Representative CARL ELLIOTT, SOUTHERN STATE COLLEGE, Magnolia, Ark., March 25, 1958. House Committee, on Education and Labor, Nation's Capitol, Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Arkansas Personnel and Guidance Association, I would like to write to you in behalf of Senate Bill No. 3163. We feel that more than ever financial aid to education is needed. In order to get maximum achievement from the pupils in the schools, guidance, counseling, and testing programs must be greatly increased. Through providing qualified personnel to work in these areas, I believe that maximum good can result. I would like to commend you and your committee on your views concerning education in general and to let you know our support of them. History has shown that in times of recession there is even a greater need for guidance and counseling programs in order to help students make a wise choice of vocational goals. We feel that now is the best time to make an advancement in education through the help of people such as yourself. Please do not feel it necessary to reply to this letter as I only wanted you to know that you have our support and hope that action on the bill will be forthcoming soon. Sincerely yours, DEAN C. ANDREW, President, Arkansas Personnel and Guidance Association. Congressman CARL ELLIOTT, Congress of the United States, YALE UNIVERSITY, New Haven, Conn., March 27, 1958 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: I am seriously concerned that our country is going to fall behind in education and science, and therefore slip from its position of world leadership into that of a second or third rate nation. It is obvious that in the long run investments in basic research, and in education which makes that research possible, pay off handsomely. It has been estimated that in the United States, on the average, investments in research and development have repaid a dividend from 100 to 200 percent per year for 25 years.* The car and the airplane have revolutionized transportation. High fidelity recording gives us a choice of fine music beyond the means of the most powerful kings of former years. Since 1900 the tragedy of the death of children during the preschool years has been reduced sixfold. Science is the endless frontier upon which depends the continued economic growth of our Nation and the enrichment of its citizens' lives. Although the work of the scientist, and of the teacher who trains the scientist, pay off handsome dividends to society, it is difficult for the individual scientist and teacher to collect his share of these dividends. This is because it may take from 10 to 25 years before a given scientific discovery is translated into practical results, and still longer before the teaching which prepared the scientist for the discovery yields its results. Therefore it is much harder for the scientist who makes the basic discoveries, or his teacher, to collect for his valuable services than it is for a surgeon or a manufacturer. But without adequate rewards, we cannot expect enough of our most able young people to choose careers of science and teaching. For this reason one of the most important problems that confront a free society is how to support education and scientific research at levels which will make careers in these fields attractive to talented young people. Soviet Russia has succeeded in doing this. They give their successful scientists and teachers rewards comparable to those received by successful factory managers. They have invested a considerable proportion of their national income in education and in scientific research. Because of the exceptionally high long-term returns which such investments yield, they have rapidly advanced from a position far behind us to surpassing us in certain respects and *See editorial in Science, 1955, vol. 122, p. 581, or Ewell, R. H., Role of Research in Economic Growth, Chem. Engineering News, 33 (3), 2980-2985. nearing us in others. Although we started out with a huge lead, this has been largely dissipated by the fact that we were not investing enough in the highdividend-yielding science and education. Unless we greatly speed up our rate of progress to match the Russians, they will be far ahead in 10 to 20 years. All of the rest of the world will turn to them for leadership and we shall slip back into the status of a second- or third-class power. At present we have a great deal more resources to invest than Russia, but we are failing to invest these resources in the education and science which yield high returns. It is especially important to take steps to develop the resources of our most talented children. At present we spend considerably more money for special schools for the mentally retarded but allow our brilliant students to be held back by the rest of the class. Thus the students with the highest I. Q. not only fail to develop their full talent, but also have their intellects blunted by boredom and acquire poor study habits. Similarly it is especially important to have high enough rewards at the very top of the professions of teaching and research to attract some of the very best people to them. It is the most brilliant minds (the Einsteins and Tellers) who make the difference between a position of world leadership and being second rate. In the past we have depended on importing such minds or their ideas. In the present struggle for victory or total defeat, we shall not be helped by imports from our chief competitor. The current bills before Congress are a step in the right direction, but I believe that they do not go far enough. You will not attract many of the most talented people by fellowship programs unless the prospects of rewarding careers loom up ahead. It must be possible for the best scientists and teachers to achieve salaries comparable to those in business and in other professions. Furthermore, instead of leaving the discovery of new knowledge largely to amateurs, whose primary job is either teaching in universities or applied research in industrial laboratories, this country must support scientific institutes whose primary goal is the discovery of new knowledge. We could afford to get along on a part-time amateur basis before Russia started to pay for full-time professionals in research institutes. Similarly, instead of building new post offices and other fundamentally less productive public works, we should be building new and better schools. We are in a race which will determine whether or not we are fit to survive. Sincerely, NEAL E. MILLER, HON. CARL ELLIOTT, House of Representatives, THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: Attached is a statement concerning proposals having to do with Federal aid to higher education. The statement is a grassroots document expressing the views of a group of mathematics and science professors at the University of Tennessee. It is hoped that you will have time to consider the seven points set forth and will find them useful as applied to the problem of providing effective aid to higher education. Everyone appreciates how enormously difficult it will be to draft a bill which will genuinely help higher education. Our very best wishes go to you in your effort. Sincerely yours, K. L. KNICKERBOCKER, Associate Dean. A STATEMENT CONCERNING FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION SUMMARY: SEVEN CONSIDERATIONS To: Members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Members of the Subcommittee on Education of the House of Representatives. 1. Faculty salaries.-Better salaries for college teachers are of first importance. Means should be found to provide substantial across-the-board increases plus a number of spectacular merit increases. 2. Identification and counseling of good students.—A nationwide testing and counseling program, in large part federally financed, should be setup with the dual purpose of identifying those who should go to college and those who should not. 3. Scholarships.-Good students who wish to go to college should have financial assistance, as needed. 4. Assistantships.-Graduate asistantships should be allocated to States on the basis of college-age population and within each State to institutions which now have established graduate programs. 5. Fellowships.-Postdoctoral fellowships should be available as an encouragement to basic research. Any large number of predoctoral fellowships would tend to impair dangerously the program of graduate assistantships. (See 6 below.) 6. Summer supplements for graduate students.-Summer fellowships, both predoctoral and postdoctoral, should be available to help speed the flow of graduate students toward their degrees and to promote basic research. 7. National Science Academy.-No good purpose at present would be served by the establishment of a federally operated science academy. A somewhat fuller discussion of these seven points follows. Matters of great concern to higher education are included in bills now being discussed by committees in Congress. It is assumed that opinions of educators concerning effective Federal aid to higher education will be used as guides in the preparation of the bill upon which Congress will vote. The following statement represents the views of those who have affixed their signatures to this document and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the University of Tennessee. 1. Faculty salaries Across the board.-Far and away the most pressing need is for substantially better salaries. Action here should be sudden and drastic. Such action would produce the best, most far-reaching results in the shortest time. A wellpublicized rise in all faculty salaries would immediately encourage larger numbers of students to go out for the teaching team; it would induce wavering teachers to remain in the profession. Although the Russians are mistaken about many things, they have been canny enough to put their teachers in the most favored financial positions; professional prestige and social recognition have, of course, accompanied the financial advantage. Merit increase.-Although the level of salaries for all teachers should be upped considerably, merit should be the basis for the spectacular rise in some salaries. Setting high salaries for certain individuals would help in two ways: (1) It would, of course, greatly benefit and encourage the recipients; (2) more important, it would stimulate others already in the profession to try for these salaries and would attract highly qualified students to a profession with such glittering ultimate rewards. For higher education, determination of merit should be left to individual institutions. The Federal Government might follow the example of the Ford Foundation provide the money earmarked for salaries but leave the distribution to the institutions. Neither the administration bill nor the Hill-Elliott bill comes to direct grips with the core problem described above. It may be difficult to find ways to use Federal funds for directly augmenting faculty salaries. Nevertheless, if the Government were to help subsidize the purchase of equipment, the operating costs, and certain capital outlay for new buildings, funds now spent on these portions of university budgets could be used for increases in faculty salaries. In any event, either the Federal Government must not take from the States, in taxes, as much as it now takes and thereby give the States a chance to support higher education adequately, or it must return to the States from taxes collected enough money to support higher education adequately. The next five points in this statement are of significance to the better running of higher education, but if the first point is neglected, the other five will simply patch the educational fabric and will not solve the most crucial problem facing higher education in this country. 2. Identification and counseling of good students Because high schools vary so tremendously in the quality of their academic programs, it is not possible to regard a high-school diploma as evidence of ade quate preparation for college. Potentially able students may be found in backward high schools which frequently are located in communities or farm areas where a tradition of going to college is weak or nonexistent. Only a nationwide testing program has much chance of ferreting out most of those who are capable of benefiting from a college education. Early identification of high-school students capable of receiving a college education is clearly of basic importance. Here the Federal Government could render a magnificent service by financing a nationwide, State-by-State testing service designed to identify students who should go to college and—almost as important-students who should not go to college. It is probable that the Educational Testing Service at Princeton, N. J., could be expanded and geared to perform this kind of service. National testing would have some definite advantages over State or local testing programs: (1) It would have the advantage of providing a nationwide stimulus to all high schools to improve, (2) it would have a precision and objectivity which might be lacking otherwise, (3) it would put wealthy States and poor States on an equal footing. Counseling and guidance would have to be provided at the local level. Guidance for high-school students who have shown up well on the tests should be simple: go to college. Most high-school students do not have well-defined life goals and perhaps it would be a mistake for them to have such goals so early. Once the good students are in college, thorough guidance programs should be available. How professional this guidance should be is debatable. That adequate counseling and guidance will cost a great deal more money than colleges or universities are now spending on these phases of their programs is not debatable. Here the need for Federal help is clearly indicated. The texts of the bills now being considered by committees of the Congress indicate a proper concern for testing, counseling, and guidance. 3. Scholarships A scholarship is a form of subsidy for students at the undergraduate level. Scholarships should be made available on the basis of need to students identified in (2) above as college prospects. All bills before Congress show great concern for undergraduate scholarships as a means of lowering the financial barrier for all able students. One bill recommends approximately 10,000 scholarships annually, reaching a total of 40,000 in the fourth year, to be closely coordinated with the testing and counseling programs. The same bill recommends allotment among States on an equitable basis and distribution by State agencies on the basis of ability and need. The allotment by States is a good thing. Perhaps a formula could be worked out to distribute the scholarships to collegiate institutions within the States for ultimate awarding by the colleges themselves rather than by a State agency. 4. Assistantships An assistantship is a form of subsidy for graduate students from whom certain services are required. Graduate assistantships have become of vital importance for the following reasons: (1) Almost all science and mathematics departments depend upon graduate assistants to carry much of the burden of undergraduate teaching and laboratory work. A shortage of teachers with doctorates in these fields makes it imperative that the already short supply of competent graduate assistants not be reduced by, for example, the awarding of a large number of fellowships (a fellowship is a form of subsidy for graduate students from whom no services are required-see below). (2) Even if science and mathematics departments were not so dependent upon graduate assistants, it is eminently sensible to give predoctoral students an opportunity to try their hands at teaching. Without this experience, many graduate students would not seriously consider teaching as a career. With this experience, many graduate students would find teaching congenial and worth following even at some financial sacrifice. In the light of the foregoing it is strongly recommended that assistantships be alloted to States on the basis of college-age population and within each State to institutions which now have established graduate programs. Wide distribution of assistanships is imperative if the whole country is to be alerted to the need for overhauling the entire educational system. Moreover, many excellent institutions scattered throughout the country, if given the requisite support, can do a better and faster job of strengthening education than would be possible if students continue to be concentrated in a few institutions located in only one comparatively small area of the country. 5. Fellowships For definition, see above. Some postdoctoral felowships in the sciences and mathematics might be made available on the basis of population by States and within the State to institutions with established graduate programs. Predoctoral fellowships, for reasons outlined above, should be held to a minimum. Conditions for granting the fellowships should be determined by individual institutions. 6. Summer supplements for graduate students In many institutions demand for student help during the summer is greatly reduced. The summer, therefore, is an appropriate time for graduate students to concentrate exclusively on their own work. Summer, however, also offers these students an opportunity to earn money with which to pay part of the expenses of another year of graduate work. If fellowships were available for these off periods, graduate students could afford to accelerate the completion of their work and, consequently, could be fed at a faster rate into the professions, including teaching. 7. National Science Academy-now? It may be that after all recommendations from 1 through 6 have been put into effect and as is hoped-a much larger flow of sicence personnel has as a consequence been attained, there may be a place and a need for a National Science Academy. Establishment of a National Science Academy now, in spite of the immediate attractiveness of the idea, might actually have an effect opposite to that intended. For one thing, the United States has many excellent science academies in existence right now. Few of these are at present overcrowded with competent graduate students. Perhaps none of these has all the highcaliber professors it could use. A science academy presumably would outbid all competitors and thereby concentrate too much science talent in one place. It is easy to prove that even a few distinguished professors can give tone and standing to an entire university. It would not be well, therefore, to offer such overwhelming competition to the many colleges which teach-and teach well-the basic sciences. Industry, through unwise stockpiling of talented young scientists, is already playing havoc with the supply of college teachers. It would be a wise move for the Federal Government to help the colleges and universities compete for scientific talent and an imprudent move for it to become a direct competitor. Signed: Calvin Buehler, Professor of Chemistry; J. G. Carlson, Professor of FREDERICK, MD., January 22, 1958. DEAR MR. HYDE: In the course of my work I have visited all of the scientific research institutes in America and most of the universities that are engaged in scientific research. May I offer to you, for whatever it may be worth, the following information: The full-time research institutes are generally able to provide their scientists with adequate support in the form of technicians. In general, the universities are not. Thus we find able scientists in university laboratories who are required to spend their time building apparatus, even furniture; painting, repairing; |