FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR OUR UNIVERSITIES A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

CHARLES B. LIPMAN

We are much, perhaps overmuch, given in this country to the making and use of slogans. It is unfortunate, however, that they are often used with little thought of their significance or of the considerations, if any, which give them birth. Such is the case with the much used and abused slogan of the "underpaid college professor." A public which is never ready to regard critically these ready-made substitutes for independent thinking has taken up the cudgels in the campaign for increased endowments and other means of ameliorating the supposed undesirable economic state of the university teacher. Always susceptible to the power of such suggestion people generally have not stopped to ask themselves what might be the cause or causes for the conditions which they deplore; and whether or not certain changes in our university systems could be carried out which would render unnecessary, at least to a large degree, resort to the search for increased endowment. As a result of this uncritical attitude there have developed in recent weeks or months campaigns for increased endowments in several of our universities. The public has thus recently become well acquainted with the efforts of Harvard University to raise a fund of $15,000,000, of Princeton University to raise $14,000,000, of New York

University to raise $6,000,000, of Cornell University to raise $5,000,000, of Rutgers College to raise $1,000,000, and so on in other institutions. However we may regard the results to date of these campaigns there can be no doubt that they have been attended with considerable difficulty. Even Harvard University, with its large and exceptionally loyal alumni body, with the glamour of its traditions, with all the large wealth and influence attaching directly or indirectly to the oldest university in the country, is now making very slow progress in the climb from the $10,000,000 to the $15,000,000 mark. It is of course remarkable that they have so easily attained to the $10,000,000 mark in view of the numerous calls for donations to which the public has in recent years responded so liberally. But the other institutions are not faring at all well so far and it is still problematic whether or not they can succeed in attaining the desired goal. The worst of it all is that even if they should succeed, the fundamental problem remains still unsolved. Even if they could be used exclusively for that purpose, the endowments in question can go only a little way toward increasing salaries of instructors, as anyone can see for himself by computing the interest at five per cent which the respective amounts can yield. With the purchasing power of the dollar down to about that of forty cents seven or eight years ago, salaries must be doubled in order to make possible the scale of living which obtained in 1912; and even then complaints of "underpaid professors" were quite pronounced. But how can salaries be doubled from the incomes at present available added to those from the new endowments which we shall assume can be obtained? Obviously it is impossible. On the other hand, to expect very wealthy friends of our universities or even the state governments to which they belong to keep on adding to the endowments of

1 The question of whether or not the college professor is underpaid under normal conditions is one which cannot be discussed here. I think that, as a rule, he is not underpaid.

the institutions is unreasonable. There must be a limit, and one which is soon reached, to the amount of money which a state can afford to appropriate for purposes of education. This must be obvious to anyone who will reflect on the numerous purposes to which public funds must be devoted, to the necessary limits which taxation must place on the total funds available, to the present strong protest against high taxes, and to the general reluctance of legislators to increase very much the incomes of state institutions. Similarly, private wealth is very coy and it is difficult, very difficult, to separate it from the strong boxes of its possessors. It is "a condition which confronts us, not a theory." I have tried to regard this phase of the problem from every angle and have discussed it with many men who have given it much time and thought. The final result of its consideration always is to impel me to the ineluctable conclusion that, if not impossible, it is highly improbable that our universities can obtain funds large enough from bequests, donations, or state appropriations which together will be adequate not only to pay salaries which are commensurate with the cost of living, but to provide equipment and running expenses for the constantly increasing cost of "running" an institution of higher learning upon the basis now in vogue.

Among the other possibilities which university authorities have considered for increasing their incomes has of course been that of increasing the tuition fee. This is an expedient, however, which is limited in usefulness not only because the increased incomes therefrom will be inadequate, but because it defeats its own. purpose largely by cutting down the number of students registered. Moreover, and this is probably the most serious feature of the expedient of increasing the tuition fee, it is a measure which is undemocratic and for that reason, if for no other, can hardly be resorted to by state universities. Obviously a high tuition fee in our

colleges would limit higher education to the few; and even privately endowed institutions in this country do not wish to lay themselves open to the charge of being undemocratic and intended for the classes alone. There is already some opprobrium of that kind attaching to our universities and care will be exercised that it is not allowed to increase.

If, then, on the basis of the foregoing statements, universities cannot supply the needed funds from resources which are available or in sight, how may they attack the problem with more fortunate results? My constructive proposal in answer to this query is twofold.

1. Consolidation of departments or schools of certain types now in different universities. By this means the support now given to two or more schools may be devoted to one.

2. Reduction of the number of students in every institution by the system of admission only through entrance examinations.

Let us now consider each of these possibilities.

1. The colleges and universities of this country have been established and have grown to their present estate through private munificence or through state support. Whether it was an ostensible need in the state which gave them being, a desire upon the part of some benefactor to perpetuate his name, or the wish of some religious denomination to possess an institution of higher learning which it could control, there have been few instances in which much foresight entered into the foundation. Founded as a rule in times when the population of the country was small, the cost of living low, and the facilities needed for education meager, the colleges believed themselves safe with small endowments. There have thus come into existence scores of institutions with small financial support, each of which was launched into the world with little regard for its predecessors or contemporaries and the effect which these would have on one

another. If any thought was given to the institutions already existing it was usually to the effect that a rival institution was desirable. Not one of the institutions seems to have been established on the thoughtful basis that it might form a necessary and indispensable cog in the wheel of a comprehensive system of American education. It is indeed strikingly singular how individualistic our institutions of higher learning have been. Not that I would for a moment decry the development of individualism there. On the contrary; but when one really has at heart education in general or education in any special field is it not incumbent upon him to further its interests in the light of conditions already in existence? And yet such has not been the case. Every institution came to be established without regard to the effects of its establishment on similar institutions already in existence. When economic conditions were different from those now obtaining in this country, and when the development of science and art had not reached the stage of elaborate requirements for teaching and research, such a policy could be followed, if without success, at least without hindrance. And so the institutions developed as best they might from the support which chanced to become available to each of them. But as everyone well knows, those days have departed, probably forever, and economic conditions are such as to render lamentable the conditions in nearly all our universities and colleges. The result of all this, moreover, is that we are confronted by numbers of engineering schools of all types and sizes, by numbers of medical schools, schools of forestry, of education, of commerce, and many others in as many fields. Then, too, to satisfy the vanities of ambitious executives or boards of trustees, to strengthen competition with other institutions, or to comply with some form of unwarranted public pressure a large variety of expensive but little used departments were established no matter how well the