What's Ahead for Higher Education; Barnard Forum

Another speaker at this year's Bernard forum was Dr. Lewis Webster Jones president of Rutgers University. Dr. Jones spoke on what's ahead for the publicly supported University Dr. Jones. President Macintosh my Smith and my colleagues ladies and gentlemen I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in this distinguished forum the Barnard forum has contributed throughout the years a great deal to enlightened public discussion and Barnard College is to be congratulated for its leadership. My assignment today is to discuss public higher education. This includes a large variety of colleges junior colleges teachers colleges in a simple in state universities. Any institution in fact which takes the student beyond high

school and which gets the bulk of its support from tax revenues. But the most characteristic of American public institutions of higher learning are the state and land grant universities and most of my remarks will later relate to them as does my own experience. The first and most obvious fact is that the role of these public universities is likely to increase both absolutely and proportionately. Already they educate more than half the college population. I doubt that the private institutions with the best will in the world can expand rapidly enough or on a large enough scale to take care of the predicted doubling of college enrollment in the next 10 to 15 years. Some of them prefer not to expand believing that they are now at their optimum size and even larger

share of the greatly increased educational load must therefore be assumed by the tax supported universities. If any of you feel that this is a disastrous trend I hope I can reassure you I will not. It will not mean the end of private enterprise nor a lowering of educational standards nor any national loss of freedom of teaching in research until 11 years ago. My own experience as a student teacher administrators was exclusively in private institutions. Re Columbia Brookings Bennington when I moved into state universities first in Arkansas and then in New Jersey I did not find myself in a different academic world. The most important question to ask about a university is not where does it get its money but how good

is it. There are strong and weak examples in both the public and the private categories and the standards of excellence are the same for both. American universities attract students from all over the world. Among the foremost are California Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota and other State University as well as Harvard Yale Princeton and smaller private institutions as other nations democratize their educational systems or begin the attack on illiteracy. It is to American public education that they most often look for a model. But the categories private and public are neither clear cut nor of decisive importance as they apply to American higher education in their origins. Many of our outstanding private colleges

receive public support. Harvard is an example. Many state universities like the University of North Carolina were established in large part by private bequests Cornell is hard to classify since it is a private university which is also the land grant college of the state of Utah New York. In my t is another land grant institution. So is Rutgers which is also the eighth oldest colonial college. And the State University of New Jersey all colleges and universities are chartered by government and enjoy a tax exemption in their financial support. The differences are again a matter of degree public as well as private universities depend on park in park on campus and then down almost all public institutions to charge tuition. Government and industrial research contracts go to public or private

universities without distinction. And every institution of higher learning in the country is finding it increasingly difficult to get enough financial support to do the enormously important vastly expanded job which they must collectively tackle in the immediate future not to the private and public institutions differ markedly in the matter of control. I remember the heartfelt remark of the president of a church related college who said to me you state university presidents think you have your troubles dealing with the board of trustees which claims to represent the people. How would you like to deal with a board who claims to represent God. The fact is that all our educational institutions are

controlled sometimes wisely sometimes not so Rice laid by Labor words on which business and lawyers predominate and almost all must also try to explain themselves and seek support from the wider public. This is the American system and I think it has much to wreck be said for us as an instrument of democratic government. We may look wistfully at Oxford and Cambridge and the other British universities receiving the bark of their support from government through the university grants Committee. They are subject to none of the direct public control exercised in this country. They are free from the constant money grubbing which burdens the lives of American college and university presidents. No such system is likely to be adopted here so that every American University whether public or private must constantly strive to explain its aims and educate the general

public to some extent it must withstand distorting pressures and strengthen and defend the teaching of freedom that defend the freedom of teaching and research which is necessary to the unique and essential functions of universities in American civilization. I don't think it is realistic or useful therefore to put public in private higher education in sharply separate categories. And I deplore any disposition to put them in opposite or competing in hostile camps. The strength of our system as Dr. White says is in its pluralism its many centers of initiative its rich variety offers opportunity to students of differing abilities and interests. Anyone with a good idea. Some support and a lot of courage to start a college. The system is adapted to local and special as well as to national in general needs.

The important thing to recognize is that all universities public private or mixed face common problems and a common task. These are so urgent and so important that they call for the most determined courageous and imaginatively cooperative cooperative efforts of everyone in gauged in higher education. State governments have had to spend more and more on highways welfare programs data aid to municipalities and the like. The bulge in school enrollments has already hit them hard. Their tax sources have not kept pace with growing needs and the requirements of the federal budget have increased drastically. In my more discouraged moments I think we are exhausting our efforts in building larger and larger way larger highways crammed with larger and larger car

but leading only to larger and larger mental hospitals. In any case the proportion of state revenues available for higher education has fallen rather than risen and I know a few state universities which are not feeling the pinch. Almost all are inadequately housed and staffed even for today's relatively manageable enrollments. Most states and municipalities have faced the problem of the coming expansion at least to the extent of estimating the need for new buildings and staff during the next decade. But there is danger that they will wait until the would be students actually find the doors of the state universities close to them before the necessary revenues will be forwarded. It is not the easiest thing in the world to educate the general public to the needs of higher education. Many otherwise intelligent people sink seem to think of it as a natural good even as a natural right

without costs of production. Legislators have no difficulty in understanding that the highway program needs more money. As population grows and costs rise. But some of them are shocked when an academic building postponed them for several years. It's also gone up in price or is already inadequate because of increased in Romans small classes come under indignant scrutiny. But it is impossible to run an honest program or a graduate program without some individual instruction. Higher education is expensive and it gets more expensive the higher girl's university is must of course do all they can to make the professor go further through such devices as television large lectures were second sectional discussion groups adequate secretarial help and so on. Economies can be made through fuller use of facilities better scheduling

and perhaps some revision of the academic year both the quality and the efficiency of education might be improved by putting more responsibility on the student to learn and treating him less like a schoolboy. But even the brightest and most mature students must have their work individually criticized and corrected and explained. Most of the possible time saving devices are already being discussed and tried. I am continually impressed with the ingenuity of faculty members and making do with less and stretching the accurate academic dollar to its limits. The hard fact remains that buildings equipment and instruction are expensive and likely to get more rather than less so. Economies which result in PAD education practice can be the most expensive and wasteful of all devices. The real challenge of Soviet Communism

is this Can capitalist America. Allocate the necessary resources to education and research. Can we find ways to channel a large enough stream of our vast wealth into an investment in education and trained intelligence. The only possible basis for survival in the modern world. At present we far far short of doing selves. We spend three quarters of 1 percent of our national income on all forms of higher education. Yet many people are appalled and indignant that the cost. It obviously would not break us to spend 2 percent or considerably more. The Russians are said to be spending about 7 percent of their national income. They can control the proportion of the national resources devoted to education and research by a decision at the top. We have no such easy means of changing the direction of our own national effort thus our admirably productive system results

in some curious choices. We spend millions to educate people in the value of cigarette smoking. The benefits of this form of consumption are at best dubious. Millions are available to persuade people to buy a new car. Yes and this educational campaign has been so successful that we could put the entire population on the front seats of the cars we already have. Is this really what we want or need these highly effective methods of channeling purchasing power and productive effort won't do us much good if we fall behind in the competition for knowledge. We should be grateful to the Russians for waking us up to our own educational shortcomings. It is ironical that they have done it by offering a severe competition. A good ol capitalist motivation. It is ironical. Two was a Russian success and scientific accomplishment are based on the use of

another. Another time honored American practice that are getting paid incentives to call forth the needed emphasis. We all know by this time that Soviet professors are honored and highly paid and that able students have their way east by adequate support. Russia has also adopted and acted upon the conviction which inspired the founders of this republic in many generations of Americans sense namely that national strength and progress depend on a strong system of universal education. We have faltered in our own allegiance to these convictions in recent years neglecting our schools and failing to provide adequately for higher education and basic research. The idea that these things are of them vital importance is not new. Nor did the Russians invented Washington Jefferson John Quincy Adams in a long

line of our early statesman were inspired by the vision of a great new nation a free man. And by the positive promise for human betterment in the uses of science. More recently the negative and dangerous results of neglecting knowledge in the modern situation was stated by Alfred North Whitehead in England in 1916. Here are his words. In the condition of modern life the rule is absolute. The race which does not value of trained intelligence is doomed. No no no heroism not only our social charm not all you are aware not all your victories on land or at sea can move back the finger of fate. To day we maintain ourselves. Tomorrow science will have moved forward yet one more step and there will be no appeal from the judgment which will be pronounced on the under-educated. United States now

I hope. It's a mood to hear Whitehead's warning. I hope we shall not take our cue only from the Russians and launch on a sort of Olympic obstacle race for scientific supremacy is absolutely essential that we maintain our military strength. But this use of science is a negative if necessary one our only educational tradition is strong and positive. We need to reassert and re-examine it and act upon it decisively. Two main themes have characterized American public education from the very beginning. Running is to use knowledge for the development of national strength. Our father her father saw clearly that the new and struggling democracy could not survive without an educated citizenry and that the promise of this great continent could only be realized by the application of science and and intelligence to the ordinary

productive occupations. The second theme is the equality of individual opportunity. The land grant colleges and state universities are American inventions expressing both these national purposes they were founded to open academic doors to the new scientific knowledge and to make its results available for the improvement of agriculture engineering and other practical pursuits while continuing to exist to stress the traditional liberal arts. And there you open the doors of educational opportunity to all of those who could use it. The present mood of national breast beating should not blind us to the fact that American higher education with all its defects has done a magnificent job. No other country offers a college education to so large a proportion of its young people. The investment in not in knowledge and research has paid off a thousand

fold in contributing to our national strength and well-being. To take only one example agriculture the productivity of American farms is so great that we need only 12 percent of our people to grow the food and fiber for all the rest. And our main problem is that we produce agricultural surpluses. These are some of the positive achievements which inspire admen admiration and imitation of other parts of the world especially in the so-called underdeveloped regions where land grant college people are getting technical aid. The two goals of national strength and equality of opportunity are in our fortunate country aspects of the same democratic aspiration. They are still a proper guides to national education policy today. They require only a stronger affirmation and certain changes of emphasis emphasis to meet contemporary conditions.

First we must raise our educational sites. High school is no longer enough young men and women without a college degree find their opportunities severely limited and the staffing of our complex economy requires an increasing proportion of highly educated people. Both these considerations are likely to put more and more pressure on the public institutions. I think many people are confused because they tend to think of college only in terms of individual opportunity. Higher education to start of is a luxury which can be left to the ordinary market demand of those who can pay for it. Perhaps the over publicized and quite distorted picture of there are aspects of college life have contributed to this view. Why then shouldn't the students or their families pay for the cost of an education which bring such great advantages in earning power social status and the a rich enrichment of personal lives.

Another proposal is that the student should buy their own education on the prevalent consume now or play pay later plan through the provision of substantial loan forms. Still another idea which seems right spread is that any industrious and determined student can work its way through college without loss of academic accomplishment and less positive gains in character development. The letter of the latter idea finds very little in horsemen among experienced college teachers. It is true that many students can and do usefully learn something while learning but very few can earn enough to support themselves entirely if the economic pressure is too great. The losses and failures are serious. The important business of learning must come first. The notion that students and their family should pay the full cost of higher education is I think an illusion. A recent report of the office of education indicates that nearly half the students now in college

come from five member families whose total income is under $5000. Even families with twice this income find it hard enough to keep one child in college. How many New Yorkers would be able to give their children a college education without the opportunity afforded by the excellent city colleges. There is no doubt some merit in the student loan plan but it cannot be regarded as a complete solution. Feel young people could afford to assume such a burden of debt at an age when there are ready to marry and start raising their own families. And attempt to solve the financial problem by charging the full cost of higher education to the recipients would hardly reduce would sharply reduce the number of college students and move us far away from the provision of equal equal opportunity. We profess to value the loss to the national strength would be really catastrophic.

Every recent commission on higher education has deployed. Back that a significant proportion of our able list young people are and. Are not now attending college. Obviously we cannot afford to cut down the number still further. Well these must be found to induce although we have the ability to get as much education as they can use. This requires public support for higher education more nearly on the scale which we have been accustomed to think of as applying to high schools. Higher education is not a luxury which can safely be left to individual choice backed by ability to pay. Equal opportunity for the development of the powers of all of our young people is at the same time a matter of justice and a national necessity. The need for increased higher support for higher education does not stop at the undergraduate level. Apart from money the most crucial shortage in the immediate

future will be the shortage of qualified college teachers. Graduate schools must be expanded and fellowships provided promising students ought to be able to get full time to graduate study so that they can earn their Ph.D. in two or three years of concentrated work instead of struggling over or long for at for perhaps 10 years will be passed in depressing poverty as so many of them must do today. I don't think I need to add my voice to the chorus which has been proclaiming the need for certain changes of emphasis in the collie's curriculum. Obviously we need to reinstate science as one of the important liberal studies and stop accepting scientific illiteracy with complacency. We need to step up the study of foreign languages and cultures. It is hard to explain or justify the almost complete neglect of geography which most American students don't encounter beyond the seventh grade.

Our graduate schools doubtless require some reorganization and are currently engaged in some searching self-examination with the purpose of attracting and holding first class students and educating them for the kind of creative scholarship which which must be the foundation of college teaching. The present alarm about Russian scientific achievements will not I hope and believe so are so off base. We need businessman lawyers artists and a host of other competent people as well as scientists and linguists. We can surely afford to give our students the luxury of choice so that each may contribute in his own way by developing his own particular talents the kind of national strength we value will require the continued cultivation of the humanities and the arts as well as the sciences the arts are the most

lasting products of any civilization. They are universal languages speaking through the ages and directly communicable to all peoples. There are however no pressure groups behind them no clad public clamor for their emphasis. It is the responsibility of the university center selves to insist that they receive proper support. It encouraging that the great state universities of the West Middle West in the south are meeting this responsibility most admirably in many respects a year ahead of the older institutions in the east in their provision for the Arts. Anyone who does Easterners Douglas I suggest that you make a little tour of some of the Western campuses. In spite of formidable problems I am optimistic about the future of higher education in this country. I do not share the gloomy forebodings based on the belief that increased numbers will mean a lowering of quality

on the country. I believe that the pressures of necessity will oblige us to undertake some educational reforms long overdue rial vainly advocated by educators crying in a wilderness of public apathy Appa say and academic inertia apathy has been jolted into concern and the climate favors experiment. Innovation and a general stepping up of academic academic energy and initiative the crisis is extremely serious. Education is the key to national survival. The task ahead is one which will require the cooperative effort of all American colleges and universities those public and private. I believe I can assure you that the public institutions are ready willing and able to do their part.