You have firsthand knowledge of the retraining needs in an area when a major industry closes. We hope such traumatic situations would not again occur in South Bend or elsewhere, but the future necessity for retraining in virtually all levels of human endeavor is clearly going to be a general fact of life in our society, and makes the support of extension programs which can serve these needs critical. Indiana University with its system of regional campuses feels deeply its commitment to all Indiana to provide educational opportunity, and with the rapid pace of technological and social change, its extension arms must in the future, more and more, take the information and education to the people in addition to the more traditional role of bringing the people to the education. Title I of H.R. 3220 has great potential in helping States and institutions take another firm grip on their educational bootstraps. I hope it can have your support. Sincerely, ELVIS J. STAHR, President. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, Notre Dame, Ind., March 29, 1965. Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: As we witness the continuing explosion of new knowledge and try to understand the fundamental changes taking place in the accumulation of knowledge, it is difficult to exaggerate the urgent need for new and imaginative educational opportunities. President Johnson's bill on higher education will go a long way in meeting some of the immediate needs and warrants our wholehearted support. Title I: University Extension and Higher Education of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which, I believe, you introduced in the House, is particularly significant in that it provides a whole new dimension upon the types of educational opportunities and programs which the private institutions could present in meeting the needs of their local communities and geographical areas. State universities and land-grant colleges have traditionally been able to contribute in a very special way toward solving the educational needs and problems of their areas. This is a meaningful and appropriate use of State fundssolving some of the problems of the State. As the cost of such services increased, they were able to go back to the State legislatures and secure the additional funds necessary to sustain and extend this service. To date, the private educational institutions, particularly the national ones, have not been able to contribute and participate to the same degree in the many pressing educational needs of their communities because of the lack of resources. Those communities, particularly in the Midwest and Far West, that happen to have a State school located within a reasonable distance from them have enjoyed great educational opportunities at all levels extension work and continuing education programs in business, agriculture, mining, and the professions. There are many, many communities, however, that have not had this advantage-even though located reasonably close to reputable private institutions. The private institutions could not justifiably expend their limited resources in solving particular problems in local communities. Title I specifically mentions the allocating of Federal funds to institutions of higher education (whether public or private) to provide effective extension or continuing education activities and services designed to assist communities in solving community problems. This provision, as I see it, would permit the private institutions to present imaginative and responsible programs to assist local communities in solving some of their social, cultural, and economic problems. Because of their proximity and knowledge of the area, this service could be provided at a price considerably less than the cost to a public institution for a similar service. In other words, it will provide public moneys to private institutions to provide public services with great efficiency and dispersion. This is a very important concept if we are to come to grips with the problem-local, social, and economic development. Sincerely, THOMAS P. BERGIN, Dean. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, Notre Dame, Ind., March 30, 1965. Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS, DEAR JOHN: I was delighted to hear that the Education and Labor Committee of the House has approved the administration's program for the improvement of elementary and secondary education. Along with this bill, I am particularly interested in the new higher education bill, specifically "Title I: University Extension and Higher Education," and the proposed State Technical Services Act of 1965, which Assistant Secretary Herb Holloman is working so diligently to have become a reality. I have studied both of these carefully and do not find any serious overlapping or duplication. Simply stated, the difference between title I of the higher education bill and the proposed State Technical Services Act is that of clientele. The proposed State Technical Services Act would enable the States, through their educational institutions and in cooperation with the Federal Government. to support programs designed to effectively use the latest findings of science and technology in industry. The recipients would be primarily those in commerce and industry. The work and services to be provided by the universities and colleges would be to conduct a great variety of effective programs of technical assistance to local industry. This is badly needed as we have not yet begun to find new ways of applying the emerging technical innovations in commerce and industry. Title I would cover the full spectrum of community problems-such areas as housing, transportation, poverty, government, recreation, employment, youth opportunities, and land use. In the final analysis, the universities and colleges, in serving the needs of society are, by their very nature, pluralistic. One expects complexity and diversity rather than simplicity and unanimity. Sincerely, THOMAS P. BERGIN, Dean. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, Notre Dame, Ind., April 13, 1965. Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS, House of Representatives, DEAR JOHN: Tom Bergin, dean of continuing education here at Notre Dame. has shared with me a copy of his recent letter to you concerning the important educational contribution and rewards that title I of the higher education bill and the proposed State Technical Services Act of 1965 could provide through the use of private educational facilities. I would like to add my support to the observations he has made concerning their impact and significance. With all best wishes, and looking forward to seeing you soon, I am, Ever devotedly in Notre Dame, Father TED HESBURGH. BOSTON COLLEGE, Chestnut Hill, Mass., March 31, 1965. Hon. EDITH GREEN, House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee on Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN GREEN: As you have requested in your March 26, 1965, letter, I am pleased to furnish your office with a copy of my letter dated February 10, 1965, addressed to the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal in which I sought to clarify the misstatement of information contained in a feature article on February 4, 1965, concerning the loan repayment status of Boston College student borrowers. In my letter to you on March 17, 1965, I indicated that the Wall Street Journal was unwilling to print my letter to them which was intended to place the entire matter in proper prospective without the aid of spectacular journalism. In Warren Phillips' letter to me, dated February 24, 1965, he has refused publication on the basis of incomplete data and has given me excuses as his reason not to publish. The impressions created by Fred Zimmerman have gone unchallenged until this date and have created an impression of complete incompetence on the part of the colleges and universities in the eyes of the business public. Computed by conventional standards we freely admit to a delinquency ratio of approximately 20 to 23 percent which by and of itself is a poor showing by any measure. The 49.2 percent index released by Peter Muirhead of the Office of Education has not withstood the test of statistical accuracy and as of this date the index is precisely 21.1 percent computed on the basis of the formula received from Mr. Muirhead's office. Based upon the same formula, but with a more accepted statistical approach, the index of accounts in arrears reduces to an index of 15.8 percent at Boston College at this time. It is personally and professionally distressing that a joint Federal and higher education program of such national value could be subjected to the opponents of intellectual progress by half-truths and incomplete background data. When the National Defense Education Act of 1958 was adopted by such forward-thinking legislators as yourself, it was because the business community had evidenced an unwillingness to provide the institutions of higher learning the funds necessary for a complete loan program. The act was born of necessity to assure any equal opportunity to all who aspire to an advanced education and an improved way of life. It is because of this I so strongly endorse your program for a Federal agency to maintain the collection of the loan funds and provide a continuing and revolving program which will not require additional appropriation to the program's continuation. The original purpose of the act itself should transcend all other considerations, and whichever means your special subcommittee should decide best resolves this current problem on loan collection procedure will, I am fully confident, tend to strengthen the partnership legislation which has enabled the Federal Government and the institutions of higher education to insure education for all, regardless of personal financial means. Sincerely yours, DANIEL J. BRESLIN, Comptroller. BOSTON COLLEGE, Chestnut Hill, Mass., February 10, 1965. EDITOR IN CHIEF, Wall Street Journal, New York, N.Y. DEAR SIR: It would be an unfortunate disservice to all of the college and university students who have participated in the national defense student loan program to allow the information contained in Fred Zimmerman's articles of February 4, 1965, on student loan repayment to stand as a fully accurate report. The national defense student loan program which was introduced to college student support plans in 1958 has been, in my opinion, the singly most valuable adjunct to collegiate finance (tuition) ever presented to students seeking a higher education. To allow the implication that loan repayment experience has attained a critical point implies moral circumstances not yet proven factual. It is almost a certainty that collection costs will become an admissible expense against the student loan fund itself and at such time as these costs do become reimbursable the loan repayment picture will substantially improve. Recent studies requested by Washington indicate a very good possibility exists for such an amendment to the act. As a matter of statistical accuracy, the accounts in poor standing at this university amount to 23 percent of loan balances eligible for repayment, not 40 percent as reported, and those students with whom we have lost temporary contact approximate 40 percent of the number delinquent, not the 75 percent as Fred's article stated. The $28,000 principal amount past due is correct as stated and when compared against our total loan fund of $2 million registers at just a little over 1 percent which is in line with national commercial experience. I am personally fearful that any incorrect impression on this subject may do irreparable harm to a program which will be needed even more in the years to come as college and university enrollments increase to heights which will make the "900" Dow Jones appear low by comparison. Cordially, DANIEL J. BRESLIN, Comptroller. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, New York, N.Y., February 24, 1965. Mr. DANIEL J. BRESLIN, Comptroller, Boston College, DEAR MR. BRESLIN: Thank you for your letter of February 10 about our story on "student loan repayments." I am sorry that you were displeased by the article, but I very much appreciate your taking the time to give us a fuller report on your views of the national defense student loan program. We were very interested in reading your remarks. I was distressed that you considered our statistics about your own institution inaccurate. I believe the story correctly stated that about 40 percent of the borrowers who should be paying back their loans by now are not doing so. The 23-percent figure that you mentioned in your letter is a percentage of the dollar amount, and hence not comparable with the figure we mentioned. My understanding is that you supplied our reporter with the 40-percent figure as of June 30, 1964, and that the Office of Education later informed us that Boston College's delinquency rate (on the number of borrowers) had risen to 49.2 percent by October 31. The other point you questioned was based on the following quote from you: "On three-fourths of our delinquencies we just don't know where to send the bill. With the other one-fourth, I suppose it's just an inability to pay. Our most chronic problem is in locating (former) students." We have examined the reporter's notes taken at the time of his conversation with you and the above quote is contained in those notes. If the figures are imprecise because you were speaking broadly or because of some other misunderstanding, I certainly regret that. Your other comments on the role of the national defense student loan program in general will be helpful to us when we write about this subject again, and we are grateful to you for sending them along to us. Cordially, WARREN H. PHILLIPS. BOSTON, COLLEGE, Boston, Mass., March 17, 1965. Congresswoman EDITH GREEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN GREEN: Please allow me to add my complete agreement to your recent position on the collection of national defense loans by a Federal agency as reported by the Associated Press in the New York Times on March 10, 1965. You have undoubtedly seen the recent Wall Street Journal article (February 4, 1965) in which the loan collection problem was glaringly revealed for the purpose, I feel, of undermining this legislation and to compel Congress to reduce further appropriations for this necessary and worthwhile student support program. The data contained in the article was not entirely correct, yet the editor has chosen not to publish my letter to him which was intended to report the circumstances more accurately in relation to collection efforts and results. Only a very few envisioned the problems to come when the National Defense Education Act of 1958 was endorsed by the various university and college presidents throughout the Nation. The pressing need for Federal loan funds was so strong (and continues to be) and necessary to a growing student population that the problem of collections was not completely considered. Now it has been established that most institutions of higher education are not equipped nor capable of performing this necessary function adequately. By their very nature and purpose they are unwilling and professionally incapable of proper loan collection procedures. The answer to this problem does not find its entire solution through expense reimbursement to the institution nor should it be found, in my opinion, by allocating this responsibility to private loan collecting enterprise since this would establish conflicting measures of technique and possibility of harmful effect upon the borrower at the time of his greatest need. Thus far I have seen two regrettable cases of escapement through the bankruptcy courts. The indelible effects upon these students' future financial and moral life could have been avoided had your proposed program been in effect. I am personally hopeful that you will successfully pursue your position to establish a Federal agency for the purpose of collecting the loan funds. Enclosed is an off-print on this subject which may be helpful to you in your future deliberations and may give you a broad knowledge on this subject as it is seen from the view of the university administration. Cordially, DANIEL J. BRESLIN, Comptroller. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, DANIEL J. BRESLIN, Comptroller, Boston College, DEAR MR. BRESLIN: This is to acknowledge your recent letter supporting the establishment of a Federal agency with the responsibility of collecting NDEA student loans. During the hearings on the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Special Subcommittee on Education has received a great deal of testimony on the administrative costs and collection problems associated with the student loan program of the National Defense Education Act. It is clear from the testimony, recent newspaper articles and from letters like yours that there are and will be substantial collection problems. The subcommittee is now considering various alternatives, including a centralized collection agency which would help to ameliorate the problems. I am convinced that this matter will become increasingly worse unless either legislative or administrative action is taken in the very near future. Thank you very much for the copy of "Financial Administration of the National Defense Student Loan Program" enclosed with your letter. I find the 4-year-old pamphlet to be an extremely useful compendium of NDEA collection problems in 1965. I am very interested in your comments on the Wall Street Journal article, and would appreciate receiving a copy of your recent letter to the Journal. Thank you for bringing your views to my attention. Sincerely, EDITH GREEN. [Booklet of the Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, D.C.] TAX CREDITS FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OR How To SPEND $14 BILLION ANNUALLY IN TAX MONEY TO HELP THOSE WHO NEED IT LEAST Many parents struggling to keep up with accelerating costs of sending their children to college have been led to believe that a Federal tax credit for educational expenses1 would provide a simple solution to their problems. Because of the many misconceptions about these tax-credit plans, the Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Colleges has prepared this critical analysis so that people may judge for themselves the merits of these plans. In the 88th Congress a proposal to provide an income tax credit for costs of tuition, books, supplies, and equipment at colleges and universities was narrowly defeated in the U.S. Senate. It undoubtedly will come up in the next session of Congress. Advocates of the proposal make these conflicting claims: 1. To parents hard pressed to pay college expenses, they say it will provide relief, but to educational institutions pressed for money they say it is an opportunity to collect Federal tax money by simply raising tuition by the amount of the credit. 1 A tax credit is a direct reduction in the amount of Federal income tax owed after all deductions from gross income have been figured and the amount of tax due determined. Tax-credit plans for educational expenses would authorize credits in varying amounts for tuition. books, and supplies. |