The college population

The projected increase in enrollment-in fact, the current increase in enrollnent-is well known. There will continue to be an increasing number of students eeking admission to colleges. Assuming a major change does not take place, nore students will be in college than we have ever had before, and certain conequences will inevitably follow. If the college scholarship practices of the past are to continue with this doubling of enrollment, a doubling of scholarship unds will be required. The alternatives are, of course, that a greater number of students borrow money in greater amounts and that a greater number of students work; or that the institutions accept in greater proportions those who can finance their education and pay less attention to those who cannot. This last alternative probably will be unacceptable.

College costs

Increases in the cost of attending college are well known, but the general population may not be aware of the total cost of a college education, for many costs are not directly related to tuition and fees. However, tuition and fees alone have increased at fairly rapid and measurable rates. One study of a selected group of colleges showed tuition increases ranging from 22 percent in small public colleges to over 40 percent in some of the private institutions in the 4year period 1956-60. Even the large public institutions showed increases of 37 percent.

But in spite of the increases in tuition, it is still possible to attend a substantial number of institutions with very low fees. An Office of Education study showed that approximately one-fourth of the public institutions had tuition charges of under $100 for 1961-62.

Income

All data reveal a rising general level of income in the United States. The median family income in 1960 was $5,620; in 1950 the figure was $3,856 (1960 dollars). Even with a median family income of $5,620, a family would not be able to afford a college education for many children, and half the families in the United States earn less than this. In fact, in 1960 one family in five had an income of less than $3,000 and another one in five between $3,000 and $5,000. There are, of course, significant group differentials in income. In 1960 only 19.1 percent of white families had incomes of under $3,000, but among minority groups the percentage was 46.5. As would be expected, regional differences are rather marked.

Philosophy

In the last few years a marked change in the philosophy of aid to students has occurred. Loans are now a much more prominent part of the financial aid picture than they were 7 or 8 years ago. Furthermore, the Federal Government has recognized, in definite financial ways, a relationship between the needs of the country and an adequate number of educated people, as is indicated by the National Defense Education Act.

Another significant change has occurred in the States, many of which now have scholarship and loan programs. Although State scholarship programs have existed for many years to attract people into certain occupations (such as teaching and nursing), the States have recognized only recently a need for general financial assistance; and large State scholarship programs are limited to those States with substantial resources.

The effect of a scholarship program on institutional income

Would a Federal scholarship program be a way of getting money into the colleges and universities? One study [123] has suggested that scholarships and support of the institution might go hand in hand. “One of the trickiest problems in the student aid field, especially from sources outside the college, is the tie-in of student aid with the financial support of the institution, and the widespread tendency to confuse student support with institutional support." [123, p. 55] It is easy to raise tuition and offset some of the possible repercussions

is separated from support of the institution, this study warns that one d the effects of a massive Federal scholarship program might be to escam: increases in student charges. (Although the reference is to a "massive ¦ euerz program, presumably the argument would apply to any "massive” program Federal, state, or private.)

Whether a scholarship program would lead to an increase in tutt' be debated. It seems reasonable to assume that a scholarship program z to a small amount per person per year would not lead to a tuition increase as readily as a large grant might, nor would a program in which the scholars meets the difference between the money the applicant has and the ava needs to attend a given institution. It has been said that the GI bili led 's creases in tuition. However, the increase in tuition and fees in 99 privately org trolled institutions was only 38 percent between 1939 and 1947, an eight year riod; and 21 percent between 1947 and 1951. In these same institutions th? and fees increased 24 percent between 1927 and 1931, 25 percent between 15) a 1955, and 40 percent between 1955 and 1959. In 33 public institutions perven”, „* increases (for resident students) were smaller. However, the largest in, rea was 31 percent (1955-59), with only a 22 percent increase between 1974 -1947, a 19 percent increase for the 1927-31 period, and an 18 percent it te we for 1951-55 period. In dollars, the increase in the private institutions was 8.s between 1955 and 1959, and only $219 between 1947 and 1955, a period twice as long and one in which the benefits of the GI bill were large. Although be amounts are different, the same relationship exists for resident students at 17 institutions. If there is a direct relationship between the GI bill and incPRAY in tuition, it is not readily observable. The GI bill, and particularly the fu that veterans paid nonresident fees, may have led to some increases, but n creases in tuition charges are based on more fundamental factors and have continued in the absence of any large scholarship program.

The argument, if there is one, should not be limited to scholarships Ste the practice of taking out loans to avoid disturbing one's investments be co more prevalent and more widely recognized, colleges and universities r ** look on this practice as justification for additional increases in tuition. 8 this happen, loans as "financial aid to students" would widen the gap between college costs and what the needy but talented could pay.

A Brookings Institution report [113] discusses the possibility that a 'p ship program would lead to tuition increases and states that it "does not see" desirable to use a massive Federal scholarship program as a means of chatte, tá Federal funds into the operating budgets of educational institutions" However "a limited scholarship program (perhaps 30,000 to 50,000 scholarships a year designed primarily to reach bright students in genuine need, does seem to le needed." [p. 174] By keeping the stipend low and limiting eligibility on the basis of taxable income, such a program "would be of no real assistance te higher educational institutions."

It should be noted that the same attitude toward increasing student aid es not prevail in the graduate area. Here education in the United States ser-s to be moving rapidly toward almost complete stipend support, particulară a certain disciplines. There has been no suggestion that this support has let it will lead, to increased tuition rates, in spite of the fact that most graduate stipends are awarded without considering the financial need of the applicant Are loans a substitute for scholarships!

A large number of people are being reached by loan programs. The NDFA program, in particular, has a reasonably documented statement of effect.repos in aiding those who needed money to attend college. Possibly-in fact, probabay the loans made by colleges of their own funds would show a similar effectiveness But when commercial loans are examined, one finds that the basis of opera'** frequently substitutes credit standing for need. Thus a distinction shojid be made between loans that are based on need and loans that are simply investmen”. and bear little relationship to need or to ability.

Loans based on need have the effect of passing costs on to the next generation and of putting the cost of undergraduate education on students from ec nem cally deprived families. At the other levels of education this does not appea”

schools, and fellowships provide for a large segment of the graduate school population. Furthermore, as college costs continue to rise, the ceiling on individual loans under the NDEA may have to be raised.

Loans for which the institution assumes a responsibility for collection, as in the NDEA program, may in time become a burden to the institution. The period of repayment may extend over ten years (longer if the student enters military service), and students may move so that they become difficult or impossible to locate.

A U.S. Office of Education statement [55] summarizes the status of NDEA loans as of October 1962:

"Information from the Office of Education derived from account reports of 1,452 colleges in the program last year shows the following:

Total accounts on which payments or cancellation for teaching had been made, 25,482. Total repayments of principal and interest, $2.8 million. In 1,100 colleges, all required repayments were made on time, and in 352 institutions a total of 1,989 payments due as of November 30, 1961, were late. No institution reported an account as uncollectible, and as the figures above show, the 8 percent late payments were concentrated in less than 25 percent of the participating colleges."

The record on defaulted loans appears to be good, but the time for repayments has not been long. In general, the longer the time allowed for repayment, the higher the rate of default will be. Thus both mobility and time-as well as low income in some fields and increasing family responsibilities-work against ease of collection.

Loans may supplement scholarships and in many instances may provide all the funds needed. But they are not adequate substitutes. There are many occupations in which the income is too small to repay a substantial loan incurred during undergraduate days. A large indebtedness might also prevent a capable college graduate from undertaking graduate work or entering professional training. Graduate fellowships are frequently awarded without reference to the financial need of the recipient. However, the extent of Federal assistance through fellowships at the graduate level may not be fully recognized, for there is no central source of information about them. Some idea of the extent of Federal aid may be obtained from a recent description of the NASA program. [48] In the 196465 academic year the NASA program is expected to level off at the annual intake of 1,350 students a year, with about 4,000 per year spread over the three-year training period. The National Science Foundation has 2,700 fellowships in academic year 1962-63; the NDEA provides a maximum of 4,500 fellowships, about half of them in science and engineering, and the National Institutes of Health has about 1,000 predoctoral fellowships in academic year 1962-63. Assuming a continuation of the agency fellowships at the indicated rates, these four Federal agencies will be aiding, at a given time, over 12,000 graduate students. Stipends for these fellowships range from $1,800 to $2,400 per individual. This total of 12,000 graduate students takes on added significance when it is remembered that the largest number of doctorates awarded in all fields in any year up to 1960-61 was 10,575.

There are other Government fellowship programs, notably those designed to assist foreign students in this country. It is impossible to get accurate data on the number of foreign undergraduate and graduate students in this country with assistance from the United States Government. Some of this aid apparently goes to undergraduates, but the bulk of it presumably assists graduate students. The Department of Defense makes graduate education available to some of its career people, and other agencies of the Government may also do so. The United States Government's involvement in offering financial assistance in one form or another obviously affects a substantial proportion of graduate students. Can-or should the student work his way through college?

Many people who worked their way through college to feel that because they did it, capable but needy students of today should also be able to solve their problems through work. They tend to overlook two things: The rapidly rising cost of higher education and the substantially higher standards. It is still possible for a student with sufficient ability and sufficient motivation to work his

more difficult today to earn the total cost of a college education while attending college; and because of increased academic requirements it is more difficult to get through-or remain in college-than it was in a past generation. The cost to a student in time, in effort, and in the sacrifice of full opportunity to learn may be so great, particularly if he cannot attend college near home, as to be almost prohibitive. And "working one's way" becomes relative. Probably few of those who make such a claim actually did so entirely; many received help in some form. Studies show that large numbers of students today are working to help pay their college expenses. (At the University of Wisconsin, for instance, 91 percent of the undergraduate men and 77 percent of the undergraduate women had summer jobs. [67]) A Federal program of scholarships would help only those whose financial condition makes it practically impossible to attend college without both the scholarship and employment on a summer or part-time basis (unless special provision were made for acceleration by summer attendance). Implications of a Federal program for admissions

The implications for college admission may be summarized as follows. Small scholarship grants would not add to the admissions problem of expensive institutions because the grants would be inadequate for these institutions. These institutions, however, might divert some of their present scholarship funds to this new group and improve the use of their money and, possibly, the quality of their students. Public institutions might, and should, receive additional ap plications from this group. Most of them have the right to be selective-to take "good" rather than "all" students-and would simply improve the quality of the student body by more rigorous selection. If that could be done, that is, if the institution has to take all applicants, it still has recourse to guidance or to academic attrition.

Thus a large scholarship program-Federal, state, or private does not have to be a burden on the institutions. On the contrary, it should be a most welcome asset by potentially increasing the quality of its students, its processes, and its products.

As to the techniques of admission, a large scholarship program would add little burden to the admissions office. Such programs probably would depend on class rank or tests for selection. Admissions officers are accustomed to these.

10. CONCLUSION

There are economic barriers, and particularly socioeconomic barriers, which deprive capable students of a higher education and deprive the nation of their services at the level at which they could perform. The question is not: Should these barriers be removed? The question is: How should the barriers be reduced? "Differences in educational opportunity will never be completely eradicated, but they must be reduced in scope and significance. Americans rightly resent the disparities of social background and the prejudices which limit the recogni tion of talent wherever it occurs. They will continue to do so as long as such disparities and prejudices exist" [47, p. 7].

The task is not yet being done satisfactorily by the states, by private individuals and organizations, or by the colleges and universities. The data show conclusively that there is a segment of the population with insufficient funds to educate their children to the maximum level of capability. There is no rea son to assume that national needs for educated manpower will diminish; in fact, the evidence is that needs will increase. All youth with talent are not being identified early enough-or at all-to provide them with the incentive and the education they need.

A Federal scholarship program designed to identify, in time, those students with great potential, to encourage able students to develop their talents, and to help all students regardless of the socioeconomic conditions of their families by making available small scholarships and by providing hope would go a long way toward reducing the barriers to equal opportunity.

EXHIBIT XXXI*

[Excerpts from the 1963 "Report on the National Defense Education Act, Fiscal Years 1961 and 1962," compiled by the U.S. Office of Education]

TITLE III. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Annual authorization for equipment, materials, and minor remodeling: $70 million: From each appropriation, not more than 2 percent may be reserved for allocation to territories and possessions according to their respective needs and 12 percent is reserved for loans to nonprofit private schools.

Annual authorization for State supervisory and related services and administration of State plans, $5 million: From each appropriation for supervisory services, not more than 2 percent may be reserved for territories and possessions.

The scientific and technological revolution has challenged the schools to produce a corresponding revolution in classroom instruction. More knowledge and know-how must be communicated to more pupils more effectively, despite a chronic teacher shortage. In the science and mathematics courses, content and method must be continually updated to reflect the changes caused by research breakthroughs, automation, and space exploration. New concepts must be introduced to more students earlier in their school life. At the same time, students must be taught greater language competencies to prepare them for world responsibilities. These changes require, among other things, modern laboratory equipment, audiovisual aids, and up-to-date instructional materials and methods to render teaching more effective and to conserve teacher time.

Taken together, reports and surveys by State and by private school officials gave a consistent picture of progress during fiscal years 1961 and 1962 toward meeting these challenges and accomplishing the goals of title III. In the subGject areas of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, title III funds were used to equip and remodel classrooms for improved instruction, to revise methodology and course content, and to raise the number and quality of courses offered.

A. ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT AND MINOR REMODELING

GRANTS TO STATES

Authorization: Fiscal 1961: $61,600,000 (including payments to territories). Fiscal 1962: $61,600,000 (including payments to territories).

Appropriation: Fiscal 1961: $47,520,000. Fiscal 1962: $47,520,000.

Basis Matching basis 50-50 by State and/or local funds.

Provisions: Funds are provided for payments to the States and territories to help finance local projects to improve instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages through purchase of laboratory and other special equipment, including audiovisual materials and equipment and printed materials (other than textbooks), and for minor remodeling of existing classrooms for the use of the equipment acquired.

An amount of 2 percent is reserved for territories and possessions and is allotted among them according to their needs. A State's share or allotment is based on a formula reflecting relative school-age population and relative income per school-age child within the State. Federal payments to the State must be matched dollar for dollar by State and/or local funds. A State's allotment remains available for 2 years.

To receive Federal funds, a State must have an approved State plan which sets forth: (1) A program under which funds paid to it will be expended solely for State-approved local elementary and/or secondary school projects for the acquisition of laboratory or other special equipment and materials to strengthen instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, and for minor remodeling of laboratory or other space used for such equipment and materials.

(2) The criteria for determining the priority of such projects.

(3) A provision affording opportunity for a hearing before the State education agency to any applicant for a project.

(4) A provision for the establishment of standards for laboratory and other special equipment acquired with assistance under this title.

(5) A program of State supervisory and related services designed to strengthen instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages.

(6) A provision for administration of the State plan, stating that the education agency will be the sole agency for administering the plan, for necessary reports to the U.S. Commissioner of Education, and for proper fiscal control and fund accounting.

Forty-nine States, the District of Columbia, and the three territories received $29.6 million in Federal funds for the acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling in fiscal year 1961. In fiscal 1962, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and the 3 territories received $44.1 million. (See tables 4 and 5.) By June 30,

*NOTE: This exhibit should be considered in conjunction with materials relevant to Title IV-B beginning on p. 4188 ff.