At least one member of this commitee feels that is, as you do, the highest priority, and does not entirely agree with you in your feeling that it is not feasible. Dr. MILLETT. Well, Senator, first of all, let me say I want to emphasize once more that I agree absolutely that faculty salaries and general operational support are our first priority, and we must continue to make improvements in this area. I do not quite at the moment concede that we are not going to be able to do this with State legislative support and the help of the business corporations and of our alumni and other friends, but I grant you there are days when the outlook is very dim. But I was in your audience when you gave us trouble a year ago at Arden House, and I think you were quite right in your criticisms, and I think we have made progress in being able to agree among all of us at the present time that we do need construction grants. May I underline "grants"? I think this is a first step. Whether we can get agreement because of the complexities of our situation, upon operational support by the Federal Government, because of certain differences in philosophy among us about the role of the Federal Government in higher education, I am not certain, but we certainly will continue to discuss this in all of our organizational meetings. Senator CLARK. Thank you. Senator MORSE. Senator Javits. Senator JAVITS. Thank you, just to express my pleasure as a representative of the land-grant colleges here, and to be able to hear the most considered and very informative points of view which have been expressed by you. I have no questions. Senator MORSE. I again want to thank President Millett for his very fine statement before this subcommittee. I now give to the staff an assignment to be shared with Dr. Babbidge of the department. I also instruct Mr. Lee to seek what assistance he can obtain from the university associations who are testifying now and subsequently. The assignment bears upon the statement made by the Secretary yesterday which I paraphrase, and which concerns me very much. It was to the effect that he thought the universities and the institutions of higher learning, could probably take care of their salary problem without Federal help. I think we will find that is the meaning of his testimony. I think that needs to be documented. Therefore, I ask particularly, in view of the testimony we have had this morning, to have prepared for this record a memorandum which deals with this college salary problem. I am afraid that the Secretary was talking about Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the Ivy League, and that he does not deal with the problem of the little college in America in which the salary problem is very critical. I thank you for helping me with that. (The memorandum referred to may be found on p. 321.) Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one thing? I do not want to delay matters, and I am very anxious to get on with the hearing, but President Millett, I am very interested in the need for extending the National Defense Education Act this year. Secretary Ribicoff made a statement on that yesterday in which he indicated he felt it had to be done, too, for practical reasons. Would you agree with the Secretary? Dr. MILLETT. Yes, sir. Senator JAVITS. In your experience? Dr. MILLETT. Yes, sir. The act is in need of revision and should be revised and extended promptly. Senator JAVITS. Thank you. (The chairman ordered that a letter received subsequently be inserted in the record at this point:) AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES Hon. WAYNE MORSE, AND STATE UNIVERSITIES, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, Senator from Oregon, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I take the liberty of writing you because some confusion may exist as the result of replies of witnesses to questions asked by Senator Javits about the National Defense Education Act at the hearings before your Education Subcommittee on August 18. I would like to note that the position of the American Association of LandGrant Colleges and State Universities is that the National Defense Education Act should be revised and extended. For this reason we would hope that whatever is done about the proposal to extend National Defense Education Act for 1 year without change, at this session, we urge that the Senate will act on the bill reported by the Labor and Public Welfare Committee to revise and extend the act. Both the student loan and the fellowship provisions of the act are inadequate as they are and need revision. It is true that considerable confusion and loss of momentum may occur if there is failure to act in some way at this session. But the desire to prevent this arising should not obscure the substantial need for revision as well as extension. Sincerely, RUSSELL I. THACKREY, Executive Secretary. (The prepared statement of President John D. Millett follows:) TESTIMONY ON THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL AID FOR ACADEMIC FACILITIES AND FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIPS BY PRESIDENT JOHN D. MILLETT, MIAMI UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, OHIO, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND STATE UNIVERSITIES AND THE STATE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John D. Millett, and I am president of Miami, University, Oxford, Ohio. I am representing the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, and the State Universities Association, of which latter I am president. The Land-Grant Association has 70 member colleges and universities located in each State and Puerto Rico. The State Universities Association has 26 separated State universities as members, 2 of which are also members of the land-grant association. In November 1960, our two associations adopted resolution published under the title "Desirable National Acting Affecting Higher Education," copies of which have doubtless to your attention. Additional copies are available should you desire them. While these resolutions cover a wide range of programs which our members believe are worthy of consideration by the Congress, I shall only speak about three of them today. They are: Federal assistance for the construction of academic facilities, a Federal scholarship program, and aid to community colleges. These matters have come to the attention of your committee officially through the introduction of Senate bills 585 (Senators Yarborough and Clark, for academic facility construction), 1140 (Senator Case, for assistance to community colleges), and 1241 (Senator Hill, the administration's proposals for facilities construction and scholarships). ACADEMIC FACILITIES This is not the first occasion when a spokesman for our two associations has pointed to the urgent need for Federal assistance for the contruction of academic facilities. There have been important changes in the past year. College and university heads, educational organizations, and the general public have become more acutely aware of just what is involved if we are to have an increase of 1 million in college enrollments in the next 5 years, and a doubling in the next 10 years. These are conservative estimates of the expansion needed to make educational opportunity available to those who can benefit from it, and whose education will benefit our society. As a result sentiment has crystallized to the effect that substantial Federal assistance in the construction of academic facilities is essential. On this subject higher education is now able to present a united front. Another major change is that the administration has strongly recommended a facilities program, including an extension of the college housing loan program which has already become law and for which all of higher education is grateful. We are also most grateful for the strong interest displayed by the administration and the Congress in meeting the critical problem of facilities. Having expressed this most sincere feeling of appreciation, I must reluctantly add that insofar as the universities for which I speak are concerned—and for the majority of other public institutions-the President's proposals for academic facilities will not be very helpful because they do not go far enough. Privately controlled colleges and universities can doubtless benefit from the proposed low-interest Federal loan program for the construction of classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and other academic facilities. For this our institutions not only have no objection but are on the contrary grateful that this important segment of higher education in the United States can be helped in this manner. What about our public institutions, including the 94 institutions for which I speak, and which last September enrolled 981,472 students or approximately 30 percent of the total enrollment? Public institutions-including junior colleges will be expected to enroll the major portion of the increased numbers of students who will wish higher education during the next decade. Yet few of these public institutions will be able to utilize the Federal loan program to construct academic facilities to accommodate these additional students they are expected to enroll. Unlike dormitories or dining centers, classroom buildings are not income producing. Therefore, there will be no income with which to amortize the indebtedness. The majority of our State institutions of higher learning have no sizable endowment income which might be utilized for purposes of debt amortization. Members of the committee are doubtless aware that in many States there are constitutional provisions or laws which debar public colleges and universities from using loans for nonrevenue producing facilities. How then could many of our public universities use a Federal loan program for the construction of classrooms and related facilities? For all practical purposes the only way many of our institutions could repay these loans would be through the pledging of student fees. If student fees are pledged for this purpose, it can only mean that these fees must be increased-and sizably so. By increasing these fees our institutions may then obtain the classroom and concomitantly deny to many the opportunity to use them. This we regard as a refutation of the very concept and philosophy which have governed our institutions since the founding of the Nation; namely, to provide quality education at a low cost to the student so that no young man or young woman will be deprived of an education by reason of economic circumstance. Our State universities and land-grant colleges have already substantially increased their student charges in recent years. This has been done in order that our teachers might be provided some additional salary increment which barely recognizes the advance in the cost of living much less their contributions to and subsidization of all of society. If we are now to ask students to pay for the cost of their classrooms and laboratories as well as for their instruction, there can be little doubt many who are qualified will not be able to afford a college education. It is unlikely any Federal scholarship or student loan program could conceivably be extensive enough to care for the numbers who will not be able to afford the cost of a college education in the future if student charges keep rising. If, as I have stated, the public institutions will be expected to accommodate the larger percentage of the increased enrollment ahead, I am convinced this cannot be accomplished without a Federal program of grants as well as loans for academic facilities. Studies have been made which clearly reveal the majority of privately controlled colleges and universities have no plans for expansion which will accommodate a proportionate share of the increase in enrollment. Indeed, many have plans for an increase of approximately 10 percent. Yet there will be an increase of more than 100 percent in college attendance in less than 10 years. The approaching crisis in higher education about which all of us have spoken many times during the past 10 years is now at hand. In just 5 years college enrollments will increase by an additional 1 million students. Of course we cannot wait for them to arrive at our campus doors before we start building the classrooms they will need. It will be a minimum of 2 years from enactment of any Federal assistance legislation before the first building can be completed. The American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association strongly urge that the Congress enact a financial assistance program for the construction of academic facilities which will include both loan and grant provisions. Such a combined program will enable private institutions to expand via the loan route should they not wish to accept a grant, and it will permit public institutions and many private institutions to meet their obligations through the acceptance of grants. There will doubtless be other institutions, both private and public, that would wish to utilize grants and loans concurrently. Mr. Chairman, our associations support a 50-50 program of matching grants for academic facilities, accompanied by a loan program. There are several ways of handling a grant program, and opinions on the best way to do it are varied. Our two associations have recommended that it be handled through grants to the States. The President's Task Force on Education recommended that it be handled by allocations on a State basis under a formula, and that representative commissions of the Hill-Burton Act type be established within each State to pass on aplications for grants from all types of institutions. The task force also recommended that grants be made only for the purpose of expansion of classroom facilities for students, or to replace facilities which are in such shape that replacement or modernization is imperative in order to prevent a decline in enrollment. The two associations for which I speak have taken no formal position on this subject, but I am sure there would be a substantial consensus among them that ability and desire to expand should at least be a major criterion in making grants. Also some geographical formula for allocation of funds is an essential characteristic of a grant program. In recommending Federal grants for academic facilities, we are not unmindful of the fact that the higest priority need of colleges and universities both public and private, is for general operational support and particularly for faculty salaries. However, there is a substantial consensus within higher education on facilities support and there is not on general operational support. Facilities support would free substantial funds for general operational support at a critical time. It should be clear, also, that in providing matching grants the Federal Government will still assume only a minor share of the cost of providing for the needed expansion of higher education. Mr. Chairman, two members of this subcommitee, Senators Yarborough and Clark, have introduced in S. 585 legislation embodying the principle of matching grants and loans for academic facilities, and for this we are greatly ap preciative. Educational groups were consulted in the drafting of this legis. lation. On further study of the problem, however, we are inclined-as I have said previously-to a more decentralized approach to the establishment of priorities. An adaptation of the successful pattern of the Hill-Burton Hospital Survey and Construction Act, as embodied in H.R. 7215, would provide the mechanism for such an approach. In concluding this part of my testimony, may I stress that the time for action is now. College buildings require something like 2 years leadtime from authorization to completion, as a minimum. Enrollments in higher education were 3% million last fall. An increase of 1 million in the next 5 years represents about 30 percent. Some of this can be absorbed, in some institutions, by greater efficiency of plant utilization, by making heavier use of facilities in the summer. and by other devices. The fact remains that a drastic expansion of facilities is needed and that Federal resources are needed to make it possible. Any delay in effecting this Federal program now will, in my opinion, deny higher education to many students in the next few years. FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIPS Mr. Chairman, if I can best express briefly the consensus among the two associations for which I speak on the subject of general Federal scholarships it is simply that they do not have a high priority on the agenda of needed Federal action. We believe that scholarships as such are important means of assisting worthy students in attendance at colleges and universities. We also believe that unless funds are provided to help meet operating costs and facilities costs for colleges and universities-other than passing them on to the student and his family through tuition charges-there will be no end to the demand for more and more scholarships. We believe that if the central problem of support is attacked first, and attacked vigorously, the need for scholarships will be minimized rather than maximized, and that otherwise no conceivable scholarship program will perform the task of keeping educational opportunity open. We realize that the stated and central objective of most proposed Federal scholarship programs, including the administration proposal now before your committee, is to make it possible for the many students of high ability but limited financial resources to attend college. This is a most laudable objective. We doubt that the evidence exists on which to base a judgment that the proposed legislation will make a substantial contribution to accomplishing its purpose. The studies which are cited as a basis for the belief that a high percentage of high ability students do not attend college for lack of funds are "national" studies based on techniques of limited sampling. But we do not have, and the U.S. Office of Education does not have, adequate studies of the distribtion of these qualified and needy students. By this I mean there are no State-byState studies covering the entire country of the percentage of high school graduates who attend college, and of the percentages of those in various ability groupings who do attend. On the basis of such studies as we do have we do know that the percentage of high school graduates attending college varies greatly among the States and regions. This is at least suggests the question as to whether or not a high percentage of the able young people who fail to go to college for financial reasons may not be fairly heavily concentrated in a few States or regions. We know that some States-including some of the most prosperous States-have made the financial barriers to higher education extremely high. I respectfully suggest that a considerably better factual basis of information needs to be available, Mr. Chairman, before we can make sound judgments as to the effectiveness of a Federal scholarship program in accomplishing its stated objectives. Having said this, I wish to add that, if we are to have a general Federal scholarship program, the proposed legislation has certain commendable features. Its intent is that scholarships go only to students who need help to go to college and not to students who are going to college but need help to go some place else to college. It thus avoids the expenditure of Federal funds to permit west coast students to go to the east coast to college, and vice versa, as some of our present non-Federal programs do. Its provision for a flat grant to the institutions of $350, rather than paying whatever fee it decides to charge, would have the effect of helping out on institutional costs without having a tendency to force up tuition charges and thus making attendance more difficult for nonscholarship students. It will reduce the tendency shown in some existing programs to encourage the concentration of the high ability students in a relatively few institutions. So great is the concern on this score, Mr. Chairman, that there is a substantial sentiment among educators to the effect that Federal scholarships should be awarded through educational institutions in order to insure that Federal action does not greatly affect the distribution of students of high ability as among the various regions of the country. COMMUNITY COLLEGES We have noted the proposals of Senators Case of New Jersey and Smith of Massachusettts to provide, under separate legislation, special Federal assistance to the States for the construction of public community colleges. We recognize |