Page images
PDF
EPUB

In brief, a loan program alone will do about 30 percent of the job that needs to be done if our young people are to be provided with adequate academic facilities. The reasons are clear.

Both public and private colleges and universities have been very willing to borrow money for the construction of self-liquidating facilities. They can obtain funds for making payments on principal and interest without jeopardizing the soundness of their total educational program.

On the other hand, governing boards of both public and private institutions of higher education have been very reluctant to borrow funds for the construction of classrooms, laboratories, and libraries. They know that, in many instances, the only way in which they can obtain funds for the payment of principal and interest is either by raising student fees or failing to pay adequate salaries to faculty members. In addition, public institutions oftentimes find themselves up against legal restrictions on borrowing for the construction of nonself-liquidating facilities.

This is why in a document issued by the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association entitled "Recommendations on desirable national action affecting higher education" the following statement is included:

Since both legal restrictions and major considerations of educational philosophy bar many institutions from using loans as a means of constructing academic facilities, we believe it essential that the grant and loan program be linked together in legislation.

The administration is recommending that $300 million a year be authorized for loans for academic facilities at both public and private institutions of higher education.

I believe that unless $210 million of this amount is earmarked for grants that must be matched on a 50-50 basis, and $90 million for loans the Congress will be adopting a program that can only be characterized as impractical and unrealistic-a program that will fail to provide the Nation with the academic facilities that we must have if our young people are to be provided with adequate opportunities in the field of higher education.

Next, I should like to address myself to Title II-Scholarships for College Students.

Although the issue is not now before this committee I do want to take advantage of this opportunity of urging that, at the appropriate time, the present student loan program under the National Defense Education Act be extended. There is no question in my mind but that this loan program has revolutionized the approach to student aid in our colleges and universities and that it has been of substantial help to many families in the middle-income brackets.

At the same time I also believe that qualified students that come from families in the very low-income levels are finding it more and more difficult to finance a college education.

A statement prepared in the Office of Education points out that during recent years numerous studies have been conducted by many public and private agencies and organizations which provide estimates concerning the need for financial assistance by superior high school graduates. These studies are in substantial agreement on the following points:

(1) Despite the remarkable growth of college enrollments, experts estimate that from 160,000 to 200,000 youths of high ability annually fail to attend college and that from 60,000 to 100,000 of these might be reached if financial assistance could be made available to them.

(2) Cost of tuition and required fees have risen about 75 percent in the last decade and promise to increase still further. In view of these considerations, I feel that the administration's recommendation for the institution of a Federal scholarship program based on merit and need is a sound one.

I do not, however, agree with the proposed method of administering this scholarship program; namely, by delegating the responsibility of selecting the recipients to State commissions on scholarships with the understanding that students receiving the scholarships may attend any institution of higher education which admits them.

The American Council on Education in its proposed program, to which I have already referred, of Federal action to strengthen higher education recommends that a Federal scholarship program should be inaugurated and that

the scholarships should be awarded by the institutions themselves using funds allocated in approximately the same manner as Federal student loan funds.

In commenting on this same issue, Dr. J. Douglass Brown, dean of the faculty at Princeton University, in a statement filed with the Office of Education, stated that he strongly supported placing the responsibility for the administration of a Federal scholarship program in the hands of the colleges and universities—

because of the urgent need to encourage all accredited institutions in American higher education to participate vigorously in the search for outstanding young people in their area of coverage by having scholarships of distinction to attract such talent and to take an active rather than a passive role in motivating young people of talent to go on to college. Also, it is believed

he continues—

that this method of administration would increasingly assure a stimulating stream of private students in all accredited institutions which would encourage excellence in instruction and in student response throughout higher education.

In this connection, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, since preparing this statement I have had the opportunity of examining some figures relative to the operation of the national merit scholarship program, which, as you know, is a program that is operated on a private basis out of Chicago, and I find that for the year, the academic year ending 1961, there were 3,132 students in our colleges and universities holding these scholarships. These scholarship holders were in only 391 colleges and universities, which is about 30 percent of the total number of accredited colleges and universities.

It is interesting to note that 2,495 of them, or about 80 percent, were enrolled in the private colleges and 637, or about 20 percent, were in tax-supported colleges and universities, but it is even more interesting to note this, it seems to me. I took the colleges and universities that have 20 or more of these scholarship holders attending and I find that this means that 1,732, or 50 percent of the total number, are in 36 colleges, which is 3 percent of the total number of accredited colleges and universities in our country and just 9 percent of the total number of colleges that have 1 or more scholarship holders. In

other words a scholarship program that is based on the award of the scholarship at a central point, whether it be at a State level or a National level, and then giving to the students the right to attend any college or university, it is a program that is sure to result in the scholarship holders concentrating on just a few of our colleges and universities.

I believe wholeheartedly in the point of view advanced by Dean Brown, who, incidentally, is talking against interest because Princeton University, as I recall it, had 83 of these scholarship holders. I believe wholeheartedly in the view advanced by him that we should enlist all of our colleges and universities in this search for students of exceptional talent and that if we apportion scholarship funds in somewhat the same way that we have apportioned the loan funds under the student loan program, it will mean that we will enlist all of the colleges and universities in this search for exceptional talent.

Mr. KEARNS. Madam Chairman, at this point may I ask a question? Mrs. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. KEARNS. In other words, a selection by the student? His choice would not be impaired; is that right?

Dr. FLEMMING. Well, he can still apply, of course, to any college or university that he chooses and he can apply for one of these scholarships.

I recommend, therefore, that the administration's plan be amended so that Federal scholarship funds, up to the prescribed maximum, would be granted upon request to each accredited institution of higher education on the basis of full-time enrollment and such other standards of reasonableness as might be established by the Commissioner of Education. The scholarship awards would then be made directly by each participating institution to scholarship winners on the basis of merit and financial need.

In addition to extending the student loan program under the National Defense Education Act and establishing a system of Federal scholarships, I believe that the Congress should make provision for tax deductions to cover tuition and other costs of higher education. This policy was advocated vigorously by Mr. Nixon, the Republican nominee for President. I believe that it is a sound policy for student aid in such a manner as to make it possible for all qualified young people to have the opportunity of pursuing a program in higher education.

In summary, in order to expedite the construction of needed academic facilities at our institutions of higher education, I urge that Congress at this session take the following actions:

(1) That it authorize matching grants at the rate of $60 million a year for 10 years to colleges and universities-both public and private for the construction of medical, dental, osteopathic, and public health teaching facilities and that it extend for 3 years at the rate of $50 million a year the matching grant program for the construction of medical research facilities.

(2) That it extend for 5 years the authorization for the college housing program-for both public and private institutions-at the rate of $250 million a year.

(3) That it authorize a 5-year program of matching grants for both public and private universities and colleges for the construction of academic facilities at the rate of $210 million a year.

(4) That it authorize a 5-year program of long-term low-interest construction loans for academic facilities at both public and private institutions with an authorization ceiling of $90 million a year.

You will note, Madam Chairman, in these later two recommendations I have stayed within the overall total recommendation by the administration of $300 million a year for 5 years, or a total of a billion and a half. As, undoubtedly, Secretary Ribicoff pointed out in his testimony yesterday, this billion and a half figure, plus the figure for the college housing program, is consistent with a very thorough and careful study made by the Office of Education over a period of a year, designed to identify what our objectives as a nation should be in this area of academic facilities. I participated in that study, released the study just prior to leaving office. I believe that it is one of the best studies that has been made in this area and I believe that it can serve as a guide, so consequently I have the feeling that the $300 million for 5 years is a sound figure; namely, a total of a billion and a half, but my suggestion is that that be broken down and that 70 percent of it be allocated for matching grant on a 50-50 basis and 30 percent of it be allocated for the loans for academic facilities.

In order to make it possible for an increasingly large number of qualified students to attend our colleges and universities, I urge that the Congress at this session take the following actions:

(1) That it extend the student loan program of the National Defense Education Act.

(2) That it inaugurate a system of Federal scholarships based on merit and need to be awarded by the institutions of higher education themselves, using funds allocated in approximately the same manner as Federal student loan funds.

(3) That the income tax laws be amended so as to provide for tax deductions to cover tuition and other costs for higher education.

I recognize, of course, that some of these recommendations do not fall within the jurisdiction of this committee.

I urge this committee, however, to set the right kind of example by taking prompt action to provide for matching grants and loans for the construction of academic facilities and to provide for a system of Federal scholarships based on merit and need. I am sure that such action would have the effect of encouraging actions on the part of other committees.

If action is not taken in these areas at this session of the Congress, it means that our Nation will be deliberately refusing to do those things which must be done in the interest of the security and welfare of the United States. The time for talk has long since passed. The time for action has arrived.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Flemming. That is a most excellent statement.

You recommend the grants to all colleges and universities. Do you believe that there is any constitutional question involved?

Dr. FLEMMING. Mrs. Green, I have, of course, followed the current discussion on the constitutionality of, or unconstitutionality of, various proposals in the field of education with a great deal of interest. I personally am not an expert, by any means, in the field of constitutional law. I would like to approach the issue from the standpoint of what constitutes sound public policy.

There isn't any question at all in my mind but that a program of both loans and grants for academic facilities in the field of higher education constitutes sound public policy, and as Secretary Ribicoff pointed out in his testimony yesterday, the Federal Government has a long history of aiding our institutions of higher education, both public and private. Any departure from the policy of aiding both public and private institutions, it seems to me, would be a very serious matter from the standpoint of higher education as a whole.

I never heard the constitutionality of the Federal Government making both grants and loans available to our institutions of higher education challenged; that is, during the period of time that I served as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. I assume that that condition still prevails because, as I have noted, the present administration has submitted to the Congress a program of grants for the construction of teaching facilities in both public and private colleges in the area of medical education, that is, grants for the construction of teaching facilities for medical schools in both public and private colleges. Having submitted that particular proposal to the Congress, I am sure that they did it feeling that it was certainly within the constitutional framework to do so.

It seems to me it follows that matching grants for the construction of teaching facilities in our academic institutions generally do not involve any different principle than is involved in making matching grants available on the part of the Federal Government to both public and private medical schools for the construction of teaching facilities. In other words, I would sum it up this way again: During the period of time that I served as head of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as I worked on various proposals in the field of higher education, both those in effect and those that were proposed, I did not have the experience of anyone challenging the constitutionality of what we have done in the field of higher education or what it was proposed to do. But there is no question-well let's put it this way-at the most, it is certainly a debatable proposition, and that being the case, I am brought in my thinking back to the question of what constitutes sound public policy. It seems to me that it is the function of the executive and the legislative branches to determine what constitutes sound public policy in an area of this kind and to act accordingly. I think that if we made any effort in our assistance to higher education to distinguish between the public and the private institutions, it would be a sad day for higher education in our Nation because, as you know, we now have 42 percent of the persons attending our institutions of higher education enrolled in the private colleges, 58 percent in tax-supported colleges and, of course, about two-thirds of the total number of colleges are private, as contrasted with the tax supported.

Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Flemming, you referred to scholarships of distinction to attract talent. How much of this distinction should be on the basis of merit and how much on the basis of need?

Dr. FLEMMING. Well, I feel that the procedure definitely should be to ascertain, first of all, that the applicant is a person who merits this kind of assistance and then, having made that determination, then I thing a determination should be made as to the need of that particular student.

« PreviousContinue »