The same amount of money, however, can be made to do more good for more students if the amounts awarded to them are adjusted to their individual needs. Most graduate schools do not give out their own fellowships merely as prizes, unless the terms of an endowment specifically require them to do so. Instead, they award them to superior students who, without financial help, could not proceed toward their degrees or could only proceed slowly. Sometimes $500 is all a student needs, or $1,000, to supplement what resources he has. If we could provide $2,000 to $2,400 for every superior student, fine; but if we cannot, we should use the funds available to help the most students we can and not give the fortunate few $2,400 each, whether they need it or not.

"A system of Federal fellowships will be supported by taxpayers all over the United States, and it ought not to be set up in such a way as to provide major benefit to only a dozen graduate schools. The national interest, moreover, is to build up graduate schools throughout the United States and not to favor just a few, which, by obtaining the best students who are supported by Federal fellowships, can then divert their other funds to attracting the best faculty. In other words, it is not good public policy to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Any scheme that permits the recipient to take his fellowship wherever he can gain admission will do just that: it will attract the fellowship winners to the prestige institutions, whether they get any better education at them or not. This has been the graduate schools' experience under the National Science Foundation fellowship program. The mistake should not be repeated.

"The alternative is to provide fellowships during the first year to deserving students now in residence to relieve them of the necessity of outside, nonacademic employment. They could then devote full time to working for their degrees, and our society would obtain the benefits of their unusual talents that much sooner. It is a wasteful use of an important national resource to have a man with a master of science degree taking 1 or 2 courses a semester toward bis Ph. D. while he works in a garage at night to earn enough to pay his tuition and his room and board. Nobody is in a better position than the graduate schools to find the facts in such cases and, if funds are available, to adjust the amounts of grants to individual needs.

"And instead of awarding fellowships regardless of need to students who will crowd into a few graduate schools, it would be better beginning in 1959, to have each graduate school that has unused capacity apply for fellowship funds to the appropriate Federal agency, indicating at the same time the areas of study and the university resources it has available. Our national needs are great in all areas, but greater in some fields than in others; and the Federal agency could distribute the funds so as to make up the shortages fastest in those areas in which our needs are most acute. Under such an arrangement, the stipend for each recipient could readily be adjusted to his individual needs by his own graduate school. The school, moreover, would be motivated to make the available funds go as far as possible.

"The donors of industrial fellowships are coming to recognize that the tuition a student pays is usually a small fraction of the cost to his university of his education. Many a graduate student in physics or engineering will need equipment that will cost 10 times his tuition. The donors of corporation fellowships often make a flat grant to the university of $500 to $1,500 a year for each fellowship holder. These grants are most welcome, and a Federal program should follow the same plan. But it is alarming, no less, to read in one bill before you that the institution would be paid up to $1,000 a year upon its certification of "the actual cost to such institution of providing the program of studies or research for which such fellowship was awarded and charged to such person." This provision would lead to endless bickering. What share of the costs of a university library may be fairly charged to a graduate student in bacteriology? If a greenhouse is used for both undergraduates and graduate work, as well as for faculty research, what share of the cost of its maintenance is attributable to one graduate student in plant biochemistry who has some experiments underway in it? Is a professor directing the research of one of these fellowship recipients to be expected to keep a timesheet to show every minute he observes the student's work or talks to him about it, so that an exact proportion of the professor's salary may be charged to that student? Universities are simply not organized, or even organizable, to provide answers to such accounting questions. Not even one university accountant for each graduate student would suffice; the Government would have to provide one for each student too. Rather than to attempt the impossibility of attributing to each individual student the exact cost

of his instruction it would be far better to make a lump-sum grant-I hope it may be at least $1,000 a year-for each graduate student in residence who has a Federal fellowship.

"Specifically, we propose a program with the following provisions:

"1. One thousand fellowships would be made available during the academic year 1958-59 for graduate students then in residence.

"2. In each succeeding year, 1,500 additional fellowships would be awarded to prospective graduate students.

"3. The awards would be made by the institutions eligible to participate in the program. Such institutions must be authorized to award the Ph. D. degree, and each must present, each year, an acceptable plan to the designated Federal agency, indicating the total sum that could be effectively used and the academic areas in which the graduate students receiving benefits would study.

"4. To receive a stipend, a student must be engaged in or be adequately prepared to engage in an approved program of graduate work, preferably leading toward a career in college teaching but not necessarily to the Ph. D. degree.

"5. Stipends would be set by the institutions themselves on the basis of the financial need of the applicants. The maximum grant for a single student would be $2.000 a year and for a married student $3,000 a year. No fellowship could be held more than 3 years.

6. For each graduate student holding a fellowship, the institution should receive each year a cost-of-education payment of $1,000.

"7. 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" (testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 18, 1958).

PROPOSED PROGRAM OF SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

The Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government has proposed a two-part program of Federal assistance to institutions of higher learning for construction of academic buildings. (See item II-B in the council's general legislative program.) This program would be supplementary to, but entirely separate from, the existing college housing loan program. A fuller explanation of this plan has been presented on behalf of the council by Dr. J. B. Culpepper, executive director, board of control, State institutions of higher learning, Florida. Following is a partial text:

"The demand for higher education from qualified prospective students is expected to double by 1970-from approximately 3 million now enrolled to 6 million who will desire enrollment in little more than a decade. There is certainly reason to be concerned about the quality of some of the instruction in our colleges and universities today. No segment of the population has been concerned about this matter longer or more serioulsy than college teachers and administrators themselves. Helpful measures taken by the Federal Government will be welcome.

"But the fear that really disturbs us is the prospect that unless drastic action is taken, and taken soon, we shall have in 1970 nearly 2 million high-school graduates ready for higher education for whom no opportunity will exist, because of lack of classrooms or laboratories for them. When we think of the loss to the Nation because of this undeveloped talent, including talent for science, engineering, and foreign languages, the prospect becomes one of critical importance.

"What do we need in order to expand our facilities, including both enlargement of existing institutions and creation of new institutions, in the next decade? The latest estimate of the United States Office of Education, based on the preliminary report of the College and University Facilities Survey for 1951-55, is that the cost, on a conservative basis, will be $18 billion. Accordingly, in order to keep abreast of the most urgent needs, we must spend nearly $2 billion a year for the next decade.

"The survey shows that expenditures for facilities are now averaging only $750 million a year. If this rate continues, there will be a deficit in needed capital outlay of $10.5 billion by 1968, meaning that we will have provided accommodations for little more than a third of the 3 million additional students anticipated.

"It is not our contention that the Federal Government should supply $2 billion a year for college and university facilities, although there are those among us who suspect that the expenditure would accomplish more for the benefit of the American people than the construction or renovation of post offices. We do

believe, however, that the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School was right when it concluded that if the job is to be done, it will call for concerted efforts on the part of all sources of support, including Federal support. "The Federal college housing loan program has demonstrated that if Government assistance is offered under proper conditions, a substantial contribution can be made to the solution of the problem which at the same time stimulates a greater flow of capital from other sources. We recommend that in addition to approving continuation of the housing loan program on the present basis with additional authorization for funds, the Congress should establish a new program of financial assistance to institutions of higher learning for construction of academic facilities of the kinds they require to meet their educational objectives. It is recommended that institutions to be offered the following alternatives:

"1. Federal grants to defray up to 50 percent of the construction cost; or "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.

"There are several reasons for this dual approach to the problem. Some institutions with high tuition and waiting lists for admission have difficulty in raising large amounts for capital purposes. For them loans would be preferable. Other institutions, with no tuition or very low tuition, could use grants to match appropriations from the State or municipal bodies that furnish their chief support. Legal questions may be raised as to the propriety of making Federal grants to some types of institutions; but, let me point out hat no objection has been raised when those same institutions applied for loans under the college housing program. The recommended program, therefore, would offer assistance, in one way or another, to every type of institution eligible to receive any aid at all.

"The council's committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government gave a considerable amount of thought to the question of how large the program should be in the first year in order really to be helpful but not to inhibit increased support from other sources. The recommendation is an initial appropriation of $125 million for grants and $250 million for loans. If applications for these amounts were approved in the first fiscal year, they would provide for the initiation of construction of academic buildings totaling a half billion dollars. There would still be a need for a billion dollars from other sources for academic buildings in the same period, in addition to the $125 million required to match the Federal grants. (It is assumed that a half billion dollars of new housing will also be started in the next fiscal year, with approximately half of it financed by Federal loans.) It must be emphasized that all the loans will eventually be repaid with interest. Hence the actual direct cost to the taxpayer each year on this basis would be the $125 million in matching grants" (testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 18, 1958).

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE PROPOSED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Subsequent to the testimony of Dr. Roscoe L. West before the Subcommittee on Special Education, the council's committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government added two major provisions to the council proposal concerning an undergraduate scholarship program. (See item III-B in the council's general legislative program.) These provisions are explained in the following portions of a statement by President Hurst R. Anderson of American University:

"Number of scholarships.-The council has 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.' The total number indicated by our proposal would be about 22,000." (NOTE.-This is the number to be awarded each year. In the fourth and subsequent years the total number of scholarships in force at any one time would be approximately 88,000.)

"Cost of education payment.-The council recommends that a cost of education payment of $500 be made to each institution in which one or more scholarship holders enroll. Neither the Hill nor the Smith bill makes any substantial provision for the additional costs that must be borne by the colleges by reason

of the enrollment of scholarshipholders. In our opinion this is a serious omission. Even without a Federal scholarship program it is estimated that the number of college students in this country will double by 1970. How can the institutions provide the facilities, the larger faculties, and the laboratories? The local communities, the States, and private sources have basic responsibility, but anybody who has read the reports on school-bond elections in the last year knows that local sources of finance have strict limitations * * *. In advocating a cost-of-education payment to the institutions concerned, the American Council on Education is saying that the institutions should not be expected to accept more students unless the institutions are to be provided with the tools with which to do the job. It is all very well to say the field of higher education in the United States needs plowing, but there is danger that in the general agreement somebody will forget the necessity of having a good strong plow" (testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 18, 1958).

PART 3. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING PROPOSALS NOT INCLUDED IN THE

COUNCIL'S GENERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

The council's committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government has studied a number of legislative proposals under consideration by this subcommittee which are outside the scope of the council's general legislative program but nevertheless important to higher education in the United States. Special attention has been given to the provisions of H. R. 10381 and H. R. 10278. The recommendations presented below have been made by the committee concerning specific portions of these two bills.

STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM AND WORK STUDY PROGRAM

The council's poll of its member institutions in the spring of 1957 included questions on various types of aid to undergraduate students, including loans and a work-study plan. The judgment of the membership has been stated by President Hurst R. Anderson of American University, acting as spokesman for the committee on relationships, with specific reference to title III and title IV of H. R. 10381. His statement follows:

"The vote of our membership on Federal loans, as shown in the survey report *** showed a considerable division of opinion. Of those voting, 44.5 percent favored loans as a supplement to Federal scholarships, 15.4 percent favored them as an alternative to scholarships, and 41.1 percent opposed them outright.

"On the question of a work study program which also is proposed in S. 3187, with an annual appropriation of $25 million, the vote of our membership again was sharply divided, but generally less favorable. Of those voting, 36.3 percent favored a student work program as a supplement to Federal scholarships, 11.4 percent favored them as an alternative to scholarships, and 52.3 percent opposed them outright.

"I think we must conclude from this report that while good use could be made of a student loan program and a work-study program, most of the institutions regard a Federal scholarship program as being most valuable, and having first priority" (testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 18, 1958).

RESEARCH IN MORE EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF TELEVISION, ETC., FOR

EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

The committee on relationships has voted approval of title X of H. R. 10381. This group unanimously approved a statement referred to it by the council's committee on television, which said in part: "The flexibility of the provisions in title X of the Hill-Elliott bill should prove useful in many areas-to institutions and to organizations interested in conducting research and experimentation in the use of television and in the use of other mass media cited. The council's committee on television, which is concerned primarily in furthering general interest in the use of television for instructional purposes, believes that title X provides many opportunities for broadening the base of experimentation and for the use of television at all levels of education, and especially in institutions of higher learning. The committee, therefore, recommends that the council's committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government express support of title X of the Hill-Elliott bill."

FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

The committee on relationships has approved the program for development of foreign-language instruction contained in title III of H. R. 10278 with the following reservations: That the activities be undertaken in existing educational institutions, and that the no-profit no-loss principle be practiced both in contracts with and in grants to educational institutions for these purposes.

IMPROVEMENT OF STATISTICAL SERVICES OF STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

The committee on relationships has approved the program proposed under title V, section 501, of H. R. 10278. It was recognized that the assistance to States envisioned in this program would improve statistical information primarily concerning elementary and secondary education, but it was agreed that this type of information is of great importance to higher education and that the legislation therefore comes within an area appropriate for the committee's action.

STATEMENT BY JOHN BURKHART, REPRESENTING INDIANA STATE AND INDIANAPOLIS CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, ON CURRENT FEDERAL EDUCATION PROPOSALS My name is John Burkhart. I am president of the College Life Insurance Company of America, the home office of which is located in Indianapolis, Ind. I am vice chairman of the educational committee of the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the education committee of the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce.

The organizations which I represent, and the members of these organizations, have a keen interest in the improvement of our educational system and in making the benefits of education available to all capable and interested young men and women. That we continue to seek improvement is no indictment of our existing programs, institutions, and level of financial support.

Citizens of Indiana, voters, parents, the legislature, members of school boards, the State superintendent of public instruction, the Governor, the presidents of many of our colleges and universities have vigorously opposed Federal aid for education.

Fear of Federal intervention, although paramount and real to us, is not the only reason for opposing Federal support of education. We believe that Indiana is in a better financial position than the Federal Government and that the Federal Government already has assumed more obligations than it can adequately handle.

Federal school aid proposals and our opposition to them are not recent developments. For more than 100 years individuals and organizations have found reasons to advocate Federal aid to and some degree of control over America's educational system. Most of these proposals have failed and still our educational system has continued to improve in spite of one alleged crisis after another. Throughout the years it has been denied that Federal control of education is an objective. These denials, still being made, are not convincing.

It is true, of course, that there are many sincere people who believe that a centralized school system, similar to those existing in many other countries, would be an improvement over our present decentralized and diversified system, under State, local, and private control. While I do not question the sincerity of such advocates, I feel sure that the accomplishment of their objective would be harmful to our educational system and to our society.

Proposals now before Congress would not mean immediate Federal control. Such changes usually are not made abruptly. But they would mean, it seems to me, ultimate Federal control of the vital functions of education.

The two measures to which I would like to direct my comments, the administration program developed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and those contained in S. 3187 and H. R. 10381, do contain possibilities for serious intervention immediately.

A good understanding of Federal education proposals can be gained by examining Federal school aid proposals made over the past 90 years. The first really significant proposal before Congress recommended the establishment of a national system of education. This bill to establish a national system of education was introduced in 1870 and provided that the President of the United States could appoint school superintendents in each of the States and that the Secretary of