The Space Race and Higher Education (1958)

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.