on other things. They may want to establish a family or they may just want to start earning money now rather than 4 or more years hence.

(2) There are at the present time approximately 237,000 scholarships available in this country. While it is true that approximately 10,000 of these scholarships are so restricted with quaint and peculiar conditions that they are in reality not available, there are still more than 225,000 scholarships which are quite readily available. Many of these scholarships are available to students in science and engineering. Many would be available to gifted people who do not want to go to college. The fact is that some of these scholarships go unused each year. In other instances, a single student may have several scholarships. Going to college could become a money-making proposition in such a case.

(3) Most of the larger schools, and a great many of the smaller ones, provide various financial aids for their students, the most notable among these being the student loan funds whereby the student can borrow money at a low rate of interest to be repaid when he graduates. A great many of these student loan funds are not being used, or are being used to a much lesser extent than they could and should be.

We have already pointed out that we are much more concerned with quality than with quantity and that we believe more attention should be paid to encouraging and helping deserving students to continue their education at the graduate level. We should point out now that we are equally concerned about the education at the primary and secondary levels. In our view, one of the most serious educational problems at the present time and for the foreseeable future is the critical shortage of top-flight primary and secondary school teachers-a condition which results in students being ill prepared when they come to the colleges and, perhaps more important, a poor teacher is ill equipped to motivate and to inspire a student who might, with such inspiration, be a potential brilliant scholar. According to recent information, 60 percent of the freshmen who enrolled in engineering schools in 1955 were required to take noncredit preparatory mathematics before they could enroll in regular college courses. To make up for such deficiencies, which result from inferior high-school instruction, usually takes an additional semester in college. The cost of this extra semester in college, based on the nearly 80,000 engineering freshmen in the fall of 1957, comes to approximately $30 million. To correct the defects in the elementary and secondary schools, which are primarily the consequence of poorly trained and uninspired teachers in these schools, which in turn results from the inadequate salaries which are paid to these teachers, we suggest the following:

(1) Revise the Internal Revenue Code so as to permit a teacher to deduct from his or her gross income certain amounts paid to further their training or education;

(2) Provide funds or means whereby teachers' salaries can be increased;

(3) Support the National Science Foundation in its effort to establish fellowships for high-school teachers of science and mathematics so that they might continue their education.

To insure that the maximum number of able youngsters go on to college, we recommend that Congress:

(1) Provide tax legislation which would permit deductions for families supporting students in college; and

(2) Support programs for the dissemination of information to the public about Federal and/or private scholarships, fellowships, and loan funds which are available to students.

To insure a higher order of quality among future engineers and scientists, we suggest the following program:

(1) Provide adequate funds for more graduate fellowship programs, possibly through the National Science Foundation;

(2) Provide funds to enable graduate students who have family responsibilities to reasonably discharge such responsibilities while they pursue their education; (3) Provide grants to engineering schools and colleges to enable them to attract and hold superior teachers at both the undergraduate and graduate levels; (4) Encourage the placement of challenging research projects with engineering and scientific schools so as to enable these institutions to better and more fully round out the training of their students, and help the students learn to cope with difficult research projects under expert supervision.

(5) Assist in programs which are designed to improve and expand existing physical facilities to the extent where these will allow the college or university to offer a broad and well-rounded scientific and/or engineering education curriculum.

We think that in addition to the foregoing it is important to focus attention on the issue of efficient utilization of engineering and scientific personnel. In the past, and to a high degree at the present time, scientists and particularly engineers, were used and are being used to perform some tasks which are routine and repetitive. The employment of technicians and scientific or engineering assistants to work with engineers and scientists relieves such engineers and scientists of routine chores and allows them to perform near the highest level of their competence a much larger proportion of the time.

A number of technical institutes have been set up around the country. These institutes train youngsters to qualify as skilled technicians with an understanding of the basics of physical science and mathematics in about 2 years' time. Because the employment of technicians trained in technical institutes greatly improves the productivity of engineering and scientific manpower, we recommend that the Federal Government:

(1) Assist and encourage the expansion of the technical institute program; (2) Encourage regular scientific and engineering schools to establish a technician education curriculum on their campus so that youngsters who do not desire to spend 4 years in college or do not have the aptitude to complete a course which includes rigorous mathematical concepts and abstract theories can acquire some college level training which will permit them to contribute to our overall engineering and scientific progress.

(3) Encourage the employment of technician trained personnel to relieve the engineer and scientist of routine tasks to the greatest permissible extent. The above is respectfully submitted for:

THE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

OF AMERICA,

By JOSEPH AMANN, President.

STUDENTS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION,
Washington, D. C., April 14, 1958.

Hon. CARL ELLIOTT,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor and Education,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: Students for Democratic Action appreciate this opportunity to make known to your subcommittee our views on those proposals on the subject of Federal aid to education now pending before the Congress. We regret, of course, that time did not permit our appearance in person before your subcommittee.

First, we would like to take this opportunity to commend your patience and care in fully exploring the vast and complicated area under study.

Nevertheless, we feel real concern that such exhaustive study has resulted in very little by way of legislation designed to remedy the tremendous need which you have rightly found to exist. We are especially concerned that the so-called Hill-Elliott legislation, which we long eagerly anticipated, is so grossly weighted in the areas of science and technology; a solution which we feel would greatly distort a balanced program of education for those qualified American youths who lack only the finances to receive a higher education and thereby benefit American society as a whole.

As I am sure has already been well pointed out to your committee, the legislation offered by the administration is woefully lacking in scope to offer any real solution to the problems with which we all are concerned. We particularly regret that the administration completely neglected the vital areas of Federal aid to school construction and augmentation of teachers' salaries.

We would commend for further study by your subcommittee S. 3311 offered in the Senate by Senator Murray and in the House by Representative Metcalf. Only a program of such scope, we feel, would adequately cover the two areas last mentioned above.

We are enclosing a copy of a study made by our organization which, like the able study made by the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School, points out the real dimensions of the current waste of talented youth who are unable for financial reasons to further their education. Based on this study, we call upon the Congress to enact legislation which would include at least the following features:

1. A national scholarship program large enough to drain off a substantial part of the currently wasted pool of brainpower; 100,000 awards a year would be a realistic minimum.

2. The awards must be based on a combination of ability plus need. Those who rate highly on the ability test, but who cannot establish need would be given honorary scholarships without stipends. Publicity would be given to the favorable scores thus encouraging service clubs, corporations, and other sources of private capital to pick up the bill for later years.

3. The stipend should be realistically scaled to the current costs of a college education, probably averaging about $1,000 a year. A matching grant of a flat $1,000 would be given the institution accepting a scholarship recipient in recognition of the fact that a college's fees often represent only part of the cost of a student's education. This would enable an institution to raise faculty salaries or increase physical plant.

4. No effort would be made to determine which accredited institution the scholarship recipient attends nor would the curriculums he pursues be in any way restricted. This is in recognition of the need of the many diverse skills and professions needed in a free society.

5. There should be an extension of this program in some cases through 3 years of graduate study.

6. Any program of loans or tax amnesty to parents of college students must be considered an addition to, rather than a substitute for, the above outlined program. Many of the bills now before Congress would provide for one or another of these and SDA would not oppose them on their merits. Yet we feel that any program, lacking the features of a comprehensive program of national scholarships would inadequately solve the problem.

We again thank the committee for this opportunity to include this letter and the enclosed study as part of its record. We hope it is not too late for our arguments to have some influence on the legislation which is forthcoming.

I am,

Respectfully yours,

GORDON GRAHAM,
Executive Secretary.

THE CASE FOR FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIP AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION "Educated manpower" is recognized as crucial in the future development of the Nation both domestically and as a world power. Yet half of the country's top talent is discarded each year because financial barriers to higher education are permitted to exist. For every student who attends college, there is at least one other young man or woman-equally capable, equally talented, just as eager and ambitious-whose formal education is limited because of lack of funds. "Our ideals and the increasing complexity of our civilization require that each individual develop his or her talents to the fullest. This country will never tolerate the nurturing of an educational elite." So reads the interim report of the President's Committee on Education Beyond High School, published in November 1956. The Committee set forth these criteria as essential to the well-being of America and American education: "(1) The conservation and development of human talent is the proper concern of every citizen and of the Nation. (2) Every individual, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin, shall have the opportunity to develop his or her best self, to continue appropriate education up to his or her personal point of optimum development."

NEED FOR BRAINPOWER DEVELOPMENT

"We are not developing the Nation's greatest asset, the brains of our citizens. A large number of the people of this country are working at levels below their true potentialities, which is a waste of manpower. It is imperative that we have the highest possible correlation between talent and national welfare whether in preparation for defense or for the purposes of peace."

Studies made by the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Training and the National Manpower Council stress the importance for our national security of utilizing our resources of human skill to the fullest.

1 U. S. Congress. Joint Committee on the Economic Report: January 1955 Economic Report of the President. Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, 84th Cong., 1st sess., pursuant to sec. 5 (a) of Public Law 304 (79th Cong.). Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1955. 1,267 p.

"In the final analysis there is no substitute for the qualitative development of our best brains. Our foreign and military policy has no better ally than the educational system. In any assessment of American power, higher education has the same stature as our system of food production, our industrial organization, or our system of defense.2

"Since the whole population profits from the work of its ablest members, it would appear to be good business for the Nation to use its brains well, just as it is good business to use well its forest, its waterpower, and its minerals. It is more than good business; it is a great concern." 3

In reply to those who fear that substantial increases in the number of college graduates may increase the supply of professional people way above the demand, the National Manpower Council has this to say:

"An expanding national income will result in a greater capacity to consume the services of professional personnel. A dynamic economy, high levels of employment, rising living standards, and the aspiration for improved health, education and social security all point to the need for larger numbers of scientifically and professionally trained workers. In spite of the uncertainties which must qualify any judgment on the future, a long-run view clearly points to a continuing high level of demand for scientific and professional manpower.*"

Number of families by family income, for the United States, 19551

Family income:

Total____

Under $1,000__.
$1,000 to $1,999_
$2,000 to $2,999.
$3,000 to $3,999_

$4,000 to $4,999.
$5,000 to $5,999_

$6,000 to $6,999_

$7,000 to $9,999_ 10,000 to $14,999– $15,000 and over.

Number of families 42, 800, 000

3,300,000 4, 200, 000 4, 700, 000 6,300,000 6, 600, 000 5, 400, 000

4, 100, 000

5, 500, 000

2, 100, 000

600, 000 1 Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, Current Population Reports Consumer Income, series P-60, No. 22.

Federal census returns indicate that approximately three-fifths of the Nation's 43 million families received incomes of less than $5,000 in 1955; one-fifth had incomes of less than $2,000. It is evident, therefore, that a considerable percentage of young men and women, even if equipped intellectually to benefit from higher education, cannot take advantage of the opportunity because of insufficient funds either of their own or on the part of their families.

The costs of education include tuition, housing, books, fees, transportation, and other incidentals, and all of these costs have risen in recent years. Rising operating costs have forced many of the Nation's colleges and universities to increase their tuition 50 to 100 percent in the last 10 years, according to the New York Times of January 20, 1957. State-supported institutions, once thought to be the solution to the problem of financing college education for lower-income families, today depend more on tuition to meet their budget than they have in the past. The cost of going to a State-supported school has risen 30 percent from 1939 to 1947, and more since then. Few students attend college at home. The result is added cost in transportation and living expenses.

SUPERIOR TALENT IS WASTED

"It must always be remembered that at least as many young people who have the same or greater intellectual ability than those now in college do not enroll

C. W. Kiewet, Education for Survival, the ACLS Newsletter, summer 1953.

3 Dael Wolfle, editor, Report of the Commission on Human Resources and Advance Training, 1954, p. 1.

p. 32.

National Manpower Council, A Policy for Scientific and Professional Manpower, 1952, & Report of President's Commission on Higher Education, vol. I. p. 20, 1947, Government Printing Office.

because of low family income. the whole situation."

This is the single most outstanding factor in

"Out of every thousand children finishing the fifth grade together, 900 have the ability to go through high school; yet only 403 do so. Out of that same thousand finishing the fifth grade, 320 have the ability to go through college; only 70 do so. Thus, every year the Nation is failing to train 55 percent of those who ought to finish high school and 76 percent of those who could profit from college." "

8

The top people in the highest income bracket have a 4 to 1 advantage over the top people in the lowest economic group in getting to college. One-half of the top 25 percent (in ability) of the high school graduates does not continue on to college, is the finding of one study." Another study finds that the top 2 percent of the 18-year-old high school graduates, 60 percent enter college and 70 percent of those graduate; of the top 10 percent, 44 percent enter and 63 percent of those graduate; of the top 25 percent, 40 percent enter and 54 percent graduate.TM

Out of 476,000 who score over 115 on the army classification test, only 184,000 enter college and only 103,000 graduate." A general overall carefully developed program of scholarships would increase the number of those in the top 25 percent who go to college from less than one-half to at last three-quarters, according to one evaluation.12

Thus, study after study, made throughout all parts of the country, consistently shows that whether you consider the superior top half, or the top third, or the top 2 percent, no matter how you slice it, approximately half of the graduates will go on to college and half will not, primarily because they cannot afford it. Although many students have achieved their degrees by working their way through, it is a long hard struggle, and in certain areas of the country impossible. There are frequently more applicants than jobs. Many colleges are located in rural communities where work opportunities are limited. Working more than 15 hours a week interferes with a well-rounded educational program, and even that amount may be detrimental to the student's health. "In many cases it means for the student long hours of labor taken from his studies and his sleep, in an effort to keep body and soul together while his mind grows. It is true that many conquer these formidable obstacles. It is also true that the price is often health and happiness." 13

Loans have failed to provide a solution. Where there are loans, the interest is often low, but the student hesitates to mortgage his future. The student is often required to pay off the loans soon after graduation. This may keep the student from pursuing graduate studies. Also, many students marry upon graduating college and do not want to start off married life with a debt.

PRESENT SOURCES OF SCHOLARSHIPS

The present sources of scholarships are the schools themselves, private and corporate philanthropy, and State aid. These three sources combined do not meet current needs.

Scholarships granted by private institutions are inadequate primarily because there are too few, and the stipend granted is too small to meet the financial needs of superior students from lower income families. Scholarships listed in United States Office of Education Bulletin No. 16 of 1951, entitled, "Scholarships and Fellowships Available at Institutions of Higher Education," average well under $200 in value and the number whose value was over $1,000 is very small. Almost none of the scholarships meet the total financial needs of the superior candidate with little or no money from home. Some scholarships are as low as $5 to $10 per year and many are for only $100 per year or less."

Ibid., p. 30.

7 Earl J. McGrath, On the Outside Looking In, Proceedings of the Association of LandGrant Colleges and Universities. Sixty-third Annual Convention, Kansas City. Mo., October 25-27. 1949, p. 313.

Elmer D. West, Background for a National Scholarship Policy, American Council on Education, 1956, p. 82.

Ibid., p. 18.

19 John Millett, staff report of Commission on Financing Higer Education in the United States. Columbia University Press, 1952.

11 West, op. cit., p. 103.

12 Ibid., p. 124.

13 McGrath, op. cit., p. 314.

14 Francis J. Brown, ed., Approaching Esuality of Opportunity in Higher Education; report of a national conference sponsored by the Committee on Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education of the American Council on Education, St. Louis, Mo., November 15, 16, 1954. Washington, American Council on Education, 1955, p. 132.