and they are so doing at the moment. The students take advantage not only of a superior teaching faculty but the special facilities available at the host university, such as its library and language laboratory. Why do we need such institutes? Because not all of our schools even offer Chinese and Japanese. Programs such as this one make specialized training available to students who could not obtain it at their home institutions.

A second CIC cooperative program involving the joint use of facilities is in the highly specialized field of biometeorology, the study of the effects of weather on plants, animals, and man. Just 1 year ago this field was called bioclimatology, and has now been retitled biometeorology. A committee of 28 people, made up of engineers, physiologists, biologists, felt there was a need for this kind of a program, and no one institution could offer such a program because it did not have the staff to introduce it and to really offer a program in such a complex field. They also did not have on any one campus the facilities needed, as well as the laboratories and so on, to carry out a program in such a complex field. We were able to do this only by

pooling the efforts of these institutions. This is an example of institutions working together in areas to enhance their specialties or to support each other's programs in such a way as to improve the quality that already exists.

This has not been intended as a recital of CIC accomplishments, and I must apologize to you for this, but I know from experience that there are many frustrations involved in cooperative activity, but there is also a good deal of positive result that can be expected.

I recall what a historian of years ago said that regardless of how frustrating a situation might be, when you get a group of scholars around a table trying to come up with an idea that will filter through and be accepted, regardless of how cloudy it might be, you can always see a star that it would be accepted by one or two of the faculty. We have seen this time and time again. I do want to apologize for talking about CIC, but it has really advanced for the cooperation among the institutions.

What is intended is that the CIC activities provide a joint graduate program in this field, enabling students in physiology, medicine, meteorology, and so forth, to be in residence at several of the 11 universities, to work with their distinguished faculties and to utilize special facilities which represent a capital investment of many millions of dollars. No one university has all the laboratories, climatic chambers, faculty specialists, and so on, necessary to carry out a program in this complex field. And such programs are an excellent way to help developing institutions whose scholarly assets are meager. This has not been intended as a recital of CIČ accomplishments; many of our other projects are in various stages of planning and development. What is intended is that CIC activities provide a model to other groups of colleges and universities of the possibilities for interinstitutional cooperation. I strongly believe that what is needed are other CIC's-CIC's tailored to fit the needs of smaller colleges, and of regional and State institutions; CIC's which will enable them to share the costs of operating quality programs. Many of these schools offer little or no graduate work, but a good deal of potential for cooperation lies in the strengthening of undergraduate programs. There is an excellent opportunity, too, for introducing cooperative arrangements into junior and community colleges. I did not find that in this bill. Strengthening these programs is vitally important, because thousands of their graduates enter 4-year institutions as advanced students or juniors. California is a State with a junior college program which has made notable dividends.

There are already beginnings in the regional direction in voluntary cooperative arrangements. Besides the CIC, there are a few other clusters of institutions experimenting in regional cooperation, such as the Mid-America State Universities Association, the Associated Colleges of the Midwest and the Great Lakes Colleges Association. In addition, there are examples of various kinds of very limited cooperation between two or more colleges and universities of varying sizes. These include sharing research. library, and plant facilities; pooling of staffs for specialized courses or seminars; reciprocal course arrangements; cooperative degree programs, and other arrangements. But the curious paradox is that, while sharing is ultimately an economy, establishing the groundwork for the development of quality cooperative projects involves the expenditure of funds which, however