Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be the Senator from Iowa, Senator Miller. We are very glad to have you before us, Senator Miller, and you may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MILLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Senator MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

One of our outstanding educators in Iowa is Dr. Ernest D. Nielsen, president of Grandview College, Des Moines, Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, were Dr. Nielsen present, I am certain he could provide a considerable amount of practical information on the basis of his vast experience, to this committee.

In lieu of his presence here, he has had a statement prepared entitled "The Prospect for Educational Advancement in the Years Ahead," which I would ask the Chair to receive and incorporate in the record on these bills.

Senator MORSE. The subcommittee will be pleased to receive the testimony in this memorandum form, and we thank you for making it available to us.

Senator MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The memorandum referred to follows:)

THE PROSPECT FOR EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN THE YEARS AHEAD (By Ernest D. Nielsen, president, Grandview College, Des Moines, Iowa)

I. FACING HARD FACTS

Since 1950 student enrollment in institutions of higher education has swung in overwhelming favor of the institutions maintained and controlled by the State or local school system. In the midst of a phenomenal growth of student enrollment in these institutions, the very character of public higher education is undergoing significant changes. The change, which we note without comment, is indisputably in the direction of larger State control and wider Federal influence. While the dual system of public and private higher education still exists side by side, the imbalance between the two is increasing at a rate which must not be overlooked. Percentage of students in public and private institutions by region as listed by the U.S. Office of Education is significant for the trend which the percentage reveals. Statistically, trends are more important than figures.

In some States the figures are even more startling. In California 83 percent, in Michigan 79 percent, in Wisconsin 69 percent, and in Iowa 51 percent of the students are in State-controlled institutions. And Prof. Seymour E. Harris of Harvard University says, "It would not be surprising if the figure for California reached 90 percent by 1970."

It is important for Grand View College that we inquire about the trend in the 2-year colleges in order to determine whether there is any correlation between the trend noted above and the most authoritative followup study available today.

Leland L. Medsker, vice chairman of the Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, is the author of the Carnegie-financed study entitled "The Junior College: Progress and Prospect." He invited 63 public and private junior colleges to submit data in accordance with a uniform research plan. He tells us: "The fall 1952 groups of regular entering day students were selected so that 4 academic years would elapse before June 1956, the minimum cutoff date for the study. The institutions enrolled 17,627 beginning regular students in September 1952. A control card was set up for each student on which was recorded aptitude test data, date of withdrawal (and reason therefor) from junior college, date of graduation, and like matters. Notations were made of all transcripts issued to 4-year colleges. By a followup to each 4-year college to which a transcript was sent, it was possible to find out if the student entered a senior college, whether and when he received his baccalaureate degree, and other pertinent facts about his attendance" (p. 90). Dr. Medsker and his associates found that

(1) "Of the 17,627 regular students who entered some type of 2-year college in 1952, only 1 in every 3 (33 percent) had by June 1956, transferred to a 4-year institution" (p. 93).

(2) "There were differences between the transfer rates of private and public institutions" (p. 93). "The median percentage of students transferring from local and State junior coleges was almost exactly 33 percent. This figure was in contrast to 63 percent of students entering extension centers who transferred. The academically oriented institutions transferred a median of 62 percent of their students, the comprehensive junior colleges 33 percent, and the technically orientated schools 16 percent. These data are not surprising because the extension centers and the academic junior colleges are geared to prepare their students to attend senior institutions. The terminal nature of the technical institutions is evidenced by the fact they had the highest proportion of graduates (65 percent of their entering students) and yet the lowest proportion of transfer students. The dual nature of the comprehensive junior college is manifested by the large but less-than-majority number of students it sends to senior college” (p. 94).

In order to avoid, at this point, the instrusion of generalizations about attrition in 4-year colleges, I quote again from the study of Dr. Medsker, who says, "Clearly, the factor of dropouts exists in all types of collegiate institutions. The 4-year public college also becomes a terminal institution for almost half of its students by the end of the first 2 years. Considering the difference in function in the two types of colleges, it is incorrect to assume that attrition is more serious in the 2-year than in the 4-year institution" (p. 96).

The percentage change of student enrollment in 1960-61 as compared with enrollment figures for Iowa a year ago, 1959-60, is very revealing. According to the office of the registrar, State University of Iowa, which is responsible for annual enrollment figures, the three State schools have an increase of 4.2 percent with a combined enrollment of 24,451; the private 4-year colleges and Drake University have an increase of 5.7 percent and 24,282 students; the public junior colleges have an increase of 7.5 percent and 3,148 students; and the private junior or 2-year colleges have an increase of 15.2 percent and 1,951 students.

With respect to the types of 4-year colleges to which students transfer, Dr. Medsker shows "that by far the majority of transfers from both public and private 2-year colleges matriculated in public 4-year colleges or public universities * * Students from private junior colleges had a slightly greater tendency to transfer to private 4-year colleges than did the students from the public 2-year colleges, but even they were much more inclined to go to public than to private institutions" (p. 96).

The economic problem

Dr. Seymour E. Harris' Ford Foundation suported symposium on the economic problems of higher education, held at Harvard University, produced an important volume entitled, "Higher in the United States: The Economic Problems." On the question of high versus low tuition there is, as one would expect, a wide range of opinion. There are actually many facets to this question such as the psychological impact of low tuition, educational opportunity, and significant shifts due to tuition differential to name the most important. Personally, I question that legislators will abandon the low-tuition principle. The stanchest proponents of this principle say, "There is no philosophical defense (for high tuition), whatever the practical economic temptations *** Somewhere in a democracy, education ought to be available to the full extent of talents without artificial barriers of any kind—no more economic barriers than racial or religious barriers *** There are some things money can't buy" (Higher Education in the United States: The Economic Problems, p. 45). Nevertheless, the practical problem is there for the private college, but it receives, I can assure you, relatively little attention in most public sectors of the Nation. The former chancellor of the University of Chicago, Lawrence A. Kimpton, says bluntly: "To put it in the crassest terms possible and I know this will offend many of the brotherhood-it is hard to market a product at a fair price when down the street someone is giving it away" ("The Public and Private University," University of Chicago Magazine, January 1960).

One of the participants at the symposium at Harvard University observed that: "the relevant question to ask is not 'Could you afford to attend if there were a rise in the cost of going to college?' but 'Would you attend?' This is the question which plagues educators: not so much whether people could afford to go to college-this can usually be acomplished by working, borrowing, and cutting corners without excessive hardship-but whether they would go to college" (Higher Education United States: The Economic Problems, p. 31). If one listens to what Dr. Medsker says in his study of the junior colleges or 2-year colleges in the United States, I believe we have the answer: "The reason why transfer students (from 2-year colleges) enroll in greater numbers in public senior institutions than in private is probably economic" (The Junior College, p. 97). For some I am certain that it is because they cannot afford to attend a private senior institution, but for many more it simply is the cost differential and/or the desire to spend the last 2-years in a large institution. Somehow the large private colleges and universities manage to get along, even if they do lose a distinguished faculty member to a State university at a much higher salary. The case is not equally simple for the small college. The danger of mediocrity in the teaching staff of the small college is more real today than at any time in the 20th century. If the small college is to survive it must think in terms of upgrading faculty and students alike; it cannot face a gradual downgrading with equanimity. This emphasis is educationally sound, and it does not rule out the policy of an open door for those who are able to profit from college. It is also one of the hard facts of modern collegiate education, that it is too expensive to the individual and too costly to society (in the case of Grand View to the church) unless it results in the kind of education which makes for growth rather than loss. Attendance at college whether for 1, 2, 3, or more years ought to make a difference. We have overplayed the dimension of time in our thinking about collegiate education.

II. BREAKING AWAY FROM THE CONVENTIONAL MODES: SPECIFIC PROPOSALS At the October 1960 meeting of the board of directors, Dr. C. Arild Olsen asked two questions involving some very important educational issues. I have given a great deal of critical thinking to the broad issues which are inherent in the two questions. I have been careful also to look at what is happening on the educational scene. This explains the attention which I have given already to some hard facts that we must face as we plan for Grand View. And following the discussion of my proposals, I shall also submit for your information some important changes in college relations in Iowa.

Dr. C. Arild Olsen asked:

1. "Can a 2-year college really offer liberal education?"

2. "Is the teaching actually on a high level?"

For the purpose of this report I shall take up the questions in the reverse order. Also, I shall not enter upon a detailed exposition of my views, but present

specific proposals which indirectly aim at an answer to the questions. The questions have given a sudden thrust in the direction of action and experiments which I have been laboring with for some time. I thank Dr. Olsen for raising the questions. I know that they stem from a real concern with improving education. The improvement of teaching can take place in several ways, of course. I can testify to an increasing interest on the part of the faculty in serious experiments to structure better courses. This is reflected in the important report of Mrs. Cleo Williamson and Mrs. Jeanice Noyes on their recent visit to Mason City Junior College. There is also interest on the part of faculty members to experiment with interdisciplinary approaches to certain courses, especially in the humanities and the social sciences.

Proposal No. 1

Divisional faculty workshops in (1) the humanities, (2) the social sciences, and (3) the natural sciences and mathematics on the basis of a 3-year cycle.

If faculty members in a small college are to be creative and really successful in improving instruction, they should be given the responsibility of working cooperatively within a limited time on projects and experiments recommended and approved by the president and the board of directors, respectively.

Proposed projects should be presented to the board of directors by the president at the fall meeting of the board. If acceptable to the board, the division (or department particularly involved) should submit a plan for the project by February 1 in order to obtain final board approval, including budgetary provisions. The period should be limited from 15 to 30 working days, preferably during June or July.

By adhering to a 3-year cycle, this plan would guarantee, first, that well conceived plans would be tried over a sufficiently long period to ascertain their educational worth, and, secondly, over a 3-year period each division would have had the responsibility of putting its faculty members to the task of developing ways and means by which to upgrade the work in their courses within the division.

Proposal No. 2

Staffing Grand View College as we move into an expanded academic program may prove difficult. The economic competition between colleges will be felt, not the least among the church colleges. Hence, we must act realistically nownot after the merger-in order to avoid any decline in the academic position of Grand View. The shortages of new teachers from the outside will grow worse at the very time that we shall need not only additional teachers, but teachers who hold the doctorate. Dr. Earl J. McGrath, speaking at the meeting of the Council of Protestant Colleges and Universities at Denver, Colo., January 10, 1961, said:

"One reason for their (i.e., the church-related colleges) trouble in finding properly prepared teachers; perhaps the most important is the difference between the salary scales in large universities and in the small colleges." While recognizing the truth of Dr. McGrath's statement, I think that there is something that we can do. We can and should take note of present faculty members who should be encouraged to obtain the doctorate to meet the demand for scholarship and excellence in teaching which the expanding academic program will require, unless we are willing to settle for a second-rate institution,

Hence, I propose that we select during the next 9 years, at 2- or 3-year intervals or less, faculty members of proven ability and dedication to be given one full semester leave with pay for the specific purpose of obtaining the doctorate in their respective discipline.

I recommend one semester rather than 1 academic year because we can more easily adjust to a one semester leave that a full year's absence. Also, I do not see how we could manage the cost, except on a semester basis. In case of an outside supporting grant, a reduction probably should be made.

I am making this proposal for a reason somewhat different from that which usually is associated with sabbatical leaves. Where sabbatical leaves are automatic upon the completion of a given period of service the result is sometimes only an extended vacation with intervals of study or reading. While these are not unimportant, I am thinking in terms of upgrading the faculty to be ready for the expansion which is inevitable. If Grand View is to play a distinctive role in Lutheran higher education, the time for planning and action is upon us. It is my strong hope that the board of directors will give serious attention to

both of these proposals, No. 1 and No. 2. In my opinion, the day is past when the small college will be able to perform its central mission, unless it is willing to make budgetary provision for developing the quality of its teaching staff. The initial appointment of instructors is important, but the small school which faces real competition in recruiting teachers must build up its faculty; it must plan for staff improvement.

Proposal No. 3

The realinement of higher education responsibilities in Iowa so that we will be able to meet the educational needs of the generation ahead of us, which will live part of their lives in the 21st century, will not be easy. I am not thinking of enrollments at this moment, but of educating students in academically orientated colleges as they should be educated. I am certain that there are many people who believe that the private college offers values which give a marked potency to these institutions. Unfortunately, the Midwest is reluctant, it seems to me, to face squarely the fact that the great historic tradition of a dual system of higher education, private and public, ought to be preserved and strengthened. The public junior college movement is destined to become a system of comprehensive community colleges under the department of public instruction. As for Grand View College, the movement will be in the direction of expanding and strengthening its academically oriented program. Here, I think we are in position to follow a new path, which could lead to a considerable degree of cooperation between institutions, both public and private.

Basic to my own thinking on the subject of liberal education is the thesis: that the criterion of a liberal arts college is not primarily the length of the program. A genuine liberal arts program is one where the liberal arts and professional segments are differentiated; it is, educationally speaking, a program which rests upon the assumption that we know where collegiate education ends and professional education begins. Personally, I believe that it is possible for a superior student to acquire a truly liberal education in preparation for graduate and professional studies in less than 4 years. I am not speaking of accelerating the student's program by 1 year. I am advocating an educational experiment on the ground that I believe that graduate work will expand in the years ahead and require a quality of instruction and emphasis upon research which will necessitate a reexamination of our course offerings at the undergraduate level. I would advocate that we would do a better job in our graduate and professional schools if we extended their program by 1 year by starting such work at the end of the third year in college, provided, of course, that the instruction in each of the 3 years had contributed significantly to the liberal education of the students preparing for graduate work. I propose for your consideration, therefore, a 3-year college program as an alternate path to university graduate and professional degree program for superior students.

The idea of a 3-year program is not new, although my proposal differs in at least two respects from other attempts of plans. I am not advocating a 3-year program leading to the bachelor's degree for the very simple but often overlooked reason, that a degree program is terminal in a sense. Also, I am not suggesting acceleration because while we can step up schedules, and students, as we are told, show "absolutely no ill effects from it," I do wonder whether the growth maturity and insight increases correspondingly. What I am advocating is that before we decide upon a 4-year program, we ask ourselves this question: Could we serve higher education in the State and in the new church better with a 3- than a 4-year program? (Our present program would not be scrapped.) Before I quote a very significant statement by Dr. Earl J. McGrath, executive officer, Institute of Higher Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, I do ask you to remember what I have stated above about the need for a much sharper differentiation between collegiate and professional studies for the superior students for whom college is not a formal and terminal 2- or 4year program but the foundation for graduate work or professional study. If we are hazy in our thinking on this point, it is possible that it is traceable to our failure to make this differentiation, partly, perhaps, because of the incredible proliferation of courses in many senior colleges. Dr. Earl J. McGrath says: "An equally questionable activity of many liberal arts colleges, which imposes prohibitive financial burdens, is their offering of an extensive range of highly specialized advanced instruction in the usual liberal arts subjects. Some of these institutions grant masters' degrees at least in a few departments. But a deceptive situation occurs where an undergraduate college officially makes no