« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
On page 3, delete lines 10, 11, and 12. On page 5, change line 2 to read, “construction of the housing or other service buildings and facilities and the”.
Also on page 5, change lines 4 and 5 to read, "improvements to permit its use for housing or other service buildings and facilities."
Also on page 5, change lines 9 to 14 to read, “(h). 'Other service buildings and facilities' means (1) new structures, whether separate or parts of other structures, suitable for use as cafeterias or dining halls, and (2) structures, whether separate or parts of other structures, suitable for the above uses provided by”.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Dr. Magrath, did you understand that the college-housing program as enacted in 1950 was a program dependent upon the housing needs for the GI students only?
Dr. MAGRATH. Well, I did not quite so understand it. That was the immediate cause for the enactment of the legislation, but I think there is a much longer range situation involved under the title that the institutions will have to provide for in the next 10 years.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Is it your feeling that generally in educational circles with which you are well acquainted that they believe it was for the GI's?
Dr. MAGRATH. I did not so understand it at the time.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Does the fact that the GI loan is dwindling have any effect upon the continuing need for the college-housing program?
Dr. MAGRATH. We knew that the number of GI students would decrease, but every study that I have seen indicated that there would be a continued number of students who would take the place of GI students, and that the increase in the number of students continually seeking college education was going to require vast expenditure not only for housing but for other purposes.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Dr. Magrath, the Hoover Commission report contains this statement:
The demonstrated ability of colleges to secure such loans elsewhere compels us to conclude that this program is no longer necessary.
Was the opinion and advice of college associations sought by the Commission, as far as you know? Did you or anyone that you know of in the college field and the college associations give such a recommendation to the Hoover Commission?
Dr. MAGRATH. I do not see how anyone that I know of possibly could have done so, because every college and every administrative officer of a college I have heard of is seriously facing the question of what we are going to do and how we are going to provide for the large number of students that are going to come to our institutions in the next 10 to 15 years.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you agree with that statement of the Hoover Commission?
Dr. MAGRATH. I do not, sir.
Senator FULBRIGHT. You do not. As far as you know, you do not know any responsible educator that does?
Dr. MAGRATH. I have not heard of any, sir.
It was never contemplated and is not now desired that a Federal subsidy to higher education should be involved.
Are you speaking only for yourself or are you speaking for the association ?
Dr. MAGRATH. I think the associations all agree that there is no question but what colleges and universities will meet the cost and amortization schedules. I do not think there has been any default thus far in any of the payments.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Speaking for myself, I cannot quite go so far that I do not desire a subsidy. I see no reason why we should not subsidize education as we do airplane manufacturers, roads, and a miscellaneous number of other activities. I think the greatest neglect in this country is education. So I would not agree that we do not desire it. I think it is very desirable to try to improve our educational system, and this is one way to do it without a subsidy. I would like to have a subsidy. I wanted the record clear that I did not agree with that part of it.
Do you have anything further to say to the committee? Dr. MAGRATH. No, sir. Senator FULBRIGHT. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble of coming here.
Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Magrath would not like to make a part of the record the membership of the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government and the list of consultants and observers. I would say that the eminence of these gentlemen would have a good deal of weight, in my mind at least.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes. I think the list that accompanies this statement should be included in the record.
Dr. MAGRATH. I think, sir, I so requested and you accepted it.
COMMITTEE ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERN
MENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. J. L. Morrill, Chairman, president, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 14,
Minn.; Conrad Bergendoff, president, Augustana College, Rock Island, Ill.;
Leonard Carmichael, secretary, Smithsonian Institute, Washington 25, D. C. Carter Davidson, president, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. T. Keith Glennan, president, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio. Gordon Gray, president, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C. Henry T. Heald, chancellor, New York University, New York 3, N. Y. Althea K. Hottel, dean of women, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. Deane W. Malott, president, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Robert F. Poole, president, Clemson College, Clemson, S. C. Edward B. Rooney, S. J., executive director, Jesuit Educational Association,
49 East 84th Street, New York 28, N. Y. R. F. Thomason, dean of admissions and records, University of Tennessee, Knox
ville, Tenn. W. Fred Totten, president, Flint Junior College, Flint, Mich. Raymond Walters, president, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. Roscoe L. West, president, State Teachers College, Trenton 5, N. J. Arthur S. Adams, ex officio; president, American Council on Education. Raymond F. Howes, secretary; staff associate, American Council on Education. Joseph C. Kiger, assistant secretary; staff associate, American Council on Edu
Jesse P. Bogue, executive secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges,
1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Helen D. Bragdon, general director, American Association of University Women,
1634 I Street NW., Washington 6, D. C. Theodore A. Distler, executive director, Association of American Colleges, 726
Jackson Place NW., Washington 6, D. C. Robert P. Fischelis, secretary, American Pharmaceutical Association, 2215 Con
stitution Avenue NW., Washington 7, D. C. Evron M. Kirkpatrick, executive director, American Political Science Associa
tion, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Ralph E. Himstead, general secretary, American Association of University Pro
fessors, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Frederick G. Hochwalt, Rt. Rev. Msgr., secretary general, National Catholic
Educational Association, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Harry H. Lunn, Jr., president, United States National Student Association, 1234
Gimbel Building, Philadelphia 7, Pa. James McCaskill, director, division of legislative and Federal relations, National
Education Association, 1201 16th Street NW., Washington 6, D. C. Charles P. McCurdy, Jr., executive secretary, the State Universities Association,
1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Raymond F. McLain, general director, Commission of Christian Higher Educa
tion, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of Amer
ica, 297 Fourth Avenue, New York 10, N. Y. M. D. Mobley, executive secretary, American Vocational Association, 1010 Ver
mont Avenue, Washington 5, D. C. G. Kerry Smith, secretary, Association for Higher Education, National Educa
tion Association, 1201 16th Street NW., Washington 6, D. C. Ernest T. Stewart, Jr., executive secretary, American Alumni Council, 1785
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. Russell I. Thackrey, executive secretary, Association of Land-Grant Colleges and
Universities, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C. M. H. Trytten, director, Office of Scientific Personnel, National Research Council,
2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington 25, D. C. J. Fletcher Wellemeyer, consultant, American Council of Learned Societies, 1219
16th Street NW., Washington 6, D. C. Dael Wolfle, administrative secretary, American Association for Advancement of
Science, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 503, Washington 6, D. C.
Miss Margaret S. Banister, Office of Public Information, National Organizations
Branch, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington 25, D. C. Ernest V. Hollis, Chief of College Administration, United States Office of Educa
tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington 25, D. C. Col. Miles R. Palmer, United States Air Force, Chief, Education Division, Office
of Armed Forces Information and Education, Department of Defense, Washington 25, D. C.
Senator FULBRIGHT. The next witness is Mr. Hurst Anderson, President of American University, who I believe is to be accompanied by the Reverend Father T. Byron Collins, of Georgetown University, and Joseph Solterer, professor of economics, Georgetown University. We welcome you this morning. Are these two gentlemen to accompany you?
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDERSON. They will wish to testify, supplementary to my statement.
Senator FULBRIGHT. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HURST R. ANDERSON, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSO
CIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES, ACCOMPANIED BY FATHER T. BYRON COLLINS, AND JOSEPH SOLTERER
Mr. ANDERSON. As chairman of the legislative committee of the Association of American Colleges I am very grateful for this opportunity of presenting to your committee the views of my association on a bill which we believe to be of crucial importance to the welfare of higher education.
The Association of American Colleges is a voluntary, nonprofit organization of colleges of liberal arts and sciences. It has a membership of over 700, composed both of independent colleges and of liberal arts colleges of multipurpose universities, public and private. Its purpose is to maintain and strengthen the liberal arts and sciences in the colleges and universities of America, and the place of the church-related and independent colleges in America.
My association is a constituent member of the American Council on Education and is in complete agreement with the testimony given to this committee on behalf of the council on the value of the college housing program to higher education in the United States and the continuing need of our colleges and universities for such facilities.
I shall not waste the committee's time by going over the ground already covered by that testimony. I shall simply try to explain to you why the overwhelming majority of our member colleges supports the bill that is before your committee as a means of removing some of the obstacles that have prevented the college housing program from achieving its intended purpose as fully as it might.
I should state at the outset that the Association of American Colleges represents the bulk of the colleges and universities that have made use of the program, or would have done so had it been practicable for them, or still hope to do so in the near future. This is because most, though by no means all, of our members are privately endowed institutions, and in general private institutions stand in greater need of such facilities than institutions supported out of public funds.
In an attempt to obtain precise information on our members' experience of the program and their views on possible improvements, the legislative committee of the association made a systematic inquiry of all member colleges and universities in the continental United States.
That inquiry showed that at least 133 colleges and universities, or 18 percent of our total membership, had received or applied for loans under the program.
Senator Douglas. May I ask a question? I notice that you combine those who have received loans and those who have applied for loans. Do you have a breakdown as to the number who received loans ?
Mr. ANDERSON. I think that comes here in this paragraph. Eightysix other institutions stated that they would have applied if the conditions on which loans are granted had been acceptable. Ninety-nine more, which have not up to the present been actively interested in ob
taining a loan, stated that they were in favor of the program in principle. In total, over 90 percent of those who replied to our inquiry were favorably disposed to the program, and only a mere handful29 institutions, or 8 percent of those who replied—were opposed to the program or doubtful.
I guess I do not have that breakdown. I might be able to produce that
for you. I think we can get that. Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much.
Mr. ANDERSON. On the issue of possible improvements, the answer we received to a specific question indicated that the most serious obstacles to wider use of the program is the present rate of interest. Fifty-nine percent of all the colleges and universities that expressed themselves in favor of the program or not definitely opposed to it stated that the possibility of their taking advantage of the program would be affected by a reduction of the rate of interest. In a statement of its reasons for nonparticipation, a small private university in New Jersey said:
We have been prevented from proceeding with the program because of our feeling that we could not amortize our obligation at the rate of interest charged. It would help considerably if this could be reduced to at least 3 percent.
A small but highly reputed technical institute in Indiana said that it had "rejected a plan to apply for a dormitory loan because of inability to liquidate without charging dormitory rates substantially higher than for present housing."
Similar reasons were given by other institutions as widely dispersed and as varied in character as a large private university in the State of New York, a small private university in Oregon, a church-related coeducational college in Tennessee, a small but highly successful private college in Maine, a famous women's college in Maryland, and a State teachers' college in West Virginia.
Senator Douglas. What is the general rate of interest now?
Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I do not know. In that particular instance I think it is 314 percent.
Senator FULBRIGHT. You mean the present policy is 314 percent. The loan will not be made if the college can get 31/2 percent money elsewhere.
Mr. ANDERSON. No.
Mr. ANDERSON. That is present policy; yes.
Senator Douglas. The college got a 31/2-percent loan.
Mr. ANDERSON. The point of this paragraph, though, Senator Douglas, is that these institutions are having a hard time on the basis of fees that are appropriate to amortize the operation.
Senator DOUGLAS. I am not questioning the need for this. I am just trying to find out what the problem is, that is all.
Mr. ANDERSON. It was also stated that the present amortization period of 40 years imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden on colleges, that is, if you get the interest rate down and extend the time, amortization is going to be easier for many of these institutions to carry these