reviewing and evaluating the current National Vocational Education Acts, and making recommendations for improving and redirecting the program. Although the President has not specifically mentioned technician training, we would hope that this increasingly important educational field will be covered by the proposed review and evaluation, particularly since the President has cited the need for modernization because of rapid technological changes.

The real problem facing the Nation with respect to engineering manpower, it seems to us, lies at two poles-the need to expand and stimulate graduate education, and the need to encourage and support technician education programs. We believe the Government has a challenging opportunity for constructive action in both of these key

areas.

We sincerely appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you, and we hope that we have developed some points which deserve consideration, and we hope that we have made some suggestions which are worthy of your future study. The national society deeply desires to cooperate in every possible way to aid the subcommittee in the important task it has assumed, and we have tried to help develop some answers to a problem which is paramount in our national life.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Robbins, your statement is very helpful and will be very helpful to the subcommittee.

The Senator from West Virginia.

Senator RANDOLPH. No questions. I am sure it will be very helpful. Senator MORSE. The Senator from New Jersey.

Senator CASE. No; I have no questions. I think statement will be very helpful.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Robbins follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ON S. 1241

Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul H. Robbins. I am executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers, a nonprofit, membership organization composed of professional engineers in virtually every specialized branch of engineering practice and type of employment. All of the society's 56,000 members are licensed under applicable State engineering registration laws, and are affiliated through 53 State societies and approximately 400 local community chapters.

The National Society of Professional Engineers was organized in 1934 and is dedicated to the advancement of the public welfare and the promotion of the profession of engineering as a social and economic influence vital to the affairs of men and of the United States. In furtherance of this objective, the national society is naturally interested in continued improvements in our systems of higher education, particularly the education of qualified and capable engineers. We therefore appreciate this opportunity today to present a few brief comments on several aspects of the proposals before this subcommittee as they affect or are related to engineering education, both at the undergraduate and graduate level. CONSTRUCTION OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

Although it has been estimated that physical facilities account for only 15 to 20 percent of the total cost of higher education in this country, nevertheless, adequate, up-to-date facilities and equipment are as essential teaching tools as are qualified professors and modern textbooks. This is of particular importance with respect to the education of engineers. Some Federal assistance has been forthcoming in this area, notably the Atomic Energy Commission's program of assistance to educational institutions in acquiring nuclear reactors and other related equipment and facilities for teaching in the nuclear engineering field. However, ample opportunity exists for expanded Government aid in this general area. Consequently, the national society supports the pending proposal

to establish a new loan and grant program, to assist in the construction, renovation, modernization, and rehabilitation of classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and related structures and equipment.

In addition to a program of Federal loans to construct college educational facilities, we would suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of allowing additional income tax deductions for charitable contributions by private corporations to or for the use of an accredited school of engineering. In this manner, increased contributions of money and equipment from some of our larger industrial corporations, who incidentally have a very direct stake in the quality of our engineering education, might be encouraged. The program we suggest might be conducted somewhat along the lines of a proposal introducted in the 85th Congress by Representative Henry S. Reuss, which carried the designation of H.R. 4525.

ASSISTANCE TO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Another proposal currently before this subcommittee is one which would establish a comprehensive federally supported 5-year program of undergraduate scholarships estimated to average about $700 each and reaching a maximum of approximately $50,000 per year. The national society believes that such an extensive undergraduate scholarship financing program would place the emphasis on the need for more students, at a time when enrollments in U.S. colleges and universities are at an alltime high and are growing rapidly. As for engineering education-and certainly under the proposed scholarship program there could be a substantial number of scholarship recipients who will select courses of study in this field-we believe that the primary concern of the Federal Government should be with improving the quality of our college students, not their quantity. In other words, it is our opinion that the greatest need lies in the field of postgraduate education and fellowships, rather than in undergraduate scholarships.

With the relatively uncharted field of space technology presently before us, with the constant need for improved technology in automation, operations research, commercial atomic power, and other developments, with a burgeoning U.S. population and its attendant technical problems in such areas as hydroelectric power, flood control, transportation, urbanization, and others, the engineer in the not too distant future will surely have to be an individual with a fund of knowledge and competence greater and more varied than that which is required today. In fact, it can truthfully be said that the continued economic well-being of the Nation is directly related to the quality of our engineering manpower resources.

Or, to present this concept in question form, What does a nation need to insure its ability to provide security for its people, both from the domestic and international standpoint? Is it more men? Is it more of conventional armaments? Is it improvements in present equipment and devices? Or, is it the capacity to produce breakthrough ideas-ideas which change the whole course of progress, ideas which blunt the weapons of aggression?

There is little question that this Nation can build anything it can plan and in any quantity demanded. Our real need, however, is for ideas, breakthrough ideas. And our immediate problem is how to assure ourselves of the flow of these new ideas, for both economic and military competition.

While many valuable and noteworthy ideas have been the result of individual effort in the past, we cannot now afford to depend on luck or chance for our security. To increase the probability of a consistent flow of breakthrough ideas, we must effectively identify, educate, and utilize our most capable people. We need, therefore, to concentrate our attention, first, on the means of identifying and, second, on the development of people who are the most probable source of these all-important breakthrough ideas. Thus, it is our opinion that the immediate and primary concern of the Federal Government should be with improving the quality of students, which can be assured through expanded opportunities for postgraduate education. Only after quality is adequate should the Government concern itself with the quantity of our college and university students.

Our many contacts with government, industrial, and other private employers of engineering personnel indicate, almost without exception, that the most pressing need, the greatest demand, is for people with master's and doctor's degrees; people with a considerable fund of knowledge which is attainable

only through postgraduate education; people who are most likely to produce breakthrough ideas. Although graduate enrollment in engineering has increased for the past several years, it is not growing fast enough. In June 1960, only 7,159 persons earned master's degrees in engineering, and there were only 786 doctorate degrees awarded in this important field.

We believe that it is in the area of graduate education that direct Federal stipends for individual students will be most productive. It is in this area that we must direct our resources in order to adequately meet the needs of our changing times.

The importance of this need is perhaps illustrated with particular clarity when it is realized that with 1 year of graduate study, the engineer increases his technical competence by approximately 30 to 35 percent. This rather startling statement is based upon the fact that at the most, only about 3 years of the standard 4-year undergraduate program consists of engineering subjects. This is a significant indication of the extent by which the total competence of our engineering manpower can be increased by graduate study. Since engineering competence depends, among other things, on actual engineering knowledge and the background necessary to allow ready acquisition of new engi neering developments, even a year of graduate study is a decided advantage. In addition, with opportunities for graduate study more readily available, those who enter the field of engineering education can be better trained, resulting in consequent improvement in the overall quality of the instruction available to engineering students.

Since only about 1 out of 5 engineering graduates enroll in and complete postgraduate courses leading to the master's and only 1 in 20 to the doctor's degree, we believe it to be extremely necessary that a greater percentage of our most capable engineering students of proved ability be encouraged and enabled to extend their education beyond the usual 4-year undergraduate course leading to a bachelor's degree. In this connection, the national society strongly urges an immediate and meaningful expansion in the fellowship program of the National Science Foundation and as authorized under the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

We earnestly urge the subcommittee to keep constantly in mind the basic difference between a Federal loan program as distinguished from a scholarship program. Under a loan program, such as we presently have under the National Defense Education Act, there is at least a prospect that the Government will have the loan repaid, albeit over a period of years. A scholarship or fellowship program, however, is more in the nature of an outright grant, and the only return that the Government and Nation will receive under such a program is increased brainpower. Thus, it behooves the Government, when contemplating a program of direct, nonrepayable stipends to students for college and university education, to take all steps necessary to assure the greatest possible return per dollar expended. We submit that the greatest return lies in the field of postgraduate fellowships, as contrasted to undergraduate scholarships, for the simple reason that individuals with postgraduate degrees are becoming more and more the brainpower pool that holds the key to continued technological progress.

If, however, it is the considered opinion of the Congress that the Federal Government should provide some form of financial aid to undergraduate students, we would suggest an extension and expansion in the NDEA loan program; rather than an undergraduate scholarship program as has been proposed.

We have tried to show the imperative need, as we see it, for a concerted effort to raise the level of graduate education in this country, with particular reference to engineering education. There is, however, a demanding need also at the other end of the spectrum-the engineering technician.

The National Society has either sponsored or participated in numerous conferences, meetings and programs dealing with the overall subject of the training and utilization of engineering technicians. We know from first-hand experience that it is a generally accepted fact today that improved efficiency in the utilization of our country's engineering manpower is directly related to the extent to which trained engineering technicians are available to relieve the engineer from many of his routine, repetitive tasks. By the judicious use of technician personnel, such as engineering aides or assistants, the professional engineer can consequently be given the opportunity to devote more of his time, effort and abilities toward those activities which are nearer the highest level of

his competence. The result will be a commensurate growth in the professionallevel output per engineering man-hour.

In his education message to Congress, President Kennedy reported that he had asked the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to convene an advisory body to be charged with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating the current National Vocational Education Acts, and making recommendations for improving and redirecting the program. Although the President has not specifically mentioned technician training, we would hope that this increasingly important educational field will be covered by the proposed review and evaluation, particularly since the President has cited the need for modernizattion because of rapid technological changes.

The real problem facing the Nation with respect to engineering manpower, then, lies at two poles-the need to expand and stimulate graduate education, and the need to encourage and support technician education programs. We believe the Government has a challenging opportunity for constructive action in both of these key areas.

The National Society of Professional Engineers sincerely appreciates the opportunity of appearing before you today. We hope that we have developed some points which deserve consideration, and we hope that we have made some suggestions which are worthy of your future study. The National Society deeply desires to cooperate in every possible way to aid the subcommittee in the important task it has assumed, and we have tried to help develop some answers to a problem which is paramount in our national life.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Robbins is our last witness today. We will convene at 9 o'clock Monday morning, and it is our sincere hope that we will be able to have some time available to us Monday so that we can finish the hearings on Monday. I am going to do my very level best to finish them on Monday.

I want to say to the staff that I hope all the witnesses will be notified that we would appreciate it if they would file their statements on Monday, whenever possible, and then take 10 minutes to summarize their statements as far as their testimony is concerned.

I wish to act on this legislation sometime next week in the subcommittee so that we can make a report to the full committee. We will stand in recess until Monday at 9.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Monday, August 21, 1961.)