(2) A special grant-in-aid program and long-term loans at low interest rates for constructing and equipping buildings and related facilities, including teaching hospitals and clinics for medical and dental schools, subject to such matching funds as may be required by Federal statutes from sponsoring State, district, or other institutions. (3) The allocation or reservation of television channels for educational purposes. (4) Increase in the loan authorization ceiling of the college housing loan program to enable the Housing and Home Finance Agency to keep abreast of current needs. (5) Continued support for the National Defense Education Act of 1958, including the programs of student loans, graduate fellowships, and foreign language and area study centers. (6) Deductibility, or credit, within prescribed limits, for Federal income tax purposes, of tuition and other required fees, paid by taxpayers for dependents attending accredited institutions of higher education in order to provide greater equality of educational opportunity. Be it further Resolved, That the coordinating council for higher education declares its belief that such Federal aid should be made available on terms that do not interfere with the independence and diversity of institutions of higher education. Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR CONGRESSMAN POWELL: It is my understanding that your Committee on Education and Labor will begin hearings within the next few weeks on President Kennedy's recommendations for Federal assistance to higher education. While I find much in the President's recommended plan for action that will be of great benefit, I am deeply concerned by the fact that his proposal for Federal assistance for the construction of academic facilities is limited to a loan program. While a loan program would undoubtedly be quite helpful to private institutions, I do not believe that it would benefit the public colleges and universities of the country which will be expected to carry the major portion of the increased student enrollment which we shall have during the next decade. To take advantage of Federal loans for the construction of academic facilities which are, of course, nonrevenue producing, a public institution would have to raise student tuition fees and pledge the tuition income to amortize the loan. This, of course, would tend to defeat the purpose, in large measure, of the public institution, which is to provide an education for the student at minimum costs. Furthermore, tuition fee income is needed in increasing amounts for salaries, the maintenance of the physical plant, and for the innumerable other costs which we must meet. Consequently, I respectfully request you and the members of your committee to recommend a dual system of Federal assistance of loans and matching construction grants for the construction of academic buildings. Your favorable consideration of this request will be deeply appreciated by all of us who represent public institutions of higher learning. Respectfully submitted. Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, G. L. CROSS, President. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Seattle, Wash., March 21, 1961. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. POWELL: I am writing you with reference to one aspect of President Kennedy's recommendation for Federal assistance for the construction of academic facilities on university and college campuses. The President has recognized the very genuine national need to do something about the development of the academic facilities needed for our college and university population. To carry out the program, I believe that it is essential to add a program of grants as well as to include the loan program recommended by the President. To speak of the situation in my own institution, the University of Washington has been authorized to issue revenue bonds for the construction of academic facilities, the bonds to be paid off by the collection of student fees earmarked for the purpose. We already have exploited this source to the hilt. We are probably a rare exception among State institutions in having this practice, but there is a limit to the degree to which we can use this source for the future. In our case we certainly need the supplement of direct grants if we are to build the structures required. I hope very much that your committee will recommend a grant program. CHARLES E. ODEGAARD, President. Hon. EDITH GREEN, House Committee on Education and Labor, SEATTLE, WASH., March 16, 1961. Seattle University urgently commends passage of H.R. 5266 typical of the country's great educational enterprise. This private institution is largest in region, owing much to college housing program and has exceeded 7,000 percent growth over 30 years. Shortage of capital for academic facilities prevents further growth. In national interest we urge passage as amended in Dr. Case's testimony. A. A. LEMIEUX, S.J., President. STATE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. POWELL: I feel that President Kennedy's program for Federal assistance to higher education is constructive and, on the whole, will be most beneficial. However, there are some factors to which I should like to direct your attention. I might say that both of these are in conflict with the position of the National Association of State Universities and the Association of LandGrant Colleges. In the first place, the President has recommended a Federal scholarship program to be effected by the States rather than by the Federal Government. We have taken the position that any Federal scholarship program which would not provide aid to the educational institutions was not helping higher education. I note that President Kennedy's scholarship program does propose a subsidy to the institutions to which each scholarship holder is admitted. This is good and should be made as generous as possible. The President's recommendation for Federal assistance for construction of academic facilities is not going to be helpful to many publicly supported colleges and universities where the greatest burden of increased enrollment will fall. Many public institutions are unable to borrow for the construction of classroom facilities. Their State constitutions have prohibitions against this. The only way that could possibly be done would be to increase student tuition and fees in order to amortize the loan. I do not think this is proper in the building of classroom buildings. It would be much more desirable if the program were to include both loans and grants-the latter to be matched by the institutions themselves. I note that hearings will be started soon on this matter and I am, therefore, taking the liberty of expressing my views. Sincerely, I. D. WEEKS, President. THE AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC., The Honorable EDITH GREEN, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Education, DEAR MRS. GREEN: The American Parents Committee would like to go on record as supporting title II of H.R. 5266-providing scholarships for college students. Knowing that you wish to limit the time of your hearings, we have not asked to present our testimony before your subcommittee; however, we would like to have this letter printed as a part of the record. For 5 years, the American Parents Committee has supported the principle of financial scholarships to enable qualified high school graduates to attend college, if they are unable to do so without such financial assistance. This organization worked very hard to save the scholarship title of the National Defense Education Act which as you know was defeated on the floor of the House. We are happy to know that the President is now attempting to provide such scholarships in the bill now before your committee. The data supporting the need for scholarships and the facts relating to the number of gifted students who do not go on to college will, we know, be presented to your committee in full by official witnesses. We believe the evidence on the need for scholarships is so great that the Congress should pass H.R. 5266 before this session is over. The general scope of your bill, the variable stipends and the amounts authorized are good; however, this organization has one reservation: We are inclined to believe that scholarship money should go directly to the institutions of higher learning, and that the institution should grant the scholarships. We fear that the provisions in your bill for State-by-State administration may result in (1) unnecessarily high administrative costs; (2) the infiltration of State political pressures on the awarding of scholarships; and (3) unneeded difficulties in ascertaining the needs of individual students. The principle contained in the National Defense Education Act for the awarding of loans to college students provides a good pattern for the awarding of scholarships. It seems to us that the guidance personnel of the individual institutions are far better able to evaluate the specific needs of any student or prospective student than any State board could be. Such advisers are also able to decide whether a student needs a complete scholarship or a combination of loans and scholarships. Allocation of the scholarship money to individual institutions would also help to distribute money over a wider geographical area and to a larger number of qualified institutions. The method of administering the fund under your bill would, we fear, result in a concentration of scholarship money to a relatively few prestige institutions. We hope all these points will be seriously considered by your committee. We hope, also, that you will be able to act quickly to report the bill so that scholarship money might be available for students entering college in the fall of 1961. Sincerely yours, Hon. EDITH GREEN, GEORGE J. HECHT, Chairman. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Gainesville, Fla., March 27, 1961. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Education, DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN GREEN: I should like to endorse most heartily the position of the American Council on Education with regard to the proposed legislation on loans and scholarships for students pursuing courses of study in institutions of higher education. As you are well aware, the colleges and universities of this Nation face an almost insurmountable task in attempting to meet the challenge of the next decade. There are many areas in financing higher education which will present extremely difficult problems. Relief for two of these areas is proposed in the bill being considered by your committee. I have read with care the position of the American Council on Education as outlined by President Everett Case of Colgate University and I should like to endorse the position he has enunciated before you. There are two principles which I should like to emphasize very strongly. The first is that Federal aid to the States or to institutions for the construction of educational facilities should by all means be in the form of grants rather than loans. As President Case pointed out in his statement and, as you well know, there are indeed a great many public institutions which would be barred from the loan program by State laws. This is true in Florida. Therefore, a grant program would have great revelance for our constructions needs; a loan program would offer us no relief whatsoever. The second basic principle which I should like to underscore is that of making the institutions themselves responsible for administering the scholarship program. Scholarship and fellowship programs have traditionally been administered by institutions as they seek by many devices available to them to link the needs of the students with the educational objectives which they seek. Colleges and universities would be able to administer this additional scholarship program routinely within the context of their total student aid programs. It would indeed be a very serious mistake in my opinion to create a superboard to administer one program of student scholarships for an entire State. We who are charged with the responsibility for administering the programs of colleges and universities in this Nation are sometimes overwhelmed at the problems which loom large on the horizon in the decade ahead. It has been a source of great comfort and strength to note the increasing interest of the Congress in helping to find solutions for these extremely important problems. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, J. WAYNE REITZ, President. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Princeton, N.J., March 15, 1961. Hon. EDITH GREEN, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN GREEN: We at Princeton University have studied with care H.R. 5266 and wish to take this means of submitting our conclusions to you. Since our institution has been concerned with higher education in America since 1746, we wish to assure you and your committee that our interest in this important legislation is not provincial or temporary, but is related to the critical task of assuring high talent for leadership throughout our country in the decades ahead. Long experience in the search for young persons of ability, motivation, and character for admission to Princeton University convinces us that the recruitment, evaluation, and support of candidates for college entrance is primarily the responsibility and function of the individual college or university. If carried on effectively, each candidate must be treated as an individual both by the school and the college, so that personal encouragement can be given to go on to college, individual qualities of mind and character assessed, and financial aid be specifically related to family and personal needs. No matter what tests or examinations are given, or standard records processed, the evaluation of young people of high potential should be essentially an individually oriented process. To make possible such an individually oriented process of recruitment, evaluation, and support, it is vital that the process be decentralized to the fullest extent possible. Every accredited institution of higher education in this country should be encouraged to improve its procedures and extend its activities in finding and encouraging young people of potential to go on to higher education. By the activity of a thousand colleges in all parts of the country, reaching into all schools in each region, the loss in potential talent would be greatly reduced. At the same time, a thousand colleges would be themselves improved by attracting as students their share of young people of talent. The quality of a college reacts to the quality of its students as well as the reverse. We greatly need the improvement of quality of colleges as well as the improvement in the quality of students. In contrast to this decentralized, pluralistic approach to talent recruitment, evaluation, and support, the method of state-administered scholarships leaves much to be desired. In handling large numbers of applicants, State scholarship commissions would inevitably be pressed to rely heavily on mass-administered objective tests. While such tests are a valuable tool, undue reliance upon them creates serious hazards in the vital operation of assuring the best use of our human resources. Only a part of the total quality and promise of a young person can be measured by objective tests. A distortion of our national educational pattern, both secondary and collegiate, to fit such tests would involve serious dangers. Not all students nor all secondary schools are geared to objec tive tests. It is vital that the pattern of education in this country be determined on fundamental principles of what is best for the student at each stage in life, and not, by putting the cart before the horse, by what is most readily tested. In an attempt to demonstrate "validity", the enthusiasts for objective tests do not always make clear that highly significant aspects of student evaluation in terms of personality, character, creativity, and motivation must be judged through personal experience and judgment by those in contact with the individual student There is no effective mass method of processing such judgments. A further hazard in the use of State-administered scholarships is the waste of our educational resources which accompanies the uncontrolled flow of scholarship recipients to a minority of institutions. Hundreds of less-known colleges can provide an excellent undergraduate liberal education. They would do even better if they had an increased flow of excellent students. Mass awards of State scholarships would accentuate the pressure upon the name colleges of each region, would add to frustration through far more rejections because of limitations of size, and would, we believe, eliminate the opportunity otherwise possible for many excellent colleges to furnish a first-class education to additional young people of high potential in their areas of recruitment. Princeton, and other national institutions, will continue to search with vigor for talent throughout the country, but we do not believe that we should favor a mass-administered scholarship system which will accentuate an arbitrary and often ill-advised pattern of applications for college admission. It is for these reasons that we at Princeton believe that the assignment of Federal funds for college scholarships should follow the same system of allocation as that for college loans to enrolled students. Increasingly, scholarships and loans are used in combination to support an individual student during his 4 years. The same procedures are employed in administering both loans and scholarships, both on admission and on reevaluation. Questions of character and motivation arise in both. It is noted that the bill now assumes direct relations between the Commissioner and the college in the allocation of scholarship funds after admission. It does not seem inconsistent, therefore, for direct relations to exist in the allocation of funds for scholarship awards to candidates for admission. It is sincerely hoped that you and your committee will consider these conclusions which, we believe, arise out of long experience in the precise area of policy now concerned. We know from the dean of our faculty, J. Douglas Brown, who was a member of the recent panel advisory to Secretary Flemming on the revision of the National Defense Education Act, that 10 members of the panel had views similar to those we have taken, at least to the extent of favoring the allocation of one-half of the available scholarship funds to the individual institutions. The report of the panel was released by the Secretary on January 12, 1961. In the revision of the National Defense Education Act, in general, we sincerely hope that your committee will recommend the elimination of the disclaimer oath provision. We firmly believe that the loyalty oath provided adequately protects the U.S. Government, so far as this is possible, against supporting young persons not dedicated to our Constitution, Nation, and principles of government. We have not participated in the loan program under the act because we, and many other older institutions which have been deeply involved in providing leadership for this country, believe that the disclaimer oath is basically repugnant to the claimate of faith and confidence in the individual intellectual responsibility of our students which, we are convinced, best nurtures leadership. If we cannot trust our students when they swear that they are loyal, there is something wrong in our whole educational system which it will take far more than loans and scholarships to repair. Respectfully yours, ROBERT F. GOHEEN. |