and have no hope of expanding our equipment in the foreseeable future. For example, we are unable to increase our power to the authorized maximum in order to serve the schools of outlying areas, and we have no means of obtaining sorely needed remote equipment. We feel sure that a Federal grant for necessary equipment would increase our services to the community, and would help us to secure more local funds for operational purposes. We are eager to support H. R. 9634 and to lend our efforts to its passage. Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL, New York, N. Y., March 17, 1958. Chairman of the Subcommittee on Special Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In accordance with your request of March 6, 1958, I am very pleased to give you my statement in regard to the President's proposals which are embodied in Senate bill 3163 and in H. R. 10278 as well as my comments on S. 3187 which I understand is similar to your own bill, H. R. 10381. My statment follows: My name is Ralph A. Morgen. I received my degree of doctor of philosophy from the University of California with a major in chemistry and a minor in electrical engineering in 1925. After obtaining that degree I was engaged in research and development in various capacities in industry for 13 years. In 1938 I joined the staff of the University of Florida where I was professor of chemical engineering and director of the engineering and industrial experiment station until 1952. From 1952-54 I was program director for Engineering Sciences of the National Science Foundation. Since 1954, I have been director of the Purdue Research Foundation and assistant to the president for research of Purdue University, which is my present title. I am vice president of the American Society for Engineering Education and in that capacity I am chairman of the engineering college administrative council, a division of the society. I am also chairman of the committee on engineering sciences of the Engineers Joint Council. I would like to direct my remarks to the major provisions of the several bills under consideration: SCHOLARSHIPS I am presuming this means aid to undergraduate students. It is my belief that an extensive program of scholarships which involves aid to undergraduate students is unnecessary. tI is believed that there will be more students able and willing to take undergraduate engineering than the present staffs and engineering facilities can handle in an efficient and satisfactory manner. A selective program which will find those peculiarly able persons who are unable to take undergraduate engineering because of financial reasons might be desirable. Such an undergraduate assistance program should be based on (a) need; and (b) aptitude to take the appropriate subjects for which are being offered scholarships. GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING A program which would set up a sound guidance and counseling policy for primary and secondary school children is highly desirable. Any such program should not be on a crash basis but on a continuing basis. It is essential in any such program that the guidance and counseling start at a low enough level so that the students can be channeled in the appropriate direction during the course of their high school studies. It is most essential that those persons who are responsible for this type counseling have some familiarity with the subject matter of the area in which they are providing the guidance and counseling and that property trained consultants be available in all the major areas in which counseling and guidance are being given. MAJOR NEEDS OF ENGINEERING The major need in engineering education is the encouragemet of capable persons to enter the profession of teaching of engineering subjects in institutions of higher learning. One way to help to overcome the shortage of teachers of engineering is to provide support for graduate students in engineering. Fellowships or training grants which would supplement existing teaching assistantships at institutions of higher learning or fellowships and grants for first and second year graduate students would be desirable and helpful. The gap between the salaries offered to young engineers after they receive their bachelor's degree and the amount of stipend which the universities can pay to these same persons as teaching assistants is too great. By supplementing the teaching assistantships and presently available support for graduate students with a grant, it would be possible to narrow the gap and let the graduate students earn enough money so that they would be encouraged to remain in graduate school in order to obtain their advanced degrees. An example using actual numbers might illustrate the point best: The average recipient of a bachelor's degree in engineering might expect to receive an offer of approximately $6,000 a year from industry for his first job. If he does a reasonably good job over a 4-year period, he might expect to be earning $8,000 or more at that time, or during the 4-year period he might expect to earn an average of $7,000 or a total of $28,000. If that same person remained in the university working toward his doctor of philosophy degree in engineering he might be expected to take 4 years to complete the work. In that same period he might expect to earn $1,800 per year as a teaching assistant during his first 2 years and $2,400 a year for each of the next 2 years as a research assistant on a sponsored research program, or a total of around $8,400 during the 4-year period. The prospective graduate student then calculates that the doctor of philosophy degree will cost him approximately $20,000 over the 4-year period. Evidence can be shown the student to convince him that he will, during his professional life, make much more than the $20,000 that the advanced degree will cost him (unless he goes into the teaching profession). Therefore, the argument is not valid for those students who wish to follow teaching as a profession. This explains to a large degree why those persons who are completing the doctor of philosophy in engineering do not remain in teaching. It is believed that if these same persons could be assured of earning a sufficient amount during the 4 years that it takes on the average to earn the doctor of philosophy degree, they could be induced to take the graduate courses and obtain the graduate degrees necessary to remain in teaching as a profession. It is believed that an additional subsidy in the form of fellowships or grants of about $1,500-$2,000 a year for 4 years, so that the graduate students would earn a total during that 4-year period of $14,000-$17,000 would be a sufficient incentive to appreciably increase the number of persons who would enter the teaching of engineering as a profession. With the anticipated increase in the undergraduate student body in engineering and with the normal attrition of those persons who are now on the engineering staffs of the universities of the country, it is anticipated that there will be needed about 9,600 new engineering teachers in the next 10 years. At the present time, the total production of doctors of philosophy in all fields of engineering in the country is about 600, and less than 10 percent of those 600 are entering the teaching profession. Somehow, some way it is absolutely essential that the production of doctors of philosophy in various fields of engineering be increased from the level of 600 a year to somewhere around 1,500-2,000 a year and that approximately half of those who receive the doctor of philosophy, or some 750-1,000 a year, be induced to enter the profession of teaching in the institutions of higher learning. The second very essential need of engineering education is the availability of adequate facilities. The recent program of the Federal Government in appropriating $40 million a year for the building of research facilities in the medical sciences is a good example of what could be done to help relieve the situation in the physical sciences and the engineering sciences. Summarizing, therefore, the major needs of engineering education are (1) support of graduate students who could be induced to enter the teaching of engineering at the institutions of higher learning; and (2) facilities to take care of the expanded number of students who will wish to study engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express to you and your committee the needs of engineering education. Sincerely yours, RALPH A. MORGEN, Chairman, Committee on Engineering Sciences. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Special Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: The Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education met in Washington on March 18 for the consideration of a number of matters affecting higher education. Among the matters receiving the special attention of the committee was title X of House bill H. R. 10381, research and experimentation in more effective utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and related media for educational purposes. I wish to report for the record that the committee voted unanimously to approve and endorse title X of H. R. 10381 as sound, forward looking, and well designed to meet a major educational need in the United States. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR S. ADAMS, President. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, Mr. CARL ELLIOTT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I greatly appreciated the privilege you gave me of presenting separate remarks to your committee arising immediately from a University of Arkansas enterprise, but not confined in application to that local situation. You may wish to have this letter summarizing and particularizing my remarks. The 1957 General Assembly of the State of Arkansas established under the University of Arkansas a Graduate Institute of Technology, and gave it a very modest initial appropriation. The facility is being readied now; a director and first faculty are on the job; the first courses already are being taught to an enrollment of about 30 students. Mr. Chairman, this effort in Arkansas reflects the State's interest in advancing the sciences and technology in our region above what the existing programs could provide in the way of opportunity for advanced training and research. But our resources are extremely limited while the opportunity, needs, and will-to-do are very great. If your committee can find a proper way to extend substantive aid to such programs as this, designed to operate at the most advanced levels of teaching and research, the Nation would all be benefited. I suggest two approaches within the framework of comprehensive proposals already before you. 1. In H. R. 10278 (title IV) raising of the proposed ceiling on matching grants from $125,000 to some substantially higher figure (say $300,000) and a reduction of the institutional matching requirement (to perhaps one-fourth) would more realistically strengthen the graduate schools. As a matter of fact, an even higher ceiling would be in order, if funds permitted, in view of the particularly expensive character of advanced scientific and technological education. 2. Also, it seems difficult to justify the restriction in section 552 of H. R. 10381 which confines aid for the acquisition of science teaching facilities to undergraduate use. In this connection it should be observed that direct substantive Federal aid when applied in sectarian institutions to advanced graduate programs is probably more defensible constitutionally than aid to lower levels of instruction. The University of Arkansas is, of course, a public, tax-supported institution. But the legislation as conceived by the Congress to date makes no distinction as to whether the beneficiary institution is tax supported, independent, or church related so long as it is nonprofit. If this policy position is retained in the legislation, then it should be applied in the least offensive fashion. I suggest that direct aid to advanced graduate programs in sectarian institutions is probably less vulnerable than to undergraduate programs in those institutions. Sincerely yours, JOHN T. CALDWELL, President. Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, LONG BEACH STATE COLLEGE, Long Beach, Calif., February 3, 1958. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BAILEY: The thought has occurred to me recently that, since the Federal Government is deeply concerned about education in the United States, it might be very desirable if, included in the legislation which would give Federal aid to education, a provision might be made for aid to college libraries. One of the most necessary adjuncts to the college program is the adequacy of its library. Many private and public institutions throughout the country have considerable need for additional support to upgrade the quality of books in their libraries, particularly in regard to the expensive books in the fields of physical science, mathematics, aeronautics, and engineering. The writer cannot complain about the financial support provided by the State of California for Long Beach State College library; however, a new institution such as ours and older, smaller institutions have a very great need for additional funds to enable them to purchase the adequate resources in the above fields. While the annual support budget for this institution seems quite adequate, it will be some years before this institution has an engineering and physical science library which will adequately support our recently authorized program for engineering and our masters program in physical science. I believe that Federal aid to education in support of libraries would be money extremely well spent and would provide supplemental aid to many thousands of students in all of our colleges, most of which, through lack of funds, have been unable to afford the basic science reference materials needed to support the kind of scientific training that the Nation needs at the present time. Sincerely yours. CHAS. J. BOORKMAN, College Librarian. BROWN UNIVERSITY, Providence, R. I., March 3, 1958. Hon. JOHN E. FOGARTY, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Along with everyone else, I have read the newspapers and assumed that Federal funds in the necessary large quantity will be available for support of students and basic research in engineering. A letter from Dean Wessman of the University of Washington informs me that this is not likely to be true if bills now before the House and Senate are acted upon favorably. Engineering has been lumped with science and neither science nor engineering are emphasized sufficiently. There is a confusion in the public mind about engineering and science. Sputniks, as you know, are engineering achievements and not in themselves advances in science. This confusion often extends to scientists who do not understand that basic research in engineering, as carried out at our better engineering schools and divisions, is as scientific and as far-reaching as the academic work of physicists and chemists. Unless funds allocated for science are labeled explicitly for engineering and for science, separately, there is strong danger that the best interests of the country will not be served. Our greatest need, at present, is not for mere engineers but for more engineers of the highest quality. Graduate study and research are essential for the education of such engineers. The present scale of operations on the graduate level must be more than doubled and preferably should be tripled. Engineering students who can earn $6,000 a year with a bachelor's degree and advance rapidly without higher degrees need real encouragement to go on to graduate study. Yet the future of our country is bound up completely with our technological progress. Universities need funds for basic research projects and for equipment designated unmistakable for engineering. Strange as it may seem, there is a real scarcity of "free" money for these essential requirements. Please do your best to see that the needs of the country for engineers and engineering research receive appropriate attention. Yours sincerely, D. C. DRUCKER, Chairman, Division of Engineering. P. S.-This same letter has been sent to Senator Green, Senator Kennedy, Senator Pastore, Representative Forand. D. C. DRUCKER. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Special Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In further response to your letter of July 26, 1957, and subsequent discussions with members of your staff, we have prepared and are submitting herewith two copies of a report on major educational programs of the Department of Defense in scientific and professional fields. We shall, of course, be happy to furnish any additional information you deem necessary. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN S. JACKSON, Deputy Assistant Secretary. MAJOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL FIELDS SUMMARY The Department of Defense supports a considerable number of educational programs in scientific and other professional fields which are designed to meet specific requirements of the Armed Forces, to provide a gradual improvement in the educational level of personnel in specific specialties, and to provide an opportunity for career personnel to raise their educational levels. At the same time, these programs have the effect of increasing and improving the Nation's total resources of such manpower. Most of these programs are either conducted in civilian institutions of higher learning or in connection with such institutions. Others are conducted in special military institutions which have many similarities to civilian institutions. The major programs fall within five broad groupings: I. Programs in preparation for entering military service These programs are commonly called procurement programs. All of them are given at civilian institutions or special military institutions having many similarities to civilian institutions. These programs are completely or partially financed by the Department of Defense. In all cases, participants are obligated to serve in active military service upon completion of their education. Included in this group are the service academies, the ROTC programs, and special arrangements in the health field, such as the medical- and dental-student programs. As of October 1957, about 60,400 persons were participating in this group of programs. The largest proportion of these participants consisted of almost 46,000 ROTC students, excluding the Navy regular ROTC, in their junior and senior college years, for whom the financial assistance provided by the military departments is only nominal. II. Education programs for in-service military personnel The second broad group of programs consists of those provided for certain military personnel during their time on active duty. They are generally designed to meet specific requirements of the Armed Forces and are part of the career development of military personnel. Most often they are restricted to persons who have been in service for a minimum period, and usually the participants incur an obligation for additional periods of service in return for the educational benefits. Included in this group of programs are those within each service which are specifically designed to enable certain military personnel to complete academic requirements for a college degree in order to raise the general educational |