he completes his college education, certainly we are not then asking too much for this individual to contribute back into a Federal revolving fund so that those who follow him will have access to the same sort of assistance he is getting today.

Mrs. GREEN. If his income does in fact increase $250,000 over what it would have been if he had not gone to college, does he not, through the income tax, contribute to this revolving fund?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I know many self-made men, who have never seen a college or high school, contributing in the way of taxes. I do not think we should limit ourselves to that thinking.

It seems if you are going to train 200,000 people they ought to pay back.

Mr. GIAIMO. If these people are properly trained, as I feel they have been in the past, is it not so that they do in fact contribute back in many ways, not just through income tax but through greater feelings of obligation in many areas of society and the like?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes.

Mr. GIAIMO. Can we measure it on a dollars and cents proposition? Is there not a tendency to go too far in education and planning of any type to try and bring everything down to a matter of dollars and cents? We are dealing with education and human beings. We are dealing with something that cannot be brought down to a dollars and cents value.

Mr. PUCINSKI. This is true, but I have always felt that when a person has an obligation it is like a poker game. When you are way ahead and winning you become a little reckless and lose the winnings. Perhaps if these young people know they are going to have to pay this back, that this is not something for nothing, they will have to pay it back in 5, 10, or 20 years, I do not think it will affect in any way their ultimate development but it will help the country.

One question on these college loan programs. What has been your experience? My attention has been called to the fact we have given the universities this money to distribute to the students, but under the act we do not give them any appropriation for cost of administering these loans.

More so, we have given them no assistance in collecting back these loans. I understand colleges now, because they are starting to collect back this money, are running into some costly and serious problems in keeping track of the graduate once he has left the university and getting back this money, as the law commands them to do.

Would it be the witness' opinion that perhaps the bill and the act should provide some sort of administrative cost to help these colleges? Dr. ROBERTS. I could certainly comment on that. I am not sure that I am ready to say I think it should provide some sort of cost. I am sure I think it ought to, but I am not sure in what terms it ought to be.

I have talked with our business officers and they anticipated that they would have trouble, and they are indeed concerned. It is not trouble keeping track of the students but it is cumbersome and expensive bookkeeping. The administration of the act before you get to the collection end of it is expensive. As I indicated, we hired a whole new crew for this.

I would like to comment again on this: I think the essential thing in connection with loans versus scholarships perhaps is not mentioned in what I said a moment ago.

I strongly believe in a combination program of loan and scholarship.

The loans are set up to be available to the satisfactory student, the C student. This is good. What I interpret the purpose of this amendment to be which would provide scholarships is to seek out the superior student whose talents and capacities for education would be lost to the Nation without this sort of program and to make it possible for him to go. I think this is an essential thing.

Mr. GOODELL. I was interested in your comment about forgiveness for the women. You say you have seriously recommended this?

Dr. ROBERTS. I have seriously proposed that some sort of a plan be developed which would remove the restraints that are bound to occur in the lives of some of the women students because of the fact they have to face a young husband with a debt. Those restraints might not simply be that the husband pays back the debt, but it might be that the couple postpones the launching of their family until the wife can work long enough to pay it back.

I do not believe the committee wants me to go into a detailed discussion of some of the special features with respect to loans to women. I have suggested we ought to seek some sort of a way.

One of my male colleagues suggested in a conference in which I was engaged not too long ago, and which included deans and presidents from colleges and universities in about 17 Midwestern States, that we ought to give complete forgiveness for the remainder of the loan for any woman when she gets married. This was his idea and not mine. Mr. GOODELL. That is a sort of Federal subsidy. I do not think we need that kind of inducement for marriage.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We have an organization which has been fighting for some time for equal rights for women and they want constitutional amendments to give women of America full and complete equal rights. I wonder if they would go along with your thinking. They think we are discriminating against women.

Mr. GOODELL. I think we have been very privileged to hear both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Bunting this morning. It has been very helpful. Dr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Roberts.

We had one other witness scheduled, Miss Krettek.
The meeting is recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

AFTERNOON SESSION

The meeting will come to order.

I would like to ask at this time that the statement of Congressman Abraham J. Multer be inserted at this point in the record. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present a statement on behalf of my bill H.R. 805 to amend the National Defense Education Act of 1958 to provide for national defense scholarships for college and university

study. In my opinion, the enactment of this bill and the establishment of scholarships would provide the very much needed measure of assistance for many thousands of our capable young people who desire to go on to college or university study but for whom the cost of attending college is beyond their family income possibilities.

You are undoubtedly familiar with the various reports indicating the cost of attending college. More recent information such as that reported by the U.S. Office of Education indicates that the mean total current expenditure for publicly controlled institutions (160-61) is $1,300; for privately controlled institutions the estimate is $2,100. These estimates include expenditures for tuition and required fees, room rent and board, clothing and other current needs. If we consider the tuition costs alone of colleges and universities, we may observe that the increase for publicly controlled institutions since 1949-50 is around 86 percent while for privately controlled institutions the percentage increase is 91 percent. The estimated expenditures in 1960-61 for students in public colleges for room rent and board alone totals about $434 with tuition and fees totaling $225. This leaves the average student very limited funds for clothing, books, transportation, and other expenditures. I would like to insert a table showing college costs based upon the U.S. Office of Education information. ( (See attached charts.)

There are many persons who argue against a program of Federal scholarships for assistance to capable and deserving high school graduates. They argue that if a student has motivation toward college he will be able to make it somehow. Others speak of the possibility of students working their way through college. I would agree with the fact that there are certainly rewarding benefits to the student who is able to work his way through college. I would agree also that a large number of capable students lack adequate motivation from home and school which would direct them toward college or university study. It is in teresting to note, however, the following comment in a report by the U.S. Office of Education on the retention and withdrawal of college students:

"*** No single reason for discontinuance could be identified as most important, although the inference that the financial factor predominated is supported by its high rating importance in combination with other high-ranking factors having financial implications such as enlisting for military service by men and taking a full-time job by women. Significantly greater importance was assigned to the financial factor by students who transferred to less expensive institutions or dropped out after the first year than by dropouts from the institution of first registration during the first year.'

This study also gives some attention to the general income range of families of students who continue their studies to graduate. It reported:

66** * The median annual income of parents of nongraduating students was $437 less than that of parents whose children graduated. * * * the chances are 97 to 100 that the dropouts during or at the end of the first registration period would have a lower median family income than dropouts during the remainder or at the end of the first school year.'

I would like to call attention to table 3 (see table 3 attached) which presents a breakdown of major sources of student incomes for higher education, 1952-53. Scholarships were reported to contribute only 4.8 percent of the total student income. The mean amount of scholarships received by students totaled about $310. Other sources of student income such as family financial support, and the term-time and summer earnings of the students themselves contributed significantly larger percentage totals to the source of income. Yet when we give close attention to the matter, we are able to see that there are few families within the income range which can contribute substantially to the college education of more than one child. Moreover, the summer earnings and term-time earnings of students are seriously curtailed by the ability of the student to find employment in offcampus businesses which usually pay considerably higher wages than most oncampus employment affords.

Let us consider the question of student earnings more closely. The Office of Education reported that in 1952-53 the mean amount earned by students in term-time earnings and summer employment was $413 and $395, respectively.

1 U.S. Office of Education, "Retention and Withdrawal of College Students," U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957, various pages. 2 Ibid.

The earnings of women students was considerably below those of the male students and totaled about one-half the amount of the male students' earnings. W. Bradford Craig, in his book "How To Finance a College Education," has reported:

66*

** Students, as a group, financed from their own earnings over one-fourth of their budgets during a recent year. Most of the moneys came from earnings during the school year, the remainder from summer employment. More than a third of all students who attend college earned some money during vacations; the average amount of such earnings was $395. A still larger proportion worked part time while attending college. Three-fifths of all students-two-thirds of the men and one-half of the women-earned money during the school year. Their average earnings were $468 and $265, respectively.” 3

Indeed, resourcefulness and willingness to work to meet the cost of attending college reflects the high value which many of our young people place upon a college education. On the other hand, I would raise several questions: (1) How many of our institutions of higher education are located in communities which offer offcampus employment to young men and women in terms sufficient to enable them to meet the majority of their costs of attending college? (2) How many of our best students pursuing studies such as the exact sciences are able to meet the physical and mental demands of a full schedule with lecture and laboratory courses while, at the same time, working a sufficient number of hours to make significant earnings? In this time of the history of our Nation, when we are stressing the value of an education and emphasizing excellence in all endeavor I would question seriously those who maintain that student scholarship aid is not needed to help individuals in the plight such as I have just pointed out. We know, of course, that the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which my bill, H.R. 805, would amend to include scholarships, established under title II a national student loan program. This program has been enthusiastically hailed by students, parents, and administrators of institutions of higher education as a positive step forward in meeting student financial needs. I join with those who praise the success of the student loan program. I fully acknowledge that for a large number of students a college loan adequately meets their needs. For an equally large number of students, however, the possibility of a loan debt to be repaid upon completion of college studies is forbidding.

In some instances, students are pursuing a course of study which will continue into graduate study before they are adequately prepared to make a significant contribution to the field. We well know that the specialization of today requires college and graduate study in many fields, but especially in areas such as mathematics, science, and modern foreign language. Moreover, many students have elected areas of study which require considerable preparation but which afford very small returns upon this educational investment. Teaching, unfortunately, is still one of the professional areas which pays low salaries in comparison with the required preparation and study. Since the NDEA contains a forgiveness clause for individuals teaching in public elementary or secondary schools, I should perhaps have used some other professional area for my example, but I think the point is clearly made. There are other circumstances, of course, such as an individual's obligation in many instances to contribute a substantial part to the family support upon completion of college studies, or the responsibilities he may wish to take for a family of his ownall of which remove the use of a loan for higher education from the realm of possibility of many capable students.

I have mentioned the value of an education in these times of modern technology and complications in human relationships both within and without our Nation. Also, I have spoken of the need for emphasis upon excellence in all endeavor. Both of these factors, in my opinion, figure very highly in the total consideration of the need for scholarship assistance to larger numbers of our young people.

The value of an education cannot, of course, be evaluated in terms of dollars and cents. Yet we know that there is abundant evidence to support the fact that the well-educated worker enjoys measurable advantages over the worker with little formal education. He earns more; he suffers less from unemployment; he is more likely to find work in high prestige occupations and he returns a greater proportion of his earnings to those things which afford a cultural uplift for the total community. Everyone familiar with the direction

3 Craig. W. Bradford, "How To Finance a College Education," New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1959, p. 17.

67829-61--17

and trends of the Nation's manpower needs is well aware of the shift toward the employment of those persons with greater levels of formal education and training. A recent study showing incomes according to years of school completed by persons 14 years or more of age indicates that men and women with college training are enjoying a substantially higher median income than those with lesser education. It has been pointed out, for example that "in 1959, professional and technical workers had completed an average of 16.2 school years and had an average family income of $7,788. Proprietors and managers, exclusive of farmers, had completed 12.4 school years and the family income for this group was $7,012. Clerical and sales workers had completed 12.5 years of school: the median family income of clerical workers was $5,692; that of sales workers was $6,268. Skilled workers *** had completed 11 years of school and had a median family income of $6,018. Semiskilled workers had completed 9.9 years of school and had a median family income of $5,157. Unskilled workers had completed 8.6 years of school, and the median family income of this group was $4,089.

"Education increases the personal income of the individual. Increases in our national income and product register the collective impact of the producing and earning ability of a better educated people."

Moreover, in these times when we are very much concerned with unemploy→ ment we must give serious attention to the relationships between education and unemployment. As one report indicates:

"*** Unemployment of workers is closely related to the amount of education the workers have had. The relationship is, of course, inverse. In March 1959, 8.5 percent of the workers in the labor force with less than high school graduation were unemployed, compared with 4.8 percent of the high school graduates and 2.4 percent of workers with some college experience." 5

President Kennedy has recently called attention to the need for the reeducation of many individuals who are now contributing to the total unemployment scene of the Nation.

But the value of an education and the demands of the day which call for greater numbers of persons with high degrees of skills, training, and education cannot be understood in terms of the financial picture alone. We must, of course, consider the needs within the Nation for an increasingly more educated populace if we would continue to provide in America an example for the free world as to how an educated people move freedom forward. Speaking of education as our ultimate weapon, Mr. Neil McElroy has said:

"Our recognition of the university as a major source of our national vitality affirms a dependence that has long characterized free societies. From the days of the Greek philosophers, democracies have known that their effectiveness de pended on citizen knowledge. Representative government in its own interest has built or has encouraged the building of educational institutions to spur the individual to test his own capacities-and to help him understand his responsibilities to the community as a whole.

66*

** So we come to this inescapable conclusions: that education is and will be the key to success or failure for each of [the] competing ideologies.

"If our educational system functions at or near its optimum, our Nation will thrive and grow. If we allow that system to fail to achieve its potential, we must expect to decline as a free society." "

Higher education in America will suffer a serious blow if we do not act now to provide financial assistance in the form of national scholarships to the many capable students who need such aid for college and university study. Moreover, without an adequate Federal scholarship program to meet the needs of large numbers of our high school graduates, such as I propose in H.R. 805, we will be failing to live up to the goal of providing for every individual, regardless of economic condition, the maximum opportunity to study and to develop to his maximum potential.

I have taken time to comment in great detail upon many of the phases of the present-day demand for higher education for larger numbers of capable persons. I consider such considerations to be essential if we would realistically evaluate the national need for a scholarship program, and if we would enact such a

4 "It Pays To Go to School," Research Division, National Education Association, December 1960, pp. 114-116.

5 Ibid.

McElroy, Neil, "Education-Our Ultimate Weapon," in an address delivered at the 32d annual conference on education administration at Harvard University, July 14, 1960,