cial problem looms ahead with ominous clarity. The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School has described it in these words:

"Our colleges and universities are expected by the American public to perform something close to a miracle in the next 10 to 15 years. They are called upon to provide education of a continually improving quality to a far larger number of students at least 6 million by 1970 compared to 3 million now. * * * Our institutions of higher learning, despite their remarkable achievements in the past, are in no shape today to meet the challenge. Their resources are already strained; their quality standards are even now in jeopardy; and their projected plans fall far short of the indicated need."

As suggested by the President's Committee, the magnitude of the problem is not measured by quantity alone. Every successful effort to improve the quality of instruction, every new program to meet changing needs, and every increase in faculty salaries to meet competing demands, compounds the requirement for additional funds. Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy, of the University of Kansas, speaking as chairman of the American Council on Education, was not exaggerating when he said, "The danger signals are flying. We see them in the sustained high birth rates, increased desire on the part of our youth to seek higher education, and the growing appetite of our society for skilled and educated manpower. In fact we now feel the first winds of the hurricane whose major force is but 2 or 3 short years away." And he asks, "Does the average American family fully understand the fact that indecision and false economy now will actually deny many American sons and daughters any higher educational opportunity at all and that it is probably already too late to avoid some crisis and dilution of quality in higher education?"

Strengthening higher education to meet the foreseeable needs of the Nation is not a short-term "crash" operation. Walter Lippmann pointed out as early as 1954 that we have reached the stage in history where nothing less than a major breakthrough to a newer and higher plateau of educational effort will suffice. All available resources must be mobilized for a sustained effort until the objective has been achieved.

The colleges and universities themselves can do much to improve the effective use of the resources they now possess, but the results will obviously be limited. A great increase in volume of support must be secured from the sources that have traditionally borne the major share of the burden and should continue to do so individual donors, alumni organizations, foundations, business and industry, labor, local communities, and the several states. But bold Federal action is also imperative if the menace to our national security is to be fully met.

The Federal Government is already heavily involved in higher education. Through fellowships, research contracts, veterans' benefits, and other programs, Federal agencies spend more than a billion dollars each year in ways that directly or indirectly affect colleges and universities. The American Council on Education does not suggest that the Federal Government assume new roles. For example, it would not be desirable for Federal funds to be used in a general program of grants to increase faculty salaries, even though the solution of that problem is perhaps the most critical of all. The council does urge that some existing programs be modified so that they cease to be drains on general institutional funds, that others be expanded, and that new programs be undertaken which experience has demonstrated can provide Federal support without Federal control.

The Federal Government can and should move promptly to strengthen higher education by assisting the institutions and other interested agencies to increase the supply of qualified college teachers, expand and improve academic facilities, and offer financial aid to qualified college students. The magnitude of the Federal effort in each of these areas should be such as to make a significant contribution to the solution of the problem but more importantly, it should be such as to stimulate greater activity by other agencies by emphasizing the vital significance of the educational crisis to the American people as a whole.

The following recommendations are made by the committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education as essential parts of such a program of Federal action to strengthen higher education to meet its fundamental responsibilities to the American people. The fact that a particular project, either existing or proposed, is not included in this statement does not necessarily imply that the council disapproves it. Several such projects, which involve the financing of additional services by colleges and universities for special purposes, will be considered on their own

merits as separate items outside the scope of this statement. The five major recommendations that follow are designed to strengthen higher education in the performance of its basic functions.

I. The Federal Government can and should assist in increasing the supply of qualified college teachers

A recent survey by the National Education Association indicates that shortages of qualified college teachers now exist in nearly all areas, and it is evident that as enrollment rises, such shortages will be more acute unless remedial action is taken. This problem is the key log in the jam. It is obviously unwise to urge more students to demand advanced instruction in mathematics, science, engineering, or any other subject, if there will be no qualified persons to teach them. The central need is to increase, immediately and dramatically, the output of the graduate schools offering doctor of philosophy degrees, and to develop, during the graduate program, the interest of the students in continuing academic careers after receiving their degrees.

Secretary Folsom, among others, has suggested that unused capacity for this purpose exists. He has stated that "there are in the United States today some 162 institutions which award the doctorate degree. But a mere 10 of them award 36 percent of the Nation's doctorates. About 110 of these institutions award less than 20 percent of such degrees annually." Valuable as they are, present national fellowship programs, both governmental and nongovernmental, by awarding fellowships to individual students and permitting freedom of choice as to the graduate school attended, encourage even greater concentration of enrollment in a few schools.

A. It is therefore recommended that the Federal Government establish a system of grants to graduate schools offering the doctor of philosophy degree for the purpose of increasing their output by

1. Offering fellowships to students now in residence to relieve them of outside nonacademic employment, which it is known many of them are forced to undertake, and thus help them to complete degree requirements in less time, or allow them to participate in teaching assignments without excessive financial hardship, and

2. Offering fellowships to prospective graduate students in academic areas where the instructional capacity of the institution is not being used to the fullest possible extent. These fellowships should be graduated in amount to take account of the financial needs of these students.

It is proposed that the dean of each graduate school initiate for each subsequent fiscal year and that the president submit, on behalf of his institution, a proposed plan for the above purposes, indicating the total sum that could be effectively used and the academic areas in which the graduate students receiving benefits would study.

Since the purpose of this plan would be to establish and maintain a reasonable balance of qualified faculty members in all disciplines, the Federal agency charged with the administration of the program would have the responsibility for adapting the program from time to time to demonstrated differences in the degrees of shortage in various areas. For example, the survey by the National Education Association previously cited, which enumerated teaching positions in colleges and universities for which funds had been budgeted but for which no satisfactory applicants had been found in 1955-56 and 1956-57, indicates that at the moment there are 3 times as many vacancies in engineering as in education, 5 times as many in the physical sciences as in English, and nearly twice as many in mathematics as in the social sciences. These ratios will presumably change from year to year and will suggest desirable modifications in the future allocation of funds and the manner of their employment.

The administrative machinery established in the Federal Government to operate this program should include strong policy supervision by persons qualified, through experience, in graduate education in the disciplines affected.

A cost of education payment of $1,000 per student per year should be made to each institution in which one or more fellowship holders enroll.

It is estimated that 1,000 such fellowships will be needed in the academic year 1958-59, and 1,500 in each year thereafter. Each fellowship should be available for 3 years, if needed. It is recommended that the maximum grant be $2,000 a year for a single student and $3,000 for a student with dependents. Hence, if the average fellowship pays $2,000 a year, the basic cost for the first year, including cost-of-education grants but not including administrative expenses, would be $3 million; eventually the annual cost would be $13.5 million.

98049-58-pt. 3—47

II. The Federal Government can and should provide financial assistance to approved institutions of higher learning for the expansion of facilities

If America's system of higher education is to continue to meet the needs of our rapidly expanding population even to the same extent that it does today, facilities must be nearly doubled by 1970. There seems little likelihood that all the necessary funds can be supplied by private sources, communities, and the several States.

(a) An excellent beginning of Federal assistance in expanding facilities has been made through the college housing loan program. It is recommended that this program be continued, without change in the interest rate formula and with prompt authorization for additional funds as needed.

(b) It is further recommended that a new program of assistance to institutions of higher learning for construction of academic facilities of the kinds they require to meet their educational objectives be established, offering such institutions the following alternatives:

1. Grants to defray up to 50 percent of the construction cost;

2. Low-interest 40-year loans to finance such construction, backed by the general financial resources and prospects of the institution. It is specifically recommended that the formula for determining the interest rate be the same as that now in effect for college housing loans.

It is recommended that the initial appropriation for grants be a minimum of $125 million and that the initial authorization for loans be $250 million. Additional appropriations and authorizations should be made in subsequent years, to meet evident needs.

III. The Federal Government can and should assist in removing financial barriers to higher education for qualified students

The cost of higher education has been steadily increasing and will continue to increase as institutions are faced with the necessity of expansion as well as improvement of quality in instruction. A recent study by the United States Office of Education reports that the cost of attending college has risen 100 percent since 1940, and the end of this trend is certainly not in sight.

The amount of financial support available to the college-age population from families, institutional scholarships, and loans, and other sources has never been sufficient, even for students of strong motivation and high academic promise. There is an increasing danger, as costs go up and existing sources of support, such as veterans' educational benefits, decrease, that the level of the individual family income rather than the student's capacity for intellectual achievement will become the basic determinant of who goes to college. Such a trend is obviously contrary to the public interest.

The two proposals outlined below, which have been prepared in detail, after careful study, by the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government, are considered to be essential complementary components of a single program to meet a critical national problem.

(a) It is therefore recommended that the Federal Government permit a credit against income tax otherwise payable for 30 percent of the amount actually paid by a taxpayer for tuition and fees to an institution of higher learning. This proposal is contained in 20 or more bills, including H. R. 765 and H. R. 1064, now under consideration by the Ways and Means Committee of the House. The annual loss of revenue to the Federal Government is estimated at not more than $150 million.

(b) It is further recommended that a broad Federal scholarship program, without limitation as to academic field, be immediately established, primarily to insure the opportunity for higher education to highly qualified students from families at the lower income levels. Among the acceptable bills for this purpose now before Congress are S. 1237 and H. R. 9506.

The proposed program approved by the institutions and organizations holding Council membership has the following general obiectives: To offer the opportunity of college education to qualified students who would otherwise be denied it for lack of financial resources. Therefore, Federal funds should not be used to encourage students financially able to attend adequate institutions merely to seek admission to other institutions at a higher cost.

The following guiding principles were approved:

(a) Students should be selected on the basis of ability and achievement, with stipends graduated according to need.

(b) The student should have complete freedom to choose his own program of studies within the requirements set by the individual institution. Scholarships which are not restricted as to field of study are fairer to the individual because they permit him to develop his best abilities; they are better for the Nation because they insure a natural flow of qualified persons to all occupations. (c) Stipends, up to a maximum amount set generally for the program, should be sufficient to enable the student to attend an eligible college providing a course suitable to him.

(d) However, the student should not be denied the opportunity to attend any recognized college or university properly accredited under the auspices of a regional accrediting association. For this reason, acceptance of a national scholarship should not preclude acceptance of supplementary assistance from other sources.

It is recommended that a cost of education payment of $500 per year per scholarship holder be made to each institution in which one or more scholarship holders enrolls.

It is further recommended that this program should provide such a number of scholarships as will, on the average, afford at least one opportunity for higher education to each year's graduates of each secondary school in the Nation. This is not to be construed as meaning that a scholarship would be specifically allocated to each secondary school.

With an estimated average of $750 per student, the first-year cost, including cost of education payments but not including administrative expenses, would be approximately $25 million. In the fourth year and thereafter, the cost would be approximately $100 million, unless experience should demonstrate the need for expanding the program.

IV. The Federal Government can and should modify existing Federal programs affecting higher education in order that they may no longer constitute financial drains on the resources of colleges and universities

A number of programs initially conceived as assisting higher education have become, in fact, methods of purchasing special services at less than cost. Furthermore, certain Federal taxes impose unnecessary burdens.

(a) It is recommended that the no-profit, no-loss principle be applied to all research projects undertaken by colleges and universities under the sponsorship and with the financial support of Federal agencies. An acceptable modification of the Defense Department's blue book formula for determining equitable payments should be adopted throughout the Government. (An interagency committee under the aegis of the Bureau of the Budget has been working on this problem for more than a year.) And the Congress should reject arbitrary restrictions, such as the 15 percent limit on overhead payments attached as a rider to the 1957 appropriation bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

(b) It is recommended that the armed services adopt a plan of equitable payment to educational institutions for facilities used by or needed for ROTC units. (c) It is recommended that the Federal Government accord to privately supported nonprofit educational institutions the same exemption from excise taxes now enjoyed by publicly supported institutions. This proposal is included in H. R. 7125, which has passed the House and is now before the Senate Finance Committee. It would save institutions of higher learning approximately $3 million a year.

Although the three recommendations above allude to important issues in this area, they are not all inclusive. All Federal programs affecting higher education should be reviewed in the light of the general principle stated at the beginning of this section.

V. A permanent Council of Educational Advisers to the President of the United States should be established

More than 20 Federal agencies can be identified which have responsibility for programs directly affecting education. Among them are the Departments of State, Agriculture, Defense, the Treasury, and Health, Education, and Welfare, the Veterans' Administration, the Selective Service System, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Housing Administration, the Office of Defense Mobilization, the International Cooperation Administration, and the Bureau of the Budget. There is little coordination among these programs, and there is now no Federal agency capable of achieving coordination of policies or procedures. The United States Office of Education, as a subordinate unit of the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, is obviously not in a position to perform this function.

Consequently, the Council's Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government agrees with the following recommendation of the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School: "In the light of the serious national and international problems that require the United States to be educated to its full capacity, the occasional appointment of temporary committees is inadequate to deal with the needs for national leadership and coordinated Federal activity in the field of post-high-school education. The Committee believes that in addition to those permanent and temporary committees now operating in connection with some of the Government programs relating to this field, permanent machinery should be created, with provision for broadly representative lay and professional advisers, to keep under continuous scrutiny all Federal programs affecting education beyond the high school and to advise the President and the heads of appropriate Federal agencies with respect thereto."

There seems to compelling reason, however, why such a Council should be concerned only with education beyond the high school. The recommendation should apply to education at all levels. For example, a highly important responsibility of the Council of Educational Advisers should be to suggest improvements in Federal procedures for gathering, interpreting, and disseminating statistical information about all significant phases of education. The Council should not assume operational functions, however, in this or any other sphere of activity.

It has been estimated by Government sources that Federal activities directly concerned with education now involve an annual expenditure of Federal funds totaling more than $12 billion. Increasing Federal involvement seems certain to occur if the Nation is to meet the critical educational challenge now so clearly apparent. Under these circumstances, it seems only prudent that there be a group of qualified advisers at the very highest level in the Government, charged with the responsibility of monitoring these activities on a firmly established continuing basis and of making timely recommendations for better coordination and greater effectiveness.

PART 2. SUPPLEMENTARY EXPLANATIONS OF ITEMS IN THE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

PROPOSED FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

When Dr. Roscoe L. West, president emeritus of the New Jersey State Teachers College at Trenton, testified for the council on January 8 before the Subcommittee on Special Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, he was authorized to speak concerning undergraduate scholarships only. When he was asked about the council's attitude toward a graduate fellowship program, he was unable to give a definite answer. Subsequently the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government approved a fellowship plan. (See item I in the council's general legislative program.) A fuller explanation of this plan has been presented on behalf of the council by Dean Dayton D. McKean of the graduate school, University of Colorado. Following is a partial text:

"There is no doubt of the need for fellowship help. There will certainly be a rising tide of college students, but no one knows of any rising tide of teachers to instruct them. When the wave of students bursts upon the colleges in the early sixties, almost all of the teachers who will then be available must come from the people who are now in the graduate schools. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education has estimated that by 1965 the 11 Western States will alone need 10,000 additional college teachers. The national shortage will run to 270,000 in 12 years. No one knows where they will be found, but any fellowship program that will help any students stay in the graduate schools or will speed their progress by letting them study instead of working part time at tending bar or scrubbing floors will provide the Nation with that many more trained people that much sooner. When we have about 280,000 students in the graduate schools in the United States, a program of 1,000 or 1,500 graduate fellowships a year is not going to make any big splash in the ocean of need. A Federal program that began with 10,000 fellowships would be more realistic. Fifteen hundred fellowships a year will not "assure the intellectual preeminence of the United States," in the hopeful words of the preamble of S. 3187. Nevertheless, many thousands of graduate students need any help they can get.