dents, and that there is now, more than ever, the need for vigorous support of higher education from all sectors of our society and

economy.

The bill being considered by this committee, in addition to extending the important laws that I referred to a moment ago, would provide additional support for the strengthening of graduate education, for special services to disadvantaged students, for the sharing of resources by colleges and universities, and for the support of public administration in our colleges and universities.

I am grateful, Senator Yarborough, for this opportunity to join you on your home court, and I am also grateful for the opportunity to renew acquaintances with the representatives of the fine colleges and universities in Texas that you serve so admirably in Washington. If I can be of any further assistance in the matter of responding to questions, I will be more than glad to do so.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Dr. Muirhead. You have testified so many times so forcefully and so elequently before our committee in Washington in the 10 years I have been a member of the Senate Education Subcommittee that it is a great privilege to me to welcome you to my home State here, and particularly on the campus of this great university.

When you reach the Southwestern States, and somebody talks about the University, there is no doubt what university they are talking about, regardless of the campus you are on, and I even find this in some places in Washington.

We are happy to welcome you here, and I will state only one fact that points up the warning you have given us of the necessity of support in all quarters for our higher education legislation; and that is the fact that the Congress of the United States has authorized $120 million to be spent this year, this coming fiscal year on building of higher education facilities. The Bureau of the Budget has asked for an appropriation of only $8 million to carry out what the Congress has authorized at the level of $120 million.

We could go on to other facets of this effort, but in interest of time, we won't do so now. Thank you very much, and I want to express my appreciation as a Member of the Senate, representing the people of Texas, for all that you are doing in your position in Washington as the Associate Commissioner for Higher Education in charge of higher education in the U.S. Office of Education. Thank you very much. Dr. MUIRHEAD. Thank you, sir.

OVERVIEW

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness will be Dr. Harry Ransom, Chancellor of the University of Texas system.

Dr. Ransom, we welcome you before this Education Subcommittee. I think there is no one in this area of the world that is as qualified and has more duties and responsibilities than you as chancellor of the entire University of Texas system; not only the main or home campus here, but the other campuses over the State; and I see that the legislature adds to your campus not by the creation of new ones, but the addition of existing institutions.

Congratulations on your broadened jurisdiction with more campuses being added, but our congratulations also for the very great burden it places on you as an administrator and upon your staff.

It is certainly a great pleasure to welcome here one of the most able college administrators in America who has the responsibility and duty of the direction of multiple campuses in this great system.

Proceed, Dr. Ransom, in your own words. Your prepared statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Ransom follows :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY RANSOM, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, AUSTIN, TEX.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is good to welcome you to The University of Texas. The concern for education which members of the execu tive and legislative branches of government, both federal and state, have shown in recent years, would be heartening even if it were not essential to the future of this country. It is history now that in the sixties academic prospects in the United States, once an occasional issue, became fundamental to national and state planning.

Each year American education in every sector reaches new crossroads. Indeed, education at every level grows obsolescent by the year and not by the decade. Surely the defense force, the labor force, as well as the invisible forces of technological, economic, and social change demand in 1968 new potentials of the mind. Hence your deliberations are doubly encouraging.

No sane educator would put formal institutional improvement in programs and facilities ahead of the defense of this country. No teacher or administrator would give his own preoccupations higher priority than aid to Americans who suffer immediate illness, hunger, deprivation of full citizenship, or the debilitating handicaps of rotting environments.

In education, however, the problem is much greater than preservation of past accomplishment or current momentum. We must bring in a new population of learners. We must provide new experiment, new educational economies, new programs, new means of assisting the learning process. Otherwise we will confront, as a national crisis, the illness of ignorance. In the end, we will be left to defend lost opportunity and dismal losses in the quality of American citizenship. Later testimony today will address specific aspects of these problems. The “overview” which you have asked me to suggest can be vastly widened by mere reference to the evidence already provided the President and the Congress from sources such as the American Council on Education and its constituent members. My observations, therefore, are somewhat personal; but they are not based upon the prospects of one institution or the needs of one state.

First, American education beyond the baccalaureate degree was once either a remote intellectual enterprise or a rarefied program of discovery. Today it is an absolute essential to our economy, our social well-being, and our maintenance of national leadership. Graduate facilities and measured assistance to those who participate in graduate programs are desperately needed. The need is as clear in the developing graduate school as it is in well-established centers of research.

Second, there is no possible means of meeting this demand unless we initiate further programs of cooperation among institutions. By cooperation I do not mean the empty educational piety which sometimes emerges from mutual interests. I mean truly joint programs, shared facilities, and exchange of both ideas and personnel.

Third, so-called "disprivileged" students have too often been considered either liabilities or moral obligations. They can be real assets. Whether their handicap is environmental, physical, social, or psychological, they deserve (and the United States deserves) opportunities for them to realize their full potential. Many of them need assistance of dollars; all of them need the encouragement of new academic understanding.

Fourth, because of reluctance about budgets or diffidence about novelty, we have hardly begun to use the technologies now available to institutions engaged in teaching. Television and radio are only two of these. They are conspicuous

because in spite of occasional failure and occasional shoddy or impractical experiment, they have been shown to work.

Fifth, as we try to meet wider obligations to American learners, we will face an increasingly painful short supply of teachers. The prospects of drawing more faculty members, full-time or part-time, from industry, government, and retired members of the armed forces are being explored regularly. Irregularly the program is solving a few of our problems. Because the wider problem remains unsolved, I would strongly endorse consideration of giving opportunity to elder members of academic communities who are able to extend and enlarge their careers either on their own or on other campuses. The benefit will not be limited to students; it will include advantage to younger colleagues brought into association with elder scholars.

Finally, I wish to paraphrase more particularly my first statement. The President's successive messages to Congress on problems of education and the historic legislation by which the Congress has answered growing needs combine imagination, courage, and a sense of hard reality. I think you should expect and I know you can expect realism, courageous devotion, and imaginative planning from your constituents who work daily at our common obligations to en lightened and responsible citizenship.

It is therefore my strong recommendation to this Committee that the Congress enact the proposed amendments to the Higher Education Act, the provisions to be funded as expeditiously as the economy will permit. By these means the United States can be given the manpower and the facilities to meet inescapable demands to be made upon the institutions of higher education in the 1970's. STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY RANSOM, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, AUSTIN, TEX.

Dr. RANSOM. Senator Yarborough and Dr. Muirhead, on behalf of the students and the faculties and the administration of the University of Texas, it is good to welcome each of you to the university campus.

The concern for education which members of the executive and legislative branches, both Federal and State, have shown in recent years, would be heartening to all of us in education even if it were not essential to the future of this country.

It is history now that in the sixties academic prospects in the United States, once only an occasional issue, became fundamental to National and State planning.

Each year American education in every sector reaches new crossroads. Indeed, education at every level grows obsolescent by the year, and not by the decade. Surely the defense force, the labor force, as well as the invisible forces of technological, economic, and social change demand in 1968 new potentials of the mind. Hence your deliberations, Senator Yarborough, are doubly encouraging.

No sane educator, it seems to me, would put formal institutional improvement in programs and facilities ahead of the defense of this country. No teacher or administrator would give his own preoccupations higher priority than aid to Americans who suffer immediate hunger or illness, or deprivation of full citizenship, or the debilitating handicaps of rotting environments.

In education, however, the problem is much greater than the mere preservation of past accomplishments or current momentum. We simply must bring in a new population of learners. We must provide new experiment, new educational economies, new programs, new means of assisting the learning process. Otherwise we will confront, as a national crisis, the illness of ignorance. In the end, we will be left to defend lost opportunity and dismal losses in the quality of Ameri can citizenship.

Later testimony today will address specific aspects of these problems. The "overview" which you have asked me to suggest can be vastly widened by mere reference to the evidence already provided the President and the Congress from sources such as the American Council on Education and its constituent members. My observations, therefore, are somewhat personal; but they are not based upon the prospects of one institution or the needs of one State.

First, American education beyond the baccalaureate degree was once either a remote intellectual enterprise or a rarefied program of discovery. Today it is an absolute essential to our economy, our social well-being, our maintenance of national leadership. Graduate facilities and measured assistance to those who participate in graduate programs are desperately needed among institutions. Now, by cooperation I do not mean the empty educational piety which sometimes emerges from mutual interests. Third-and to me this is a most important point-the so-called disprivileged students have too often been considered either liabilities or moral obligations. They can be real assets. Whether their handicap is environmental, physical, social, or psychological, they deserve, and the United States deserves, opportunities for them to realize their full potential. Many of them, of course, need the assistance of dollars. All of them need the encouragement of new academic understanding. Fourth, because of reluctance about budgets or, in some instances, diffidence about novelty, we have hardly begun to use the technologies now available to institutions engaged in teaching. Television and radio are only two of these. They are conspicuous, however, because in spite of occasional failure and in spite of occasional impractical or shoddy experiment, they have been shown to work.

Fifth, as we try to meet wider obligations to American learners, we will face an increasingly painful short supply of teachers. The prospects of drawing more faculty members for colleges and graduate schools, full time or part time, from industry, government and retired members of the Armed Forces are being explored regularly. Irregularly the program is solving a few of our problems. Because the wider problem remains unsolved, I would strongly endorse consideration of giving opportunity to elder members of academic communities who are able to extend and enlarge their careers either on their own or other campuses. The benefit will not be limited to students; it will include advantages to younger colleagues brought into association with elder scholars.

Finally, Senator Yarborough, I wish to paraphrase more particularly my first statement. The President's successive messages to Congress on problems of education and the historic legislation, which Dr. Muirhead reviewed so vividly, by which the Congress has answered growing needs combine imagination, courage, and a hard sense of reality.

I think, sir, that you should expect, and I know that you can rely upon, realism, courageous devotion, and imaginative planning from your constituents who work daily at our common obligations to enlightened and responsible citizenship.

It is therefore my strong recommendation to this committee that the Congress enact the proposed amendments to the Higher Education

Act-they may be modified by current deliberations-the provisions to be funded as expeditiously as the economy will permit. By these means the United States can be given the manpower and the facilities to meet inescapable demands to be made upon the institutions of higher education in the 1970's.

GRADUATE EDUCATION

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Dr. Ransom. Thank you very much for taking time from your many duties to come here and to give us the type of overview, the general broad statement you have given. I appreciate this privilege.

Our next witness will be Dr. William Arrowsmith, professor of classics, and university professor in arts and letters.

Dr. Arrowsmith, come around. I want to congratulate you. You are known over this country as being a great teacher and a student of higher education in America. Proceed in your own words; your perpared statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Dr. Arrowsmith follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR WILLIAM ARROWSMITH, PROFESSOR OF ClasSICS, AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR IN ARTS AND LETTERS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS; PRESENTLY FELLOW, BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, SEATTLE, WASH.

Let me begin by saying that I share the distress and vexation of my colleagues throughout the country over the draft policies that will reduce graduate enrollments by 50% in the next academic year. And I take this opportunity of expressing my hope that something will be done before it is too late.

At the same time I think those responsible for designing graduate education in the nation's universities should take advantage of the imminent, drastic reduction in graduate school enrollments to improve the quality of graduate training and to introduce desperately needed reform. If short-sighted policy is to strip the graduate schools of their students, educators should be as far-sighted as possible in planning intelligently for the future. For years graduate education has grown accustomed to policies born of random and haphazard pressures constantly increasing enrollments; constant internal crises created by crash-programs and priorities coming from outside the university; and the general headlong process of professionalization. The result of these pressures is incoherence in graduate educational programs, a disturbing trend toward conformity of curriculum, and a severe neglect of the educational needs and aspirations of the graduate students themselves.

The proposed legislation is, of course, basically concerned with the graduate programs of the second-rank institutions, an attempt to improve both their quality and their quantitative record in producing doctorates. Hence this is not the occasion for a systematic review of the problems of graduate education. Nonetheless, a glimpse at the general situation is in order, if significant partial improvements are to be made.

The overwhelming fact of contemporary graduate education is professionalization. Before this trend institutional differences have tended to crumble, and the fates of colleges and universities are more and more determined by the professionalization at the top. Admittedly, professionalization has improved university study in many ways; it is also responsible for very serious ills.

But no qualitative change can occur which fails to take account of this fact of professionalization. The graduate schools possess, as David Riesman has pointed out, "a virtual monopoly on permanent university appointments." Access to the teaching profession is controlled by the graduate schools, and the graduate schools shape the ethos and values of the students they train. Hence more and more the undergraduate schools of the country have been forced to conform to the disciplinary (i.e., professional) norms and attitudes established by the graduate schools. And if undergraduate colleges are in real danger of becoming pre