What's Ahead for Higher Education; Barnard Forum

The final speaker on this year's Barnard Forum program was the Honorable Margaret Chase Smith, United States Senator from Maine. Senator Smith considered the future of higher education from the federal government's point of view. Senator Smith. President McIntosh, my distinguished colleagues, presidents White and Jones, and ladies and gentlemen, since October 4, 1957, there has been much talk and discussion about the role of the federal government in higher education. That has been one of the byproducts of Russia's Sputnik number one fired on that date and rightly so. The only thing unusual about this development of discussion of education is that it is

so belated and that it took Russian action to spark off such serious discussion and thought in our country to an intensity never approached before. Before I proceed further, let me acknowledge and point out that I am but a mere amateur in the midst of educational professionals and experts in this forum. There are many advantages to seniority, but being last on a program with college presidents is not one of them. And I don't even pretend to know even a small fraction of the answers. And actually, I am here to learn rather than to lecture.

Consequently, if I speak in some rather basic fundamentals that are obvious to you, I hope that you will forgive me and bear with me. The first fundamental is the recognition that federal aid to education is rather, a rather controversial subject. It has often been a campaign issue, but essentially the issue has been over whether there should be any federal aid to primary and secondary schools. For the greater part, that controversy has not enveloped higher education. History students know that federal aid to education is nothing new. It started with the very infancy of our federal government when a share of the responsibility

for financing education was assumed by our federal government. It came both in specific form and in general form. Specifically as early as 1787 and 1788, Congress reserved lands for the support of schools and universities. Generally, the federal government assumed some responsibility for promoting education in the general welfare clause of the Constitution. As has already been referred to this position was supported by such founders of our nation as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and John Quincy Adams. Time does not permit a historically detailed summary of the activity of the federal government

in the field of higher education. Instead, I believe the interest of your forum is best served by a high point summary of the activities and relationships of the federal government in the field of higher education. Including among these activities and relationships, are one, institutions of higher education for the armed forces, such as the military, naval, and air force academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs, the Yale University, the Naval War College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and other similar institutions. Two, the Reserve Officers Training Corps and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps units at civil institutions of higher education.

Three, contribution to the support of higher education in the agriculture and the mechanic arts in the land grant colleges and aid to home economics and vocational education beyond the secondary level. Four, cooperation with the states in a program largely utilizing colleges and universities for the vocational rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry. Five, specific responsibilities affecting higher education assigned to the United States Office of Education. Six, the Fulbright scholarships, the Smith-Mundt program and other participation of the federal government in a program of international education exchanges.

Seven, research contracts by the federal government with colleges and universities for the performance of research work, particularly in connection with national defense. Eight, GI educational benefits, nine, donation or discount sale of federal surplus property to educational institutions, 10, building loans to colleges and universities, 11, research fellowships in the field of public health, and 12, exemptions to nonprofit institutions of higher education from income taxation have been indirect financial aid. These are by no means all of the many forms of federal aid to higher education, but they do illustrate the fact that there has been and continues to be significant federal aid

to higher education, contrary to general impression. This aid to higher education on the part of the federal government has just grown like topsy. It has been without comprehensive planning. Never has Congress proposed an overall policy or program as to what the federal government should or should not do in higher education. Perhaps this uncoordinated pattern and non-comprehensive approach has been the result of the very nature of the gradual development of federal policies on higher education, perhaps it results from the evolutionary approach as contrasted to a revolutionary approach.

That I think is where Sputnik number one may have changed the picture and the approach with its launching on October 4, 1957. For since that time, there has been a heavy clamor for a rapid and more revolutionary approach of a federal government program for higher education. Heaviest dramatization of this has come in the proposals for turning out thousands and thousands of scientists overnight. Less than two weeks ago, President Eisenhower submitted a proposed program to stimulate more students to become scientists. Under the President's proposal, assistance would be provided to institutions of higher education for the establishment of new programs including fellowships with preference for individuals

interested in teaching institutions of higher education. Democrats in Congress, some of them, criticize the President's program as not being enough. And there are those who feel that great care should be taken against participation by the federal government to the point of dominance of education. Sputnik number one did not change the need for higher education. It only served to expose very dramatically the need and the failure of our nation to meet that need. Sputnik number one, no more increased our nation's requirements for higher education than did our Explorer reduce those requirements.

Instead, these satellites shocked Americans into a greater and more realistic perspective on higher education. Perhaps now more people will conclude that Dr. Teller rates at least equal importance with Elvis Presley. And as hard these developments, we all create just as much interest in the musical beat of the satellites, gyrating around this earth as in the beat of rock and roll gyrations. The question of what should be the role of the federal government in higher education has not changed since Sputnik number one.

Now have the arguments for and against federal aid to higher education changed unless it is that Sputnik has dramatically fortified the arguments of those favoring such aid. Those who oppose federal aid to higher education take the position that historically it is the function of the state and local governments to provide education. They fear that federal aid to education will ultimately bring federal control of education. They theory, startifying uniformity on the vital education process resulting from such federal aid. They charge that the federal administrative machinery is too costly for educational programs. It is their contention that the national shortages of college graduates in many fields are only temporary and point to the ever increasing college enrollments.

This is a federal aid to higher education answer that there can never be a surplus in brain power and that we must do everything possible to tap our nation's reservoir of potential first class college graduates and the youth of outstanding natural ability who do not attend college or do not finish their college courses. It is to be acknowledged that lack of money is a major deterrent to many able young people wanting to attend college. Federal aid advocates warn that any ability of the states to meet the higher educational demands could lead to national consequences and contend that in all realism it must be recognized that federal capability alone is equal to the great tasks of meeting today's

educational demands. They point out that the capabilities of the states vary widely. They claim that the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to act on a critical education shortage. Sputnik is used to point at their contention that the United States need is critical for more scientists and engineers produced by colleges. In doing so they present comparisons between what our country is doing and what Russia is doing on producing scientists and engineers. I have long believed in federal aid to education because I have been convinced that aren't all individual states have the ability to finance their own educational needs.

And I could not see why children in state A were not as entitled to as good an education as our children in state Z. I have long believed in federal aid to education because I am confident that state and local governments can receive it without being taken over and dictated to by the donor, the federal government. Yes I believe in federal aid to education, whether it be aid to primary schools or to higher education. As to the risk of federal control of education, it is minimized in federal scholarships for the aid is to the individual rather than the educational institution. I believe that first priority in federal aid to hire education must be given to individuals

rather than institutions for scholarships and fellowships ahead of buildings. The military preparedness committee has gotten out of balance because machines have been put ahead of men in priorities. The intellectual preparedness program of our nation through higher education must not be handicapped by such an imbalance. To some extent, fellowships are indirect aid to an educational institution. But the emphasis remains on the individual rather than the institution and its buildings and its facilities.

I think there is a very definite need for federal aid to meet the threat, if not actual existing shortage of college teachers. It takes much longer to produce a qualified college teacher than it does to erect a college building. And from the little I know of colleges and universities and have been able to observe as the honorary alumna of few, it has been my very definite impression that it is much easier to raise funds for buildings than to obtain funds for teachers' salaries. Almost without exception, the appeal for alumni funds is for buildings rather than for teachers.

It is again the priority pattern of placing materials above and ahead of men. I am certainly not prepared to support a wholesale program of federal aid to hire education that is without qualitative analysis. Admittedly, I speak without professional authority. But it is my definite impression that the overall quality of higher education has deteriorated considerably in the past decade or two. It appears that even though it may be the minority case, attendance at colleges and universities has become too much of the acquisition of a social grace and too little the development of intellect and ability that can contribute to the welfare and improvement

of our lives individually and our national life. There appears to be too great an emphasis in too many colleges and universities for social life. So many colleges have come to be regarded as marriage months by too many students. Apparently entrance requirements are not what they should be. Apparently to too great a degree, the society phase has replaced the serious phase of college activity. Let me make myself abundantly clear on this point. By no means do I apply this observation or characterization to all colleges and universities. Not even to a majority of them.

But I do have the impression that too many colleges are guilty on this score. And f they are, then so surely this condition did not start at the moment of entrance to college. No. It started long before that back in the elementary and high school grades where the emphasis on mental discipline has been progressively weakening and disappearing. When high school students are permitted to take such elective courses as car driving for girls or cooking for boys instead of such productive logic courses as mathematics, physics and chemistry, is it any wonder that they look for snap courses in college to make the required four-year course for a degree as socially pleasant as possible?

And the end result has been that we have too many degree holders in this country who are without any developed capabilities other than the social graces. They have not really earned that degree as they have merely served time. One of the mushrooming developments from Sputnik number one has been the bandwagon rush of urging and proposing science scholarships for high school graduates in order to produce more scientists in our nation. I agree with such proposals. But I think starting with the high school graduates is a bit late. Just by the time a boy or girl graduates from high school, he or she has not developed an interest in science.

Then a science scholarship is not going to do the trick. No. The place to start developing and producing our scientists of tomorrow is not at the high school commencement exercises, but rather as early as possible in the elementary grades. In December 1957, an air force scientist discussing the science education problem with me said, "if it isn't fun for a youngster, then he shouldn't waste his time studying science." Earlier in November 1957 at a luncheon, Dr. Edward Teller said to me, "what our schools need is a course in science appreciation." Science scholarships in higher education are not the complete answer to our imperative need for more scientists.

A more fundamental and basic approach than scholarships, which start late in the youth of a person, is to start science studies as early as possible in the elementary grades. Obviously we can't start teaching science to six and seven year old, six and seven year olds in the first grade, but we can start somewhere in the first six grades teaching our youngsters an appreciation for science and what it does for us. We teach music appreciation. Why can't we teach science appreciation as Dr. Teller proposes? If our youngsters can see what science has produced for them and for us, then surely there is a good chance of creating and stimulating an interest on their part for science, for learning more about science. After all, one of the basic characteristics of a youngster is curiosity.

He has a curiosity by nature and for nature. And nature is not so unrelated to science that there are not great possibilities for wetting a youngster's curiosity in the direction of science. And science can be fun. The trouble is that in our educational system, we have not recognized this. And we have not informed our young schoolchildren that science can be fun. To the contrary, there is too much of a tendency for youngsters interested in science to be regarded as squares, or long hairs. They are shunned because they are not interested in rock and roll and don't spend their time dancing and listening to Jailhouse Rock and Wake Up Little Susie.

In this system of social ostracism, it is no wonder that we do not have more young scientists and that we are falling behind in the scientist population. The time to start in developing scientists is not after they have graduated from high school. We can't get the most effective results by waiting until that time and trying to mass produce young scientists with science scholarships. We can't because scholarships are no substitute for individual desire to study science, for individuals feeling that science is fun, just as much fun if not more fun than rock and roll. If science becomes a fun or becomes fun to a youngster, it will not take a science scholarship to get him to become a scientist.

He will become a scientist because he likes science and it is fun to him. But he is not going to get a chance to know unless our schools start courses in science appreciation in the earliest practicable grades and at the earliest practicable ages. You may question what these observations about grade schools and high schools have to do with the role of higher education. The answer is that higher education is only as high and productive as the quality of the lower education that precedes it. To get the most out of our higher education, to make higher education even higher, the start must be made at the very bottom of lower education in the elementary grades. The personnel and facilities of higher education must not be wasted on graduates of high

school and grade schools that have provided inferior and poor quality education and training. The future of higher education is limited unless a greater sense of dedication to serious learning is instilled in the beginning and through the grades and high school. The future of higher education is limited unless there is developed in our colleges and universities, a greater sense of urgency for the development of the intellect rather than the mere social acquisition of a degree and until these changes are realized, federal aid to higher education will fall far short of its productive potential and far short of meeting our national needs for higher education in an age of space.

You have heard three addresses from this year's Barnard Forum, an annual meeting held to consider critical educational issues of the times. The general theme for this year's Forum was, What's Ahead for Higher Education? The speakers were Dr. Lynn White Jr., President of Mills College, Dr. Lewis Webster Jones, President of Rutgers University, and the Honorable Margaret Chase Smith, United States Senator from Maine. This special recorded program was distributed through the facilities of the National Association of Educational Broadcasters. This is the NAEB Radio Network.