thumbnail of Special of the week; Issue 25-70 "Clark Kerr on Ed: The Money + Power"
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
And we are the national educational radio network presents Corps occur on education. Now. Dr. Carter is currently the chairman and executive director of the Carnegie Commission on the future of higher education. And past president of the University of California. These programs are based upon lectures delivered by Dr. Carr on the Indiana University campus under the auspices of the Patent Foundation. Tonight the topic is the money and the power. There are two great forces at work which make the bill for higher education rising rapidly and constantly. The first is that we're moving to our universal higher education. We're the first country in the history of the world to move so rapidly and so
far in this direction. Actually what is meant by universal higher education is rather universal access to higher education because we never will have universal attendance. The only place in the United States where there is now universal access is in the state of California. When we negotiated the master plan of 1960 when I was heavily involved in this we guaranteed to every high school graduate in the state of California that there would be a place at some institution in the state for that student if he or she wished to go on to higher education and thus far that commitment has been kept under the current circumstances of budget cuts by the present governor.
It's not sure that that promise can be kept indefinitely but this was the promise made in California 1960 the first time I think it was ever made in the history of the world. And now they are now in New York City making this promise. Beginning with the academic year one thousand seven hundred seventy one for all young people in that great city. I would expect that by the year 2000 that we would have universal access. But this policy set forth in the master plan of California in 1960 would become the policy throughout the 50 states. And what may that mean. The present time about 80 percent of the high school students graduate in our studies we're predicting that this will rise to 90 percent by the year 2000 in the state of California with universal access 80 percent of the male students who graduate
from high school go on to college and 70 percent of the women students averaging 75. Now if you say that three fourths of 90 percent will be going to college it means that with universal access to will have two out of three people in the year 2000 attending college two out of three people of college age. This compares with more like two out of five at the present time. And that's related to the vast increases in numbers. We're estimating now that in the year 2000 on a full time equivalent basis they'll be 16 million students in the colleges and universities of the United States. This compares with six and a half million today almost another 10 million and they'll comment two ways
with a trough in between the first wave will be from now until 1980 when we all increase by about 4.5 million. Then the 1980s will be an absolutely stable period. There may even be years in the 1980s when the number of students in college actually goes down. Then they'll be another wave in the nineteen nineties of about five million students. We're still accommodating the children of the G.I. and 1990s will be accommodating the grandchildren of the geodes. So we have this movement toward universal access to higher education affecting the financial picture we have another very basic development that is the law of the constant increase in the cost per student. Going back to 1900 as far as the statistics concerned
the cost per student per year has been going up 5 percent on a cumulative basis. Now 2 percent of this has been due to general inflation 3 percent of it to a kind of a special inflation within Hargett cation itself in a special inflation comes about because we have no increase in productivity. In much of the activity of society you have some increasing productivity to offset costs but in higher education all the higher cost coming in get passed on because there is no measurable increase in productivity. In 1958 the expenditures by institutions of higher education United States about five billion dollars. Nineteen sixty eight was twenty billion dollars. We estimate that by 1976 if we were to maintain present levels of
quality it will be costing 40 billion dollars and that by the early night teeing 80s the institutions of higher education will be costing about 60 billion dollars which is very close to the present cost of the national defense establishment and the costs will keep rising. After 1980 more or less indefinitely. And so there is an enormous financial problem ahead. When you put together this movement toward universal access to higher education and this law of high rise in costs year after year after year now with all these additional students coming we're going to have to create many new campuses in the United States assuming that half of the additional students up to the 16 million will take in an existing campuses now nonfunctioning means that some of them already to big will become
even bigger and half are taken and new campuses will need a Karaite by the year 2000. Somewhere between 800 and a thousand new campuses across the nation mostly community colleges and mostly state colleges and the state colleges heavily in urban areas. Just to get a good geographical distribution of community colleges across the nation. We're not looking at the population situation at all in higher education. We're taking about 500 of them and our commission will shortly be recommending that the community colleges be spread throughout the nation so that except for our rather sparsely settled areas. Every family in the nation will be within commuting distance of a community college. So we'll have these vast needs for new cap losses. When I say one implication of this is that the university which is becoming and becoming more and more dominant over the last century and at the expense of the liberal arts
college that the university will become less and less dominant as the state colleges and the community colleges grow to take a higher proportion of all the students. So we need many new campuses but the same time that we need and many new campuses it appears that we need no more research universities in the United States at all. No more universities of Indiana and Bloomington. The present time we have over 200 universities giving a Ph.D. actually about two hundred forty but 100 of these the top 100 turned out 93 percent of all the Ph Ds. And so there is great unused capacity in the other 100 or under 140 even within the first 100. And one of the crises we think is this that while we have all this unused capacity the possibility of a great surplus of
Ph.D.s in the nineteen eighties there are somewhere between a hundred fifty and 200 institutions in the United States now making active plans to give the Ph.D.. And the question's going to be what happens to them. And if they all start getting a Ph.D. degree to the compound what may be a difficult problem anyway. If you think it's unnecessary for them to give a ph that Ph.D. What can you do about it anyway. And you've seen here in Indiana and many other states this desire of college after college to be quality university and give the Ph.D. degree facing a waste of resources and potential difficulty when the supply of Ph.D. starts out running the demand for us by a wide margin. The pressure areas looking ahead I think will be these.
They'll still be a great pressure to turn out more people in the health services. Our Commission in its first report recommended that by Nineteen seventy six along we increase the number of places for medical doctors by 75 percent. Which is more than the increase in the whole period since 1900 which was only 50 percent and the same thing is true for other health personnel. A great deficit as we draw in students from more sectors of society. We're going to put a good deal more emphasis upon remedial work. That's very hard to work into the campus. We're likewise going to need to make a major shift from the land grant approach and the emphasis on improving rural society to an urban grant approach to an effort to improve the life in the cities now that we're an urban civilization.
So we then face this overall crisis of finding another 20 billion dollars by 1976 another 20 billion dollars by the early 1980s. The same time that are on a collision course with the surrounding society at the same time that the nation is fighting other priorities which is writing ahead of higher education. Aside from the general crisis there are several very special crises and I should like to note three areas the large private universities with a few exceptions are in serious difficulty. Their costs have been rising particularly rapidly with more graduate work more specialized research rising as they try to bring in students from all elements of society. Particularly they have to undertake a great deal of federal research in order to
keep their faculty. Yet the federal government does not pay in overhead. The full cost to these universities. A second area of special crisis is in the small Devol arts colleges more or less invisible colleges of which there are hundreds around the United States. They're too small for people to know much about them. They're too rural to be fully attractive to students anymore and they in particular because they don't have reputations are hurt by the increasing tuition gap between the tuitions charged by public institutions and those charged by private institutions. And a good many of these small liberal arts colleges which have made a great historic contribution are in serious trouble. And then the third group is the group of Negro colleges. And they face more problems than
any other segment of higher education. They're in great financial difficulty. Having had long time deficits in their libraries and laboratories and faculty salaries. The same time they're facing competition they never had before. Once upon a time almost all the Negro students had to go to a Negro college. This is no longer true and they find out they're losing their best students from an academic point of view. Going to Harvard and Yale and Carleton and Oberlin and so forth they find their nose in their best faculty members who are being taken by the colleges in the north and the West. They find that they're losing and sometimes almost all of their athletes as a need through athletics are sought after by predominately white colleges across the nation. They face terrible problems and what their purpose really is and great
conflicts about it. Historically they prepared young people to vote are they the black middle class and now increasingly they're faced with. These two alternatives should they not be concerned with preparing their students for participation in an increasingly integrated society. At least during the working day or should they are some of their students think and some of their younger faculty members think become fortresses for black power. There are something over 100 of these historic negro colleges. They make great contributions within the United States. The hopes of many people ride with them. And yet some of them are on the verge of financial insolvency at the present time. So we have these three special crises within the overall one
and the overall crisis this particular one of getting equality of opportunity and getting as fast as we can the present time. The chance of a young person going to college is three times as great. If his family is in the top one half of the income range for his family is in the bottom one half and that's not equality of opportunity. Our commission has recommended that we undertake some very drastic measures so that by 1976 which is the 209 of mercy or a declaration of independence we could change that ratio from three to one to two to one and eventually of course it should become as close to one to one as possible. Now as we get greater equality of opportunity this is going to have major impacts racially. Because only half as many
young negroes go to college as is true of the population at large the percentages are unknown but there are far less for the Puerto Ricans in the New York area. The Mexican-Americans in California in Arizona and New Mexico and for the American Indians and so as we move toward equality of opportunity it means a particularly great impact on the minorities within the United States. Well not incidentally on the Japanese and Chinese who actually at the present time are rather better educated than the average American. This also will have major regional impacts the chance of a young person going to college is twice as great in California or Arizona as it is in Alabama or Mississippi or Louisiana. So as we move toward equality of opportunity we'll be opening up opportunities for the mentally for the minorities and also for people in certain geographical areas. But it costs a vast sums of money. Once all the
money spent on higher education was private or nearly all of it. The present time about half comes from private sources. About a quarter from the federal government and about a quarter from the state governments and our commission has come to the conclusion that it would be desirable if this 50 percent from private sources could be maintained we think it's not only desirable but perhaps actually necessary. And it seems reasonable that it should. Two thirds of all the money in the United States is in private hands so it doesn't seem unreasonable that half the cost of higher education should come from private sources. To the extent that education leads to greater income two thirds of the greater income is kept by the individual one third goes to the to the some public agency some public instrumentality and some again it would seem reasonable that perhaps half the cost be borne privately. Now
the public share currently is one quarter state and one quarter federal. We've recommended that this be shifted two thirds federal and one third state the federal government has two thirds of all tax sources and also higher education increasingly as of importance to the nation as a whole. Doctors may be trained in a single state but they may practice every play anywhere and the same with Ph.D.s. Researchers of national concern and not state concerned an equality of opportunity is essentially a federal obligation. It was a United States Constitution that promised it to people. And so we'd like to see the federal government taking on an additional loan which means billions and billions of more dollars from the federal government. There is now going on a major battle as to how the federal money should come. And I'd like to indicate to you what the alternatives are
the five alternative ways that the federal government might give additional money if it does give additional money for these first to continue with a category called programs which are programs where the federal government says certain money is available you apply for a research project or constructing a building. A second approach and there are a number of bills in Congress now used to give. Relief to the parents to give them tax deductions heavy tax deductions for students and college. My third approach is to give it to the students and let the students take it wherever they want to go. A fourth approach is to give it to the states as Canada has done to the provinces and that the governor suspended. And I think the approach. Is to give it to the institutions either in a lump sum say here it is spend
it as you wish or to give it to the institutions. I want to as they perform a service as a kind of a cost of education allowance under the G.I. Bill. We're facing the prospect that the federal government if we were to keep up the call of higher education on top of the 5 billion and outputs should be put in another 7 billion by 976 another 7 billion a year by 1990 and the 5 billion the federal government's put in to date has made an enormous difference to higher education putting higher education in the direction of science and research and so forth. We're not talking in the early 1980s in the federal government put in not 5 billion but more like 20 billion. And the impacts of that 20 billion a year can also be enormous how this money comes and how it's spent these additional billions will gravely affect powre gravely affect directions of growth
rate even affect social justice. I like to make these comments about. First of all about the short run. First with their great priority before the United States is to get equality of opportunity we've been promising it for almost two centuries and now we've not fulfilled it. And that is seems to me should be the number one priority before all of higher education in the United States. Second that is going to be better for the money to go through many hands rather than just one. Do you look at countries around the world as the money goes through the hand of a single agency. You tend to get the control of the single agency if you want to maintain the autonomy of the campus. There's advantages in having the sources of money be multiple. Third it does appear that investments and skills do have. Some substantial economic payoff in that particular we need more
investment in the health skills the health services. Fourth I think looking at how we spend money we ought to take a closer look at the money we're spending on research. We've gone through a period when we assume that all research has both good research and desirable socially. I think we need to take a closer look at to whether or not the research is of the high quality we sometimes hope it would be or think it would be and whether all of it is really of social value. Fifth I think we should take a look as to whether or not we should be giving free service to so many elements of society. Trade are free good for farmers and industrialists and so forth. Should we not be charging for the service. And then you know any time you find out whether it's really worth something to somebody is if you charge for Otherwise we're subsidizing people who will pay you for these services. I think sixth we have to be particularly
certain. Let me find some way to aid the three crisis areas I mentioned before are the large private universities the private liberal arts colleges particular the invisible ones and above all the historic negro colleges. And seventh I would suggest we ought to take a look at how we spend our money internally. I have a feeling that the standard ratio of spending twice as much on an upper division student is on a lower division student is quite wrong. When the student needs the most attention is when the first he or she first comes in we want to be rearranging our internal priorities and putting more emphasis on the lower division student. Now the long run the year 2000 and I want to make this unpopular suggestion or at least share with you a concern. What is with me a growing conviction and it's this. Assuming that you have a base for all base of equality of opportunity
so that no one is deprived of higher education for economic reasons I should like to suggest that there is some reason to think that as we move toward the year 2000 we should be establishing an advent Tahj a system of loans for students and then relying more on tuitions and less on public funds. The people who get educated benefit in a monetary way since they benefit the most. Perhaps they should pay the most. Second what not be less regressive is it really fair to say that the low income and a lot of delegate people should be subsidizing the high income and the high ability people. Third will not institute sions have more autonomy in the long
run if they receive the money from students rather than from the state. Forth with this system not give more choice for students more influence to students. Would this not result in a greater variety of campuses around the nation as students exercise their consumer choice. Might there not be less of a collision course than we are now on the collision course between the end of the insatiable demands of higher education and increasing public resistance next. Should we not be trying to get the maximum access to the rather affluent private sector of the American society without making such great demands on the Rive or the poverty stricken public sector and seventh and finally related to that.
Can we not make a case that public funds restricted as they may be ought to be reserved as far as possible for higher priority needs. And there are many of them including elementary and secondary education. In my own experience and as I see in the experience of others around the world I've been impressed how when the money comes from the state control goes with it more and more a line item control more and more control over buildings. So I've been worried about the impacts on autonomy as I've seen more of the situation at home and abroad. I've been concerned about diversity noticing that it's a private colleges which have the better chance of being innovative. I was involved in creating three new campuses each of them somewhat innovative in the state of California at Santa Cruz and Irvine and San Diego and the battles we had to fight to get anything new or different undertaken
Santa Cruz the most innovative at all. We had a fight battle after battle with the border regions in Sacramento because it wasn't being done exactly according to formula exactly according to the tried and true ways. So I've come to worry about diversity. If it all becomes public. We have some major controversies now over the money and power. I think we're facing even greater controversies in the future. We may even be facing some minor or even major disasters unless we work the problems out satisfactorily in a satisfactory way. So I would suggest that from now on up to the year 2000 all of us in higher education should be very concerned with the money the power the direction of change and with social justice. Clerk around education is a series of programs based upon lectures delivered on the Bloomington
toppers of Indiana University under the auspices of the Patent Foundation. Clocker on education was produced by Carl Hirsch for WFIU radio service of Indiana University. This is an E.R. the national educational radio network.
Special of the week
Issue 25-70 "Clark Kerr on Ed: The Money + Power"
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-ng4gs12m).
No description available
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 69-SPWK-479 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Special of the week; Issue 25-70 "Clark Kerr on Ed: The Money + Power",” 1970-00-00, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 20, 2024,
MLA: “Special of the week; Issue 25-70 "Clark Kerr on Ed: The Money + Power".” 1970-00-00. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 20, 2024. <>.
APA: Special of the week; Issue 25-70 "Clark Kerr on Ed: The Money + Power". Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from