number of graduates per year. The report also points up the numbers going 4 years back. These technicians, the report points out, are pretty much the same type of person in terms of capacity for engineering activity as the engineers are, except that they are more interested in practical applications than they are in theory. It is not so much a matter of intelligence as it is a matter of engineering aptitude in one direction or the other. The report further brings out two important aspects with respect to relationships of educational institutions and their agencies. One is that the general accrediting in this country, which Government agencies refer to, and which are the basic agencies that do the accrediting in the United States of higher education, and in a general way, are known as regional accrediting agencies; are based on the general education in an institution as distinguished from any professionalized education. Since this is a specialized type of education, the schools that are independent have never really had the opportunity until very recently to come into this accrediting era. In fact, my own institution requested an application 7 years ago, and it was only through the work of this President's Committee and the fine cooperation of the National Commission on Higher Education and the real interest of these regionals now to get into this question and this problem, that we now have an application. This is one of the most difficult things for the independent technical schools from the standpoint of listing and from the standpoint of teachers, from the standpoint of attracting quality students. Naturally, a boy would want to go to what might be known as an accredited institution. We do have the accrediting of the professional agencies, but this is not well known in general educational circles or as well understood in the secondary schools, naturally, as the general education of the regional accrediting. The report covers 12 points of action by existing agencies of the Federal Government and private industry, especially those agencies which are represented on the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers. In part 3, it summarizes the action that has been achieved to date. on these 12 points. I appreciate very much the opportunity that you have given me. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would it be possible for the members of the two subcommittees to get individual copies of this report, as well as having it incorporated into the record? Is it readily available? Mr. WERWATH. Yes; I am sure that we could make copies available. The report is now being circulated to the members of the President's Committee. As soon as that circulation is completed, it will be available in a reproduced form. Mr. ELLIOTT. Will you send a dozen copies to the subcommittee? Mr. WERWATH. I would be delighted to do so. Thank you very much. (Copy of statement of Coordinating Committee on Scientific and Engineering Technicians and copy of final report to the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers from the Working Committee for the Development of Supporting Technical Personnel follow :) STATEMENT OF COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING I am Eugene H. Rietzke, residing in McLean, Va. I am the founder and president for the past 30 years of Capitol Radio Engineering Institute of Washington, D. C.; I was a founder and first president of the National Council of Technical Schools in which office I served 4 terms and have been a member of the board of trustees since 1944; I was an original member (1944) of the technical institute subcommittee of Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD) and served on that committee for 10 years and as chairman of its region 4; I have been for several years a member of the national executive committee of the technical institute division of the American Society for Engineering Education and a member of its committee on relations with Government; during the past year I served as a member of the task force for scientific and engineering technicians on the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers. In the preparation of this statement I am joined by Mr. Karl Werwath and Dr. K. L. Holderman. Mr. Werwath is president of the Milwaukee School of Engineering which his father founded more than 50 years ago. He is a past president of the National Council of Technical Schools; past president of the technical institute division of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE); president of the Technical Institute Foundation; chairman of the task force on scientific and engineering technicians of the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers. Dr. Holderman is assistant dean of the School of Engineering of Pennsylvania State University and head of the statewide technical institute division of that university; he is chairman of the technical institute division of ASEE; he was secretary of the original (1944) subcommittee for technical institutes of ECPD and served as chairman of that subcommittee for 6 years; he was a member of the task force of the President's Committee referred to above. It is believed that these three individuals have been close enough to this important area of higher education for a sufficient period of time that this statement may be considered as accurately reflecting the views of the preponderant majority of the heads of such institutions. 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. 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 ASEE some years earlier was a monumental job. NCTS for the first time established specific standards, both educational and ethical for such institutions. In the fall of 1944 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, one of America's 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 of ECPD entitled "Technical Institute Programs" and request that this bulletin be made a part of the record of this hearing. The definition reads as follows: "Curriculums 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. Curriculums 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 postsecondary school mathematics to provide the tools to accomplish the technical objectives of the curriculums. "3. Emphasis is placed upon the use of rational processes in the principal fundamental portions of the curriculums that fulfill the stated objectives and purposes. "4. Programs of instruction are briefer, and usually more completely technical in content than professional curriculums, 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 type." 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. Some university connected technical institutes do not receive credit for transfer to the engineering curriculums 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. 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. 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. 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. One hundred and seven 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. Ten of these listed institutions are private endowed nonprofit; 10 are proprietary tax paying; 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 field 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. My own school here in Washington took the first pilot class of 125 students for the Signal Corps in August 1941. 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 cornfield 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 contract as a branch of the University of Maryland, trained 3,000 civilians under the ESMWT program for war industry. It should be noted that these are only 3 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 excess profits 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 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 G. I. bill), on which I was a strong supporter of Congressman Teague and the Veterans' Affairs Committee in its basic philosophy. From personal experience in my own school with the type of students we enrolled and with their technical contributions in defense industry when they graduate, I can state that that was good legislation and a major contribution to present science and technology. The steps we advocate here would set no precedents, either in legislation or education. What are the real needs for engineering and scientific technicians graduated from technical institute programs? The Coordinating Committee on Scientific and Engineering Technicians on whose behalf I am testifying recently sent a letter and questionnaire to the administrators of 660 technical schools and junior colleges. I should like to read the covering letter, the statement, and a summary of the tabulated results which are a part of this statement. COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND January 13, 1958. Memorandum to: Administrator, 2-year organized occupational curriculum. It is almost certain that legislation now proposed, and possibly to come, will seriously affect your institution and its work. Since this is being widely discussed, and a number of individuals will, no doubt, be asked to express opinion, it is felt desirable to have agreement, if possible, on basic policy concerning the education of scientific and engineering technicians in the United States. Such legislation affecting this area of higher education will unquestionably have a high priority in the current session of Congress. Since time is short, those listed below drafted the enclosed statement on which your comments are solicited. If you basically agree with this policy, please sign one copy of this statement (the other copy is for your files) and return by airmail to: Mr. Walter M. Hartung, Academy of Aeronautics, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing 71, N. Y. JESSE P. BOGUE, Executive Secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges. MAYNARD M. BORING, Chairman, Advisory Board of Education, National Academy of WALTER M. HARTUNG, Vice Chairman, National Council of Technical Schools. Chairman, Technical Institute Division, American Society for Regional Manager of Security, Engineering Service, General DONALD IRWIN, PAUL H. ROBBINS, Executive Director, National Society of Professional Engineers. President, Technical Institute Foundation. BASIC POLICY CONCERNING 2-YEAR ORGANIZED OCCUPATIONAL CURRICULUMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 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 primarily 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. The undersigned institution subscribes to these principles: To: Coordinating Committee on Scientific and Engineering Technicians. This mailing and the tabulation of answers was done by Mr. Walter Hartung director of the Academy of Aeronautics in New York City and vice president of NOTS. It should be noted that these replies came from 41 States and the District of Columbia, Alaska, and the Canal Zone. There was not a single dissenting opinion. 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 |