higher learning which the individual might choose. We would not eliminate sectarian colleges from the recipient's choice. We could wish that the terms under which the State agency would function in determining scholarship winners “in accordance with objective tests and other measures of ability and achievement" might be spelled out more specifically. We are apprehensive over the wide operational latitude which this legislation would convey to the vaguely defined administrative agency. We see in this part of the proposal the live possibility of clerical-political boondoggling in the determination of scholarship awards. The possibility is here for strong political influence on the awarding group by church educators at the secondary and college levels to qualify their students and institutions as recipients without disinterested merit competition. Church-state separation can be lost in such vast expanses of administrative latitude. We think the legislation leans so far backward in avoiding Federal control that it invites intrastate abuse. We stress that academic merit must be preeminent in the determination of scholarship recipients. If the scholarship is simply a per head grant, then the program is nothing but a conduit to church institutions. Perhaps the experience of New York State in such a program will be helpful here. At the suggestion of Governor Rockefeller the legislature there passed a "student incentive" program. It involved a grant of $200 to students, mostly in private colleges in New York State. These institutions were in the great majority sectarian schools. The school promptly raised its tuition by the $200. The individual was no better off but the school was aided. The program was turned over to the board of regents there for management. There was supposed to be a merit test but it amounts to little. Practically anyone who can get into college and pass his courses can get and retain a scholarship. Now, as Governor Rockefeller conceived the plan, the money would be paid to the student who would then pay it to the school. The regents, being practical men, could see no reason for the extra bookkeeping. So they just had the money paid to the school direct. Governor Rockefeller professed to be much upset over this. He wanted the money to rest a moment at least with the student in order to try to throw a mask of constitutionality over the grants to church colleges. Of course it was nothing but a conduit arrangement which was what it was originally intended to be. No such plan can be anything but a conduit arrangement unless it is a bona fide plan of awards on the basis of academic merit. Incidentally, the comment of Senator George R. Metcalf on the student incentive program in the New York Legislature is worth quoting: "There are some who, wishing to avoid the issue, prefer to brush it under the rug in hope of forgetting it. But there is no rug large enough to hide it. Whatever is done this year will be the prelude to further demands next year and the year after. If the principle is established this year of providing tuitional grants in the disguise of a scholarship program, then the gates can be pried open for ever larger contributions in years to come." In regard to the provision for "cost of education allowances" we raise serious questions. These allowances are related to the scholarships theoretically, but the relation seems to be rather nebulous. This could be the occasion of abuse. The scholarship amount is any amount "not to exceed $1,000," the exact figure supposedly to be determined by some kind of need appraisal. There seems to be nothing in the legislation which would bar a State agency from giving, say 10 scholarships of $100 each rather than 1 of $1,000 per year. Each of the scholarship awards could thus, presumably, draw a $350 grant to the institution admitting the student. It is our belief that any direct grants of this nature to church colleges would be unconstitutional as aid to religion. We believe that scholarship aid won in bona fide academic competition and attached directly to the student might stand the test of constitutionality. No direct grant to a church institution could stand this test. If it is argued that the absence of a supporting grant works a hardship on the denominational college, the answer is readily available. The denominational college is not required to receive any of the scholarship students. We suggest an amendment at this point in the legislation which would eliminate as recipients any students preparing for the ministry of religion. Scholarships for such students should be specifically ruled out since it is not in the province of government to finance training of ministers and priests. In closing I should like to recall the remark about the difficulty in reaching the Supreme Court on some of these issues where constitutionality is generally admitted to be in doubt. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), the right of a taxpayer to seek redress in a Federal court has been curtailed. His taxpayer's interest has been adjudged insufficient to form the basis of an appeal to the preventive powers of the court. If legislation providing general loans and grants to sectarian colleges should become law, every effort would be made to assure a proper test as to its constitutionality. Because of these obstacles, however, many constitutional lawyers doubt that such a test could ever be made. If their fears have warrant, then the spotlight is thrown squarely on the Congress itself. Constitutionality becomes as valid a consideration for the Congress as for the courts and there can be no shifting of this responsibility to the courts alone. Congress must assume responsibility to uphold the Constitution as to its church-state provisos. Legislation which is of dubious constitutionality should not receive the support of those who are concerned to defend and uphold the Constitution. PART 1. HIGHER EDUCATION STAFFING * The National Objective To insure, over the next decade, a professional staff for The achievement of this objective will require major efforts in four dimensions: 1. An increase in the number of teaching and administrative 2. A doubling of the 1957-58 average rate of compensation for 3. ▲ doubling of the number of persons engaged in organized 4. A greatly increased investment in the productive machinery This part of the paper will endeavor to outline specifically what is required in order to meet professional staff needs. National needs for physical plant expansion will be described in Part II. I PROFESSIONAL NEEDS FOR INCREASING ENROLLMENT Chart 1 presents anticipated enrollment increases, undergraduate and graduate, in American higher education between 1959 and 1970. An examination of this chart will disclose that the rate of enrollment increase is not constant, but that it reflects the irregular characteristics of the birth rate of the past. The projected rise in enrollment also assumes a continued modest increase in the percentage of college-age youth who will be enrolled in college, an increase that *Ten-year objectives in education, higher education staffing, and physical facilities 1960-61 through 1969-70, January 17, 1961 CHART 1.--TOTAL FALL ENROLLMENT, DEGREE-CREDIT STUDENTS 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 simply reflects the historic pattern. In 1939, college enrollments equalled only 14.3 percent of college-age youth; in 1959, this percentage figure was 37.1; the projection embodied in Chart 1 assumes that by 1970 it will have grown to 41.2. It is obvious that an increase in college and university enrollments from approximately 3.5 million in 1960 to more than 6 million by 1970 will place an extraordinary strain on our higher educational enterprise. If the quality of higher education is not to suffer seriously, the number of persons instructing college and university students, and the number of administrative personnel performing other essential services must rise in some measure to meet these enrollment increases. It is estimated that the full-time equivalent of 232,000 faculty and administrative personnel are now employed to provide instruction and services to 3.5 million students. The projections of staff requirements for this paper, however, are premised upon an increase in average class size and teaching load in the coming decade, resulting partly from new instructional methods, partly from improvements in the utilization of teaching personnel, and partly from the increase in class size which generally accompanies increases in enrollment. The Office of Education has assumed, and has found among consultants general concurrence in the assumption, that the student-staff ratio will rise during the next decade by about 20 percent. This ratio compares the academic year enrollment of degree-credit students (both full-time and part-time, undergraduate and graduate) with the fulltime equivalent of administrative and instructional staff members. A different ratio would, of course, be required if non-degree students were included, if research staff were included, or if staff members were not converted to full-time equivalent. The ratio, in other words, varies in accordance with the particular concepts or definitions employed in its derivation. The 20 percent rise in student-staff ratio is assumed in spite of the likelihood that an increase in the proportion of graduate students and an increase in curricular diversities corresponding to continuing increase in knowledge would tend to produce a change in the other direction. A larger rise in the projected student-staff ratio could not, in our judgment, be assumed without building into the academic structure a planned reduction in the quality of instructional services. Chart 2 (page 10) presents in graphic form the full-time equivalent of aggregate staff required in each of the next 10 years to provide teaching and administrative personnel commensurate with increasing total enrollment. Reflected in this projection of teaching and administrative staff needs is an assumed gradual increase in the student-staff ratio. It should be emphasized that these figures represent the numbers required to be on duty in order to provide adequate services to students. They should not be interpreted as indicating annual employment needs, since the latter are augmented by the need to replace persons lost to the profession through death, retirement, disability, and movement to other professions. It should be kept in mind that the actual number of individuals employed at |