Under these circumstances the 24 institutions in the area can expect more than the normal pressures to be exerted upon their admissions' offices in the future. These loans will, of course, not resolve all the financial problems that the anticipated increase in students will place on these institutions. It will enable them, however, to amortize over a longer period of time and at a lower rate of interest construction of academic facilities which are needed at these institutions today to accommodate existing student bodies and will provide one method by which these facilities can be extended to meet the demands of the Greater Philadelphia community. It should, perhaps, be noted that of the 35,000 full-time undergraduate students currently attending these institutions, several thousand are outside of the metropolitan area and many of them from other States. This is particularly true of the students taking their graduate or professional training at the great universities in the metropolitan area. As the distinguished Senator and his colleagues well know, the so-called college crisis is not confined to the Philadelphia area but is nationwide in scope. This legislation would in our estimation be of considerable assistance to those institutions who are willing to expand their enrollments to accommodate additional students. As suggested before, the Commission realizes that this measure will not relieve the institutions of the major burden of fundraising for building and other purposes. It will, however, provide a device by which a given college or university can utilize this legislation to construct academic facilities and use funds from other sources for equally important purposes such as faculty salaries, additions to their libraries, and related immediate needs. Our Commission has long been concerned with the need for financial assistance for deserving young men and women who are unable to meet the rising costs of college or university training. This problem is particularly acute in any large metropolitan area. The city of Philadelphia has a modest scholarship program based on ability and need. Our staff assists the city scholarship committee and has reported to us that more than 600 students originally applied for the 30 scholarships that are available from this source. About 200 of these applicants have received other scholarships and of the remaining 400, the high school transcripts and CEEB scores would indicate that 236 are exceptionally qualified students. The bulk of the remaining applicant records indicate that they would in all likelihood have a successful educational experience in a college or university program. This program is confined to students with need and it is clear that this program can accommodate only a fraction of the demand. Our public and parochial school systems have extensive scholarship programs and our colleges and universities provide over $2 million per year in scholarships or financial assistance for deserving students. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is currently considering a scholarship program to add to these sources but it is very clear that all the proposed programs will not meet the demand. We earnestly believe that a Federal scholarship program would make a significant contribution to this problem. Our commission staff has found the problem of financing a college education to be the major source of inquiries or requests for assistance and guidance. The survey of the local colleges and universities revealed that most of the institutions had a larger demand for financial assistance than they could accommodate. The student loan provisions of the National Defense Education Act have been most helpful in enabling students with limited financial resources to complete their education. However, there are many students who do not possess the funds to begin their higher educational experience and it is impossible for them to borrow all the funds necessary to pay for this experience. The committee on higher educational opportunities in Philadelphia in 1957 found 5 percent of the city's high school graduates qualified and prepared for college but financially unable to attend. This would mean almost 900 city high school graduates a year are denied a higher educational opportunity because of financial limitations. Nor is this problem confined to the city proper. The county school superintendent of one of the neighboring suburban counties noted that the percent of high school graduates attending college varied widely in the 17 high schools under his jurisdiction. He noted two high schools in his county; one school sent 77 percent of its graduates to college while the other sent only 17 percent. He then pointed out that it was impossible to distinguish the two high schools by a comparison of the IQ standings of their graduating classes. 74150-61-26 The University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research in its excellent study "How People Pay for College" points out the complex of socioeconomic factors which appear to determine the probability of any given student attending college. While our own studies are not sophisticated as the methods used in the Michigan study, they confirm the findings of that report. It is quite clear in our area there are exceptionally qualified students who do not pursue their education beyond the high school level because of lack of funds. These considerations led the commission to endorse the scholarship proposals of President Kennedy including the supplementary grant features on April 27. Subsequently the subcommittee in its final report issued in June stated "Qualified students should be helped to overcome their problems of finance through (a) government-sponsored and supported scholarship programs at National, State, and local levels; (b) establishment or extension of Government loan programs to students on long-term, low-interest rate basis; (c) part-time work, including cooperative plans under which periods of study are alternated with periods of employment; and through (d) tax-deduction for tuition payments." In conclusion it should perhaps be noted that the Commission stipulated that endorsement of these programs in no way reflected any position by the commission on the advisability of aid to church-related institutions. The commission members felt that this issue far transcended their area or jurisdiction and for this reason specifically went on record as not taking any position on this particular matter. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, Philadelphia, Pa., June 22, 1961. Hon. RICHARDSON DILWORTH, DEAR MAYOR DILWORTH: On behalf of the Commission on Higher Education I am pleased to submit for your information the report that was prepared by the special committee appointed by the commission for the purpose of making recommendations with respect to specific needs and proposals on post-high-school education. The committee, which is listed in the attached report, includes distinguished citizens who represent many areas of service and industry. The report, which is excellent in every detail, was submitted to the commission on June 16, 1961, and was subsequently unanimously adopted. I hope you will share our delight in the excellent work of this committee and accept our assurances that its recommendations will receive our early attention and support. Very sincerely, MILLARD E. GLADFELTER, Chairman. A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION By the Committee on Post-High-School Facilities and Programs, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1961 THE COMMITTEE ON POST-HIGH-SCHOOL FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS APPOINTED THE PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION BY Chairman: Charles G. Simpson, general manager, Philadelphia Gas Works' Dr. Paul R. Anderson, vice president, Temple University. Dr. Allen T. Bonnell, vice president, Drexel Institute of Technology. J. Frank Cox, vice president and general manager, Bell Telephone Co. William M. Duncan, associate superintendent in charge of secondary schools, board of public education. Maurice B. Fagin, executive director, Philadelphia Fellowship Commission.1 1 Members Philadelphia Commission on Higher Education Mrs. Abraham L. Freedman, president, Citizens Committee on Public Education in Philadelphia.1 Dr. Althea Hottel. Donald Hurwitz, executive director, Federation of Jewish Charities. John N. Patterson, executice vice president, Penn Fruit Co. Robert L. Poindexter, superintendent, district No. 4, board of public edu- Rear Adm. Logan C. Ramsey, U.S. Navy (Ret.), executive vice president, Dr. Ira DeA. Reid, chairman, Department of Sociology, Haverford College.1 Rt. Rev. Msgr. Edward M. Reilly, S.J., diocesan superintendent, parochial schools.1 Hon. Theodore O. Spaulding, judge, municipal court. Edward Toohey, director, Committee on Political Education, A.F. of L.CIO. Evelyn Trommer, Esq. Lewis H. Van Dusen, Esq. Brig. Gen. Brenton G. Wallace. Staff: John F. Clough, Jr., executive director, commission on higher education. Dr. Gayle K. Lawrence, Temple University, consultant to the committee. Dr. MILLARD E. GLADFELTER, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, Philadelphia, Pa., June 12, 1961. Chairman, Philadelphia Commission on Higher Education, DEAR DR. GLADFELTER: The committee on post-high school facilities and programs was appointed by you in the latter part of 1960. At the first meeting of the committee, on September 20, 1960, you explained the commission's desire for a "citizens' committee," somewhat larger and more representative than the commission itself, to make an examination in depth of supply-demand relationships in higher education, including, among the great many considerations involved, a finding and recommendation as to whether or not Philadelphia is in need of a 2-year college. As time runs on, much is happening in education, and with respect to education, as the result of aroused interest on the part of citizens throughout America. This interest is manifest in the legislative halls of our city, State, and Nation, as well as in many other cities and States. Many bills have been introduced, and some enacted, for the provision of governmental aids to education. Under these circumstances, it has been the desire of both the commission and the committee that this study be accomplished in timely fashion, albeit, however, with careful study, thought, and discussion. It is obvious that the work of the committee could be continuous and without end, but equally obvious that for it to be meaningful and useful to the citizens of Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, findings and conclusions are needed now. The attached report results from extension studies, discussions, and meetings by the committee members and staff. The findings and conclusions have been carefully reviewed and agreed upon, without dissent. The recommendations, if accepted in present or amended form, will require the adoption of an action program in such manner as may be considered appropriate by the commission and the mayor, and city council. For example, it is the judgment of our committee that a 2-year college is needed in Philadelphia, and a logical aftermath of our recommendation, if accepted, would be support of enabling legislation by the Pennsylvania Legislature, and the appointment of one or more committees to study how best a Philadelphia 2-year college might be organized and financed. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES G. SIMPSON, Chairman, Committee on Post-High School Facilities and Programs. 1 Members Philadelphia Commission on Higher Education. FOREWORD Beginning September 1960, the committee on post-high school facilities and programs has met monthly or more often to examine carefully the demand-supply relationships in education beyond the high school in the Philadelphia area. It was assigned this task by its parent body, the Philadelphia Commission on Higher Education, in order to ascertain what additional steps should be taken, if any, to meet what appeared to be a growing disparity between the number of students likely to be entering higher education and the facilities which would be available to satisfy their educational needs. It was recognized that the problems might be especially acute at the baccalaureate level, but the committee's assignment embraced all levels of post-high school education-subbaccalaureate, baccalaureate, graduate, and professional. Among its many considerations, the committee was specifically requested to determine whether Philadelphia was in need of a 2-year college. The committee was not without guidance in its deliberations. In December 1957 there was published the report of the committee on higher educational opportunities in Philadelphia,' which had been created by city council in September 1955. This "Nesbitt" report presented three basic conclusions: (1) Facilities and faculties for post-high school education must be expanded far more rapidly than was then contemplated or an increasing number of high school graduates would be denied opportunity for further education of any sort; (2) there is evidence which suggests that "a variety of socioeconomic factors prevent significant numbers of high school graduates from pursuing further courses of study"; (3) “There is need for an immediate vigorous program designed to expand and give variety to our present facilities for post-high school education." The report also stressed that implementation of this program would "necessitate the marshaling of all possible energies and means of the community, public and private." A recounting of the significant findings of the report, on which these conclusions were based. was made for the benefit of the committee by four persons associated with the earlier study. As the following report will attest, the committee has found no cause to differ from any of the major conclusions of the Nesbitt report. So that it might have background and perspective to better understand posthigh school educational problems in the Philadelphia area, the committee sought information from several major sources in the State and Nation. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the U.S. President's Commission on National Goals' were reviewed and analyzed. President Kennedy's special message on eduaction, which he presented to Congress on February 20, 1961, was read and discussed by the committee, with special stress being placed on the President's proposals to spend over $3.3 billion of Federal funds in support of higher education. There was also summarized for the committee the program of Governor Rockefeller for financial assistance to New York State residents attending colleges or universities in New York. In April the committee was privileged to be one of the first groups in the Commonwealth to hear the recommendations of the task force on higher education of the Governor's special committee on education. This report,' supplemented by the 1957 Anderson report, which also concerned itself with the Commonwealth's obligations to higher education, enabled the committee on post-high school facilities and programs to feel more secure in its grasp of the statewide aspects of the Philadelphia area problems. Throughout its several months of work the committee was assisted by special studies prepared by its own two staff members. Most of these studies can be found summarized in the appendix to this report. One of these consists of a summary of public hearings conducted by the committee on March 22 and 23 in which interested citizens and groups presented their views as to the nature of the problems of higher education and action which they deemed appropriate to meet these problems. A second study relates to the demand side of the problem in which estimates are set forth as to the likely number of students who will be enrolled in post-high school education during the 1960's. A third study is a 2 Committee on higher educational opportunities in Philadelphia (Albert J. Nesbitt, chairman). "Higher Education and the Future of Youth in the Greater Philadelphia Area," Philadelphia, December 1957. 3 U.S. President's Commission on National Goals, "Goals for Americans: Programs for Action in the Sixties," New York, the American Assembly, 1960. A Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Committee on Education (John Morgan Davis, chairman), "The Final Report," Harrisburg, April 1961. Governor's commission on higher education (Paul R. Anderson, chairman), "Report Harrisburg. Feb. 1, 1957. summary of plans for expansion of colleges, universities, and nonbaccalaureate institutions in the Philadelphia area. Resolving problems of education at every level involves diverse considerations. Honest men may differ with one another in the weighing of community values, often of a conflicting kind, which are inevitably reflected in these considerations. If it can be said that there was a particular theme which was prominent in the discussions of the committee, it is simply the point given special emphasis in the 1960 annual report of the Carnegie Corp. of New York." "It is the goal of a democracy that every individual fulfill his own potentialities and live a meaningful and satisfying life in the context of those potentialities. The important thing is that he have the kinds of experience and education that will bring out the best that is in him.” The members of the committee on post-high school facilities and programs are grateful to all who helped guide and direct their deliberations during the several months involved in the preparation of this report. CHARLES G. SIMPON, Chairman. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Statement of the problems 1. All available data indicate that the growth of student demand for post-highschool education during the foreseeable future will outstrip available academic resources, unless dramatic changes toward expansion are commenced at once. 2. The growing disparity between demand and supply in higher education will be especially acute in colleges and universities, although schools of nursing and technical institutes among the nonbaccalaureate institutions are currently experiencing increasing pressure from applicants for admission. 3. The committee's principal concern is for undergraduate education, but there is already increased demand for graduate and professional training where the academic cost per student is exceedingly high. 4. Labor market studies clearly indicate that the unskilled laborer is rapidly becoming obsolete in the economy of the future. Unfortunately, the members of this group most frequently come from a social environment in which education beyond the high school is looked upon as a luxury or social frill. Hence, both the basic training and motivation necessary for higher education are most often lacking in the families which will need the additional training. 5. Demand for part-time and adult education will be even greater than the demand for full-time enrollment as many will attempt to combine earning a living or maintaining a household while obtaining additional education. This heavy demand will impose a special burden upon educational institutions in the scheduling of faculty and other personnel during inconvenient hours of late afternoon and evening and on Saturdays. 6. The enrollment increase in public institutions, which ordinarily have lower tuition and other academic charges, will be especially heavy. Most educators feel that private institutions should also be encouraged to grow because of the variety and richness they add to higher education. 7. Educational institutions are prompted to meet the problem of imbalance between demand and supply by raising academic standards for admission, by giving some preference to students who are resident in their immediate area of service, and by raising tuition and fees. Many disapprove of this manner of solution on the grounds that capable students may be denied their just measure of higher education. Similarly, it is believed that public institutions and publicly supported institutions have a particular obligation to serve as large a number of students as their resources will allow. 8. The costs of higher education will rise both in total and on a per student basis. Meeting these costs involves increased government outlays-for scholarships, loans, grants, additional facilities, and new types of educational institutions in the face of growing public hostility to tax increases. 9. There is some fear that increased participation of government in higher education, for whatever reason, constitutes a threat to academic freedom. 10. Some people fear that an overstatement of need will lead to overbuilding, and others feel that even if existing institutions expand to the utmost, there will still be need for new institutions, public or private. • Carnegie Corp. of New York, "Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended Sept. 30, 1960," New York City, p. 13. |