Page images


back, and that's the end of it. However, a grant is different. This turns the private college into a quasi-public institution. Then, if a student or a professor refused to follow college regulations and the college dismissed him, he might have legal grounds for suit because the college was supported by Government money and the man in question had not violated national law-only a college regulation. This president wants to know what guarantee is provided to the private college by the Government that this hypothetical case might not materialize.

I would like to emphasize the provisions of the bill which I believe would be most beneficial to CASC colleges. These are:

Title 1: Expansion of Opportunities for Individuals

Part A: Student loans.-As already mentioned, many CASC colleges have benefited from the National Defense Education Act student loan program in the past. Therefore, I am in favor of its extension and continuation. I express particular approval of the extension of the forgiveness of up to 50 percent of a loan to college and university teachers as well as elementary and secondary teachers.

Part B: Insurance of student loans.-CASC colleges would approve of this provision.

Part C: Student work assistance.—I approve of this provision for two reasons: (a) many students in CASC colleges need extra financial help to complete their education, and (b) many CASC colleges have work-study programs which could be stimulated by these Government funds.

Part D: Graduate fellowships. This provision would be of direct aid to small colleges seeking regional accreditation because it helps them to improve the qualifications of their faculties.

Title II: Expansion and Improvement of Higher Education

Part A: Construction loans.—I recommend the provision of grants as well as loans at the option of the recipient. My reason is that many small colleges are not strong enough financially to procure a loan. However, a grant would enable them to erect needed buildings and thus use their other financial resources for educational purposes. I would like to see this done on a 2-to-1 matching basis as described later in this testimony.

Part D: College libraries.—I am particularly glad to see this provision in this bill because it would be of direct benefit to many small, growing colleges seeking regional accreditation.

Title III: Improvement of Educational Quality

Part B: Teacher preparation. This particularly is important to CASC colleges because 75 percent of them are engaged in teacher preparation.

In the light of the foregoing testimony and on behalf of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges I wish to recommend that special consideration be given to all small, private, 4-year liberal arts colleges which can be identified as bona fide institutions (not "diploma mills") whose credits are accepted by at least three regionally accredited institutions of higher education. From the standpoint of economy it has been demonstrated that it is much less expensive to build up a small existing institution to its maximum potential than it is to start a new one or to expand a large public or private institution which has already been provided with expensive and elaborate facilities and a high-paid faculty and administration. Educationally it is sound to broaden and diversify education regionally as much as possible. Politically it is in the best interest of our country to provide just as much higher education for just as low cost to just as many young people as possible.

prate sources.

Therefore, I suggest that Federal funds be invested in two ways-through loans and/or through grants at the option of the recipient. I suggest that this be done on a matching basis of 2 to 1. By this I mean that the Government should give or lend $2 to match every $1 which the college can raise from The purpose of this recommendation is to provide incentive the institution to raise more private money, and to provide the private corpation, foundation, or individual with an increased incentive to support the tion of his choice, with the knowledge that, as a taxpayer, he is getting for the college $2 from Uncle Sam for every $1 of his own. I believe this ment would have considerable appeal and put the president of the small n a much better competitive position for fundraising. I suggest that this

The allocated for building purposes-brick and mortar of all types. My

only exclusions would be for buildings primarily intended for religious services. I wish to stress the importance of giving consideration to both qualitative improvement and quantitative growth in the selection of the colleges to qualify for this investment of Government funds. My purpose is to encourage initiative on the part of young and rapidly growing institutions.

If it is not feasible to amend the existing bill, S. 580, to include this provision, then I would urge that in its report on the bill the committee should emphasize the importance of special encouragement to the small, rapidly growing 4-year, private college of arts and sciences so far as the interpretation and administration of the bill are concerned. I also believe that further consideration should be given by the appropriate Government agencies to the stimulation of increased support to young, small, private colleges through some sort of tax benefits to the private donors, especially the corporations.

Good, practical illustrations of the principles I am advocating have been provided by the United States Steel Foundation through "Quality Improvement Awards," the General Electric Co. through its alumni matching program, the C.I.T. Financial Corp. through its awards to recently accredited colleges, and through the programs of numerous other corporations. Information about them is readily available from the Council for Financial Aid to Education, 6 East 45th Street, New York, N.Y.

Not so long ago there was a popular campaign slogan, "Let's get America going." I am entirely in agreement with this slogan; especially when it is applied by the Federal Government to help the small, private colleges help themselves by getting more help from private sources.

Dr. Frank H. Sparks, former president of the Council for Financial Aid to Education, has reminded us of the tripod of freedom. It consists, he says, of three legs: the Government, education, and private enterprise. If any one of these legs becomes too long, the tripod is upset and we lose our freedom.

Dr. K. Duane Hurley, the president of Salem College in West Virginia, and the founder and first president of Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, has recently given citations to representatives of both Government and private industry as "partners in education."

It is in the spirit of these two statements that I respectfully submit this testimony. Again I wish to express my thanks to the committee for giving me this opportunity to appear on behalf of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.


"Higher Education and the Federal Government: Programs and Problems" was the theme of the 45th meeting of the American Council on Education in Chicago, October 3-5, 1962. Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges was represented by its executive secretary and delegates from five member colleges.

The purpose of this report is to extract (however briefly and inadequate) a few of the important statements from 10 papers running to a total of 100 singlespaced typewritten pages and freighted heavily with statistics. The criterion for selection of materials is, of course, its direct or indirect relevance to the small college.

There is nothing new about Federal support of higher education. We have had it with us since the earliest days of our national history. The Lewis and Clark expeditions, the establishment of the land-grant colleges, the U.S. Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies, the G.I. bill, the college housing loan program, and the National Defense Education Act were cited frequently to document this point.

The thing which was impressive about the American Council meeting was its focus upon the volume, variety, depth, impact, and prospect of Federal involvement in higher education. For example, the sections on Thursday were listed as Federal programs for student financial assistance, loans and grants for capital improvement, research, education and training, and international education. The sections on Friday all began with the words "Impact of Federal Programs" on curriculum, teaching and research, faculty interests and student careers, organization of higher education, and financing of higher education. And what else?

The point was made a good many times that Federal support does not mean Federal control. In the strictest and most naive sense this may be true. However, one could not fail to note the fact that the Federal Government and higher education today closely resemble the old-fashioned recipe for rabbit pie-with just a little bit of horse meat, in fact, about half and half, one horse and one rabbit.


According to John C. Weaver, vice president for research and dean of the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa, "In the late 1930's the Federal Government was budgeting annually something on the order of $100 million for all its programs in research and development. By 1950 this had risen to $1,100 million. In 1960 it was $8,100 million.* * For the fiscal 1963, the present estimate for the Federal obligations for research is $12,400 million. These are sobering figures, but of one thing we can be certain: we are only in the foothills today; the peaks of these mountains are still hidden in the clouds far above us. *** We can state that currently just 11 percent of the overall Federal spending for research and development directly concerns our educational establishment. In actual dollars this meant $964 million in fiscal 1961, and it is estimated the total will be approximately $1,200 million in fiscal 1962. *** [Of this amount] better than 95 percent came from five primary agencies. Twenty-seven percent of the total came from the Atomic Energy Commission; 24 percent from the Department of Defense; 23 percent from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 13 percent from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: and 8 percent from the National Science Foundation."


To put this in still another way, Mr. Weaver pointed out that, "of 969 million Federal dollars spent in behalf of basic research in 1961, 71 percent was expended on projects in the physical sciences, 26 percent on projects in the life sciences, 2 percent on the psychological sciences, and a total of 1 percent on the social sciences. The humanities are completely forgotten."

The implications of the statement for the small, 4-year, liberal arts (and especially church-related) colleges are painfully clear.

To make matters even worse, Mr. Weaver goes on to say, "There are somewhat more than 2,000 colleges and universities in the United States. Among these, fewer than 500 receive any Federally sponsored reseach money whatever. More than two-thirds of all the Federal research funds channeled into our collegiate enterprise as a whole are received by 25 institutions. Fifty schools account for more than four-fifths of the total available funds, and 100 institutions bring the percentage to about 95." You do not have to be a Sherlock Holmes in order to detect the implications for the small college or to see the influence of this program upon the shape of our society.


To CASC colleges a more familiar area of partnership between the Federal Government and higher education is the college housing loan program. On this subject Clarence Scheps, vice president and comptroller of Tulane University, pointed out that "more than 70 percent of the eligible colleges and universities in the Nation are already participating in the college housing loan programs, inaugurated in 1950. *** To date this program has made available 1,925 loans totaling $2 billion. These loans have enabled the colleges and universities to provide housing accommodations for over 400,000 students * * *. The 1961 Congress extended the program for 4 years, with funds provided at an annual rate of $300 million * * *. A comprehensive study of the U.S. Office of Education indicated that between 1960 and 1970 $19 billion would be needed by the colleges and universities for capital improvements, and that other sources of financing available to higher education would not be sufficient to provide the capital facilities needed."


If Government participation in research and development is impressive and if loans for college housing are important, then a third broad area of interest and significance to CASC colleges and many others like them is the Government program for student aid for research, education and training, international

activities, and financial assistance. "In this area," says Rexford C. Moon, Jr., director of college scholarship service of the College Entrance Examination Board, "one finds every conceivable type of aid form. It is in this area that the Federal Government maintains its most extensive contacts with higher institutions. All but 400 of the approximately 2,000 higher education institutions participate in some way or another in one or more Federally supported student aid programs * * *. These programs in 1959-61 assisted about 212,468 undergraduates at a cost of $146,909,000 and 13,516 graduates at a cost of $45 million. One needs no slide rule to see that though the sums are much large on the undergraduate side, the aid per individual assisted averaged $690 per undergraduate and over $3,000 per individual graduate student. It should be noted that nearly half the sum for undergraduates was for loans while virtually all the funds for graduate students was in the form of grants, fellowships, or other types of funds for which no return was required * * *. In summary then [since 1959] the situation looks like this; the area of research contributes to the support of students at least $64 million, the area of education and training $74 million, international activities $49 million, and student financial assistance, $191 million; a grand total of $377 million."


President Pusey, of Harvard, in his "prevue" of "The Carnegie Study of the Federal Government and Higher Education," ably summarized the situation as follows:

"Without exception the heads of the 26 institutions participating in the study said that their involvement with the Federal Government has proved to be a good thing. Good, because it has stimulated research (there can be no question but that the great scientific advance in America during the past 20 years could never have happened without these large Federal funds); good, because programs of the various agencies of the Federal Government have provided expensive laboratories, buildings, and research facilities the universities could never have acquired with their own means; good, because of the support and encouragement that have come to professors and graduate students. Federal funds have played an enormously important role during the past two decades in fostering research, and in instituting, extending, diversifying, and enriching programs of graduate study. This represents a wholly praiseworthy achievement. And yet, at the same time, there is another side to the story."

On the other side of the story he pointed to such things as the tremendous increase in bureaucratic redtape caused by dealing with the Government, the fact that "large Federal funds have a way of turning scientists into administrative officers," the fact that certain Government agencies "have adamantly refused to to pay the full cost of research they sponsor in universities," and the distortion and imbalance which can be introduced into an otherwise normal university program by the presence of huge Government contracts.

What this all adds up to so far as the small colleges are concerned is that they should pay more attention to the areas of private support represented by industry, the general welfare foundations, alumni, churches, and communities. The October 6 issue of School and Society summarizes a recent report from the Council for Financial Aid to Education by pointing out that, "America's colleges and universities last year received more than $1 billion in voluntary support. *** Each survey by the Council has shown an increase in contributions and usually from all sources." The amount reported for 1960-61 was 28 percent above 1958-59 and 177 percent higher than 1954-55. "Graduates are a major source of voluntary support of higher education and they are considered most important by many colleges and universities. In 1960-61 alumni contributed almost $175 million, an increase of 14.6 percent over the 1958-59 figure."

These figures would seem to give the most encouragement to and represent the best hope for the small private colleges of the country if they are to survive and play their important role in the future as they have traditionally in the past.


H.R. 3000 is "A bill to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation." It is known as the National Education Improvement Act of 1963. It was introduced by Representative Adam C. Powell on January 29, 1963, and referred to the Committee on Education and

98-466-63-vol. 4- -3

Labor, where it is currently receiving consideration. The bill provides for an expenditure of more than $5 billion over a 5-year period, of which $1 billion is for the construction of higher education facilities and equipment.

(Write to your Senator or Representative and ask him to send you a copy of this bill.)

Why is this bill important to CASC colleges? It is important for the following reasons:

(a) All CASC colleges are eligible for Federal funds under the definition of the term "institution of higher education" as one which "is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association listed by the Commissioner pursuant to this subparagraph or, if not so accredited, is an institution whose credits are accepted, on transfer by not less than three institutions which are so accredited, for credit on the same basis as if transferred from an institution so accredited. Provided, however, that the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of an institution applying for assistance under this act, if the Commissioner determines that there is satisfactory assurance that upon completion of the project for which such assistance is requested, or upon completion of that project and others under construction or planned and to be commenced within a reasonable time, the institution will meet such requirements. For the purposes of this paragraph the Commissioner shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered."

(b) Title I: Expansion of Opportunities for Individuals in Higher Education. Part A: Student loans boosts the present ceiling of $90 million up to $135 million for student loans and extends forgiveness up to 50 percent of the loan to all teachers-elementary school through university. It also provides for a national study of why able students fail to attend or complete college. Both of these points are important to the majority of CASC colleges.

Part B: Insurance of student loans provides for a guarantee of loans by banks, colleges, and universities up to $150 million during a 3-year period.

Part C: Student work-study authorizes $22.5 million for the fiscal year of 1964 and beyond if necessary to pay 50 percent of wages to needy students for campus employment of an educational character, up to 15 hours a week.

Part D: Graduate fellowships provides an extension of the provisions of the NDEA and increases the number of fellowships plus 2,000 additional summer fellowships, beginning in the fiscal year of 1964, from 1,500 to 10,000. "Preference would be given to persons intending to be college or university teachers or pursuing their doctorates." This provision could help solve the faculty problem of many a small college.

(c) Title II: Expansion and Improvement of Higher Education.

Part A: Construction loans authorizes $1 billion aggregate over 3 years for Federal loans to institutions of higher education for academic facilities. This is new. It goes beyond the old provision of Federal loans for dormitory con

struction. Part D: College libraries authorizes $40 million for 1964 and beyond for grants to colleges and universities for acquisition of library books and other materials and for the construction of library facilities. Up to 25 percent of the Federal grant can be spent for books and up to 50 percent for construction costs. Better library facilities and books are critical needs in most CASC colleges, so this item deserves support.

(d) Title III: Improvement of Educational Quality.

Part B: Teacher preparation program authorizes project grants to colleges and universities to strengthen departments and programs, which prepare elementary and secondary school teachers. Emphasis will be placed on subject matter courses. The amount is $7.5 million for 1964 and beyond. Since the majority of CASC colleges have strong programs in teacher education, this is an important feature of the bill to our membership.

This has been called a comprehensive bill because it gives something to everybody-public junior colleges, graduate fellowships, technical education, educational statistics, guidance, vocational education, handicapped children, public libraries, etc. There is considerable doubt about the enactment of the bill partly because so many things have been wrapped up in the same package that it may be difficult to get wide support and partly because the "climate on the hill" is not particularly favorable at a time when there is so much talk of tax reduction

« PreviousContinue »