Social adjustment is not easy for youth that are transferred from the discipline of homes to the freedom of campus life. The smaller schools with the personal guidance of its faculty are far better equipped to assist this period of transition than is the larger school. The more I counsel with youth of college age the more I am convinced that none should attend a large university during the first 2 years of their education. Yet, in your program these educational machines will gain the largest boon from the aid offered. These schools are also the ones that make the heaviest demands on the youth socially and your aid will not allow the poorer student to meet the social demands of the school and they will not yet feel free to attend. These schools are also often the ones with high costs and they are demanded, due to large graduate programs in medicine, scientific research, etc., and with the expansion that is planned and needed costs will increase and the aid absorbed. It appears to me that many gaps appear in this program that will near destroy its hoped for effects. It may give us a few more diplomas but more poorly adjusted citizens. This is not what our United States is built upon. Also, what about aid to the formation of new junior colleges across the country? The requirement that a school be accredited 2 years before any assistance is given makes new ventures near impossible. In many instances such aid would be far more beneficial economically to communities that need it and place schools within easier range of youth being day students. These are two of my main concerns. I am fully aware of the need for our educational institutions being assisted in some manner. Yet, I hope we will not be led astray by such a general statement as made by President Kennedy, "Our progress as a Nation can be no swifter than our progress in education." Bigger buildings, better paid teachers, more equipment—all of this does not necessarily point to better education nor does it mean progress. Thank you for your kindness and patience in listening. I will send a copy of this letter to my two representatives in the Senate. Sincerely yours, JAMES M. JOHN, Chairman. COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, U.S. SENATE, August 23, 1961. Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR WAYNE: I would appreciate if you would have the enclosed statement of Dr. Kenneth MacKay, president of Union Junior College, Cranford, N.J., included in the printed record of the hearings on S. 1241, the College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act. With best regards. Sincerely, HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr. UNION JUNIOR COLLEGE, Cranford, N.J., August 21, 1961. Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE, Chairman, Senate Education Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Representing a non-tax-supported, nonprofit, 2-year college serving a north Jersey community of several highly populated counties, I wish to go on record as emphatically endorsing Federal legislation which through loan programs will enable colleges to expand our classroom facilities and other academic areas. A nonprofit institution of higher learning like ours finds itself in a curious predicament. We badly need additional classroom and laboratory space but unless a campaign for private funds, a costly and sometimes lengthy procedure. is conducted, we cannot finance the facilities so urgently needed. Moreover, it is not easy for colleges to procure loans from private sources. Ours is an accredited community college, nonresidential in nature. For a nonresidence college assistance for housing or student union facilities does not help. Because it is precisely in these community, nonresidence colleges where we can most effectively and economically cope with the enrollment bulge of the next decade we feel the most critical need is for classroom assistance so that we can go to work inmediately building for enrollments which will soon be upon us. If we supply the classrooms and the facilities, the students will be here to make full use of them and, in the case of independent colleges like this one, to pay through their tuition for their education, to pay for the operating expenses of the college. This does the job the fastest and most efficient way and without recourse to great tax appropriations so badly needed for many other educational undertakings. As president of Union Junior College and as a citizen vitally interested in the welfare of our Nation, I endorse Senate bill 1241 (and H.R. 7215) and similar proposed legislation. Respectfully, KENNETH C. MACKAY. THE COUNCIL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SMALL COLLEGES, Hon. WAYNE Morse, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges is indebted to you and to Senator Jennings Randolph for being kept informed regarding the hearings on bill S. 1241, the College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act. As you may know, Senator Randolph is a valued member of our board of advisers and we deeply appreciate his concern for the welfare of the small private colleges of our country. As executive secretary of the council, and on behalf of Dr. K. Duane Hurley, president of Salem College, Salem, W. Va., and president of the council, I am replying to your telegram and telephone message with this letter. Dr. Hurley and I regret that circumstances prevented us from attending the hearings scheduled for Thursday, August 17. However, we will take this opportunity to express our position on behalf of the council, in writing, with a request that this letter become an official part of the record. We wish to make it clear that we are speaking as officers of CASC, and we believe we reflect the consensus of the group. However, we have no authority to commit any of our members individually to our position, and our statement does not represent a vote of resolution by the membership. The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges is now in its sixth year, and Dr. Hurley has been its president and I have been its executive secretary from the beginning. The current membership is 61 colleges in 28 States from Maine to Hawaii. The purpose of the council is to help its members to help themselves in attaining regional accreditation, increasing enrollment, strengthening the financial position, upgrading their faculties, and raising their academic standards. We estmate that these 61 colleges alone save the country $45 million a year of the taxpayer's money. The average enrollment in these institutions is about 500 students. They have been growing faster than the national rate for the last 5 years. Many of them could double and some could triple their size in the next 5 years at a cost considerably below that required to build new institutions. Twenty-nine of the 52 charter members have become fully accredited in the last 5 years a remarkable achievement. All of them have increased their financial standard, and their science departments, incidentally, are growing very fast. In order to provide you with certain background information regarding this organization and its members, I am sending with this letter by special messenger the following items: (a) our new descriptive leaflet, (b) our new directory of member colleges, (c) a copy of our New York Times supplement of October 11, 1959, (d) a copy of our book, "The Small College Meets the Challenge," (e) a copy of the report on our Washington conference of May 1960, and (f) some miscellaneous articles. We are well known in the U.S. Office of Education and to the other older and larger educational associations such as the American Council on Education and the Association of American Colleges. We wish to make two statements regarding the proposed legislation as follows: A. Since we have a strong and continuing interest in the new and developing colleges which have not yet become accredited by their respective regional associations, we wish to have the wording of the proposed act make it clear that funds will be made available to small private colleges on equal terms with other segments of higher education, regardless of the fact that they may not as yet have achieved regional accreditation. It should be clearly understood that the colleges we have in mind have all been duly chartered by their State, recognized by their respective State universities, and have become eligible for listing in the U.S. Office of Education Directory, part 3. In other words, they are all bona fide, legal institutions, whose one weakness is the fact that they are young and growing and have not yet attained their full stature and full recognition. In our judgment it would be a serious error as well as an injustice to restrict the use of Federal funds in any way that would discriminate against these institutions which are, in fact, the very ones in most need of such assistance. B. Our second point is that we strongly advocate fair and equal treatment for the private colleges of the country as well as for the tax-supported institutions. Legislation should not be restricted in such a way as to work any hardship on the private colleges. We believe, in fact, that the private colleges deserve more consideration than the tax-supported colleges in such areas as tuition grants because the public colleges are already being so completely subsidized by the taxpayer. In other words, we believe Federal funds should tend to equalize the choice for the students financially between the public and private segments of higher education. Furthermore, we strongly advocate that Federal funds in support of higher education should not be allocated on any basis which would restrict the academic freedom and independence of the recipient institutions. It should be made clear, however, that we assume these institutions will be dedicated to the highest national interest. We are talking about religious and academic freedom and implying at the same time political loyalty to the United States. Thank you for inviting us to submit this testimony to your committee. We hope you will call on us if we can be of service. We wish you success in your efforts on behalf of all higher education. Respectfully yours, ALFRED T. HILL, Executive Secretary. NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., August 24, 1961. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: May I express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to present to you and to the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Education the point of view of the Department of Education, National Catholic Welfare Conference on Senate bill, S. 1241 and related bills dealing with the problems of college academic facilities and college and university scholarships. I need not emphasize the importance of these measures in terms of the support already extended to them by distinguished members of the full committee, and of the subcommittee. along with the other Senators who have sponsored these measures. The concern for the passage of this proposed legislation represents the united consensus of opinion of all of the distinguished groups of organizations representing higher education concerned with the future of our national strength with special reference to college and university education. For some years now the Senate subcommittee has heard the testimony of many witnesses on these same areas of concern. A large number of studies by Federal agencies, State planning commissions, and independent groups are in general agreement that our college enrollment is in the process of increasing twofold. In the next decade these institutions of higher learning must nearly double their qualified faculty members, and increase the salaries paid to them. Figures have been quoted again and again to the subcommittee that our colleges and universities need now to spend $9 billion on physical facilities, and an additional $10 billion between 1965 and 1970. For all institutions this represents an expansion in plant and enrollment which means especially for nonprofit institutions a widening gap between income and expense. Unless help is secured from sources other than those now available the picture for the future is a drab one indeed. For several years now institutions of higher learning have been presenting their plight to the Federal Government. They stand united in their requests for a sound, realistic proposal for Federal assistance. Among the chief recommendations made by these institutions in common is the request for the Federal Government to establish a two-pronged program for assistance in the construction of academic facilities-low interest loans and matching grants-with each eligible institution making its own determination about the type of support which would best meet its needs. A 5-year program as suggested by S. 1241 is indeed most attractive. There are additional interesting features about S. 585 because under its provision many public institutions would profit from the program of matching grants. In many areas loan programs no matter how generous may fall far short of meeting the needs of many of our institutions. Some private and public institutions would find it much easier to turn to a program where repayments of loans would not need to be drawn from general funds which are already overburdened under rising costs of faculty salaries, equipment, and maintenance. The college housing loan program has been most helpful but many institutions still will require a program in which grants are a major factor. Obviously then, a combination of these two approaches or the availability of opinions-may be possible as well as desirable. Here is an area worthy of complete and thorough exploration. When colleges have been queried about their judgment on the best mode of assistance more than 85 percent have indicated that they would prefer a joint proposal in this area whether they be public or private institutions. Questions have been raised in some quarters about the participation of church-related institutions of higher learning in the Federal program. The best answer has been given by the President himself, in his original education message to Congress, when he stated that higher education must remain a matter of individual choice. Academic freedom, as well as religious liberty, requires that the educational integrity of institutions of higher learning be determined by professional educational organization, such as the regional accrediting associations. Some bills before Congress require approval by such associations as a condition for participation in the Federal program. We think such a requirement the only proper test of the educational integrity of any institution of higher learning. The second title of S. 1241 is certainly educational encouragement of the highest order for our colleges and universities. Organizations representing higher education have jointly recommended a Federal scholarship program for many years. Indeed the Federal Government can and should provide the necessary assistance to remove financial barriers to higher education for those students who can qualify. In the light of rising costs of higher education the need is even greater now than heretofore. The success of the loan program under the National Defense Education Act has already been inestimable help to families in middle income brackets, but it remains obvious that qualified students from extremely low level incomes are even now finding college beyond their reach. Institutions of higher learning and their associations have increased their support for Federal scholarships. College administrators continue to vote in national polls for such assistance in a ratio of more than 2 to 1 and, in addition, have pleaded for a cost-of-education grant to the institution which would help both it and the student to work out a mutually satisfactory program. It is a debatable question whether the scholarship program should be worked out through State or regional commissions or whether the colleges themselves should be the agencies best qualified to administer the program. Here is an issue worthy of continued study. No matter what the final decision may be in this area there must be kept uppermost in the minds of those who decide the problem of evaluating individual needs the recognition that college admission officers have years of accumulated experience in dealing with these problems. Some of this valuable experience moreover may be lacking on the part of State or regional boards. Another basic consideration lies in the fact that the needs of the individual student can frequently be met by a combination of scholarship aid and loans. Here again the institutions and their admissions officers may be the individuals best qualified to make decisions. Whatever administrative provisions to work out a successful scholarship program are used, one essential element should be kept in mind: programs which 74150 0-61-39 help the student select by means of scholarships specific institutions of higher learning should try to avoid the concentration of students in only a few of the better know institutions. The welfare of our country demands that educational opportunity and its availability be widely spread for the benefit of all. In summary, may I repeat that many organizations favor Federal assistance in construction of academic buildings and Federal scholarships. If we are asked to present a priority we would have to emphasize the most immediate and most serious need is assistance to provide academic facilities. Inviting students to attend institutions which are overcrowded is merely to invite disaster. Our priority then would be on loans and grants for academic facilities as the core of a beginning program. Consequently our immediate plans should be made for the necessary academic classroom assistance. Under these conditions we can begin to meet the challenge of our President when he asks for "a new standard of excellence *** and the availability of such excellence to all who are willing and able to pursue it." I am grateful indeed, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present these points of view. Very sincerely yours, Rt. Rev. Msgr. F. G. HOCHWALT, STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. VAN HOUTEN, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION, S 1241, 87TH CONGRESSES, 1ST SESSION The American Society for Engineering Education represents a membership of over 10,000 individuals and several hundred engineering colleges, technical institutes, and industries having a particular interest in the education of engineers. It is a professional society with its primary interest in engineering education. As a society, no formal action has ever been taken on any kind of proposed or existing legislation, but many of its members are vitally concerned as of this date with much of the proposed legislation for higher education being considered by the 87th Congress. About half of the members represent institutions of public character such as the land-grant colleges and State universities, and the other half represent private engineering colleges. It is difficult, therefore, to take action as a society with respect to the bills being presently considered. However, I do wish to make a statement on this bill. Much has been written about the expected enrollments in the colleges in the next decade, and especially in the field of engineering. If something is not done by the Federal Government to help these institutions meet these demands, many worthy students will be lost to the engineering profession and the development of our country will be seriously impeded because of a further shortgage of engi neers so essential to our development. I, therefore, urge that some type of legislation be passed enabling these fine institutions to expand their physical facilities through grants or long-term, low-interest loans with each institution having the option of choosing either a grant or a loan for each separate project. As practically every public institution in this country is restricted by legis lative action from borrowing for these purposes, grants would appear to be the only way of assisting the public institutions to expand their facilities. It is quite evident that the bulk of these enrollment increases will be in the public institutions, but at the same time, we must not overlook the great services that the private institutions have rendered and will continue to render to the education of our youth. Consequently, some means should be made available for our private institutions to continue to contribute to our professional growth as well as to help the public institutions fulfill their obligations to our people. If a grant or a loan is made for expanded facilities, it should be contingent upon each institution's willingness to increase its enrollment. I would make one specific recommendation to change title I, section 106(e) 3. which states "provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree, or provides not less than a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree"; by adding an additional clause “* or grants an associate degree in engineering technology, and The associate degree in engineering technology is very essential to the devel opment of the engineering profession and the graduates in this area of engi neering are sorely needed. Therefore, the Congress should find some means of aiding our institutions of higher learning to increase their facilities to meet these demands. |