Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Do you have any opinion as to what percentage would be better to stretch it out over a larger number or over a smaller number?

Mr. HOVDE. You mean of institutions?

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I am not making myself very clear.

Mr. HOVDE. No; I don't understand.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. We are talking about needing $8 to $16 million in these facilities. Well, if we are only going to have grants of a billion dollars, we will say, total in cost to the Federal Government, obviously you are not going to reach nearly all of those facilities. Shouldn't you distribute that on a small percentage toward a greater number?

Mr. HOVDE. Less than 50-50. I see, to spread it more.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. The same number of dollars, but should you spread it over more or less?

Mr. HOVDE. I will not answer that, frankly. I think if you spend the billion dollars out of a total $8 billion need, it doesn't matter how you spend it. The needs remain the same. So I don't know which would be more effective. I can't answer your question, really.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Well, within the university where you are. course, that is a State university, isn't it?

Mr. HOVDE. Right.

Of

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. It might be a little different, but what percentage would it take, do you think? Well, I suppose it is not a matter of encouraging the buildings. They need them. There is no encouragement necessary. It is a matter of getting the finances there.

Mr. HOVDE. That is right. We will go ahead and build and plan to the extent of our financial capabilities, and when the institution reaches the point where it cannot take any more students, then the people of the State of Indiana will be told this and people will be excluded. This is inevitable, and when people are excluded from the opportunity for their sons and daughters that they had when they were young people, things are going to happen, in my judgment. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Goodell.

Mr. GOODELL. Did I understand you that your preference would be the 50-50 matching program?

Mr. HOVDE. Yes; I think this is the right way to handle it and the way in which most associations have agreed.

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Once again, President Hovde, thank you very much for having taken the time to come and present this very helpful testimony to us.

Mr. HOVDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be here.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Our next witness is Dean Charles C. Cole, Jr., of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., representing the Association for Higher Education.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. COLE, JR., DEAN OF LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, PA., ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege on behalf of the Association on Higher Education, a department of the National Education.

Association, to have the opportunity to speak in favor of federally supported scholarships and to support the administration program for assistance in institutions of higher education in financing the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of needed academic and related facilities as outlined in H.R. 5266.

The Association for Higher Education is an association of individuals engaged in college and university work. It has approximately 17,000 members in over 1,500 colleges and universities, both publicly and privately supported, and located in every State in the Nation. Its membership is composed of administrative officers-presidents, provosts, deans-and of faculty members from every academic and professional field.

Since 1945 the Association for Higher Education has been on record as favoring the enactment of legislation to institute a federally supported scholarship program. At the 1961 Conference on Higher Education, sponsored by the Association the following resolutions were approved:

We heartily congratulate President John F. Kennedy for recognizing that good education is not simply an instrument of national defense or of American foreign policy, but that it is the only sure foundation for an enriched individual life, a healthy national life and purpose, and a secure and peaceful international order. This recognition has done much in recent months to enable the American people to lift their sights and gain a realizing sense of their moral and social responsibilities.

We commend the executive branch of Government for drawing upon the talent, knowledge, and resources of the academic community and the educational profession.

We welcome the prospect that Government in our free society will assume a more active and responsible role in the support and improvement of higher education. At the same time the integrity and autonomy of higher education, along with its essential freedom from restrictive political and bureaucratic controls, must always be recognized and preserved.

We commend the President of the United States and the Members of the Congress for the active interest they are displaying in the improvement and expansion of higher education. To this end we recommend the passage of the following legislation:

(a) To continue and expand the college housing loan program, and to continue the present formula of interest rates on such loans.

(b) To introduce a new program of long-term loans on the same interest rate formula of the college housing loan program to recognized colleges and universities for financing the construction of needed academic facilities.

I might add (c) Mr. Chairman. It is not in my printed remarks.

(c) To provide grants to publicly controlled institutions of higher education for meeting up to 50 percent of the cost of construction of needed academic facilities.

We recommend continuation of the Federal student loan program on a permanent basis.

To identify students of high potentiality, and by reducing economic barriers, to encouraeg them to attend college, we recommend a Federal scholarship program providing a minimum of 25,000 new scholarships annually.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there are four major reasons for favoring a Federal scholarship program at this time in our Nation's history. First, there has been ample evidence that we face a serious shortage of trained, educated persons in many specialized and professional areas. You are aware, I am sure, of the acute shortages since 1950, in many science and engineering fields. Although currently there are many persons unemployed, our economy is basically sound, and the future growth of that economy will require a considerable increase

in the number of workers in the professional and technical fields, those fields for which a higher education is required. There is evidence that because of our industrial growth there is likely to be a shortage of approximately 150,000 scientists and engineers a decade from now. In a recent study of American natural and technological resources called "The Next Hundred Years," written by Harrison Brown, Janes Bonner, and John Weir, members of the faculty of the California Institute of Technology, it was asserted that

we may need about twice our available supply of technical manpower by 1982 and three times the supply by the end of the century.

It has been estimated that atomic industry alone will require between 10,000 and 20,000 scientific specialists in the next decade. Trained scientists are heavily in demand in industry, in education, and in Government. A shortage of doctors and nurses has existed for some time. It has been estimated that by 1965 between 125,000 and 150,000 social workers will be needed for public and private agencies throughout the country. There is a serious shortage of teachers at the elementary, secondary, and higher levels, and it has been predicted that this shortage will become more acute during the next 15

years.

Current and future shortages of trained personnel present a serious threat to the security of the United States. Our military strength, the continuation of our important research and development programs, the effective teaching of future children, and the wise and informed leadership of an educated democracy in the world of the future, all require a sufficient supply of capable, trained persons in all walks of life.ˆ Our intellectual resources are our main line of defense. Our shortages, however, are not limited to the scientific and engineering fields. We will need more trained persons in the humanities, in the social sciences, in industry, in all areas, if our economy is to expand. Ability has become a precious commodity. A Federal scholarship program is needed in order to help meet these developing shortages.

The second reason, Mr. Chairman, for supporting a Federal program is the current loss of talented students which occurs from high school to college. In 1955 I was privileged to be the director of a study of this loss of talent, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the College Entrance Examination Board. As a part of the study, the Educational Testing Service conducted a questionnaire and tests among a 5-percent sample of the Nation's public secondary school seniors. The results of that survey revealed that insufficient financial resources prevented between 60,000 and 100,000 persons of superior ability from enrolling in college each year. Another group of similar size and ability apparently lack the interest or motivation for college.

During the last 6 years since this study was conducted, other surveys have been made, the results of which confirm the conclusion that there is a serious loss of talent through the dropout of high ability students in secondary school and in college. In my own State of Pennsylvania, for instance, in September 1958, of 42,000 high school seniors desiring to attend college full time, only 26,000 actually attended as full-time students. Of those who did not attend college, 58 percent cited finances as the reason preventing them from furthering their education.

On the basis of the evidence available, the need for additional scholarships, in order to reduce the loss of talent from high school to college, remains great. According to the latest population estimates derived from a survey made by Donald Bridgman, who has evaluated recent research studies in this field, there are currently approximately 55,000 boys and 110,000 girls each year who are high school graduates in the top 30 percent in ability who will not go on to college. Because of our increased birth rate during and after World War II, the number in the population reaching college age during the 1960's will increase strikingly. As college applicants increase in number in the years to come and as the costs of education rise, it will become more difficult for those who lack the financial means to secure a college education. The failure of some of our best high school students to go on to college constitutes one of the more serious ways in which the Nation wastes its intellectual resources. This loss of talent is a waste we can ill afford in view of our current and future shortages.

The third reason for supporting a Federal scholarship program lies in the precedents for Federal support in this area. A very important step was taken when the Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958. Thanks to the wisdom of the Congress in establishing this act, many deserving college students have been materially aided in financing their higher education. The loans provided under this act, however, do not completely meet the demand insofar as this loss of talent to which I referred is concerned. For some highly able secondary school graduates who come from povertystricken and culturally underprivileged families, a loan by itself is not the solution. To bright high school graduates in the lower economic levels of the population, the cost of a college education appears to be far beyond their means, and the offer of a loan to meet part of these expenses does not sufficiently motivate them to seek a college education. Scholarship assistance to those of high ability will be paid off, not as loans would be, but by the future contributions such persons will make to the betterment of our society. The objective of the loan program under the National Defense Education Act is to give financial assistance to those needing help. We recommend that a Federal scholarship plan be developed which would complement the existing loan program and which would have as its main objective to dignify academic excellence and to encourage college-going among able high school youth in order to reduce further this loss of high ability students from high school to college.

There are, of course, other precedents for Federal support in addition to the National Defense Education Act. The GI bills enacted after World War II were important milestones marking the great values to our Nation in providing financial assistance to veterans desirous of furthering their education. From the studies made in previous years for the Committee on Education and Labor, you are familiar with the various educational programs which have been sponsored by the Federal Government.

The Bureau of Wild Life and Fisheries spends money to encourage students to study fishery technology and to inform them of opportunities in the fisheries; the Immigration and Naturalization Service promotes citizenship education; the Civil Aeronautics Administration

encourages aviation education; and the U.S. Navy employs a scholarship attraction to recruit candidates for its NŘOTC units. The National Science Foundation awards fellowships for graduate scientific study. Why should not the Federal Government allot scholarships in a conservation program aimed at salvaging our young intellectual resources so badly needed in the years to come?

At one time in our history the Federal Government made expenditures to conserve our great natural resources. In supporting a Federal scholarship program, the association is suggesting that what is needed today is a program to conserve our intellectual resources, to salvage for higher education and professional careers those individuals whose talents, for lack of money, are not being sufficiently developed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, another reason for supporting federally financed scholarships at this time lies in the scientific and technological developments which the Soviet Union has so spectacularly made. Ever since the day when the first sputnik began tracing its awesome orbit across the sky, we have had tangible reminders that our survival depends on encouraging the scientific talents in our population, and on ensuring the fullest possible development of all the abilities and creative capacities for leadership in the youth of our Nation. In a period of continuing international tension, it is especially important that steps be taken to meet our manpower shortages. In the crucial years ahead during which the free world must be strengthened to resist threats of aggression and domination, it is essential that American youth be as well educated as possible, for in the ideological struggle between democratic and totalitarian political, social, and economic philosophies, America must rely not only upon her arms, her military might and powerful weapons, but also upon the brains, the talents, the creative capacities of her youth.

Insofar as scholarships are concerned, the weight of informed opinion is in favor of a program that would not be restricted to particular fields such as science alone, that would not recruit high school graduates for specific specialized professions, but that would provide financial aid to deserving students of ability without stipulating in what fields they must study. This is not to minimize the fundamental importance of science education today. Scientific literacy is essential for the future businessman, the future lawyer, the future statesman, the future housewife and mother. As a people we must become more scientifically literate. But at the undergraduate level, particularly when one-half of all undergraduates change their vocational objectives while in college, a scholarship program should support general ability, not just ability in the sciences.

In supporting legislation for a Federal scholarship plan, the Association for Higher Education wishes to endorse the following guiding principles which experts in the field have identified as sound scholarship practice:

(1) The objective of a Federal scholarship program should be to offer the opportunity of a college education to qualified students who would otherwise be denied it for lack of financial

resources.

(2) Students should be selected on the basis of ability and achievement with stipends graduated according to need.