embarking on a building program of permanent public and private institutions and I especially object to utilizing public lands for such purposes under the guise of helping the GI's.

Senator AIKEN. Senator, the answer to that is this: The Federal Government has been paying 100 percent of the cost of these temporary buildings, and these temporary buildings have cost 70 percent as much as permanent buildings would have cost on the average. Therefore, if the Government pays 50 percent of the cost it will be saving 20 percent on what it is paying now. It will make it possible for the colleges to use the funds which they have available but which are insufficient to put up their buildings and to secure more lasting buildings than they would if the Government put up temporary ones to cost 70 percent as much as permanent ones would cost. I think that is the purpose.

Dr. ADAMS. That is the purpose, Mr. Chairman. May I add a footnote to your extremely lucid comment, and that is that the figure of, say, 70 percent, cost of temporary buildings, as compared with that of permanent buildings, represents an over-all average which is considerably exceeded in many situations. I know personally of many instances in which temporary constructions have cost as much as $10 a square foot which is conceivably about the same as permanent construction would cost.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, have you any idea how much permanent construction has lagged, let us say, from 1939 to now? Can you formulate a comparison between what it was before that period and what it is now?

Dr. ADAMS. How much has it lagged?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Dr. ADAMS. Dr. Hollis will have that figure in his statistical summary.

Senator ELLENDER. Now another estimate. Have you the figures on average age of men and women who enter college? My particular. reason for asking the question is this: it is my opinion that this GI program is going to take a swing upward say this year and next year and then it will probably go down because of the fact that many of the GI's will be of such an age that they will not want to go to college. They will want to get established and prefer trying to earn a living. Have you any comment on that?

Dr. ADAMS. I have indeed, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. I wish you would tell us about it.

Dr. ADAMS. I think that the point of view that the veterans would not pursue diligently and to completion their work in colleges was expressed and was generally felt a couple of years ago. For that reason when I myself returned to civilian life from service life one of the first things I caused to be done was to initiate a study of precisely that fact. If you will pardon a specific reference to the institution with which I am connected, Cornell University, we studied the performance of 823 veterans who had been in Cornell University before the war. We found that in the first term

Senator ELLENDER. What is the range of their age, would you know?

Dr. ADAMS. Their average age is 24 years and 4 months, and the range is from 29 to 39 currently.

onator ELLENDER. You mean for entering what classes?

< All classes.

Senator ELLENDER. Freshmen and upper classmen?

Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; and their current range of age is from 20 to 39.

Those students turned in a performance in the first semester of this year which was 61⁄2 percentage points higher than the same students turned in when they were Cornell students prior to the war.

In specific figures, their total average before the war, the net average of 823 students, and that is a statistical group, was 71.5 percent. Their average last term was 78 percent, which I think is a dramatic evidence of the sincerity of purpose, the capacity, and the determination of the GI's to carry on with this benefit which has been afforded them by the Congress.

Further, I would think that if there were to be any dropping out of school because of age, that we would already have felt the beginning of that particular trend. Quite the contrary has been the case.

The number of students who have left school for every reason, among the veteran group, is 50 percent less than it was prewar. They are remaining in school more than they did prewar. So that I personally am persuaded that there is no doubt but that every veteran is going to use every day of his entitlement provided he is successful in being retained at the institution.

I have never seen a more earnest, devoted, studious group.

Senator ELLENDER. How many veterans have you at Cornell at the moment?

Dr. ADAMS. 5,500.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that attendance for this last year?

Dr. ADAMS. Currently, as of today.

Senator ELLENDER. What was it last session? I mean for the entire year.

Dr. ADAMS. 1946-47 averaged about 2,800.

Senator ELLENDER. What percentage of that 2,800 remained in college the entire year?

Dr. ADAMS. I will get at it from the percentage who voluntarily withdrew which was approximately 1%1⁄2 percent.

Senator ELLENDER. How does that compare with students who are not GI's, who come from high school?

Dr. ADAMS. The average in prewar times would have been fully 10 percent per year.

Senator ELLENDER. Dropping out?

Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, of the 5,500 presently enrolled, which represents the number from September, I presume, when they matriculated, up to the moment, what percentage of that 5,500 has dropped out?

Dr. ADAMS. Two percent of voluntary withdrawals during the fall and spring terms of 1946-47 plus 21⁄2 percent who were dropped in February because of academic failure.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, would you be able to tell us of that 5,500 number in percentage of age groups, that is, taking it by fourths. How many from 20 to 39 and as old as they are registered? In other words what I would like to have you do is give me a classification of the number of the youngest, say, with a difference in age of 9 to 12 months. then take another group until each group is classified from the youngest to the oldest. I would rather have that estimate than the average data.

Dr. ADAMS. I do not have those data at hand but I do not question but what Dr. Hollis has them for the veterans' group generally. At any rate

(Subsequently Dr. Adams submitted a percentage table, which appears in the appendix on p. 115.)

Senator ELLENDER. I understand Mr. Stirling will be present and will probably be able to give us the information.

Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. But I would be interested in it on the basis of a specific college. Should Mr. Stirling not be able to give it to usDr. ADAMS. I would be glad to assist in any way.

Senator ELLENDER. I would like to get it specifically for a few of the leading colleges in the United States. I suppose Cornell is one of the leading colleges in the United States?

Dr. ADAMS. I would have to admit that, Senator. [Laughter.]

May I add one comment to your question relative to the percent who normally drop out? That figure that I gave of 10 percent would be an all-university average in all divisions of the university. In engineering, prewar, we normally expected as much as 40 to 50 percent to drop out for a variety of reasons, some perhaps because of scholastic failure, some because of lack of funds, some because of personal reasons of various sorts. And so when I recite a figure of 10 percent I give you a very rock bottom conservative figure and not an exaggerated figure.

Senator ELLENDER. I would like to ask if the witness will present the statistical data to include the number of students, both GI and others, whose entrance applications have been turned down during the last semester, who have not been able to get into school?

Dr. ADAMS. There will be some.

Senator ELLENDER. I would like to have actual figures if I can.' Thank you, Doctor.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Dr. Adams.

The next witness is George H. Field, Commissioner, Bureau of Community Facilities, Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. FIELD, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. FIELD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe General Fleming filed with the committee a letter which he would like to have placed in the record. That was filed a few days ago. I have a statement which was also filed that I am not going to take the time of the committee to read. I would like to have it placed in the record and I would just like to bring out some of the high lights as we see them from an operating standpoint.

Senator AIKEN. These statements may be placed in the record in full at this point and you may proceed with the high lights. (The letter of General Fleming follows:)

Hon. ROBERT A. TAFT,

FEDERAL WORKS ACENCY,
Washington, May 1, 1947.

United States Senate.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

MY DEAR SENATOR TAFT: In accordance with your request of March 27, I herewith submit this report on S. 971, a bill to amend title V of the act entitled, "An

47-2

act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with the national defense, and for other purposes," approved October 14, 1940, as amended, to authorize the Federal Works Administrator to make grants to institutions of higher learning for the construction of educational facilities required in the education and training of war veterans.

The bill authorizes the making of grants to institutions of higher learning to aid in financing the cost of educational facilities necessary to relieve acute shortages of educational facilities (found to exist or impend by the United States Commissioner of Education) required for war veterans exercising their educational privileges under the GI bill of rights. The restrictions in the bill indicate that the proposed legislation is a temporary measure to alleviate a postwar emergency in institutions of higher learning.

In my opinion, the proposed legislation is necessary to meet a pressing need, national in scope, arising, in part, out of Federal activities and, therefore, I recommend that your committee report favorably thereon.

I think we all appreciate that the effects of a war are felt in our social and economic life after the actual shooting stops. One of the consequences of the war has been the impact upon our institutions of higher learning of veterans and other young people seeking a college education. Many of the difficulties of such institutions have resulted from policies pursued by the Nation in carrying on and winning the war.

Even the most sanguine supporters of the veterans' training and education provisions in the GI bill of rights did not anticipate the extent to which our veterans would take advantage of such benefits. According to the Veterans' Administration, as of February 28, 1947, it had received 5,842.290 applications for vocational rehabilitation, education, and training under Public Laws 16 and 346. Of the applications received, 5,431,259 have been approved as of such date by the Veterans' Administration. Furthermore, 2.495,403 veterans actually were in training under such programs up to February 28, 1947, of which number 1,777,028 veterans were in training in institutions. Of the number of veterans entering institutional training, approximately 65 percent enter institutions of higher education. During the month of February 1947, the Veterans' Administration received, according to its report, 240,185 applications under Public Laws 16 and 346, and in such month 244,493 veterans entered training, of which latter number 186,593 entered institutional training. Approximately 3,000,000 veterans, in addition to the veterans who are in schools or in training on the job, have been issued certificates of eligibility but have not yet exercised their right to education and training under the GI bill of rights. Since the number veterans certified as eligible for training is increasing at the rate of a quarter of a million a month, an increasing backlog of veterans eligible for training is being built up. This shows the potential problem facing our educational institutions. Moreover, veterans are not dropping out of college. The serious purpose of our veteran students is exemplified by the excellent scholastic record which they are making. Our colleges report that the veterans are making a better scholastic showing than the nonveterans.

of

A survey made by the United States Office of Education shows that in October 1946, 2,078,000 students were enrolled in institutions of higher learning in this country, of which slightly over 1,000,000 were veterans. These 2,000,000 students were double the number attending college in 1945 and 50 percent more than the enrollment of any prewar year. More recent figures indicate that over 1,100,000 veterans are now enrolled in our colleges and universities.

With this tremendous influx of veterans, our institutions of higher learning have had thrust upon them a problem which cannot be wholly solved by the institutions themselves, although they are making marvelous adjustments and great strides in trying to provide for as many veterans as it humanly possible in the light of their limited facilities. Our colleges and universities have crowded their facilities to the very maximum by admitting over 2,000,000 students into facilities with an estimated capacity of approximately 1,700,000. This has been accomplished by overcrowding students into existing facilities and reducing space requitements from the prewar standard of 200 square feet per student to approximately 110 square feet. The reduction has been effected by increasing class size, by materially extending the work day to include a full average use of facilities from 8 to 10 hours per day for 51⁄2 days per week, and by giving instruction from 7 a. m. to 10 p. m.

In connection with the administration of Public Law 697, the Federal Works Agency received, up to March 28, 1947, from the colleges and universities of this country justifications of need for over 32,000,000 square feet of floor space for

educational purposes. It is apparent to us that this does not at all constitute the entire need of such institutions. Under Public Law 697, it is likely that we may be able to provide, even with the additional $20,000,000 heretofore recommended by the President and not yet appropriated, not more than 17,000,000 square feet of space. Thus, over 15,000,000 square feet of space, for which the universities and colleges already have justified the existence of a need, cannot be provided under Public Law 697.

With the facilities being provided under Public Law 697 and that can be provided with the additional $20,000,000 appropriation heretofore recommended, our colleges and universities will have educational facilities to accommodate, by September 1947, a larger number of veterans than were enrolled in 1946-47, provided the institutions continue their intensified and expanded scale of operation. Admittedly, this can be done only by sacrificing, because of crowded facilities, certain worth-while educational values and by circumscribing the full intellectual, social, and physical development of the student populations.

However, the problem in the immediate years ahead cannot be so readily disposed of. Reliable estimates by educators of prospective enrollments show that our institutions of higher education must have sufficient educational facilities to take care of an enrollment of 2,700,000 by 1948, an enrollment of 3,000,000 by 1949, and an enrollment of 3,300,000 by 1950. Thus, the 1,700 institutions of higher education in this country, whose facilities are presently overcrowded, must provide by 1950 educational facilities for an additional 1,300,000 students.

Translated into terms of space, the extent of this need can best be understood by referring to the preliminary results of a survey presently in progress being made by the United States Office of Education. According to this survey, over 900 colleges enrolling 70 percent of the college population have 226,000,000 square feet of building space. Slightly more than 77,000,000 square feet of it is used for student housing and 149,000,000 square feet for other educational purposes. By 1950 these 900 colleges will need an additional 210,000,000 square feet of space which constitutes a plant expansion of 93 percent of the present plant capacity. The 900 colleges have plans and funds to provide, by 1950, 63,000,000 square feet of space. They will need by 1950, however, an additional 146,000,000 square feet of building space for which they now have no funds. Of the 146,000,000 square feet, 47,000,000 square feet is needed for student housing and 99,000,000 square feet for nonresidential plant expansion. Upon the basis of these preliminary results, it is estimated that the 1,700 institutions of higher education will need, by 1950, over 205,000,000 square feet of instructional and residential space for which they do not have plans and funds. Approximately 135,000,000 square feet thereof will be needed for classroom and other nonresidential purposes.

Even the most conservative estimate of the minimum space requirements indicates the enormity of the burden thrust upon our colleges. It has been conservatively estimated that by using the present low amount of floor space per capita, namely, 110 square feet, the colleges may be able to expand their facilities to meet an enrollment of 3,000,000 students by providing 70,000,000 square feet of additional classroom and laboratory facilities. At an estimated cost of $10 per square foot, $700,000,000 must be expended for the construction of classroom and laboratory facilities to be completed during the next 3 years but not later than the fall of 1950. It is apparent, therefore, that even under the most conservative approach the authorization of $250,000,000 in S. 971, which is expected to provide facilities costing $500,000,000, will be sufficient to meet only a part of the need for nonhousing educational facilities. Moreover, if consideration be given to the dormitories and other housing facilities that are needed by our institutions of higher education, the expenditures that must be made by such institutions will exceed $500,000,000 by a substantial margin.

The expansion and rehabilitation of our American colleges and universities are prerequisites to the full enjoyment of the educational benefits provided for veterans under the GI bill of rights. It seems to me that part of the cost of expanding and rehabilitating the physical plants of our institutions of higher learning is a proper charge upon the Nation as a whole. The inclusion by the Congress in the GI bill of rights of a provision promising education for war veterans represents a promise of benefits which cannot be lightly disregarded. This was not merely an act of justice to the war veterans. It was a program carefully considered to foster the public welfare. By reason of the war, we had lost a whole generation of college-trained people-physicians, engineers, scientists, teachers, lawyers, and others-upon whom our society depends. The legislation, therefore, was intended to replace as soon as possible the deficit in such professional skills resulting from