« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
school of dentistry. To establish a 2-year school of medicine would be no problem to us, but we could not possibly justify the deficit which would have to be borne by our college of liberal arts. If you Tant new schools of medicine you must have them subsidized fully and not through matching grants by the Federal Government. Does it make sense in terms of national purpose to have more medical sehools? The answer is “Yes."
Today the students in the upper 10th of their high school classes are literally showered with scholarships and financial aid. In passing. I might say there that my testimony would be probably contrary to that of Admiral Rickover.
"c" COLLEGE STUDENT
I am not exaggerating when I say that a student in the top 10th
a could get a scholarship in any one of a thousand institutions. Now there are many thousands of students who may be, let us say, in the With or 75th percentile, who may not be the top luminaries that we are highlighting today. They may be well motivated, they may be hard workers, and they, too, deserve a chance. Many of these will not be abls to go to college without financial aid since they do not qualify fo“ scholarships. If we can give these students an opportunity not by scholarship but by work grants we will do two things: We will give these students the opportunity they need; and we will keep them out of the employment market for the time being.
Senator MORSE. President Sammartino, I interrupt just long enough to make a comment about these students. In our hearings, we have sometimes referred to them as the average students or the “C” students
. They are the backbone of our whole educational system in this country. In my judgment, unless we do the maximum for them, we are going to break down the educational system of this country. But worse than that, we are going to create problems in this society of ours that many of us at the present time cannot even begin to imagine. The "C" student must be kept in college to develop to the maximum extent of his abilities because he is going to be average Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen and from his ranks are going to
our most brilliant contributors to American life. As an old college dean, let me say I always did what I could to help the superior student. That is why I said in my colloquy with Admiral Rickorer
, that I am a supporter of the honors college for the superior student. But what we have to do for every student in this country is provide him with educational opportunities consonant with his intellectual abilities. In this manner we can develop his intellectual potential to the maximum extent possible. Because of some of the problems you have already raised in your statement, I fear many college doors are being closed to him. College presidents, such as Fou, have only so much by way of facilities, only so much money. You can take in just so many.
As far as the parents of average students are concerned, you ought to read some of the heartrending letters that Senators receive.
"Where are we going to send our boy or our girl to college?” It is
by colleges. Yet let me say again, they are the backbone of the
I do not mean to speak disrespectfully of the superior student. In my judgment we are not going to have a society of Phi Beta Kappas Sometimes I think that is probably fortunate. We are going to hare a society composed of an overwhelming majority of average people in this country. What concerns me, and it was referred to briefly by Senator Prouty this morning when he asked a question about dropouts, is that so many of these average young men and women are being dropped from colleges, sometimes by their own initiative for various reasons, but sometimes because we do not make it possible for them to continue to go to college.
This is a terrific loss. There is where underemployment and under achievement are going to be found because such young people are not going to be qualified to be employed at their highest level of potential skill. It is analogous to the situation we find with high school and grammar school dropouts.
They can create many of our social problems in the future, when they become unemployed.
When I think of the cost to society of the various programs that we are going to have to support in order to take care of dropouts in one way or another, in or out of prison, on or off unemployment rolls or social welfare rolls, I am at a loss to understand the opposition which we get from so many Americans to the kind of educational program we are battling for in connection with this bill.
Granted, the legislation may need modifications in some respects yet we should face up to the fact that there is a Federal responsibility in this field. The Federal Government can help out with the type of program that you have so well testified to in your statement.
Dr. SAMMARTINO. Thank you, Senator Morse. It is heartening for me to hear your statements on behalf of the student who may not be in the upper 10th.
LOANS FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
The third area is that of loans for educational facilities. This is an area where the taxpayer's dollar can go furthest. After all, the only cost involved is the difference between the interest charged to the institution and the market rate at which the Government borrows the principal. Through your dormitory loans you have spurred the greatest dormitory building spree in the history of higher education. Why? Because everybody loves a bargain-a bargain at 31⁄2 percent. And the funny thing about it is that now private contractors are say ing, "If the Government can do it for 312 percent we can do it for 6 percent," so that you have pump primed the greatest building splurge in history. The same thing holds true for classrooms, laboratory. and library facilities.
I should like to point out that one annoying factor that costs the Government untold millions and costs us roughly an extra 1 percent
30 forth. Originally, these requirements were part of the Housing And Home Finance setup. While this complicated setup may have een necessary for private loans it was entirely unnecessary, expensive, umbersome, and time consuming for colleges.
I can have a loan from the bank through a 5-minute phone conversation. Two things have to be known:
(1) Is the college accredited?
(2) What does the financial report look like?
Similarly one Government person with a good secretary could process 50 applications a week or 2,000 a year. Colleges are not flyby-night. The last thing in the world they would ever want to do is to have to admit publicly they cannot pay what, in effect, is a mortgage. If the unexpected were to happen and a college were to be insolvent, all the paperwork in the world would not find a cure.
My recommendation is to have a separate office to process loans simply, inexpensively, and without complicated bond arrangements. You will save money and we shall save money. We have figured out that we could have awarded 1,200 scholarships for the money it has cost us to exercise Government loans.
FAVORITISM SHOWN HIGH ENDOWMENT INSTITUTIONS
May I say that I appreciate this opportunity to be heard? I would like to amend the statement I had prepared with a very brief comment and say this, that among private institutions trends uniformly favor the high-endowment institutions. Not only have they made greater gains in every area, but in some cases, even the ratios have increased. For example, income from contract researching services. which, on a student basis, favored the high-endowment institutions. in 1956 by 10 to 1, 6 years later favor them by 43 to 1. Similarly the financial resources of public institutions also favor the high budget institutions. The results of a study made it clear that the most heavily endowed private institutions and the most heavily subsidized public institutions have a near monopoly of students, faculty, and financial wealth. Moreover the discrepancies between the high and low institutions, particularly private institutions, are increasing with time. These discrepancies have a powerful impact on institutional stability and change. It is very likely that some of the more wealthy institutions have reached the point of diminishing returns; that is, that further saturation with financial, student, and faculty wealth can have no appreciable effect on the quality of education offered.
Conversely, it is unlikely that impoverished institutions will be able to offer a higher quality of education or to encourage achievement unless there are dramatic changes in their student talent, supplies, and other resources.
It is highly debatable that these great disparities in institutional resources make for a healthy situation. A radical view of the situ ation would plead for the equalizing of support to colleges.
An intermediate point of view would argue for increased support to promising colleges with low resources and reduced support to colleges with inordinately high resources. The quality of education and research are at stake in this Nation in this decision,
I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having invited me to appear before this subcommittee.
Senator MORSE. President Sammartino, I am very glad to have your statement for the record. I have an assignment to give to the staf Throughout these hearings, from time to time, I hand out assignments to the staff of the subcommittee for preparation or which I ask the staff of the subcommittee to have Government officials in other depart ments of the Government prepare for us.
I have an assignment for the U.S. Commissioner of Education and I am going to ask Mr. Lee, counsel for the subcommittee, to send the Commissioner a letter containing your full testimony, with special en phasis on your criticisms of the cost confronting universities in preessing Government loans.
I would like to have the Commissioner give us a memorandum dea! ing with the merits and the criticism, and second, the suggestions tha he might have which might be considered by this subcommittee for whatever legislative changes are necessary to reduce this redtape los
I am asking Mr. Lee to send a similar letter to the Comptroller
Now, sir, I regret that I am bound by a unanimous-consent agre ment over on the floor of the Senate which provides that I shall be the first speaker this afternoon on the pending floor subject. The bell has rung and I have to leave. Senator Prouty, with his usual gracious ness, has agreed to preside over the hearings in my absence and w take charge of posing questions he and Senator Yarborough may wish to ask.
Following your testimony, the subcommittee will hear from Hon.
I extend to Mr. Mumford my apology for not being able to stay to
I leave you by thanking you and I have already formally closed the public hearings with an announcement of the procedure to be fol lowed, keeping the record open until July 15. I thank you very much.
(The attachment to Dr. Peter Sammartino's statement follows:)
DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION
(Study made for the National Merit Corp., by Alexander W. Astin and John L. Holland)
(The following description quotes freely from the article which appeared in College and University, winter 1962.)
In this study a sample of 309 colleges (194 private, 115 public) was used. The sample included the colleges which in the fall of 1959 enrolled 15 or more freshmen from a 10-percent national sample of high school students scoring above the 64th percentile on the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (NMSQT). These 309 colleges account for approximately 69 percent of the total enrollment in all 4-year, degree-granting institutions. Fairleigh Dickinson University, a private institution enrolling over 16,000 students, is included in the sample of 194 private colleges. I shall describe the study made of the private group, then make a brief comment on the study made of the public group of colleges.
Endowment was chosen as a representative index of the college's financial resources and this endowment fund was divided by the college's total enroll
From the sample of 194 private colleges, the 30 highest and the 30 lowest on per student endowment were selected and designated as "highs" and "lows." The
ealth" of these colleges was then computed. In this report, "wealth" refers the following assets of a college:
Per student income for capital purposes.
Per student income for educational and general purposes.
Scholarship and fellowship funds available per student.
The difference between the two groups as regards "per student endowment" great. The endowment per student in the high group is 12 times greater than aat in the low group. But of immediate interest is the fact that the wealth of he high-endowment institutions far exceeds that of the low-endowment instituions.
The tabulation of the comparison of the wealth of high-endowment institutions with the wealth of the low-endowment private institutions reveals the following it the high-endowment institutions:
Student quality is higher :
Student bodies score substantially higher on National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Tests than those at the low endowment institutions.
Three times as many students at high endowment institutions aspire to the doctoral degree.
For every merit scholar at a low endowment institution there are 43 at a high endowment institution.
Faculty quality is higher: On the average 65 percent of the faculty in high endowment institutions hold doctoral degrees as compared with only 36 percent at the low endowment institutions.
The per student income for capital purposes is five times greater than at the low endowment institutions.
The per student income for educational and general purposes is four times greater than at the low endowment institutions.
The per student income from contract research and services is 10 times greater than at the low endowment institutions.
Scholarship and fellowship funds available per student are five times greater.
Paradoxically, the tuition at the high endowment colleges is 50 percent higher than at the low endowment colleges.
These were the results for the private group of colleges. The study covering the public group of colleges revealed trends similar to those described for the private colleges.
The data for the study was obtained from the 1956 or seventh edition of "American Universities and Colleges" (actually the edition includes figures for (1954-55)). The reason for using data from the 1956 instead of the 1960 edition was to show trends in financial resources from 1956 to 1960.
Among private institutions, trends uniformly favor the high endowment institutions. Not only have the "high" made greater gains in every area, but in some cases even the ratios have increased. Income from contract research and services, for example, which on a per student basis favored the "highs" by 10 to 1 in 1956, now favors them by 43 to 1. Similarly, the financial resources of public institutions also favor the high budget institutions, although discrep ancies are much smaller than they are for private institutions.
The results of the study make it clear that the most heavily endowed private institutions and the most heavily subsidized public institutions have a near monopoly of students, faculty, and financial "wealth." Moreover, the discrep ancies between "high" and "low" institutions, particularly private institutions, are increasing with time. These discrepancies have a powerful impact on institutional stability and change.
It is very likely that some of the more wealthy institutions have reached a point of diminishing returns; that is, that further saturation with financial, student, and faculty "wealth" can have no appreciable effect on the quality of education offered. Conversely, it is unlikely that "impoverished" institutions will be able to offer a higher quality of education or to encourage achievement unless there are dramatic changes in their student talent supplies and other