been productive mathematicians. The few efforts I know of that have attempted to determine reasons for this fact have not produced results of great importance. But whether or not we understand the reason, there seems to be no question of the fact. In teaching, however, and in many phases of applied mathematics that are now claiming large numbers of our trained youth, women have performed most effectively. It would seem likely that, with a degree such as that suggested by the Committee on the Undergraduate Program, and with serious efforts to persuade guidance counsellors in the nation's high schools that able and interested girls should be encouraged rather than discouraged from thinking of mathematics as a career, and, of course, with a serious effort to acquaint girls with the increasing trend of women back to the labor market after they have raised their children, we might hope to draw additional numbers of young women into careers in mathematics. Though my feminine loyalties would tend to urge that extensive and impressive improvement in the quality of the whole mathematical effort would occur if we could achieve this end, my honest assessment of the situation leads me to the conclusion that we would benefit primarily on the quantitative side. However, the effort seems to me critically important. I have spoken only of the need for people with the mathematical sophistication and dedication necessary to carry on the emerging work of our world. Though this is certainly the outstanding demand that the times make upon us, there are clearly other programs that might move us forward in achieving better uses of the men we have. These I shall not attempt to delineate here for I want to emphasize my belief that our biggest problem is to produce more mathematicians at all levels. We should not lose a single qualified student because of race, sex, or the multitudes of accidents that determine the choice of an undergraduate college. We need all the imagination we can bring to bear to secure more nearly our share of able youth to carry on the research, the teaching, and the applications functions that this generation of mathematicians must handle. We must use every device in our power to insure sound and stimulating undergraduate opportunities for all the mathematically gifted youth in the land, and to attract these young people into the careers in mathematics for which their talents and interests equip them, and for which the needs of our society make so urgent an appeal. Dr. J. Kenneth Little Director, Survey of Federal Programs in Higher Education. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 contains the following requirement (see Title X, Sec. 1001 (d)): The Secretary shall advise and consult with the heads of departments and agencies of the Federal Government responsible for the administration of scholarship, fellowship, or other educational programs with a view to securing full information concerning all specialized scholarship, fellowship, or other educational programs administered by or under any such department or agency and to developing policies and procedures which will strengthen the educational programs and objectives of the institutions of higher education utilized for such purposes by any such department or agency. Dr. Little emphasized (1) that the use of colleges and universities by the Federal Government is widespread; (2) that the total range of activities of the Federal Government is not fully known by Congress nor by the general public; (3) that colleges and universities are serving vital national objectives; and (4) that these uses should not divert these colleges and universities from their basic mission. The Office of Education has contracted with the Brookings Institution to make a study of the influence of the programs of the Federal Government on the following three types of institutions: (1) large universities heavily involved in government programs; (2) smaller universities less heavily involved in government programs; and (3) strong liberal arts colleges. Dr. Little emphasized that the Office of Education is charged with responsibility for collecting information about the nature and influence of the programs of the Federal Government on all fields of higher education, and that it has worked in close cooperation with the National Science Foundation, which has special responsibilities in the area of science. In an effort to carry out its assignment, the Office of Education has also sought the help and advice of special groups in the humanities, social sciences, and languages as well as in science and mathematics. Dr. Little has made a case study of Federal programs in one state university. In 1958-59 at least one member of the professional staff of 60 of the 88 instructional departments was participating in programs sponsored by a Federal agency. In 1958-59, the university received Federal funds from at least 20 different Federal agencies or divisions of agencies. One Federal agency alone provided funds to as many as 40 departments. Dr. Little referred to the "fabulous fifty" institutions and pointed out that in 1957-58 92 per cent of all Federal funds went to 66 institutions. "Is this a large enough group of institutions?" he asked. "If not, how do we expand the group? How many such institutions do we need? Where should they be located?" The Federal Government provides at least three types of support as 'J. Kenneth Little, Federal Programs in a State University. Higher Education (published by the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Office of Education), October, 1960, p. 3. follows: (a) the land-grant university type of support; (b) support for specific research or training projects; and (c) loans and grants for building and equipment. The support for the medical field is now the broadest, because it provides for laboratory facilities, training grants, and professorships. Information received from the presidents of colleges and universities shows that the programs of the Federal Government and their effects look different to different people! For example, the opinions differ between those engaged in the programs and those who are not engaged; and those outside the fields supported, the deans, the comptroller, and the president all have different perspectives and sometimes differing conclusions. College and university presidents have special problems because the programs tend to support segments of the institution's activities rather than its over-all programs and objectives. Also, there is a multiplicity of agencies to deal with. There are problems of finding matching funds, and of finding space for expanded activities. Issues arise in connection with the following considerations and questions. No agency has the responsibility to look at the total program as it affects the total objectives of an institution. More good scientists are needed; shall we continue as in the past? Are there better ways to organize programs which will strengthen the institution as a whole? What kinds of programs bring about optimum utilization of the total resources of the nation? Is there danger that the research movement weakens the instructional programs of institutions? In connection with the foreign programs now under development, Dr. Little emphasized that the universities are asking for greater participation in the formulation of the program. Dr. Little stated that, in connection with all of the programs of the Federal Government in support of higher education, there are problems of purpose, control, balance, administration, leadership, and finance. The basic questions are these: What are the conditions and circumstances which will build the strength into the Nation's programs of higher education which the exigencies of the foreseeable future require? What role should the Federal Government assume in building this strength? What policies will tend to maximize the potential resources? What policies tend to weaken these resources? Comment Dean Rees: "The original focus of programs of the Federal Government was on the acquisition of new knowledge; the emphasis should now be placed on support for the Nation's total educational program." Professor McShane: "One of the problems lies in the separation of undergraduate and graduate students-in the separation of research and instruction." 74150 0-61--43 Mr. Charles G. Dobbins Staff Associate and Secretary Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government American Council on Education The question of appropriate Federal assistance in the construction of academic facilities is likely to be one of the major legislative issues affecting higher education before Congress in 1961. Federal support for college housing started in 1950. Funds have been provided in the form of forty-year loans, the interest rate being the average rate paid by the Federal Government itself on the money it borrows, plus 4 of one percent for administration. Up to August,, 1960, the Federal Government had authorized $1,175,000,000 for college housing and dining facilities through loans of the kind described. The Senate and House on August 31, in the closing hours of the 86th Congress, approved $500 million in additional authority for the College Housing Loan Program, and President Eisenhower signed the legislation without comment on September 14. Of the $500 million voted, $50 million is reserved for dining halls and related facilities, and $50 million for the housing of nurses and interns. There were 270 applications for a total of $358 million of these funds on hand on September 26, 1960. As far back as January, 1958, the American Council on Education's Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government recommended that "a new program of assistance to institutions of higher learning for construction of academic facilities of the kinds they require to meet their educational objectives be established, offering such institutions the following alternatives: "1. Grants to defray up to 50% of the construction cost. "2. Low-interest 40-year loans to finance construction, backed by the general financial resources and prospects of the institution. It is specifically recommended that the formula for determining the interest rate be the same as that now in effect for College Housing Loans." In 1959 the proposal for a new type of loan program for academic facilities received a good response in Congress, and $62.5 million for this purpose was included in the General Housing Legislation of 1959 as first approved by Congress. The President twice vetoed this legislation, however, and upon his insistence loans for academic facilities were omitted from the bill as finally approved. In September, 1959, however, Senator Clark and 22 other Senators filed an amendment to S. 8, the school construction bill, which would have provided a loan program for academic facilities. The amendment was not accepted by the Senate, but on February 9, 1960, Senator Clark and 21 other Senators introduced S. 3007, a loan program for academic facilities. In testimony before the Senate and House Committees later during the session, Council witnesses pointed out that while the loan program for academic facilities would be useful to many institutions, many other institutions, because of state legal restrictions or for other reasons, would be unable to make use of the loans. It was suggested that consideration be given to a dual approach-by way of optional loans, or grants-as the American Council on Education had proposed back in 1958. After consultation with representatives of the Council and other college organizations, Senators Clark and Yarborough on June 29, 1960, introduced S. 3776 "To authorize Federal loans and matching grants as alternative forms of assistance to colleges and universities for the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or improvement of classroom buildings and other academic facilities." This bill stimulated interest in the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, but in the brief time remaining before the recess early in July, and during the abbreviated session following the national conventions, there was no time for adequate consideration and the bill was lost. Identical bills in the House met the same fate. Meantime, on August 18, the American Council on Education's Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government had placed legislation such as that provided in S. 3776 high on its list of the priority needs of higher education. There is good reason to believe that similar legislation will be introduced early in the 87th Congress, and that it will receive substantial support since both political parties have endorsed the optional approach provided by matching grants and longterm loans. Dr. Harold F. Dorn Chief, Biometrics Research Branch National Heart Institute Dr. Dorn reported that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports programs designed to train mathematicians, statisticians, and scientists for research, especially for research related to, or oriented toward, medical research. In one of these programs, the support is given directly to individuals through fellowships. There are very few fellowships given in mathematics, statistics, and mathematical biology since applicants from these fields are in competition with applicants from the entire range of sciences basic to medical research. In the other program, support is given to institutions. Six university departments of statistics in addition to Departments of Biostatistics of each of the Schools for Public Health in the United States now receive support from the National Institutes of |