Federal Activities in Higher Education After the Second World War: An Analysis of the Nature, Scope, and Impact of Federal Activities in Higher Education in the Fiscal Year 1947 9780231882125

Citation preview

Federal Activities in Higher Education after the Second World War

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR An Analysis of the Nature, Scope, and Impact of Federal Activities in Higher Education in the Fiscal Year 1947

James Earl Russell

KING'S C R O W N PRESS Columbia University

New York, 1951

Copyright 1951 by JAMES EARL

RUSSELL

C R O W N P R E S S is an imprint established by Columbia University Press for the purpose of making certain scholarly material available at minimum cost. Toward that end, the publishers have used standardized formats incorporating every reasonable economy that does not interfere with legibility. The author has assumed complete responsibility for editorial style and for proofreading. KING'S

PUBLISHED I N GREAT B R I T A I N , CANADA, AND INDIA B Y GEOFFREY C U M B E R L E G E , OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, TORONTO, AND B O M B A Y

Manufactured in the United States of America

FOREWORD of federal relations to state and local activities the expanding educational role of the federal government has been a prominent feature. The process of expansion has included, not only a clear tendency for the federal government to engage in and support ever more functions at ever greater cost, but also a tendency on the part of educators to look increasingly to the federal government for aid, impelled primarily by the difficulty of raising in other ways sufficient funds to meet local needs. Many regard these tendencies as dangerous, and would, if they could, reverse the process. Their chances of success, however, seem meager when one considers the insistent problems whose solutions seem to require federal assistance, especially in the areas of enlarging and equalizing educational opportunities. Reversing the process may not be possible, but a wider public understanding of what has happened and is happening may be useful in dealing with some of the problems that arise from it. For the suggestion that a study of the higher educational activities of the federal government might contribute to a broader understanding of the basic problem of federal relations to education, I am indebted to Dr. Francis J. Brown and Mr. A. B. Bonds, respectively Executive Secretary and Assistant Executive Secretary of the President's Commission on Higher Education. They both believed that analysis of the long-range problems of institutions of higher education should rest in part on a detailed study of the types and scale of existing federal activities and regretted that the frame of reference of the President's Commission did not include such a study. They therefore suggested that I attempt it, and gave generously of advice and assistance. A large number of federal officials assisted. Indeed, without such assistance the study would not have been possible, for a major share of the necessary data could be obtained only by personal interviews and correspondence. Officials to whom I am particularly indebted for information about their respective departments and agencies include: for the programs of the Department of State and especially of the Foreign Service Institute, Drs. W. P. Maddox and J. B. Whitelaw; Department of the Treasury, Rear Admiral H. M. Derby and Lt. Commander M. W. Whalen of the Coast Guard, Messrs. J. E. Lynch and A. E. Dunsmore of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Mr. H. M. Dengler of the Office of the Coordinator of Enforcement; War Department, Col. C. W. Nist I N T H E SHIFTING PATTERN

vi

FOREWORD

and the many helpful officers of his staff in the Schools Branch, Organization and Training Division, War Department General Staff; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Messrs. J. E. Hoover and H. H. Clegg; Department of the Navy, Capt. T. F. Wattles and his staff in the Training and Welfare Division of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Capt. H. A. Spanagel of the Post Graduate School, Rear Admiral A. E. Smith of the War College, and Capt. G. B. Tayloe of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery; Department of Agriculture Graduate School, Mrs. R. O. Carlock; Department of Commerce Patent Office, Mr. S. W . Kingsley; for the Federal Security Agency, Miss M. R. Carroll of the Social Security Administration and Messrs. J. W . Studebaker, E. H. Miner, J. D. Russell, and A. L. Harris of the U.S. Office of Education; Bureau of Community Facilities of the Federal Works Agency, Mr. A. D. Morrell; Public Housing Administration (formerly FPHA) of the National Housing Agency, Mr. R. A. Marshall; Messrs. N. R. Henson and David Stanley of the Veterans Administration; Mr. F. G. Connor of the Civil Service Commission; Mr. H. L. Case of the Tennessee Valley Authority; and Mr. N. J. Nelson of the District of Columbia Board of Education. T o all of the above I express my gratitude for the generous and helpful way in which they cooperated. Professor G. A. Graham of Princeton University and his assistants, Messrs. W . A. Mitchell and D. G. MacDonald, were helpful in giving me access to the information on federal education activities that they assembled for the Citizens Federal Committee on Education. Exchange of data with them considerably simplified the process of gathering information, and I have relied heavily on their descriptions of certain activities. I also had the assistance of Dr. P. H. French of the Bureau of the Budget in attempting, unsuccessfully, to obtain authorization to publish the data on which the President's Commission on Higher Education based its statement of federal expenditures on higher education. Professor S. C. Wallace of Columbia University has my deep appreciation for his guidance and advice, as have his colleagues, Professors A. W . Macmahon and J. D. Millett, who read a rough draft of the manuscript and made many valued comments and suggestions. Errors creep into most studies that rely on personal interviews as a source of basic data. I have attempted to report the results of interviews as accurately as I could, and have checked back with sources for confirmation. I will apologize here for errors that have escaped both their and my attention. Opinions expressed are, of course, my own. New York, 1951

JAMES E . RUSSELL

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

3

THE NEED FOR A SURVEY

3

UNDERTAKING THE SURVEY

4

LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY

7

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY

11

I T H E FEDERAL G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR

15

INSTRUCTION FOR FEDERAL PERSONNEL

15

DUPLICATION

17

JOINT OR COORDINATED EFFORTS

22

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION

23

INSTRUCTION FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS RATIONALE

27 27

REORGANIZATION OF FEDERAL INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES

30

EXPANSION

31

ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION

32 II

FEDERAL RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION RELATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS

35 35

RATIONALE

35

ADMINISTRATION

38

RECRUITMENT

40

INDIVIDUAL A I D PROGRAMS AND FEDERAL CONTROL

42

RELATIONS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

43

GRANTS OF FUNDS

43

GRANTS OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

50

ADMINISTRATIVE OR SCHOLARLY SERVICES

54

SERVICES OBTAINED FROM INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

55

EFFECTS OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ON NONFEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION

59

CONFUSION

60

INEQUITIES

63

OVERCROWDING

64

DEPENDENCE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

67

viii

CONTENTS REORGANIZATION OF EXISTING FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS

69

T H E DEPARTMENTAL PROPOSAL

70

COORDINATION THROUGH THE U . S . OFFICE OF EDUCATION

72

III FEDERAL POLICIES FOR H I G H E R EDUCATION

78

F U T U R E SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS

79

T H E NATIONAL N E E D FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

83

SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES

85

T H E P E P P E R BILL

88

INSTITUTIONAL AID

89

RELATION TO QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

90

A I D TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

93

APPENDIX D E P A R T M E N T OF STATE T H E FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE

99 99

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

102

OFFICE OF AMERICAN REPUBLIC AFFAIRS

IO7

FISCAL S U M M A R Y

108

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y

109

T H E U.S. COAST GUARD

IO9

OFFICE OF T H E COORDINATOR OF E N F O R C E M E N T

I IO

BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

I 11

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R SCHOOLS FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

II2 114

A R M Y GROUND FORCES SCHOOLS

115

A R M Y A I R FORCES SCHOOLS

118

SCHOOLS OF THE TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

121

W A R DEPARTMENT SCHOOLS

124

SCHOOLING FOR F U T U R E OFFICERS

I 25

J O I N T SCHOOLS

128

CIVILIAN SCHOOLS PROGRAMS

I30

MISCELLANEOUS

136

FISCAL S U M M A R Y

137

D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E

141

T H E FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

141

I M M I G R A T I O N AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

143

CONTENTS

ix

D E P A R T M E N T OF THE N A V Y

144

ADVANCED OFFICER TRAINING

147

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLS AND COURSES

148

SPECIAL TECHNICAL SCHOOLS FOR OFFICERS

149

SPECIAL NONTECHNICAL SCHOOLS FOR OFFICERS

150

FUNCTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING

I5I

MEDICAL TRAINING

152

AIR OFFICER TRAINING

152

M A R I N E CORPS TRAINING

I 54

SCHOOLING FOR FUTURE OFFICERS

I 54

MISCELLANEOUS

157

FISCAL S U M M A R Y

158

D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E

161

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

L6L

EXTENSION SERVICE

163

OFFICE OF FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS

165

D E P A R T M E N T OF C O M M E R C E BUREAU

OF

FOREIGN

AND

167 DOMESTIC

COMMERCE,

OFFICE

S M A L L BUSINESS WEATHER BUREAU

OF 167 167

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION

168

U.S. PATENT OFFICE

168

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

169

FEDERAL SECURITY A G E N C Y

I 70

U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION

170

GALLAUDET COLLEGE

178

U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

179

OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

I 87

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

189

FEDERAL W O R K S A G E N C Y BUREAU OF C O M M U N I T Y FACILITIES NATIONAL HOUSING A G E N C Y FEDERAL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

194 194 197 197 202

SERVICEMEN'S R E A D J U S T M E N T

202

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

206

RESIDENCIES IN VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS

208

FISCAL S U M M A R Y

210

X

CONTENTS

MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES

211

U.S. MARITIME COMMISSION

2 11

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

213

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

215

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2 15

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2 16

FISCAL S U M M A R Y

217

NOTES

219

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

GENERAL INDEX

251

INDEX TO U N I T E D STATES DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND SCHOOLS

255

TABLES 1. Schools and Training Courses for Federal Personnel

16

2. Approximate Costs of Federal Schools and Courses for Federal Personnel, by Department or Agency

17

3. Federal Schools and Training Courses for Other than Federal Personnel

28

4. Federal Financial Assistance to Individuals in Fiscal Year 1947

36

5. Federal Grants to Institutions of Higher Education

44

6. Federal Expenditures on Programs Providing Equipment and Facilities for Institutions of Higher Education

50

7. Federal Personnel Undergoing Instruction in Institutions of Higher Education in Fiscal Year 1947

56

Federal Activities in Higher Education after the Second World War

INTRODUCTION T H E N E E D FOR A S U R V E Y D U R I N G the last month of 1947 the Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education 1 began to appear, eventually reaching a total of six volumes. The Commission was appointed by President Truman during the summer of 1946 to study the over-all scheme of higher education in this country in the light of the needs of the future and the problems of the present. It concluded that realization of the basic aim of equal opportunity for higher education for all qualified persons would require federal financial assistance on a very large scale. A part of the third volume of the Report was devoted to discussing ways in which future federal activities in higher education might be organized. In the course of this discussion the Commission referred briefly to the existing federal activities in higher education, accompanying its reference with a table showing the higher-education expenditure of federal agencies. According to this table, the federal government had expended on higher education alone the sum of $1,772,000,000 during the fiscal year 1947, the year ending on June 30, 1947. There had been a broad awareness of the fact that the government gave some support to colleges and universities and was spending funds on a large scale for veterans' benefits, which included higher education; but few, if any, educators would have placed their estimates of expenditures for higher education at a figure approaching that mentioned.8 The accepted tradition in this country has been that higher education is not a federal function, being rather a matter of concern to states and to private groups operating under charters granted by states. If the Commission's figure was accurate, significant changes had taken place, for the sum mentioned was three times greater than the total combined income of all of the institutions of higher education in the United States in the fiscal year 1939.3 The Commission's estimate of expenditures provided the motivation for making the present study. A number of questions presented themselves to which its Report did not supply answers. What specific activities accounted for such large expenditures? Who administered them? Who authorized them? H o w were the necessary funds appropriated? How much of the money was devoted to training federal personnel? T o what extent was the federal government providing higher education for

4 INTRODUCTION private citizens? What kinds of impact did these activities have on the institutions of higher education in the states and localities? Were the activities temporary only, or would federal spending on this scale continue indefinitely? And finally, simplest and yet most difficult: W h y was a government which had been assumed to have little interest in higher education now so deeply involved in it? The search for answers to these and related questions produced this book; for, on checking, it developed that there existed no recent study covering federal activities in this field. A survey of federal activities in education had been done in 1939 for the Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association,4 and the National Advisory Committee on Education had attempted to classify federal educational activities in the studies that it made during the Hoover Administration.® The Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Roosevelt in 1936 issued a number of monographs that included detailed studies of some federal educational activities, but made no general survey. In 1947 the Citizens Federal Committee on Education, an advisory group associated with the U.S. Office of Education, commissioned a survey by a group headed b y Professor George Graham of Princeton University. 6 This survey, however, exempted from its purview all activities internal to the federal government and considered education at all levels. It thus provided a useful aid in making the present study, as is evidenced by the numerous references to it, especially in the descriptions of the activities of the Veterans Administration and the State Department. But it did not answer the questions raised b y the Report of the President's Commission, nor could it because of its own terms of reference. The only existing studies, therefore, either were old investigations of a situation that no longer existed, or were otherwise limited. Except for the brief comments in the third volume of the Report of the President's Commission, there was no reasonably recent effort to look at these activities, even for so simple a purpose as to see what they comprised. It seemed that if the questions raised by the Report of the President's Commission were going to be answered, it would be necessary first to make a survey of existing activities. UNDERTAKING THE SURVEY

Definition The first step was to determine what constitutes an activity in higher education. This is not a simple matter, for there is no widely held definition. It has long been customary to refer to "higher learning" and to

INTRODUCTION 5 colleges and universities as "institutions of higher learning." But where is the line to be drawn between "higher" and "lower" learning? Few would question that colleges and universities offer instruction of a type different from that offered by secondary schools. But what is the difference between the beginning course in a language in a college and a beginning course in the same language in a high school? If the only difference is in degree of difficulty or of concentration, then are colleges that have relatively low standards in such courses not institutions of higher learning? If institutions that call themselves "colleges" are thereby institutions of higher education, then are barber colleges included? If not, who decides that they are not, and on what basis is the decision reached? The President's Commission on Higher Education did not discuss the problem of definition, but its Report contains an implicit view of higher education that equates it with "post-high school education." "Post-high school" can be taken in two senses: either as requiring a high school diploma as a prerequisite to undertaking higher study, or as being directed at an older age group than the high school group, irrespective of the level of education. The latter interpretation would include literacy instruction for adults; the former would exclude it. The President's Commission seems to have used the term in both senses in different parts of its Report. However, the analysis of federal expenditures contained in the third volume seems to be based on the former of the above meanings, referring to the type of education that takes up where a high school education leaves off. This meaning should therefore be adopted in making a survey describing the activities covered by those expenditures. An effort to make this concept more concrete would note that there are institutions which, on the basis of their recognition by a number of accrediting agencies, can be classified as "institutions of higher education." These are colleges, universities, professional schools, normal schools, teachers colleges, and junior colleges, to the number of about 1,700. The exact boundary of the group can be set by limiting it to those listed in the Educational Directory issued annually by the U.S. Office of Education.7 Post-high school education can then be referred to as meaning the types of education they offer, or education of kindred types, as distinct from elementary, secondary, or vocational education. Federal activities in higher education would then consist of federal relations with institutions of higher education, of federal efforts to enable individuals to obtain higher education, and of federal instructional and research programs of types similar to those of such institutions.8

6

INTRODUCTION

It is clear that the research activities of the federal government are also a part of higher education, especially those which involve contracts with universities. For reasons discussed below, however, no effort was made to investigate research in the present study. Procedures The first step was a purely descriptive one, a simple process of assembling the available information about activities that fitted the above definition. T h e desired information included: (a) a general description of the nature of the activity and of its administration; (b) the authorization under which it was carried on; and (c) some indication of its scale, with reference either to costs or to numbers of personnel involved. In all cases special efforts were made to obtain expenditure data in order to permit comparison with the Report of the President's Commission. Information of this type was difficult to obtain because governmental accounting usually makes no reference to education at all, much less to education of the higher variety. It was therefore necessary to resort to a series of estimates that cannot be asserted to be accurate reflections of the real expenditure figures. In making the computations, however, the effort was constantly to estimate on the low side, and it is believed that the estimates given are in every case minimal. Thus it is possible to assert that federal expenditures were not smaller than the figures here given, and may have been a good bit larger. T h e fiscal data on which the President's Commission based its Report were obtained by the Bureau of the Budget in May 1947, and, in some cases in which the federal government provided higher education for its own employees, included the item of their pay while undergoing instruction. This item is certainly a part of the cost to the federal government of such instruction, since the students involved remained on the federal pay roll. However, estimates that include pay of personnel should be carefully distinguished from those that do not, since individual salaries are usually much larger than any of the other costs associated with instruction of federal personnel. For instance, it cost about one thousand dollars to send an A r m y officer to a civilian university for a year's instruction in 1947, including tuition, fees, books, and all incidentals. The same officer's pay and allowances would range upwards from three thousand dollars, and were in most cases in the region of five thousand. Thus estimates that include pay of personnel appear inflated as compared with those that do not include this item. In the present study personnel costs have been roughly estimated in cases in which reasonable estimates of numbers of personnel involved

INTRODUCTION

7

and of levels of pay could be made. The item had to be omitted in calculating the costs of a number of the larger and more important activities about which information of this type was not available, thus depressing the final totals. The omission, however, has not been a matter of concern, since the totals came out so far above anything anticipated that the general picture would not be materially changed by including i t 9 In addition, in seeking to reach a fair estimate of expenditures, it was decided to omit such other items as the value of facilities in the possession of the federal government prior to 1947 which were given to institutions of higher education during that year. For example, under the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program operated by the Federal Works Agency and the U.S. Office of Education, facilities to the value of upwards of one hundred fifty million dollars were given to institutions of higher education during the fiscal year 1947. These, of course, came from surplus government stocks. The actual obligations 10 and expenditures of the federal government on this part of the program during that year amounted to about seventy-two million dollars, which included the cost of dismantling, moving, and storing the facilities as well as the cost of administering the program. The figure of seventy-two million is the one used in the present study. Thus the final estimate is intended to cover only sums actually obligated or expended during that fiscal year. Information was obtained from printed sources insofar as this was possible, and where reference to authority could be given it is included. However, printed sources descriptive of a number of the programs did not exist. In such cases it was necessary to consult the personnel of the agency concerned, asking them to check the resulting descriptions for accuracy. All descriptions not based on printed records were thus submitted to representatives of the administrators of the programs. This procedure had to be followed especially in the case of the Federal Works Agency, the National Housing Agency, and the War and Navy Departments, the activities of which were exceeded in scale only by those of the Veterans Administration. LIMITATIONS OF THE S U R V E Y

In developing the survey certain limits were imposed by the nature of the subject. It was not practicable to make a study of the research activities of the federal government; nor was it practicable to attempt an evaluation of each federal activity in terms of its effectiveness; the activities had to be described as they existed in a single year; and attention was devoted exclusively to higher education and the higher-

8

INTRODUCTION

educational aspects of programs that looked beyond that field. Since each of these limitations may tend to weaken the applicability of some of the results of the study, they ought to be discussed. Omission of Research Research is one of the major functions of institutions of higher education, and the federal government's research activities are among its more important relationships with such institutions. Activities in this field therefore form a logical part of the area of interest of the present study. The author believed, however, that they ought to be omitted for two reasons. First, a competent study of research activities would be of such size and complexity that it ought to be made separately. Second, the matter was already under investigation by the President's Scientific Research Board. The conclusions reached by this Board accord very closely in many cases with those reached here, although relations to institutions of higher education were not among their major concerns. References to the Board's studies are made at appropriate points in the present study, but the activities here described and the conclusions drawn deal with the nonresearch activities of the federal government. Lack of Evaluation An estimate of the educational effectiveness of each federal activity would be of great value. Such a study, however, would require not only specialized knowledge and experience, but also some kind of official support. Federal administrators are often in a position to speak freely with a private citizen who enters their offices in search of information. But if that citizen plans to criticize their work, or to use the information in controversial ways, then clearance from the agency head is necessary before cooperation can be expected from the individual administrators. Agency clearance is usually difficult, and sometimes impossible, for a private citizen to obtain. Thus the decision to adopt a critical frame of reference for the present study would have burdened inordinately the information-gathering process. The cooperative and helpful attitude actually assumed by most of the federal officers who had to be relied on for the basic information doubtless derived in part from the assurance that no single program would be subjected to critical or evaluative scrutiny. Although the present study of the administration of federal activities in this field did arrive at certain critical conclusions, as noted below, none of these conclusions extended to evaluation of a particular program, nor could they have, for the type of survey actually undertaken

INTRODUCTION

9

did not provide a basis on which such evaluation could fairly be made. In this connection it should be noted that the President's Commission itself, which had not only a broad grant of authority from the White House but also enjoyed the privilege of a special Presidential Order directing all agencies to cooperate, decided not to undertake a critical or evaluative study of federal activities in this field. The Fiscal Year 1947 Descriptions of the various federal activities in higher education and analysis of their effects are based solely on the programs as they existed in the single year 1947. It was decided to limit the study to that year both because some restriction was necessary if the subject was to be made manageable and because the statements of the President's Commission could be made more concrete only by specific study of the same period of time as they had covered—and that was the fiscal year 1947. The results of the present study can therefore have application to other periods of time only insofar as the year 1947 was typical of other periods. The year 1947 was, in general, typical of the entire postwar period, considering that period as including the years from the termination of hostilities in August 1945 to the present. Although that period has been notably different from either the war or prewar periods, it has displayed a fairly consistent pattern in the few years that provide a basis for judging. The principal elements of this pattern, insofar as higher education is concerned, have been (a) very large-scale expenditures, and (b) emphasis on programs of individual aid. The other years in the same period show some variation from the 1947 pattern, as noted below, and one major 1947 activity has not been repeated since that year, but the general pattern of activity can be found in any of the postwar years. In fact, a cursory survey indicates that the level of federal activities in higher education in the fiscal years 1948 and 1949, as measured by total expenditures, was probably higher than in 1947. The two largest federal sources of income for institutions of higher education, payments associated with veterans' fees and with contracts for scientific research, were both larger in the succeeding years than in 1947. It may, of course, be argued that the principal activities of the whole postwar period were only temporary, and that the period itself is aberrational in respect to a permanent pattern of federal highereducational activity. Chapter 3 devotes some attention to the probabilities of continuing large-scale federal activity, and reaches the con-

,o

INTRODUCTION

elusion that, temporary or not, the postwar higher-education activities of the federal government have created expectations in many areas that will make it very difficult for the federal government to withdraw. It may therefore be argued, although it cannot be proved, that the postwar pattern of federal higher-education activity is not temporary, but that, on the contrary, w e may expect it to endure for some time. In spite of the general pervasiveness of the postwar pattern, how ever, the year 1947 had certain characteristics that should be noted. It was a year in which the educational activities of the armed services 1 1 were declining while those of the Veterans Administration were increasing. T h e only important higher-education activity of the government which was at its peak in that year was provision of facilities to colleges and universities to relieve the pressures created by large numbers of veteran students. T h e two major programs that provided these facilities were almost entirely confined to this single year; they were therefore the year's most atypical feature. With regard to military educational activities, the decreasing trend continued into 1948. T h e year 1949, however, showed an upswing in military education to a level higher than cither of the two preceding years. It seems probable that education of military officers will continue to be one of the principal federal higher-education activities. With regard to higher education of veterans, the fiscal year 1947 was the first year of large-scale operations under the so-called " G . I . Bill of Rights." 1 2 T h e peak veteran attendance in institutions of higher education came in 1948, and continued high into 1949. T h e decline has now set in and colleges and universities can no longer look forward to equally large enrollments of veterans. There is only one postwar federal activity of major importance to higher education that was not carried on during 1947. That is Selective Service, including not only the arrangements for calling up college students f o r military service, but, more importantly, arrangements f o r deferment. Such arrangements, if Selective Service on a large scale becomes necessary, may have a major influence on institutions of higher education because they affect not only the over-all number of students, but also the types of institutions and programs that the students select. T h e Selective Service A c t of 1948 1 3 contained a provision authorizing the President to defer men whose activity in study, among other things, he finds to be necessary to the national health, safety, or interest. This provision is capable of causing serious dislocations in institutions

INTRODUCTION

n

of higher education unless it is carefully administered. For instance, if the President should decide that future medical recruitment was of sufficient importance to warrant the move, he could arrange f o r draft deferment f o r undergraduate premedical students. If this were done, it might well have the effect of encouraging large numbers of young men to seek to enter medicine, while discouraging their selection of other important professions or occupations. T h e effect such a move would have on the undergraduate curriculum is obvious. Another provision of the same Act permitted deferment of college students until the end of the academic year, thus protecting both institutions and students from disruptions that would result if students were required to withdraw in the middle of the year. • Provisions such as these, which might have an important impact on institutions of higher education and their students, were not in any w a y characteristic of the fiscal year 1947. Exclusive Attention to Higher Education Most of the activities investigated in the survey involved relationships also with other than higher levels of education. T h e major programs, such as Veterans' Readjustment, dealt with all levels. Under these circumstances, some distortion results from devoting attention only to the higher educational aspects of programs whose focus was broader. But the only w a y to make the statements of the President's Commission on Higher Education more concrete was to adopt their frame of reference, which limited itself to higher-education aspects, and so the same limitation applies here. G E N E R A L CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY

The descriptive survey developed a number of general conclusions about the nature and scope of the federal activities in higher education. With regard to scale, the major conclusion is that the President's Commission on Higher Education was conservative in its estimate. T h e expenditures of the federal government on the activities covered by the survey in the single year 1947 exceeded two billion dollars. This figure does not include expenditures on federal research in universities, nor does it include allowance for the value of facilities given to institutions of higher education. Addition of these items would lift the total to more than two and one-half billions. The federal government operated a large number of schools and

i2 INTRODUCTION courses which provided a variety of higher-educational opportunities, varying from the general undergraduate courses of the military academies to highly precise and specialized professional training. During 1947 almost 85,000 persons received instruction in such schools and courses, at a total cost to the federal government of about $60,000,000. Seventy per cent of the number trained consisted of military personnel, and the cost of their training represented about 90 per cent of the total. Most of the training was given in short courses which required only part of the students' time, or, if they were full-time courses, were of limited duration. Only about 14 per cent of the students were enrolled in full-time courses for a period corresponding to an academic year. The training was aimed for the most part at improving the professional competence of federal employees who pursued the courses as a part of their regular duties and who constituted about 80 per cent of the number trained. Of the remaining 20 per cent a significant number were federal employees who were pursuing the courses on their own time. Although the activities of the federal government in which it provided higher education directly were carried on on a larger scale than has been generally recognized, they were slight when compared with the activities in which the government aided nonfederal higher education. The largest and most important activities in this area were those in which the government assisted individuals, mainly veterans, in obtaining higher education. The assistance granted was almost exclusively financial. Altogether, about 1,338,000 students in institutions of higher education received financial assistance from the federal government during the fiscal year 1947 at a total cost to the government of about $1,620,000,000. Veterans, who comprised about 89 per cent of the number aided, accounted for about 98 per cent of the total expenditure. Federal assistance to institutions of higher education was the area of next greatest expenditure in that year. Assistance took the form of grants of funds, which amounted to about $39,000,000, or of grants of facilities, on which the federal government expended about $280,000,000. This figure excludes the value of the facilities given; it includes only moneys actually spent or obligated to be spent from 1947 appropriations. In addition to assisting institutions of higher education, the federal government used them for training federal personnel. About 4,000 federal employees were sent to colleges, universities, and professional schools during fiscal 1947 at a cost of almost $18,000,000, the major

INTRODUCTION 13 share of which represents salaries of employees who continued to draw regular pay while under instruction. Although the programs that granted funds to nonfederal institutions were small as compared with the individual aid programs, a larger share of institutional income came from federal sources than has been generally recognized. The total income of all institutions of higher education of all types in the fiscal year 1947 was about one billion dollars." Of this, about one-third consisted of federal payment of tuition and other charges for veterans and federal student personnel. If to this onethird are added the amounts paid to universities under research contracts 1 5 and programs of grants in aid,14 the share of federal support mounts to the region of 50 per cent. Thus the federal government was the largest single source of income of higher-education institutions, its direct contributions exceeding in total both gross income from other levels of government and gross income from investments and gifts. A n y sharp decrease in federal spending in this area, therefore, will produce a sharp decline in the level of activity in the nation's institutions of higher education, unless other equally important sources of income can be found. With regard to basic educational policy, the survey made it apparent that there was no uniform policy governing the federal activities in this field. They were more clearly marked by their highly "specific" character than by anything else. Almost all programs were aimed either at special types of education, such as agricultural or military, or at special types of institutions, such as Land-Grant colleges, or at special types of students, such as veterans. The existence of each of these activities apparently represented a decision, not to support higher education generally, but to accomplish some specific purpose. However, there had been a gradual growth in these activities, both in types of activity and in numbers of persons involved, to the point where the federal government had become directly involved in higher education on an unheard-of scale. Without any general policy with regard to higher education, the federal government had come into the position of being the principal single supporter of higher education in the United States. The survey also demonstrated that the activities of the federal government in higher education can be divided into two almost entirely separate categories, each of which raises sharply differing problems of policy and administration. The first of these concerns the instructional activities of the government, which are discussed in the following chapter. The second concerns the relations of the federal govern-

i4 INTRODUCTION ment to nonfederal higher education, which are discussed in Chapter 2. The third chapter discusses certain aspects of federal policies for higher education in the light of considerations developed in the study. Detailed reports on the activities of each federal agency involved are contained in the Appendix.

Chapter i THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS EDUCATOR I N 1947 T H E FEDERAL government provided education of the "higher" type for about 85,000 persons in schools and courses which it operated for that purpose. Most of the instruction was professional in character and was aimed at improving the quality of the federal service by increasing the competence of federal employees to perform the duties for which they were employed. A lesser part of the government's higher-educational effort consisted of providing opportunities in federal schools and courses for persons from outside the federal service. Since the reasons for providing training for federal personnel were different from the reasons for providing it for others, and since the two types raised differing administrative problems, it is appropriate to discuss them separately. INSTRUCTION FOR F E D E R A L PERSONNEL

The types of instruction provided by the federal government for its own personnel are indicated in Table 1. Expenditures on this instruction are shown in Table 2. Supporting data will be found in the relevant sections of the Appendix. Taken together, the two tables indicate that these federal schools and courses existed in great variety, but that almost all of the funds expended were directed at military instruction. A small number of these federal schools offered courses similar to those of four-year liberal arts colleges. Others offered instruction similar to that leading to the master's degree in graduate schools. But most of the instruction was given in courses lasting relatively short periods of time and designed to prepare the student to perform specific functions. The existence of these instructional activities reflected an assumption by the federal government of responsibility for preparing persons for special federal jobs. In general, the government accepted no responsibility for ordinary professional preparation; it employed persons after they had acquired such training. Its primary concern with training was the supplementing of training acquired elsewhere to whatever ex-

16

F E D E R A L

G O V E R N M E N T TABLE

A S

SCHOOLS AND T R A I N I N G COURSES FOR FEDERAL

PERSONNEL

(Classified by T y p e of Higher Education) Type Academic Instruction

Professional Instruction Business Engineering

Language

E D U C A T O R

I

Activity

Approx. No. of Students in Fiscal Year 1947

U.S. Military Academy U.S. Naval Academy U.S. Coast Guard Academy U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Army Education Program (incl. USAFI)

Industrial College of the Armed Forces Air Institute of Technology US. Naval Post Graduate School Naval Engineering School (Steam) Naval Civil Engineer Corps Officers School Naval Electronics Engineering School Naval Warrant Officers Electronics Eng. School

Military Intell. Service Language School Naval Intelligence School School of Lang. Training, For. Service Inst. Law Enforcement Coordinator of Enforcement (Treasury) Federal Bureau of Investigation Medical Army Medical Field Service School Army Research and Graduate School Army School of Malariology Army Air Forces School of Aviation Medicine Army-Navy Meat and Dairy Hygiene School Naval Medical School (Post Graduate) Naval School of Hospital Administration Naval Public Health Service School Naval Dental School Naval School of Aviation Medicine Naval Deep Sea Divers School Residencies and Internships in 9 Army, 10 Navy, 64 V A , and 11 USPHS Hospitals Military (Schools summarized on pp. 139 and 159) Public Administration Administrative Intern Program, CSC Foreign Service Institute Bureau of Internal Revenue training Patent Office training Social Security Administration training

Total

2,500 2,900 300 1,600 IS,000

1,000

I.JOO

3.500 4,000

34,000 2,900

69,300

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R TABLE

2

A P P R O X I M A T E COSTS OF F E D E R A L SCHOOLS AND C O U R S E S FOR F E D E R A L P E R S O N N E L , B Y D E P A R T M E N T OR A G E N C Y »

Approx. Expenditure Agency in Fiscal Year 1941 State Department $535,000 Foreign Service Institute Treasury Department 17,000 Coordinator of Enforcement 1,230,000 Coast Guard 183,000 Bureau of Internal Revenue 27,865,000 W a r Department Justice Department 350,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation 22,835,000 N a v y Department Federal Security Agency 65,000 U.S. Public Health Service 110,000 Civil Service Commission 4,000,000 Maritime Commission $57,190,000 Total • Omits costs of medical internships and residencies and of Social Security Administration and Patent Office Training.

tent needed to meet special requirements. Thus, most federal instruction was of types not available outside the government. When the need arose f o r higher education of a type available outside the government, it was usually met by sending federal personnel to the schools in which it was available (see pages 55-58). Instructional activities were normally initiated b y the agencies in which the training was needed, and were operated b y them f o r their own purpose. There was no over-all federal training agency, and only inadequate machinery for coordinating instructional programs. 1 Under these circumstances one agency might establish an instructional activity similar to or duplicating one already being operated by another agency. Thus, whatever means of coordinating instructional programs existed, both between agencies and within a single agency, ought to be studied, as well as the extent to which they were successful in preventing the establishment of competing programs. In the following pages the extent to which duplication existed and the types of administrative organization used to coordinate activities are discussed in this order. Duplication It is one thing to note that federal instructional programs duplicate each other; it is quite another thing to infer that such duplication is

18 FEDERAL G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR undesirable or unnecessary. Good reasons may exist for offering similar instruction at more than one location, and the single fact that two instructional programs have the same educational objectives cannot lead to the conclusion that they ought to be amalgamated. Perhaps a single school would be so large as to be uneconomical. Perhaps different schools utilize differing training techniques that are only superficially similar. Perhaps duplicate training facilities are established so that competition between them will lead to greater efficiency in both. Perhaps maintenance of a number of similar establishments is desired in order to facilitate the process of expanding training during an emergency. When a single establishment, however, can perform the function of nvo, amalgamation will at least reduce overhead costs and permit administrative economies. It may also encourage the adoption of improved instructional techniques and make possible a more diversified and better offering. The advantages would be lost if other factors entered, such as the inefficiencies of overoptimum size, the need for students to travel unnecessarily great distances to reach the school, or the inability of a single school to provide the precise types of training needed by the agencies concerned. A number of areas were discovered in which agencies appeared to duplicate each other's instructional programs. A survey of the type made in the present study hardly justifies the conclusion that the duplications discovered were unnecessary. It does, however, suggest that a number of training activities might well be looked into to see if they could not be handled more efficiently and more economically by an amalgamation of existing programs. The assumption of the following pages is, therefore, not that duplication is bad, but that wherever what appears to be duplication is found, it should be investigated to determine whether or not it is desirable. Coordination is not an end in itself. It becomes necessary only in terms of an end or objective sought through coordination. The objectives of the in-service training programs are efficiency and economy. They should be coordinated, therefore, only as far as may be necessary to achieve those objectives. Duplication would be undesirable if it prevented their achievement or resulted in unnecessarily great expenditures. The areas in which duplication of programs or facilities appeared to exist were almost entirely in military training. Nearly all nonmilitary instruction was directed at specific functions performed only by the agency that provided the training. Thus, Patent Office training was designed for patent and trade-mark examiners, who operated onlv within the Patent Office. The only nonmilitary area in which duplica-

FEDERAL G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR

19

tion occurred was the law enforcement training offered by the FBI and the Coordinator of Enforcement in the Treasury Department, and the reasons for the duplication were doubtless connected with the specialized character of the functions of the respective agencies. Both, it is true, offered instruction in fingerprint techniques, suggesting that development of common training facilities might result in savings; but the case is so limited and the function so highly specialized as to make the point one of small significance. In military training the duplication calls for more attention. A review of the officer-training activities of the armed services reveals considerable duplication; nor was this limited to duplication between the services. There were many cases in which a single service offered similar training at several different schools, all of which were under its direct control, and the need of such distribution was not in every case apparent. The major areas of duplication will be noted. a. Language training was offered at the Military Intelligence Service Language School, the Naval Intelligence School, and the Foreign Service Institute School of Language Studies. The latter school offered a somewhat wider selection of languages than the other two, since the needs of the Foreign Service were wider, and there was little military need for persons trained in some of the lesser-known languages. Even in the Foreign Service School, however, the main emphasis was on the principal European and Asiatic tongues, which were the only languages studied in the two military schools. All three schools supplemented direct language instruction with study of the cultures of the areas in which the respective languages are spoken, and arranged for some of their students to undertake such studies in civilian universities. Also, to some extent, officers of each of the three services attended the schools of the others. The reasons for the duplication of language training facilities are not clear. The number of students involved was not so large (ca. 1,500) as to warrant the establishment of three separate facilities. The functions of the foreign-language-speaking officers of one service were not substantially different from those of other services. It seems unlikely that there would be a N a v y method of teaching language which would differ substantially from an Army method, although the naval school apparently relied more on intensive individualized instruction and the Army school on classroom recitation. N o r did the geographic factor enter. T w o of the schools were located in the same city, Washington, D.C., and the third ( A r m y ) was on the west coast. The distance did not deter the Army from sending officers to the naval school when

2o F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR that suited the Army's purpose. If diversity of instructional methods and of offering was desired, it seems that it might be achieved as well by the establishment of a single large school as by three lesser ones and perhaps at a saving, since the threefold overhead could be eliminated. b. Communications equipment, including wire, wireless, and radar, is important in military operations, and both services used it widely. Each met its own needs for training in communications operation and maintenance. Widespread duplication appears to have occurred in this training also. For example, radar technical training was given at the Artillery School and its Seacoast and Antiaircraft branches, the Ordnance School, the Signal School, the Air Forces Technical Schools, the Naval Radar Training School, the Naval Electronics Matériel School, the Naval Aviation Electronic Officers School, and both of the Naval Electronics Engineering Schools. Training concerned with other types of communications equipment was given at the above schools and at the Infantry and Armored School, at the Marine Corps Schools, and at a number of naval schools. The services require many men trained in the use and maintenance of communications equipment. It is not, therefore, surprising to find such training offered in many schools. Also, the needs of the services are not identical, since many different types of equipment are used. It is apparent that instruction in the use and operation of radar equipment should be given separately when the particular function is peculiar to a single service or branch of a service. However, basic technical communication training is in some sense common to the services, and a part of the basic training could probably be given in common schools, leaving it to each service to provide such additional training as might be needed to enable its personnel to apply the basic knowledge gained to the specific problems and procedures of the service concerned. c. Air training appears to have been a principal area of duplication. T h e Army and Navy provided extensive training for their own personnel both in the tactical operation of aircraft and in technical maintenance. Such differences as existed between the two training programs were attributable to the differences in the operations of the respective services; the Navy, for example, limited itself to ship-based aircraft or over-water patrol operations. Although the general functions of the two services were different, there were sufficient similarities to present many opportunities for joint training. But, as long as air operations are divided between the services, each service will probably wish to provide its own training. Thus, the desirability of eliminating the existing duplications is connected with the desirability of amalgamating

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS EDUCATOR 21 air operations generally under the control of a single service, a somewhat controversial matter. But even if this were not done, basic pilot training or training in other operations common to the two could perhaps be offered in common at jointly operated schools at some savings. d. Motor Vehicle Maintenance is a subject of instruction at the Infantry School, the Armored School, the Field Artillery and Antiaircraft Schools, the Ordnance School, the Ordnance Automotive School, the Air Forces Technical Schools, and the Marine Corps Schools. The services have need for many officers trained to supervise and instruct men in maintenance of motor vehicles. Such training would therefore have to be given in a number of schools, but some degree of coordination might be advantageous. e. The situation with regard to medical instruction is complex. Each of the services maintains a number of medical training installations. T o some extent these duplicate each other. For example, the Schools of Aviation Medicine serve almost identical roles. However, a major share of medical instruction is given in the hospitals of the military services or in other federal hospitals operated by the Veterans Administration or the U.S. Public Health Service. Medical instruction has traditionally been associated with hospitals, since these institutions provide the basic opportunity to train both doctors and nurses. This opportunity is not lost at the federal level and most federal hospitals are also training institutions. Thus, such duplication as occurs in federal medical instruction is for the most part related to the duplications in the over-all federal medical programs. f. The Army, the Navy, and the Army Air Force all operated schools for public relations officers: the Army Information School, the Naval School for Informational Services Officers, and the Public Relations Staff Officers Course at the Air Special Staff School. The need for this diversity of offering is not clear. The number of officers trained was small; the function was pretty much the same in the three areas, involving primarily relations with the same media of public information. It seems that a degree of integration might be effected in this training. g. Duplicate facilities for training Welfare and Recreation Officers also existed. The Navy had a school for this special purpose, while the Army had not only a Recreational Officers course at the Special Services School but also a Physical Training and Athletic Directors School. The need for training of this type arises from the fact that there is a problem of useful employment of the spare time of large numbers of men. This problem was common to the two services, and was met by each service in substantially the same way.

22

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R h. Meteorological instruction and training were given by the N a v y at the Post Graduate School and by the Army Air Forces at its Technical Schools. In both cases, the training was designed to produce competent weather forecasters and involved continuous study over extended periods of rime. i. Photography and its military applications formed the basis of instruction at the Army Signal Corps Photographic Center, the Naval Photographic Officers Schools, the Naval Photographic Interpretation Center, and at one of the Army Air Forces Technical Schools. Other areas in which the services provided training of basically similar types included supply and procurement, engineering, troop education (for example, U S A F I ) , handling of noxious substances (chemical and radiological), and food handling and distribution. In spite of the above examples of duplication, some of which seem to be in areas in which coordinated instruction would produce economies, it should be recognized that the largest part of all military training was highly specialized and was of types that did not duplicate anything available elsewhere. Most military instruction was functional in the sense that it was directed at obtaining competence in certain functions. For the most part the functions of the service did not duplicate each other, if only because of the sharply differing character of land, sea, and air operations. Joint or Coordinated

Efforts

When two or more agencies have common needs for training, a joint training effort, supported by all concerned, may be more efficient and less costly than any other method of meeting the need. A review of the efforts in this direction during the fiscal year 1947, however, reveals that they were rarely made. The few examples were the following: The training of personnel for all of the enforcement agencies of the Treasury Department was provided by a single training division established in the Office of the Coordinator of Enforcement. In some cases, personnel of other federal agencies were admitted to the courses. The Administrative Intern Program of the Civil Service Commission was a joint training effort in which the operating agency provided the necessary services for all of the other agencies involved. The LJ.S. Armed Forces Institute, the Joint Army-Navy Medical Equipment Maintenance School, and the Army-Navy Institute of Dairy Hygiene all operated under the combined aegis of the defense departments and provided certain types of instruction for both services.

FEDERAL G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR

23

The only other joint efforts were the Joint Schools of the armed services, comprising the National W a r College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces Staff College. These schools provded a type of instruction that went beyond the boundaries of the indivdual services and that could therefore scarcely have been offered on aiy basis other than as a joint effort. Their major purpose was to train officers for combined command or staff work at the higher levels. They were therefore interservice in their very nature. Admnistrative Organization T t e systems of organization under which federal higher education for enployees operated were such as to provide a relatively high degree )f coordination within a single agency or department, while making f»r almost no coordination as between departments. The usual pattern was for the agency that desired the training to provide it f o r itself characteristically setting up a special training division for that purp>se within an existing personnel division. In some cases the training division was an "operating" agency in the sense that it actually operated the schools and courses in which the necessarT instruction was given. In others, it was a "staff" agency, having respcnsibility for coordination and control but leaving the actual operation )f schools in the hands of other divisions of the department. T h e prinupal example of the former was the N a v y Department; of the latter, the W a r Department. N:val schools were administered by the Bureau of Naval Personnel.2 Thus, when a specialist branch of the N a v y Department needed trainng, it consulted with the Bureau of Personnel which established the recessary training activity. This had the effect of suppressing duplication, since the Bureau would arrange to provide the training in an existng school if there was one capable of providing it. In the Army, the situation was different. There the operating units w e n the so-called "arms and services," which had responsibility f o r trainng their own personnel and which, in many cases, had operated theii own schools prior to the establishment of the W a r Department Gen:ral Staff. Thus each arm made its own arrangements for training, coordination being the responsibility of the General Staff. This method had he advantage of ensuring that the training would directly meet real neecs, since the persons who provided the training were the ones who expessed the need. However, it might also, by emphasizing what were onl) minor differences in ways of meeting those needs, permit a brarch to operate all of its own training, including training in matters

24 F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR that might be provided more economically at common schools. An example is in radar instruction, an area in which a number of Army schools gave substantially similar courses, as compared with the Navv electronic schools, each of which differed in course content from other Navy schools. Some departments coordinated training only in selected fields, leaving other fields uncoordinated. The Treasury Department is a case in point. Joint training for all enforcement personnel within that department was a function of the Coordinator of Enforcement, the establishment of whose office served to eliminate duplications in this field. It did not, however, eliminate duplications between Treasury and FBI training, nor did it include any control over the other training activities of the department or of its branches. Thus Coast Guard and Bureau of Internal Revenue training were unaffected. The reason for the absence of departmental control over their instructional activities was doubtless related to the fact that no other Treasury agencies needed or provided similar training; the need for coordination was therefore minimal. But the principal duplications were between departments rather than within a single department, and the examples of duplications cited above suggest that something might be done toward eliminating them, especially in the direction of providing common schools to prepare military personnel for more specialized training in the individual services. T w o principal methods of interdepartmental coordination were utilized: (a) by action of special coordinating agencies and (b) by arrangement of one agency to use instruction in another. Establishing a Special Agency. On several occasions interdepartmental schools were established to provide joint instruction for federal personnel. The Joint Schools of the armed services, operating under the control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were the best example. They did not, however, represent the elimination of any existing duplications, since they were organized to meet a need for special joint training that arose out of the nature of modern warfare, in which joint operations are essential. On other occasions, interdepartmental coordinating bodies were established for the purpose of controlling certain of the instructional activities of a number of departments. Examples are to be found in the interdepartmental committees administering the Program for Cooperation with the American Republics and the Administrative Intern Program. The usual pattern in this type of organization consisted of establishing a committee upon which all interested agencies had repre-

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R 25 sentation, with the chairmanship in the hands of the agency having the principal interest. Basic decisions regarding the administration of the program were then taken by the committee. In some cases the committees were organized for the single purpose of coordinating a particular program, as the coordinating committees responsible for control of the Administrative Intern Program and the U.S. Armed Forces Institute. In other cases, as the State Department Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the function of coordinating education was assigned to an existing unit that already had other functions. The latter system had the important advantage of making coordination easier to effect. Educational coordination, like other kinds of coordination, proceeds best when someone is in a position and has authority to effect it. The general absence of joint and coordinated programs can be traced, in part at least, to the general absence of coordinating agencies. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of either of these devices. The Joint Schools have certainly been effective agents for joint training, but they are limited to a field in which the only possible training would be of this type. The other activities of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hardly lead to the conclusion that that body has been effective as a coordinator of training programs (see page 32). The interdepartmental committee device undoubtedly effects some degree of coordination, but it may well be that it is most successful in activities that require relatively little coordinated effort, such as the Philippine Rehabilitation Program. It would certainly be naive to assume that vesting the chairmanship of such a committee in the hands of a single agency would thereby ensure that the agency held the whip hand. Even the practice of making lump appropriations to a single agency for distribution to the other participating agencies, as the C A R appropriations to the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, is a somewhat illusory control, for the amounts to be distributed to each agency are specified in the appropriation acts. Thus little discretion is left to the central agency, except insofar as future requests for funds are concerned, and even this would seem to vest the power to decide, not in the State Department, but in the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress. Utilizing Schools of Other Agencies. The need to establish joint schools or duplicate training facilities may be avoided by an agency's arranging for the training of its personnel in an existing school of another agency. There are, of course, many circumstances in which this is not possible, since training needs are often highly specialized. It could,

26 F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR however, probably be done more often than was the case during the fiscal year 1947. Some agencies met an important part of their training needs in this way during 1947. This was especially true of the Coast Guard and Marine Corps. Similarly, the Foreign Service Institute and the Coordinator of Enforcement provided training for personnel of other agencies. Each of the military services made it a practice to send officers to schools of the other services, particularly the more advanced schools such as the war colleges and the Command and General Staff College. In 1947 one fifth of the enrollment of the latter consisted of Navy and Air officers. The purpose of this practice was, of course, similar to the purpose of the Joint Schools—that is, to contribute to the efficiency of joint operations. Thus it made for coordination of military operations rather than elimination of existing duplications. The Naval Post Graduate School provided an interesting example of a method of utilizing training offered by other agencies, although in this case the instruction was offered by civilian universities rather than by other federal agencies. The Post Graduate School gave a number of advanced courses combining a period of instruction in civilian universities with a period of instruction at the Post Graduate School, usually two years at the former and one year at the latter. The portion of the training given in the naval school was designed to enable the officer student to orient his civilian training to the specific needs of the Navy, to provide needed instruction not available at civilian schools, and to give additional background that enabled him to draw greater benefit from the university training. It was really nothing more than a technique by which the Navy drew from civilian institutions such advantages as they could provide, and then backed this up with the additional training needed, thereby avoiding the setting up of more schools. Other Coordinating Activities. The only agency that attempted any government-wide coordination of training was the Civil Service Commission's Federal Personnel Council, which had a subcommittee on training. This body lacked power to control or direct the activities of any agency. It served merely as a locus in which the interests of federal training officers might be represented, and considered such matters as qualifications standards for training officers, intern training, credit for in-service training, and legislation on the subject. It did not operate schools or serve as a means of eliminating duplication. A certain degree of coordination and exchange of information in

FEDERAL G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR

27

the field of in-service training was effected b y an informal activityknown as the Training Officers Conference, an unofficial body of which most of the training officers located in Washington, D.C., were members. T h e Conference met monthly to hear discussions of training topics, usually a discourse on a federal training project. Although the Conference had no official status, it had great value because it provided an opportunity to discuss common problems and techniques f o r handling them. INSTRUCTION FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS

Since there is no national university, and since higher education has always been assumed to be a function of state or local governments rather than of the federal government, it is surprising to discover that the federal government provided higher education f o r about 15,000 private persons during the fiscal year 1947. A part of this education was given in schools which the federal government operated f o r the general purpose of training federal personnel and a part of it was in the form of educational work experiences in federal agencies, but the majority of the students attended schools operated under the federal government for the purpose of educating private persons. T h e activities of this type are summarized in Table 3. Federal instruction f o r federal personnel was provided f o r the reason that it made for greater efficiency and economy, and its administration was directly related to those ends. But instruction for others was provided for entirely different reasons and the management of the activities was a relatively unimportant aspect. The principal matter f o r investigation concerns the rationale of these activities, the reasons w h y the government was engaged in them. Rationale A complex series of reasons lies behind the federal activities in this area, varying from sheer accident to the need to coordinate intergovernmental relations. In the cases of the Junior College in the Canal Zone and the graduate schools operated in the Department of Agriculture and the National Bureau of Standards, historical accidents are involved. None of these can be said to be based on a policy of making higher education generally available. T h e civil government of the Canal Zone has always remained a federal function largely f o r reasons of the importance of the area to national security. In this respect the Canal Zone differs from the Organized

28

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS EDUCATOR

Territories. Civil government includes education, and education in the Canal Zone has come to include a junior college; ergo, the federal government is operating and paying for an institution of higher education. Appropriations were made to the W a r Department, which had responsibility for the civil government of the Zone. TABLE

3

FEDERAL SCHOOLS AND T R A I N I N G COURSES FOR OTHER THAN FEDERAL PERSONNEL

A

(Classified by T y p e ) Type Academic Instruction

Activity

Approx. No. of Students in Fiscal Year 1941

Department of Agriculture Graduate Schoolb 7,750 Natl. Bureau of Standards Graduate Schoolb 300 Canal Zone Junior College 260 Professional Instruction Administrative 400 Internships National Institute of Public Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority Coop, with the American Republics Program Philippine Rehabilitation Program Law Enforcement 150 FBI National Academy Maritime 5,200 U.S. Maritime Service Schools (2) Medical 1,000 USPHS Venereal Disease Seminars USPHS Communicable Disease Center Rehabilitation 400 OVR Training Institutes for State employees Total 15,460 a Expenditure data on these activities are for the most part not available. Most of the activities were relatively minor parts of larger programs. The major expenditures were for the CAR and Philippine Rehabilitation programs and for the Maritime Service Schools. The two graduate schools operated on the basis of student fees; cost to government lay in upkeep of buildings, heat, light, and custodial service, none of which can be differentiated from the normal overhead of the agency. b Students were in many cases government employees; but, with few exceptions, they attended in a private capacity, on off-duty time, and paid their own fees. Each of the graduate schools grew out of what might be called a form of in-service training, but in 1947 each dealt less with the personnel of their parent agencies than with outside persons. Employees of the parent agencies, conscious of a need for more and better training, organized courses among themselves during off-duty hours. These courses came to have status with the parent agencies for purposes of training. As they developed, there seemed to be no reason for excluding

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR 29 persons from other agencies and from outside government, if such persons would bear their share of the cost. Thus the schools came into being. They each enjoyed advantages in operating within a federal agency and using federal buildings for classroom space. Neither received a federal appropriation, being supported by student fees. In some cases in which courses had direct value for employee training, the parent agency paid the fee for the student and permitted him to attend courses on duty time; but the major part of the educational offering had relatively little connection with the specific functions of the agencies of which they formed a part, and the majority of the students were not connected with either the Department of Agriculture or the National Bureau of Standards. The statutory authority under which these schools operated was not clear, and that of the Department of Agriculture School has been challenged by the Comptroller General (see page 1 6 1 ) . However, no action has ever been taken by the Congress either to halt the schools or to place them on a sounder footing. While the value of these graduate schools to the government can be questioned, at least on the ground of their unclear authorizations, any future decisions regarding them ought to take into account the fact that they do provide education for many federal employees who would have difficulty in obtaining higher education in any other way, and that they thus contribute favorably both to employee morale and to the general quality of the personnel. The interest of the federal government in the Maritime Service Schools is clearer. The merchant marine is not a federal service, but it has obvious overtones of federal interest and federal control, and in time of war it becomes, in effect, one of the military services, subject to military discipline. Thus the training of its licensed personnel does for the merchant marine what the more advanced military schools do for the military services, and this has long been considered an item of national interest. The Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy represented a federal effort to contribute to the efficiency of law enforcement in the various police jurisdictions of the United States, both state and local. Under modern conditions of criminal mobility, cooperation of many jurisdictions may be required in the suppression of crime. Also, modern police methods have developed in such a way as to place a premium on centralization of the processes of identification and crime reporting; identification by fingerprints being, for example, effective in proportion to the completeness of the files of identifying information. But the

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R 3o agencies that must contribute to this centralized process are not subject to centralized control; nor, in the opinion of nearly all observers, should they be. Such coordination or cooperation as is possible must therefore rest on common procedures, and, to develop these, common education is essential; hence this school. It is in the light of this consideration that the interest of the federal government in enforcement training should be seen and judged. The only schools operated for outsiders were those mentioned immediately above. The remaining instruction consisted almost exclusively of administrative training, provided either as an incident to the foreign policy of the United States or for the purpose of improving administration at some lower level of government. The Public Health Service and the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation provided training in connection with some of their programs because it contributed directly to their administration. The training provided for foreigners was based on considerations of international good-will and consisted for the most part of internlike opportunities for work in specialist federal agencies (pages 103-108). Intern training opportunities were also offered to private persons through the Civil Service Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority, but on a slight scale. These programs developed out of the pioneering in this respect of the National Institute of Public Affairs, which has discontinued its operations in this area since 1947. Interns are now selected from registers compiled from among college graduates who achieve relatively high scores on the Junior Management Assistant Examination, and are taken on as federal employees. Thus the program is now one for training federal personnel, although in the fiscal year 1947 it was a program for outsiders. Activities of this type have the great advantage of attracting into government service young persons of outstanding promise. They thus make a direct contribution to the over-all quality of the federal service. REORGANIZATION OF F E D E R A L INSTRUCTIONAL

ACTIVITIES

There is some question as to whether or not the existing systems bv which the federal government organizes and carries on its training activities are adequate to the purpose. The question concerns the in-service training programs almost exclusively, since the instruction offered to outsiders is given on a slight scale except for the two Graduate Schools and the Maritime Service Schools, all of which were seen to serve federal interests. The in-service training activities were found to be for the most part

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R

31

highly specialized and directed at meeting the needs of the agencies that operated them. They were intended to increase efficiency by improving the capacity of federal employees to perform their duties. They might therefore be criticized on three grounds: (a) failure to meet agency needs because of bad management or use of ineffective teaching practices; (b) failure to meet needs because of operation on too small a scale; or ( c ) unnecessary duplication of facilities or administration which might make them overcostly. With regard to the first of the above grounds, the present study has little to offer, since it has not been directed at assessing the educational effectiveness of training efforts. But it does suggest that certain steps might be taken in the direction of expanding existing programs and eliminating duplications. Expansion Since most types of in-service training lead to efficiency and economy, it seems that attention ought to be devoted at the federal level to opportunities for expanding and improving them. At present, there is no federal agency that has general responsibility for seeking out areas in which new training programs might be started or for experimenting on improved training methods and urging their adoption. Thus it seems probable that a number of opportunities may be lost. Would matters not be improved if there were a body charged with a continuing study of federal training activities and needs, which an agency could consult about its training problems and which could take the initiative in establishing worth-while programs? A number of good proposals might thus be saved from limbo. A case in point is the proposal that the federal government establish a staff college for public administrators, similar to the advanced staff colleges of the armed services, to give instruction in the methods and techniques of public administration.3 Certainly public administration is an area in which the federal government has a direct interest and in which improvements could be made. The proposal has, however, never been adopted, or even, to the knowledge of the author, received serious consideration. T h e simplest method of approach would appear to be through an expansion and strengthening of the existing Federal Personnel Council and the Training Officers Conference, which would largely be effected by the adoption of a bill 4 submitted to the 81st Congress. This bill declares it to be the policy of the Congress to promote effectiveness and economy in the federal service by encouraging employee training. It authorizes all

ii

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R

agencies to arrange for such training as the responsible agency head may deem necessary, either in federal or nonfederal schools. It requires the Civil Service Commission to establish and supervise standards for agency training programs, to maintain a clearing house of information on training practices and techniques available to all agencies, and to conduct research on training methods. Elimination of

Duplication

It was noted above that military officer training was the only area in which duplication appeared to be a problem of sufficient size to warrant investigation. There is no need, therefore, to look beyond the military forces in dealing with this problem. If a decision should be reached to study the possibilities of eliminating duplications, it would seem logical to assign the responsibility to the Secretary of Defense. Necessary coordination might perhaps be effected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and it has been recommended 5 that a military education board representative of the three services be established under their control, to be supplemented by an Advisory Board of distinguished civilian educators who would advise both the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense on matters connected with education and training. It should be noted that this recommendation, in the context in which it was made, was not primarily concerned with the problem of eliminating duplications in training. On the contrary, the committee had primarily in mind the problem of instilling in the personnel of the services a sense of mutual interdependence and the value of sharing facilities for joint training purposes so as to help create this understanding. If the Eberstadt Committee had addressed itself to the problem of achieving greater efficiency in training programs it might not have seen fit to recommend that responsibility for coordinating training be vested in the Joint Chiefs, for the Committee evidently found reason to doubt the efficiency of that body in the area of eliminating duplications. Their report abounds in recommendations that the Joint Chiefs be required to pay more vigorous attention to coordination of activities, both for the purpose of strengthening interdepartmental cooperation and for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary duplication. T h e reason for this shortcoming is probably to be found in the nature of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as an institution. Each of the service representatives on the J C S is a proponent of his own service. Each is also surely aware of the very close connection between the schools of his service and the high morale and sense of pride of service which contribute so importantly to the success of military operations. It is there-

F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS EDUCATOR

33

fore to be expected that each member of the J C S would exhibit a strong sense of protectiveness toward the schools of his own service and would understand a similar attitude on the part of his colleagues. They might therefore hesitate to establish joint training facilities if they felt that these would give insufficient attention to the particular and different needs of each service; or, to put it in different words, they might give undue weight in their own thinking to the differences in training needs while underweighting the similarities. But this concern is probably unnecessary, for by far the larger part of the training needs of each of the services can be met only in their own schools. Specialized functional training in functions peculiar to a single service—and the greatest part of military training is of this type—provides few opportunities for coordination. An Air Admiral would probably maintain that the training required for carrier air operations is basically different from that required for shore-based interceptor operations, and few would care to dispute this point. However, there is probably some stage in both types of air training activity at which common instruction could be given. Surely pilot training in the initial stages, involving instruction in the general principles of aerodynamics is a procedure common to both. Perhaps some saving might be effected by offering basic training in matters like this, which are needed by more than one service, in common training facilities. The relation of the administrative control of a preflight school to the morale and pride of service of a particular pilot is, at best, distant, and if savings could be effected by an amalgamation at the beginner's level, some consideration might well be given to such amalgamation. Similarly, basic electronics instruction is only distantly related to the integrity of a military service, and it cannot be argued that the establishment of a multitude of schools instructing in this area was based on considerations of morale. This situation developed for the very reason that no agency capable of offering the necessary instruction for all services, or of coordinating the existing instruction, was in existence. Situations such as these suggest the desirability of investigating the extent to which it would be possible to effect savings, while also maintaining and perhaps improving efficiency and morale, by offering in common schools certain types of basic training, particularly in such fields as communications, medicine, engineering, and automotive maintenance. The successful experience of the Treasury Department in eliminating internal duplications should be noted. In that case the establishment of the Coordinator of Enforcement, as an officer who had power over all

34 F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R the enforcement agencies of the Department but who represented none of them, was the principal reason for success. The way was smoothed here by the fact that the whole process was internal to a single department and all agencies concerned were subject to the control of a single administrative officer. This was not, of course, the case with the armed services in 1947. However, the establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Defense provides an opportunity similar to that of the Treasury Department. The survey of federal training activities indicated that there may be some value in the suggestions made above with regard to expansion of activities and elimination or investigation of duplication. With the exception of those matters, however, no evidence was discovered to indicate a need for a general reorganization of federal training activities. For the most part those activities were highly specialized, suggesting the appropriateness of vesting control over them in specialist agencies, as at present.4

Chapter 2 FEDERAL RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION government bore two primary relationships to nonfederal higher education. The first of these comprised a series of services to individuals that enabled them to obtain higher education. The other primary relationship consisted of dealings with institutions of higher education for the purpose of assisting them or of obtaining services from them, or both. It is appropriate to discuss the two types of relationships separately. T H E FEDERAL

RELATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS

Aside from the types of education that the federal government made available to individuals in federally operated schools and a few scholarly services such as those provided by the Library of Congress, all of the higher educational activities of the federal government that dealt with individuals consisted of financial arrangements that assisted them in obtaining higher education. Table 4 shows the various programs of this type and the scale of each. The table indicates that this was by far the largest area of federal activity in higher education, but that it was almost entirely confined to payments on behalf of special groups of individuals associated with national defense. Thus, out of expenditures exceeding one and one-half billions, only $4,050,000 or .27 per cent went for programs in which the individuals to be aided were selected on some basis other than the part that they had played, or would play, in defense activities. All other expenditures of sufficient size to warrant attention were for R O T C personnel, or for cadet nurses whose recruitment was directly connected with the war effort, or for veterans whose military service was the basis on which this special federal responsibility was assumed. Rationale Although defense-incurred responsibilities underlay nearly all of these activities, the reasons that led to their establishment differed greatly. The rationale of the Cadet Nurse Training Program was substantially different from that of the G.I. Bill of Rights, and the motives behind

36

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL

EDUCATION

each differed markedly from the motives involved in assuming responsibility for rehabilitation of the disabled, both veteran and civilian. TABLE

4

F E D E R A L F I N A N C I A L A S S I S T A N C E TO INDIVIDUALS IN FISCAL Y E A R

1947

(By Type of Assistance) Approx. No. Approximate Agency Program Students Expenditure a. Programs paying both tuition and living costs VA Vets. Readjustment 1,126,000 $1432,000,000 VA Vets. Rehabilitation 83,000 157,000,000 State C A R Fellowships « » b Navy R O T C (Regular) 2,100 Navy Aviation College Program 3,300 8,000,00a USPHS Cadet Nurse Corps 67,000 12,350,000 USPHS Fellowships 100 200,000 State Inter-Am. education » • b. Program paying part of both tuition and living costs Off. Vocational Rehabilitation 12,500 1,000,000 c. Program paying tuition only Bur. Indian Aits. Education of Indians * d. Programs including only incidental payments, living costs, travel, etc. USPHS Training stipends 100 200,000 War R O T C subsistence 41,000 7,000,000 Navy R O T C subsistence 3,000 800,000 State Maintenance & travel grants e. Grants to states for training individuals employed on federally supported programs Children's Professional training 500,000 Bureau (SSA) Bur. Public Professional training Assistance (SSA) 2,150,000 USOED Teacher training (vocational) ,338400 $1,621,200,000 Totals » Figures so small as to be insignificant. b Not able to differentiate from totals for the over-all program. In the case of the veteran programs, the motives were especially complex and analyzing them involves an understanding of the place of veterans and their organizations in the whole scheme of political party and pressure group organization in the United States. It would be an error to assume that educational benefits were provided for veterans because of a general desire to raise the productive and social capacities of the American people, although this desire may have been in the minds of many who supported the programs. Also, many supporters may have felt some special responsibility because many veterans had given up their ambitions to complete their schooling in order to enter the Service, and there was a generally held view that the returning serviceman should

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

37

be helped to return to civil life in circumstances in which he would not be penalized for having served his country. Such reasons played a part. But the observer should bear in mind that the benefits of the programs were not confined to those who had interrupted their schooling, but extended equally to those who had had no hope or intention of obtaining further training, and had the effect of enabling hundreds of thousands of veterans to enjoy educational opportunities that they could scarcely have hoped for had they not served at all. Thus, in the case of the Veterans' Readjustment Program at least, the offer of educational benefits seems to have been more a bonus granted for service performed than an effort to make up for lost time. It was, like veterans' preference in civil service classification, a service that veterans wanted and their organizations pressed for and that could be purchased for them, thus discharging an obligation incurred by virtue of the veterans' military services but sharpened by their special position in American political life. The interest of the federal government in contributing to the rehabilitation of disabled persons rested, in part at least, on a philosophy rather different from that which seems to have underlain the programs of veterans' benefits. In the case of the disabled, the effort was to undertake activities of personal improvement which would enable the persons aided to lead useful and financially independent lives. Without such efforts, the disabled would in most cases remain burdens on their families, and frequently on governments. Thus their rehabilitation may be viewed as productive of economy as well as fulfilling a felt obligation. In the case of the civilian disabled, the above-noted aim of economy, as well as humanitarian motives, may have been present. The interest of the federal government, however, was limited to assisting the states in carrying out programs of rehabilitation. But when the disabled person was also a veteran, a whole series of additional factors entered; for the disabled veteran not only enjoyed the same advantages as other veterans, but also had a peculiarly strong claim in that his disability resulted from service to his country. Thus he not only received measurably greater benefits than his civilian counterpart, but also received them under an entirely separate program administered in an entirely separate way. The civilian program operated through states on a matching grant basis, while the veteran program was entirely dissociated from state administration. The various R O T C programs and the Cadet Nurse Training Program sought to encourage the entrance of qualified younger people into professions in which the nation had a direct interest, and in both cases did

38 RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION so by using financial benefits to make that entrance easier. The various U.S. Public Health Service grants to individuals seem to have had a similar aim, although they dealt for the most part with more mature persons. Their effect was to produce more trained persons in fields in which the government was interested and which fewer persons could be expected to enter unless the government took an interest. The programs administered by the State Department had entirely different aims from the above. They sought to encourage international cultural cooperation and good-will by the expedient of making easier the education of foreigners in the United States and of American citizens in foreign countries. Administration The individual aid programs differed substantially in administrative arrangements. In general, the larger the program, the more likely would its administration be vested in the federal government alone, while the smaller programs might be administered through state agencies, or even, in the case of the very small programs, through private agencies.1 The largest program of all, Veterans' Readjustment, was administered by the federal government without regard to the governments of the states except for the part played in the certification process by state school officials. Nominally at least, it dealt only with the individual veteran, although it became necessary to establish a number of local offices in the major universities for purposes of making contacts with individual veterans more readily. The other major programs, Veterans' Rehabilitation, ROTC, and Cadet Nurse Corps, all operated on the basis of direct relations with the individual student and contracts with the schools concerned. State agencies were utilized only in the cases of the relatively smallscale programs of the office of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Children's Bureau, the Bureau of Public Assistance, and the Vocational Teacher Training activities of the U.S. Office of Education, and only in the last of these were the general educational agencies of either the federal or state governments involved. The relations of the various programs with their individual beneficiaries also varied considerably. In some cases there was an almost unconditional and seemingly gratuitous offer of benefits while in others there was a high degree of selectivity in deciding on beneficiaries and considerable supervision of the educational program. In the case of the Veterans' Readjustment Program, the only conditions that the beneficiary had to meet were honorable discharge from the military services

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

39

of the United States or its Allies and acceptability to the institution he proposed to enter. There was no supervision of the content of the course of study pursued by the individual, who was left free to choose anything satisfactory to himself and the institution. A somewhat similar lack of supervision characterized the R O T C Programs and those of the State Department and Office of Indian Affairs. In all of the others, however, a high degree of supervision existed, often complicating matters for the individual beneficiary since his freedom of choice was circumscribed. A disabled veteran, for instance, followed a course of study determined by conferences participated in by medical, educational, vocational, and sometimes psychiatric advisers, and laid out in the contract that the Veterans Administration drew on his behalf with the college or university. If he sought to change his educational program or aim, he had first to clear the matter with this group of advisers. The disabled nonveteran was in an even more complex situation, since his educational aim was established by a similar process, but he had usually to deal with a series of state and local officials in order to obtain permission to make a change, and these officials were in turn subject to general federal supervision. (See pages 187-189). The tendency for the federal government to deal directly with the individual student in its largest programs may be unfortunate, and this matter seems to warrant investigation. The widespread sense of frustration that so many veteran students expressed when faced with delay in receipt of subsistence checks or proper authorization forms constitutes a problem of administration of large-scale individual aid programs that would have to be faced were such programs to be attempted in the future—which seems likely for reasons discussed elsewhere (page 7981). A n y very large program must of necessity be operated under a series of fixed procedures, if only to ensure that the funds are expended impartially and for authorized purposes. When such procedures are adopted, there is always risk of inconvenience if they are not followed. But untrained individuals are likely to find such procedures complicated and difficult to follow, and to condemn the agency for errors that are really of their own making. Thus there is need for a level of expert mediation between the government agency and beneficiaries, as was recognized when the Veterans Administration established a number of suboffices in universities. Private organizations have often specialized in mediation of this type, examples being found in the activities of veterans' groups and immigrant aid societies, but no reason is apparent why th$

4

o

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

government should not itself provide it. It should only be recognized that large-scale individual aid programs are likely to require it, and that dissatisfaction will probably result if it is not provided. Recruitment In a significant number of cases the government appeared to use the offer of assistance in obtaining higher education as a means of recruiting individuals for certain professions, hoping that more and better persons would be attracted to these professions by making entrance easier. Examples were: the fellowships and stipends of the U.S. Public Health Service, which were intended to encourage more doctors to work in the fields of mental health and cancer; the Cadet Nurse Program, which sought to raise the level of nursing recruiting; and the various R O T C programs, which were intended to produce a trained and available backlog of officers and which provided both funds and other advantages for their participants. This feature, which amounted to using federal benefits as bait, was also characteristic of other types of programs and activities. For example, each of the service academies, including those of the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine Cadet Corps, operated on the basis of recruiting for the profession it served, and a significant part of the attractiveness of each lay in the fact that it provided, at little or no cost to the individual, the same kind of education as would otherwise represent a considerable expenditure. Programs that use the value of higher education as a means of increasing the attractiveness of certain professions may be criticized on two grounds. T h e first concerns the propriety of luring into a profession persons who would not have entered it under less favorable circumstances. The second concerns the possibility that persons thus attracted to a profession might not make good members of it. T h e first criticism ignores the relation of certain professions to the security of the nation. There is some sense in which all professions may be regarded as contributing to national security, but surely the relationship is especially close in the case of the medical, nursing, maritime, and military professions. If persons of sufficiently high quality will not enter these professions without special benefits, the government seems to have some responsibility to step in and make up the deficiency, for otherwise the professions would be progressively weakened over the years, to the detriment of the nation. This criticism, therefore, seems unsound. T h e other criticism is more serious, since it asserts that the effort to

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

41

strengthen the profession will not succeed because of the means adopted —that, on the contrary, the effort will waste government funds and will damage the profession rather than strengthen it. For example, it has been argued that the effect of the Cadet Nurse Training Program was to entice into nursing persons who were not of a type who would make either good or happy nurses, either because of inappropriate personalities or because of expectation of greater returns than the profession actually offers. It might be expected that an intensive recruiting effort like the Cadet Nurse Program would attract some who would be badly adjusted to the rigors of the nursing profession. But, on the other hand, the very real need for more nurses than were entering the profession should be noted. If nursing was not attractive enough, then an effort to make it more attractive ought not to be criticized on the ground that it did make it more attractive. It is probably true that numbers of persons who received nursing training under the Cadet program will not remain in the profession. In any program of this type there is sure to be attrition. It is equally true that all of the persons who enter the military academies and the R O T C programs do not, in the end, become officers of the services. But it can scarcely be doubted that the professions concerned have recruited more personnel through these programs than they would have without them. Many trained nurses will leave that profession—but also many will not —just as many officers resign their commissions after they have completed the required period of service following graduation from the military academies. This does not prove, though, that these avenues of professional recruiting fail, since they very clearly do not. If it could be proved that the persons to whom such benefits are attractive are not of the right type for the profession concerned, the criticism would be more damaging, but no convincing evidence of this sort has appeared. Personal ambition and the desire to obtain higher education ought not to be confused with moral turpitude. Providing benefits as a means of attracting more people to a profession may well result in attracting some of the wrong type, but it will also probably result in attracting some of the right type. A sounder criticism of these activities would question the desirability of setting up competition among them, by which the interested agencies vie with each other to provide greater benefits, as a means, essentially, of making their programs more attractive to the same individuals. The differences in benefits granted under the various R O T C programs make a case in point. The Naval R O T C program, and especially the "Regular" program provided measurably greater benefits than either the A r m y or

42 RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION the Air Force program, including payment of tuition and other charges and of a subsistence allowance; thus it was probably more attractive to many individuals. It is to be doubted that this competition resulted in a larger backlog of trained naval officers than would have been produced if the Navy benefits had been identical with those of the other services. However, it probably provided a backlog of better quality, for among the best qualified men the preference might be for the program that provided the greater benefits. Individual Aid Programs and Federal Control The relation of the individual aid programs to the problem of federal control of education should be especially noted. The veterans' educational programs were designed to aid the veterans and not institutions of higher education, and they were organized in such a way as to avoid problems of control by the federal government of the institutional practices or content of curriculum of any institution. This was effected by two principal provisions. The first provision was the decision to subsidize the individual and not the institution, leaving to the individual a free choice as to which institution he would attend. This may have caused difficulties of one type or another for some of the institutions affected (see pages 59-67), but it avoided the danger of the federal government's using direct financial benefits to institutions as a lever of control. The other provision was designed to cover the one remaining loophole through which federal control might creep in—namely, certification. It is clear that the instrument of certification can be converted into a means of influencing both curriculum and institutional practices if it is combined with benefits that the institutions would find difficult to forgo (see page 48). However, the provision that certification of eligible institutions was to be a function of the state school officials in the individual states obviated this danger. The Administrator of Veterans Affairs was enpowered to certify additional schools, but he could not disallow institutions certified by the state officials, at least not during the early days of the program. It eventually became necessary to grant him power of disallowance in order to overcome an abuse of the power of certification by some of the state officials. Thev had granted the privilege of enrolling veterans at federal expense to a number of proprietary institutions of doubtful educational value, including in some cases dancing academies and bartenders' colleges. But, in major measure, the right to say what schools were eligible was limited to nonfederal officials.

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 43 The same provisions also sidestepped the problems of support of denominational schools and of equalization of institutional income which have stood in the way of the various proposals for federal aid to education at the elementary and secondary levels. The denominational problem was automatically solved since the government was not in the business of supporting institutions but rather of supporting worthy individuals, and the state school officials certified denominational and undenominational schools alike. T h e equalization problem, which rests on the fact that some states and localities have more funds for educational expenditures than others, was avoided by the fact that the federal funds were equated to the needs of students, not of institutions, and would go wherever the students decided to go. The way in which the individual aid programs avoided these important problems suggests that the future activities of the federal government in higher education may be largely in the area of individual aid, as they have been in the past. R E L A T I O N S TO INSTITUTIONS OF H I G H E R

EDUCATION

The federal government dealt with institutions of higher education in at least five different ways in 1947. It granted them funds for a variety of purposes; it gave them, or sold them at very low rates, facilities and equipment; it provided them a number of administrative or scholarly services; it obtained a number of services from them; and it used them as research agencies, carrying out a number of federally supported research projects on contracts let by a number of agencies. All but the last of these relationships are of concern here. Grants of Funds Funds were granted to institutions of higher education by the federal government either directly or through some intervening agency, usually a state government. While not notably generous, they formed a significant part of the federal activities in the field of higher education, especially because they raised the question whether or not acceptance of federal funds by an institution created a problem of federal control of that institution. The 1947 programs and activities of this type are summarized in Table 5. All of these activities shared the highly "specific" character of the individual aid programs. In no case did the federal government undertake general financial support of higher education. On the contrary,

44 RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION every program had a specific end in view, either encouragement of a certain type of education or enlargement of the opportunity of a special group to obtain it. TABLE Y FEDERAL G R A N T S TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Administering Agency U.S. Office of Ed. U.S. Office of Ed. U.S. Office of Ed. D.C. Board of Ed. Agriculture Dept. Agriculture Dept. Maritime Commission Children's Bureau U.S. Pub. Health Serv. Fed. Works Agency Total a

Frogram or Recipient Land-Grant colleges and universities Howard University Gallaudet College Teachers colleges, D.C. Cooperative Extension Program Inter-Am. Inst, of Agric. Sciences State Maritime Academies Health and Welfare Training grants Mental Health and Cancer Training Pub. Works Advance Planning grants

Approx. Sum Granted (1947) $5,030,000 2,578,000 212,000 70,000 27,234,000 159,000 250,000 a

450,000 3,000,000

$38,983,000 Not practicable to differentiate from totals for the over-all program.

In the case of the Land-Grant colleges and universities, the original aim was to encourage the establishment of institutions which, while not excluding the liberal arts, would be principally devoted to the study of agriculture and the "mechanic arts," and would also offer training in military science and tactics. As has been shown in the many studies of the subject,2 the decision was based on the conviction that the classical or academic kind of education in which the highereducation institutions of an earlier day specialized was not sufficiently related to the living problems of a vast number of Americans. Thus it seemed appropriate to use the economic resources of the federal government to induce the states to establish institutions that would provide what would be for many a more practical type of education. Decisions of the same sort have been taken on a number of different occasions, involving the judgment that higher education as offered by the existing institutions was in some sense deficient. This judgment also underlay the Cooperative Extension Program administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Public Health Service Mental Health and Cancer Training grants, and the Children's Bureau Health and Welfare Training grants. When the decision is made at the federal level that deficiencies in existing facilities or practices should be corrected, two alternative methods of dealing with the situation seem to be possible. One would involve the use of federal funds or resources as an inducement to encourage other levels of government or private agencies to undertake

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 45 the desired activities. The programs tabulated above are examples of the adoption of this alternative. The other method would be for the federal government to provide the needed services itself, as it did, for example, in setting up the Maritime Training Schools and the vocational training schools operated by the National Youth Administration under its "Workshops" programs.3 The latter method has been relatively little used because it creates the possibility of federal competition with existing education agencies 4 and because of the widely held view that education ought not to be a federal function. Associated with the aim of strengthening certain types of education was the desire to broaden educational opportunities for certain groups, such as the colored and the deaf. Howard University and Gallaudet College received federal support partly for this reason. Also, since Congress had special responsibility toward the residents of the District of Columbia, these grants were an appropriate exercise of this responsibility. These institutions were regarded in much the same light as the teachers colleges in the District of Columbia, although their funds came from direct appropriations and not from the District General Fund which partially supported the teachers colleges. The Public Works Advance Planning Program of the Federal Works Agency was 5 of an entirely different origin. While it dealt on a substantial scale directly with institutions of higher education, its interest in them was entirely dissociated from their instructional and research functions. The purpose of the over-all program was to enable agencies that might in the future construct public works to bring construction plans to the contract-letting stage, thus preparing in advance for expenditures of a type involved in depression financing. The program was limited to public agencies, and many public institutions of higher education participated. The various programs under which the federal government granted funds to institutions of higher education do not make an impressive list when compared with its other larger programs, but they have a special significance for two reasons: (a) they raise the question of what should be the criteria for deciding what institutions or kinds of education the federal government ought to support; and (b) they raise directly the problem of federal control of institutional practices based on the use of federal funds to accomplish specific purposes. Both of these problems have major significance for the future of federal activities in the field of higher education, and of education generally. With regard to the question what types of institutions and education the federal government ought to support, the existing programs

46 R E L A T I O N S T O N O N F E D E R A L EDUCATION indicate that the government has tended to limit its support to public institutions and to special types of higher education that it deemed to be insufficiently provided, principally agricultural and vocational training. Many educators would wish to disagree with the decisions reached. They would contend that needs in other areas of higher education have been as great or greater, and would criticize the fundgranting both on the ground that it might unbalance state educational programs and on the ground that the federal government ought not to make decisions as to what kinds of higher education ought to be supported in any state. The process of deciding at the federal level what ought to be done and leaving it to some other agency to do it, or encouraging some other agency to do it, involves several inherent difficulties. One of these is that local needs may not be met. Another is that, even if they are met, it may be at the expense of other activities for which there is greater local need. Still another is that the administrative arrangements may be such as will favor certain states more than others. For example, the original Land-Grant legislation which encouraged the development of agricultural and mechanical higher education applied to all states, including those that might have needed other types of education more. In those states, since taking advantage of the program meant additional state expenditures, state revenues that might have been devoted to more important projects went for the purposes determined by the federal government. Or, even if the over-all program meets local needs, application of nation-wide standards may overlook local factors that ought to have special weight. A case in point is the provision in one of the acts 6 authorizing appropriations for the Cooperative Extension Program, that 80 per cent of the funds appropriated had to be used for salaries of the County Extension Agents. It arose out of a dispute as to what part of the funds should be used for payment of specialists and researchers in the Land-Grant colleges and Agricultural Experiment Stations as against what part should be used for salaries of field personnel. The provision in the act represents the triumph of the group that sought to emphasize the County Agents, and applies to all states, irrespective of their needs for one or the other service. This type of legislative provision that seeks to apply a single standard in highly diverse situations has been much criticized, and reflects the difficulties inherent in an arrangement in which the government pays for, and seeks to standardize, a service that is essentially local in nature.7 Even greater dislocations may be brought about by the "matching"

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 47 provisions involved in a number of the programs. A state with relatively great financial resources will find it a simple matter to raise the funds necessary to match a federal grant, and may well do this without taking funds away from some other needed service. But in the poorer states the attempt to match may have the opposite effect. In all these programs there was a certain ad hoc character which suggests that the proper relation of the federal government to education in the states was not thought through. Each program was strictly limited both in its aims and in its application. Each represented a decision that a certain thing should be done. Perhaps the time is coming when the federal government will wish to survey all its educational activities and to determine what its relation to public and private higher education ought to be.8 With regard to the question of federal control, educators are inclined to be more critical than they are about the basic question of relationship. For in this area the present policy of the federal government is more clearly defined. Every one of the fund-granting programs involved some degree of federal control; indeed, it was inevitable that they should, for when federal funds are expended by agencies other than the federal government, there must be some assurance that the funds are being expended in accordance with the will of the Congress. It is certainly to be assumed that the normal fiscal controls that operate internally in the federal government would also be applied to these expenditures. But the problem of control is broader than the question of unconditional grants, for there have been no such grants for higher education and it seems improbable that there will ever be any. It really raises the question to what extent the Congress in adopting legislation should set restrictive standards or other provisions that deny to the states or educational institutions the right to determine for themselves the types of education they will offer and the ways in which they will offer it. A number of different methods of using grants of funds as a basis for controlling educational activities of institutions have been developed, some of great subtlety. They varied from direct inspection, as in the case of the annual inspections of Howard University and Gallaudet College, to the indirect influences brought to bear on nursing schools under the Cadet Nurse Training Program. While the latter program was treated as an individual aid program, it merits attention here because of the special technique of control that it exemplifies. The Bolton Act, 9 which established and guided the Cadet Nurse

48 RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION Program, set up a series of standards by which eligibility of nursing schools for participation in the program was to be determined. These were of an objective character relating to admission practices, variety of educational offerings, and the like. The act also set up a system of payments to Cadet Nurses that had the effect of making the status of Cadet Nurse considerably more attractive than that of student nurse, at least in nursing schools which did not provide stipends for their students. This provision resulted in increased enrollments in schools of nursing, but it also meant that eligible girls would tend to enter schools that participated in the program, since only in that way could they collect the stipends that made the training especially attractive. There was great pressure, therefore, on nursing schools that could not meet the federal standards to raise themselves to the requisite level, since they were not otherwise able to recruit students in sufficient numbers. Thus the certification process was used as a method of influencing a large number of schools to alter their own standards. If this special device has been used on any other occasion, the author has no knowledge of it, but the case is significant, since it demonstrates that the certification process is one method of effecting federal control of institutional practices. Other methods of control included requiring submission of annual reports, used in the case of the Land-Grant colleges; prior submission of budgets and administrative plans with power of disallowance granted to the federal agency, as with the grants administered by the Children's Bureau and the Vocational Education Division of the Office of Education; direct contracts with institutions, as with the Public Health Service grants; placement of federal officials on the governing boards of institutions, as with Gallaudet College and the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences; and annual inspections and audit, as with Howard University. The problem of federal control has been intimately bound up with the process of granting federal funds to institutions, and the activities for which such funds have been granted are the very activities that have included some measure of federal control. There has been some effort at overcoming this widely criticized shortcoming of the programs of fiscal support of institutions, but the principal method of avoiding control, as was indicated above, has been to subsidize the individual student rather than the institution. Another method which has been prominently proposed (see page 88) contemplates unconditional grants to states for general higher educational purposes, to be distributed in accordance with a general formula that would take into account such

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

49

factors as the relative ability of the various states to support institutions of higher education and the number of college-age youth under their respective jurisdictions. This proposal has the advantage of providing aid for the state-supported institutions in such a way that no new controls would be introduced, since they now operate under the control of the state government from which they would receive the funds. Its effect on private institutions, however, would be quite different, since it would subject them to state, even though not federal, controls. Another method of surmounting the problem of control has been to turn the power to decide who should receive benefits over to boards on which the institutions or professions concerned are represented. The national advisory councils of the Public Health Service are examples. This arrangement is subject to the serious criticism that the boards might tend to carry out their own aims rather than those of the Congress. The President's Scientific Research Board 10 pointed out that the members of the Public Health Service Boards were for the most part persons connected with the principal medical teaching institutions and that they dealt with applications largely from their own institutions and students, with the result that a heavily overbalanced share of the grants went to only ten institutions. The method of using advisory boards seems to protect the institutions from government control, but to remove protection of the interests of the government. Thus it is not likely to be widely adopted, and in fact the effort to introduce a similar scheme into a proposed National Science Research Foundation led President Truman to veto the proposal. 11 But no matter what schemes may be devised to overcome objections to federal control, a certain vestigial possibility of control must always be found in any situation in which federal moneys are spent in nonfederal institutions of higher education, even in programs designed to subsidize individual students rather than institutions; for no institution which depends on the federal government can easily contemplate the withdrawal of federal funds, either from itself or from its students. When federal moneys find their way into nonfederal institutions, the institutions in most cases adjust their offerings to take advantage of those funds. For example, the Land-Grant colleges are today dependent on the federal grants that they receive. These grants comprise a relatively small share of their total income, but they would find it embarrassing to have to get along without them. Thus the threat of withholding of the grants may well provide an instrument of control of greater weight than the requirements of the acts that established

JO

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL

EDUCATION

them. Admittedly, no effort has been or is likely to be made to withhold these grants, but the possibility of control by threat of withdrawal is always present in a situation in which institutions have adjusted themselves to and become accustomed to receiving federal funds. Some institutions may be relatively flexible in expanding and contracting their activities; others may find it more difficult to do so because they may have made long-term commitments represented by such matters as tenure of professors; but there are probably f e w institutions that would face with equanimity the prospect of expanding and contracting their activities and offerings in response to changing decisions of the national Congress. It is fortunate that up to the present those decisions have been characterized by reasonable stability. Grants of Facilities and Equipment The programs under which facilities and equipment were given to institutions of higher education in 1947 were less complex and raised fewer difficult problems than the fund-granting programs. As Table 6 shows, there were only four of these programs, of which three involved the use of war surplus materials available only temporarily, and the other operated on a small scale. The small scale of the latter and the temporary character of the others demonstrate that they were not intended f o r the general support of institutions of higher education. On the contrary, they indicate that, in this area also, the aims of the government were highly specific, being directed to the ends of relieving pressures in veteran-crowded institutions, usefully disposing of surplus property, and enabling state maritime academies to train young men for the merchant service. TABLE

6

FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON PROGRAMS PROVIDING E Q U I P M E N T AND FACILITIES FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Approximate Administering Agency Program Expenditures (1947) • Fed. Works Agency b Veterans'Educational Facilities $ 72,000,000 (Bureau of Com. Facilities) FPHA (NHA) Veterans' Re-Use Housing Program 202,000,000 War Assets Admin.b Surplus Property Disposal 580,000 Maritime Commission Facilities for State Maritime Acads. 1,3 2 5,000 Total $275,905,000 » Excludes estimates of the value of the facilities provided. b Administered jointly with the U.S. Office of Education. It might seem that the surplus property disposal programs had little significance for the future of federal relations to higher education be-

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 51 cause of their short period of activity, but their administrative organization raises questions that have significance. These are: (a) Should the government have established different programs to administer similar functions? And (b) having established separate programs, should it have allowed them to set up differing administrative channels for contact with institutions of higher education? These questions retain their significance, in spite of the fact that the programs that prompted them no longer exist, because they show how lack of coordination at the federal level may lead to confusion. With regard to the first of the above questions, the factors are identifiable that led to the establishment of three separate programs providing facilities for institutions. The War Assets Administration program was part of a larger whole, devoted, not simply to institutional aid or to assisting veterans, but to the general problem of divesting the government of a vast array of properties of all types that had been accumulated in the war effort and were no longer needed by the agencies that owned them. The educational institutions of the country were entitled to receive property, either gratis or at considerably below market value, but were only one group among many, and actually enjoyed a relatively low priority. Thus only a relatively minor part of the program dealt with educational institutions. The case of the other two programs, Veterans' Educational Facilities and Veterans' Re-Use Housing, was different. In these programs, relief of overcrowding by veterans was the object, and aid to institutions the method. The VEFP was designed for the sole purpose of aiding institutions. The housing program consisted of two parts, one of which concerned housing at educational institutions 12 and the other provided housing for municipalities. But both the facilities and the housing programs were separate and unrelated, although they often dealt with the same recipients and handled similar problems in similar ways. Allotment of functions to the Bureau of Community Facilities and the Federal Public Housing Authority was obviously based on their past connections with projects of similar types. The FPHA had erected and administered the temporary emergency housing provided under the Lanham Act 1 3 for communities disrupted by war activities. The Re-Use program was established by amendment14 to that Act with the idea that the needs of the institutions and communities could be met by dismantling and reerecting housing already under the control of the FPHA. While this housing was not, in fact, adequate to meet

52

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

the problem, and it became necessary to obtain facilities from other agencies, the assignment of the Re-Use program to the F P H A doubtless seemed to be a logical extension of that agency's past functions. Like reasons governed the assignment of the V E F P to the Bureau of Community Facilities, which, as the lineal descendent of the Work Projects Administration, had considerable experience with construction projects, and which had carried out the nonhousing part of the Lanham Act program. Thus the division of functions as between the two agencies was based, not on the types of engineering problems involved, nor on the scale or location of the facilities, but on the sole question of habitability. Housing was to be provided by the F P H A ; nonhousing facilities by the Bureau of Community Facilities. Division of functions on this basis probably complicated matters for the institutions that had to deal with the various agencies involved, for, from the point of view of the institution, habitability might not be the basis for judgment, and the same facility might be converted to housing or to class or laboratory use. Or the institutions might need facilities that would include both housing and nonhousing construction, and would have to deal with two separate agencies to obtain them. The validity of a division of functions on the basis of habitability is open to question, and it may well be that it did not rest on any real functional differences at all. Certainly, if the process of dismantling and reconstructing housing units is different from the process of doing the same thing for nonhousing shelter, the differences do not appear important. Of course, the federal government has had to deal with strong representation on the part of groups interested in restricting federal housing activities. It may be that both the legislative and executive branches found it best to deal with real estate interests through the medium of a single agency. Thus there may have been good reason for handling housing separately. But, even if there were special reasons to justify such a division of function, were there special reasons for neglecting coordination of the programs on the national level and setting up entirely differing channels of contact with the educational institutions involved? There was little or no coordination of plans or contacts as between the F P H A and the Bureau of Community Facilities, and they worked in entirely different ways to achieve strikingly similar ends. At the same time that the U.S. Office of Education, acting as the agent of the Bureau of Community Facilities, was establishing representatives in the regional offices of the F W A to work with and assist the state school officers and

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL E D U C A T I O N 5J institutions of higher education in their relations with one program, the FPHA was carrying out its similar program through the regional offices of the National Housing Agency, dealing directly with the institutions themselves without reference to educational authorities at either state or federal levels, and was relying for advice at the national level on the American Council on Education, a private coordinating body. Both programs were directed by their basic statutes to make allocations on the basis of needs created by the number of veteran students in relation to the over-all means of caring for them. Thus the information needed as a basis for allocating facilities was similar for each program, but they went about getting it in entirely different ways. Under the VEFP, allocations within a single state were determined by the state school officials, assisted by the representatives of the U.S. Office of Education who certified needs to the regional representatives of the FWA. The decisions as to the degree of need were therefore in the hands of the educational officials most competent to decide, and the actual administration of the construction phases of that program remained in the hands of the agency best equipped to handle it. The same decisions had to be made in the Re-Use Housing Program, but in this case were handled entirely by the FPHA. It was therefore possible that the two agencies might be in possession of conflicting information, and that the data on which the F P H A was basing its decisions might not accurately mirror the over-all situation as to educational institutions in a given state. But even if the information collected by the FPHA was accurate, the process of collecting it duplicated a parallel process without apparent necessity. The situation seemed doubly unfortunate, because allocation is an item of crucial importance when the needs to be met are greater than the facilities available to meet them, as was the case in both of these programs. The War Assets Administration followed the general policy of turning responsibility for certifying needs of special groups of recipients over to the federal agencies most closely related to the recipients. Thus the U.S. Office of Education was depended on to make such certifications for educational institutions and the U.S. Public Health Service for medical ones. This procedure, which was similar to that followed by the VEFP, had the obvious advantage of facilitating coordination and contact with recipients while at the same time leaving over-all administration and control in the hands of the agency best equipped to handle it.

54

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL

EDUCATION

Administrative or Scholarly Services T h e federal government rendered the nation's institutions of higher education a number of other services, on a markedly slighter scale than those discussed above, for the general purposes of broadening or facilitating instruction or of simplifying and coordinating administration; that is, some of them looked directly to the curriculum and sought to affect or strengthen it, while others were concerned with helping institutions to solve their administrative problems. Curriculum services included:

Business Extension Service operated by the Office of Small Business of the Department of Commerce, which assisted college and university schools of business in setting up teaching programs adapted to the needs of small businesses. Its services were analogous to those of the Agricultural Extension Service, but consisted solely of advice during fiscal 1947 since basic appropriations were lacking. Aviation Education Program of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, which assisted institutions of higher education in setting up programs of aviation education. Services were limited to advice and provision of teaching materials. Assignment of Personnel by the U.S. Public Health Service to institutions, for the purpose of providing instruction jn certain medical matters such as public health nursing, health education, and continuous caudal anesthesia. Advice and Assistance to many institutions on various educational matters (both curricular and administrative), provided principally by the U.S. Office of Education which retained specialists in a number of fields for this purpose. Administrative services included:

International Exchanges of professors, teachers, and fellows, which in the nature of the case involved some governmental assistance. Both the Department of State and the U.S. Office of Education were instrumental in these exchanges, serving also from time to time as the agencies selecting personnel for exchange. Evaluation of Credentials of foreign students enrolled in institutions of higher education, a service that few institutions could perform for themselves. The U.S. Office of Education supplied this service. Library Services, such as those provided by the Library of Congress, the U.S. Office of Education Library, and the Army Institute of Pathology, making available otherwise unavailable materials and simplifying administration through such devices as bibliographies and cataloguing services. Certain other functions of the federal government had relevance for institutions of higher education, although they were only incidentally directed at such institutions. A m o n g these the activities of the Bureau of Internal Revenue might be mentioned. Certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as a non-

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 55 profit institution is an important matter for many colleges and universities, since it enables them to raise funds more easily by making contributions by individuals deductible for income tax purposes. The same certification also frees the institutions from the necessity of paying the federal corporation income tax. None of the above-mentioned administrative or scholarly services was aimed at institutions of higher education as such, although they all dealt with them. They were aimed either at educational institutions in general, or at welfare activities in general, or at other broad categories of responsibility. Their higher-education aspects were in every case incidents of their broader aims, and they raised few of the problems of coordination or control associated with the other types of federal relations to higher education. Besides, the scale at which they were carried on, involving few personnel and small appropriations, indicates that they were relatively unimportant in the whole scheme of federal higher-education activity. Services Obtained from Institutions of Higher 15

Education

The principal service that the institutions of higher education rendered to the federal government consisted of training federal personnel in a number of advanced specialties ranging from meteorology and nuclear physics to law and business administration. They rendered also certain noninstructional services which are treated separately below. Instructional Services. Several federal agencies possessed statutory authority to send their personnel to colleges and universities for advanced training. The agencies that had such authority, and the extent to which they used it in 1947, are shown in Table 7. As in the case of federal schools and courses, the military forces dominated the picture, carrying out programs that dwarfed in scale those of the other agencies. In general, these activities were loosely organized, and there was no effort to coordinate the various institutional contacts involved in sending federal personnel to civilian colleges and universities. Each agency that needed such training and was able to obtain the necessary funds from the Congress made its own contacts with the institutions. In fact, in the case of the military forces, more than one agency within each department made such contacts. At least five separate programs were operated under the general control of the War Department alone, each one involving not only selection of personnel for training but also selection of institutions. The Navy programs were organized in a more centralized fashion than were those of the Army. Under-

56 RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION graduate instruction was controlled directly by the Chief of Naval Personnel, graduate instruction by the Post Graduate School, and medical instruction by the qualified specialists as in the Army. The Navy organization appears to have had the advantage of limiting administrative overhead by avoiding establishment of more than one program at each level of instruction; but it is quite possible that the needs of the various Army units were sufficiently specialized and sufficiently different to justify the number of programs. TABLE

7

F E D E R A L P E R S O N N E L UNDERGOING INSTRUCTION IN INSTITUTIONS OF H I G H E R EDUCATION IN F I S C A L Y E A R

Agency and Program State Department Foreign Service Institute, Advanced Officer Training Department of Commerce Weather Bureau Training Department of the Treasury Coast Guard Officer Training Civil Service Commission Administrative Intern Program W a r Department Army Air Forces Army Ground Forces General Staff Technical & Admin, services U.S. Military Academy Surgeon General N a v y Department Post Graduate School 5-Term College Program Bureau of Medicine & Surgery

1947

Approx. No. of Fed. Personnel

Estimated Expendituresa

20

$120,000

6

18,000

132

b

60

150,000

c 12,000,000

1,300

24 375 '15 84

589

5,500,000

«55

84 Totals 3,876 a Includes salaries of federal personnel undergoing instruction. b 25 full-time. e Interns attended American University on scholarships.

$17,788,000

As with other types of federal instruction, however, the duplications of effort between agencies seem to be more significant than the duplications within any one agency. Both the Army and the N a v y operated programs that had similar aims, but with no interagency coordination. The Navy 5-Term College Program was designed to raise the gen-

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

57

eral educational level of officers who had been selected for the "regular" service but who had not completed five terms of college education. It operated through the colleges that possessed N R O T C units. The similar Army program, planned to get into full swing during the fiscal year 1948, operated on a different theory. The Army explicitly stated that no gratuitous offer of education was intended but that such education would be provided solely for the purpose of training selected officers to meet special Army needs. Nevertheless, the Army program was aimed at officers who had been taken into the "regular" service and who had insufficient education to enable them to compete on an equal basis with graduates of West Point and other higher institutions. It even contemplated returning officers who had some college education to the colleges where they had started for the purpose of finishing their work. Thus the two programs differed more in theory than in fact. Although the Navy assured the officer of higher education while the Army did not, the end results would be the same, and the Army would perhaps find it difficult to explain exactly the specific military purpose it expected to achieve by sending a particular officer to a college to complete his course of study. It is apparent in this situation that the Army did not get its funds from the Congress on quite the same basis as the Navy, and therefore found it necessary to emphasize the practical character of its program. But the long-term value of each program lay in the relatively stronger educational backgrounds of the individual officers involved. The usual peacetime method of educating officers for the military services has been to give them a general education first and to follow this up with military experience. These programs simply reversed the usual order. The differences between them are probably not significant, although many would object to the tendency of the two services to proceed in different ways to achieve the same ends. A feature to be noted in all of the programs for educating federal personnel in nonfederal institutions is their relatively high cost to the government. When a federal employee is assigned to duty under instruction at a university, the government must pay not only his tuition and other fees, but also his salary, which is usually a much larger item. With the programs of individual financial aid discussed above, the costs per individual were much lower. Even in the case of the programs that paid subsistence allowances, such as Veterans' Readjustment, an unmarried veteran could be given an academic year in a major institution at a cost to the federal government of about $ 1,100.

58 R E L A T I O N S T O N O N F E D E R A L EDUCATION Providing the same education for an Army officer would cost not less than $4,000 at the lowest ranks, and considerably more in the case of senior personnel. Some would regard such costs as excessive. Such persons ought, however, to recognize that if the instruction is really needed the only alternative is to organize a federal school to give it, and this would be considerably more expensive. Nonmstructional Services. Institutions of higher education have more to offer the government than their instructional and research capacities. They also possess staffs and facilities capable of a multitude of uses. Hardly a day passes but the newspapers report that the President, or some federal agency, has asked a professor or administrator of some college or university to undertake an investigation or service in the public interest. In fact, it could be said that the institutions of higher education of the nation are its most important source of disinterested individuals qualified to undertake a number of public tasks. While such relationships are usually not regularized and could not be regarded as programs, they do constitute an important service to the government that is constantly recognized. A firmly established service is that connected with the various ROTC programs located on a large number of campuses. The educational aspects of these programs were handled by the military forces, each for itself. The only participation by the institutions lay in making the students available, providing the necessary facilities, granting academic credit for courses taken, and integrating the military training with their normal programs. Administration of all R O T C programs was a matter of mutual arrangement between the institution and the service. The service bore the administrative costs and provided the instructional personnel. The institution provided space, facilities, and students, without charge. Provision of the students is one aspect of the R O T C programs that is often overlooked, although recruiting may well be the most important function of the institutions in these programs. With the exception of the Navy "regular" program, the services depended upon the colleges to select the eligible students, for admission to an ROTC program was possible only for persons already admitted to colleges. Since these programs have been the most important peacetime avenues to reserve commissioned status in all services, college admission practices tend to become the basis for recruitment of a reserve officer cadre. It might be objected that this procedure limited officer recruitment to those who could afford collegiate education. Both services sought partially to offset this objection, the Navy through its "regular"

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 59 program and admission of enlisted men to the Naval Academy, the Army through its Officer Candidate Schools, which recruited from within the enlisted ranks. However, in spite of these additional arrangements, the services depended primarily on the colleges for reserve recruitment, because the individuals whom the services sought happened to be attending colleges, and could be reached there. While the R O T C program may have yielded satisfaction to the federal agencies concerned, it ought to be noted that their administrative duplications might complicate matters for some of the host colleges. In the year with which this study is concerned, there were only two federal agencies involved. The number is now three, and each operates at least one program. In some cases all are active on the same campuses, each under the control of separate personnel representing the separate departments. The Army and Air Force programs retain the similarity that they had before the creation of the separate Department of the Air Force. The Navy program, however, differs markedly from either of the others, not only having different aims but also providing greater benefits to the individual student, with the effects on the recruiting efficiency of the services noted on page 42 above. The Hoover Commission Task Force 1 8 investigating the National Military Establishment pointed out this conflict, recommending that the programs be brought into line with each other, and that their administration be consolidated under a single officer on each campus where more than one service operated. Another and entirely different relationship with institutions of higher education is maintained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which publishes annually a list of institutions at which foreign students may study. In order to be placed on the list, an institution must agree to notify the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization when foreign students finish their studies. Thus the institutions are used as an aid in the enforcement of the immigration laws, and another list of certified institutions is introduced. The activity is one of small significance and highly special character, but is just one more factor complicating the tangled web of federal relations with educational institutions. E F F E C T S OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ON NONFEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION

The scale and range of federal activities as they were carried out in the fiscal year 1947 were so great that they were bound to have considerable effect on higher education, both institutions and individual students. Under the impact of the major programs of veterans' benefits, the most obvious effects were that twice as many young Americans were given

6o RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION the opportunity to attend colleges and universities as in any prewar year, and a number of institutions were enabled to engage in projects that would otherwise have been beyond their means. Other, less obvious, effects included the following: Confusion It must be apparent from the foregoing analysis of federal activities that one of their most pervasive effects would be confusion for the institutions involved. The number of agencies with which colleges and universities had to deal seems quite unreasonable in view of the relative simplicity of the educational problems involved, especially when participation in a single federal prôgram might involve relationships with several federal agencies, each with its own procedures. The Land-Grant colleges serve as an example of the number and complexity of contacts. The Land-Grant colleges dealt directly with the U.S. Office of Education in regard to their annual grants of funds under the Morrill and succeeding Acts. This detail alone included not only reporting on the use made of the funds, but also reporting on enrollments, income and expenditure, and the like. T h e y dealt also with the Department of Agriculture in connection with the grants for administration of the Agriculture Extension Program and the other activities of the Experiment Stations. T h e y dealt directly with the military departments in connection with the R O T C programs. They were involved, in 1947 at least, with the War Assets Administration, the Federal Public Housing Authority, the Bureau of Community Facilities, and the V E F P and Surplus Property Divisions of the U.S. Office of Education in their important facilities programs. They had additional contacts with the Vocational Education Division of the U.S. Office of Education in connection with vocational teacher training. They dealt with the U.S. Public Health Service in search of fellowships and training grants. They had numerous important contacts with the Veterans Administration, especially in the administration of the two major veteran education programs under Public Laws 346 and 16. T h e y dealt with the various agencies that sought education for their own personnel. And besides these contacts they had others, not surveyed here, with the numerous federal agencies that sponsored research in institutions of higher education. All of these were in addition to the numerous contacts that they established with federal agencies on their own initiative. The reasons for this complicated skein of relationships are not far to seek. Institutions of higher education are capable of performing a number of useful services whose value is recognized by many federal agen-

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL E D U C A T I O N 61 cies and to some extent by the federal legislature as well. It is reasonable to expect the legislators and administrators to look to them for these services. Further, the types of services desired are often highly specialized, and often relate directly to a federal agency which has general charge of the specialty involved, so that it would seem reasonable to lodge responsibility for the institutional contact in the specialist agency. Besides these reasons, our institutions of higher education themselves are not highly organized into a national higher-education system, and never have been. There are relatively few of them as compared with other types of schools. A large proportion of them are private and have resisted coordination of their affairs by state agencies. The state educational agencies have never developed the degree of authority in relation to higher education that they have in relation to primary, secondary, and vocational education. And the federal activities themselves have never been viewed as a unit by any agency, federal or private; on the contrary, each activity has been developed to meet a specific need and the desirability of coordination with other federal activities has been given little consideration. Whether or not this situation should be regarded as good or bad from the point of view of the institutions is open to question. From one point of view, it might be argued that the danger of federal control of higher education is lessened and perhaps obviated by the very decentralization and specificity of the present relationships. So long as the contacts of institutions with government are spread among a multiplicity of agencies and are restricted to a number of specific activities, there is little danger of central controls emerging from them. On the other hand, an opposing point of view might be taken that would emphasize the difficulty of introducing coherence and uniformity into federal higher-education relationships so long as the confusion continues.17 The present study provides no basis for deciding the correctness of either view. It does, however, enable the student to distinguish some of the factors that have tended to generate confusion, especially overlapping of functions and by-passing of coordinating agencies. The marked tendency of the federal government to by-pass existing educational coordinating agencies such as the U.S. Office of Education and the state school officials may be especially productive of confusion. Some programs have been administered through these agencies, including a few of major importance such as the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program; but the clear tendency has been to assign responsibility for the most important programs to noneducational agencies, permitting

62 RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION them to set up direct relationships with individuals and institutions without reference to either the federal or state agencies most directly concerned. One reason may be that the proponents of a new program want to assure the emphasis or priority that they believe only a special new agency, or a department or bureau not concerned with general education, might give it. In the smaller and more specialized programs coordination may be of minor importance. For example, there seemed to be no administrative complication in the offering of police training to state and local police officers at the FBI National Academy, even though that program involved not only all levels of government but also completely by-passed all educational agencies. Even the centralization implicit in the school itself offered no problem, since it operated within the framework of the needs of local police administrations. Similarly, no complication existed in the medical educational relationships of the U.S. Public Health Service to the Medical College of the University of Tennessee, where two officers of the Service were engaged in teaching. The matter was one of limited scale and was confined to a specialty in which few other agencies would have a direct interest. In the less specialized, large-scale programs, however, confusion may result from the by-passing of existing coordinating agencies. For example, when the Veterans Administration embarked on an extended program of medical education, it cut across the lines already established by the Public Health Service, and set up a series of relationships with medical teaching institutions that in major part duplicated those of the Public Health Service, placing the medical schools and hospitals in the position of dealing with two federal agencies on similar matters. The activities of the Federal Public Housing Authority in the Re-Use Housing Program had a similar effect. A recent example of how government may confuse institutions and individuals is provided by the circumstances in which the Veterans Administration issued its Instruction i-A of 1949,18 restricting the right of a qualified veteran to change either the course for which he was registered or the institution he was attending. It required that he show that the change was necessary to enable him to obtain the employment for which he was preparing himself. The order was issued at the verv beginning of an academic year, at a time when a large number of veteran students either had just changed or were about to change courses or institutions. It had the effect of throwing a cloak of confusion around the individuals who wanted to make changes and around the institutions in which they were enrolled, in some cases raising doubt as to the ability of

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

63

a considerable number of these students to continue with their studies. The purpose of the Instruction was in part to rectify a number of abuses that had developed in the administration of the programs of veterans' benefits. Many individuals were registering for courses, not for the educational advantages to be found, but f o r recreational purposes or in order to continue to draw subsistence; and a number of proprietary schools of doubtful quality had been established for the evident purpose of profiting from governmental generosity. But the issuance of the order, however good may have been the intention, could scarcely have been more unfortunately timed, since the process of enrolling students was actually under way in a number of institutions at the time. Educators were quick to point out the difficulty that veterans would face in trying to prove that advanced degrees were essential to obtaining employment, 19 and protests on the part of institutions and individual veterans led to the modification of the order and its eventual withdrawal. 20 This was an example of the way in which federal officials whose principal functions are dissociated from education may complicate matters for educational institutions and for students. Confusion might conceivably have been avoided by a more careful effort to consult with institutions or with the educational agencies of the government. But the decision had been made long before to omit the educational coordinating agencies in the administration of the programs of veterans' benefits, just as they have, in general, been by-passed in the administration of the major federal programs. This by-passing may not only lead to confused relationships, but also may weaken the coordinating agencies that do exist. T h e decision to bypass the U.S. Office of Education in the administration of the Veterans' Readjustment Program was doubtless influenced b y the recognition of the inability of the Office of Education to participate effectively in that program. And yet the weakness of the Office of Education may well be the partial result of the fact that it has been so frequently left out of the major programs. T h e confusion resulting from the uncoordinated character of these federal relationships raises the question of the desirability of a general recasting of the organization of the federal educational activities. This matter is discussed below. Inequities But the problem of confusion for institutions of higher education was not the principal effect of the federal programs. T h e y have had some

64 RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION longer-range effects that were in general either not anticipated or insufficiently considered. The programs of veterans' benefits present the best example of weakness or lack of foresight. For example, to what extent did the legislators consider the long-range significance of giving veterans special educational advantages as compared with the opportunities afforded to the general population? It is often said that American society trains its elite groups in its colleges and universities, and that in some real sense future leaders may be expected to come mainly from the group that receives higher education. This point may be at variance with the philosophy of democracy as some people understand it, but it ought not to require much argument to demonstrate that it has some validity. Did Congress intend to draw a preponderant share of future leadership from the veteran class? If so, w h y was this class selected to the exclusion of other groups that might make an equally good or better claim? Or, further, if the federal government was going to take a direct interest in the higher education of substantial numbers of the American people, w h y did it not relate this educational advancement to long-term advancement for the people generally, and strive to determine a basis for educational advantages that would give promise of yielding the greatest return on investment? But all of the foregoing questions were irrelevant considerations in the development of the veterans' programs. They were not intended to have long-range effects. T h e y were intended rather, as was noted above, to use the institutions of higher education to accomplish a short-range objective which was attainable and which the veteran wanted. The veterans and their organizations to some extent shared the common belief of the American people that "education" is a good thing and that the more of it there is the better off everyone will be. T h e position of the institutions of higher education in this picture was that of agencies capable of providing the desired services, and the decisions were evidently reached without much effort to find out what the effects of the programs would be. Overcrowding As was noted above, the major veterans' aid programs were so organized as to avoid problems of federal control, but they failed to take account of what rapidly became the principal problem for many institutions, namely, overcrowding. It cannot be said that there was no advance recognition of the possibilities of overcrowding and its effects. The mere existence of the Veterans' Educational Facilities and the Veterans' Re-Use Housing

F E D E R A L A N D NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 65 programs would disprove the point. But overcrowding was a more complex problem than could be faced by facilities-granting programs alone, and, in any event, those programs followed rather than accompanied Public Laws 346 and 16. Besides, the seriousness of the problem of overcrowding varied according to institution, being, in general, more serious in public than in private institutions. In Private Institutions. For the private educational institutions, the effects were in general favorable. An offer to pay student fees, including tuition, will hardly alienate the affections of an institution that depends on student fees as its principal source of income and that is capable of tailoring its educational offering to the size of its income. Most of the private institutions are in this category, drawing an average of 75 per cent of their total income from student fees.21 The net effect of the programs in their case was to permit them to select more students from larger and better lists of applicants than they had ever enjoyed before. In fact, some private institutions enjoyed a prestige that made them more attractive to students than the public institutions, with the result that when the economic factors that had always limited student opportunities in the past were partially lifted, they began to attract students from areas and economic groups that they had rarely reached before. The mere fact that in most cases they arranged for considerably enlarged enrollments cannot be taken to mean that the programs seriously discommoded them. In fact, in the case of some of the less renowned private institutions that had formerly charged less tuition than those that enjoyed greater prestige, there was an opportunity to raise their fees to meet rising costs. A rise in the level of tuition charges had been discouraged in the past by the probability that its net effect would be to make students go to other institutions or forgo higher education entirely. This limitation was now lifted, for the over-all demand for higher education became so great that institutions ran no risk of losing students if they raised their fees to the levels set in the act, and fees generally rose to this level within a short time. Whether or not this was a desirable development, it was beyond the power of the federal administrators to stop it, for certification was a state function. The decision reached by nearly all private institutions to expand enrollments may have been influenced by the possibility of increasing income from tuition while making relatively low-cost arrangements to care for the greater numbers. It may also have been influenced by a sense of public duty, both to veterans whose education had been interrupted by war service or previously discontinued for economic reasons, and to the younger groups whom they did not wish to shut out because of the

66 R E L A T I O N S T O N O N F E D E R A L EDUCATION difficulty of crowding them in alongside the veterans. But, in any event, that decision was arrived at by each institution for itself, and in no case could it be said that the federal government had required them to admit more students than they would admit of their own volition. The difficulty, and even danger, for the private institutions lay in the fact that an increasingly larger share of their income was coming from federal sources—a problem discussed below (page 67). In Public Institutions. The effects of the programs on many public educational institutions were notably different. They did not normally enjoy the same freedom to decide how many students to admit. On the contrary, in many cases, their admissions policies were determined by state laws that set the qualifications for admission, usually state residence and possession of a diploma from a recognized high school. In the past, enrollments in such institutions had been kept down by the fact—disagreeable and undemocratic, perhaps, but none the less true—that even in publicly supported tuition-free institutions the cost of attending was high. The G.I. Bill of Rights had the effect of removing this limiting factor, thus releasing an unprecedented demand for spaces in public colleges that could not refuse to admit qualified persons. And this was complicated by the fact that the private institutions could refuse to admit applicants, thus causing students to rely more than ever on the public institutions that could not. If the public institutions could have found some method of reducing enrollments or enlarging income the effects would have been less embarrassing, but both were either difficult or impossible. Reducing enrollments could have been accomplished by a process of wholesale failing of less able students. But these institutions depended on state legislatures or other public sources for funds. They would therefore hesitate to adopt policies that would be unpopular with legislators, and such restrictions on educational opportunities in state institutions would be likely to raise legislative opposition, perhaps even tending to reduce appropriations at a time when the institutions were not able to obtain, on the average, sufficient funds.22 Thus the public tuition-free institutions were caught between their relative inability to reduce enrollments and their relative inability to increase income from public sources. Many were able to take some advantage of the fact that the federal government paid student fees for veterans by introducing certain fees as a new source of income, by arranging with the Veterans Administration for partial payment of costs, and by admitting out-of-state veterans on a tuition-paying basis. They succeeded in raising income from student fees from the 1940 level of about 20 per cent of all income to about

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

67

38 per cent, but they still had to face greatly expanded enrollments with fewer dollars per student than in any of the years of the 1930s, and even those dollars were worth less than they had been during the 1930s. That the quality of instruction suffered as a consequence is not to be doubted. A well-known Midwestern institution can serve as an example. Its prewar enrollments 23 had averaged about 5,000 students annually and plans existed to expand this to about 7,000. The development plan for an institution of that size had been drafted to be put into effect at the earliest postwar opportunity, and construction was begun immediately following the war. By the time that the institution was ready for 7,000 students, it had 16,000 full-time resident students on its campus. Classes intended to average 30 to 35 students in some cases had more than 100. And this situation was not untypical. Many people would have reservations about the wisdom of expanding opportunities for higher education at the expense of quality; but, in some cases at least, that was the effect of the veterans' programs. The difficulty can be attributed to the decision to subsidize the individual student rather than the institution and to the failure to make adequate provision for increasing the income of the institutions that would be unfavorably affected. Thus the public institutions that could neither raise student fees to levels approaching those of private institutions nor find sufficient funds elsewhere were placed in a situation in which enrollments expanded out of proportion to income, while the private institutions were protected by the tuition payment feature of both veterans' programs. In treating all institutions in the same manner, they really discriminated against the public institutions, because the effect was to pay larger sums of money to private than to public institutions. Like so many other federal programs that touch higher education, the prime purpose of the program was not to lift the level of education generally, and was certainly not support of educational institutions. The prime purpose was to provide a service for veterans. Higher education was simply one phase of a service that public opinion was ready to support, and that legislators were eager to offer to those who had the status of veteran. Dependence on the Federal Government The problems of overcrowding and confusion are serious and deserve attention from those concerned with federal educational policies, but they fade when compared with the long-range significance of the problem of the growing dependence of all types of higher education on the federal government. The full significance of this problem and the extent

68

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

to which it has developed have perhaps not yet been fully appreciated. Federal expenditures on higher-educational activities were at an unprecedented level during the year with which the present study is concerned. But most of those expenditures were in forms other than grants of funds to institutions. The largest part of the total federal expenditure took the form of subsistence payments to individuals under the veterans' benefits programs. Another principal area of expenditure was in providing facilities to veteran-crowded institutions. Neither of these involved payment of moneys to institutions. It is, therefore, something of a surprise to discover that about fifty cents out of every dollar received by institutions of higher education in 1947 came directly from the federal government. During the academic year 1946-1947, the total income for all institutions of higher education of all types was about $ 1,000,000,000, divided almost equally between public and private institutions.24 Of this total, almost $330,000,000 came directly from the federal government in the form of payment of fees for individual students under Public Laws 346 and 16. Federal payments on research contracts 25 with institutions came to about $100,000,000, and the direct federal grants totaled almost $40,000,000 29 more. Thus $470,000,000 of the $ 1,000,000,000 is already accounted for, without considering the numerous small-scale programs, addition of which would bring the total close to half a billion, or about 50 per cent of the entire institutional income for the year. Of course, the actual percentages for each institution would vary, probably averaging above 50 percent in the private institutions that depended more on student fees, and below that in the public institutions. Regardless of type of institution, however, it is apparent that institutions of all types are somewhat unrealistic in giving expression to fears of federal control through federal spending. If federal spending carries with it federal control, then they have been under that control for the last few years, especially the smaller private institutions, for a major part of their student bodies has been federally financed. And the decisions that the federal government adopts in the future regarding federal educational functions may have very great effects on those institutions. Of the existing large-scale activities, the only one that seems to have a long future is research, and in the nature of the case that is of relatively less importance to the smaller, private, four-year liberal arts colleges. In 1947 the smaller colleges were greatly dependent on the temporary programs of veterans' benefits, termination of which may leave them faced with the necessity for retrenchment on a major scale. The pattern of federal spending in higher education is the most im-

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 69 portant single feature of the higher educational landscape in the United States, and it has gone a long way to determine what the institutions have done. A significant number of American institutions of higher education expanded enrollments, faculties, and plants in response to the federal programs that virtually guaranteed that their expanded capacities would be filled. In many cases new institutions were founded—some similar to the nonprofit private and public institutions—others operated for profit and designed to take advantage of federal largess. But nearly all of these institutions are now in a position in which withdrawal of the existing federal activities will influence their instructional and institutional programs, and for some may even make their continued existence doubtful; and under existing laws a major withdrawal will take place after 1951. 27 What has really happened is this: the federal government, without ever accepting general responsibility for higher education, has step by step come into a central position in the field. Each step has been taken in response to public or private pressures of one or another type, and has been intended to achieve some specific end; but the sum of all these steps has brought the government to the threshold of a new responsibility. It makes little sense to say that the federal government has no responsibility for higher education, when it has paid directly one half the cost of providing it. There has been no uniform federal policy directing the diverse activities of the government in higher education, and there has been virtually no coordination of its various programs, but the time has passed when it could be said that higher education was exclusively a state and local operation. Higher education has become a major concern of the federal government. REORGANIZATION OF EXISTING FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS

During the fiscal year of 1947 no single federal agency had charge of either administering or coordinating the federal activities that dealt with nonfederal higher education, as has been shown in the foregoing pages. Nor has any today. Most of the activities were highly specialized and were usually carried out by agencies closely related to the specialties concerned rather than by so-called "educational" agencies, setting up a somewhat tangled web of relationships with institutions and individuals. Some observers might adopt the attitude that confusion and lack of coherence in federal relations to higher education are desirable. Those adopting this attitude would, it is clear, find much to appreciate in the present situation. Others might feel that there is need to clear up the

o RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION present confused and complex relationships. Those who adopt this attitude might raise the question whether there ought to be established at the federal level some single agency capable of coordinating activities and preventing what they consider harmful effects from developing. This question is usually put in the form of whether education ought to be raised to cabinet status through the creation of a national Department of Education. 7

The Departmental

Proposal

Those who support the establishment of a Department of Education argue that education is so basic and large-scale an enterprise of government as to require such an organization.26 They note the widespread federal tendency to establish educational programs and assign them to agencies whose functions are not primarily associated with education. They note the tendency to by-pass the existing official educational agencies, and they note that federal educational programs have sometimes had harmful effects on institutions of education generally. They feel that when educational matters are discussed at the higher levels of government as a part of welfare activities—relating educational matters to such activities as Social Security and Public Health—the corrective aspect of education inevitably gets the most attention, with the result that government leaders regard education primarily as a means to some specific end rather than as a general and important function of the whole society deserving of support for itself. That is the normal process as education is presently organized, with the U.S. Office of Education in the Federal Security Agency, and would be the normal process if education were a part of a Department for Social Security and Education, as proposed by the Hoover Commission.29 If a uniform policy toward education is ever to be established, in which the federal government will agree to accept certain basic responsibilities for improving educational opportunities for the American people generally, supporters of cabinet status believe that there will have to be some special agency which will be recognized as the educational agency of the government and which will serve to coordinate all or nearly all federal contacts with education. They feel that the U.S. Office of Education has never been able to perform this function, partly because it has never enjoyed the prestige that might be associated with cabinet status. There is merit in the above argument, for certainly the federal government has failed to coordinate educational activities to the end of protecting institutional interests and has, in fact, based its own activities

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 71 primarily on the corrective aspects of education. Also it is probably true that the added prestige that would come from cabinet status would make it easier to assert a claim to the right to coordinate federal educational activities. For example, it may well be that because the Secretary of State is an officer of great prestige, it has been relatively easier for the State Department to act as coordinator of the international activities of other federal agencies. However, opponents of cabinet status might claim that the argument overlooks many important considerations. The President already deals with too many agencies, and if every force in American life that sought special representation at the federal level were to succeed in establishing a department in its own behalf, there would be no end to the number of departments established. The claim of medicine to the establishment of a department can be considered equally as good as that of education. Opponents might also raise the question whether there is any real reason to think that the establishment of a Department of Education would overcome the deficiencies within the present institutional and departmental framework that the proponents of cabinet status would like to overcome. It can be argued that mere cabinet status would not solve the problems raised by absence of coordination. If the cabinet were the agency of coordination that the proponents of cabinet status seem to think it is, there would be little reason for the host of coordinators and interdepartmental committees that now exist. Perhaps the only effect of cabinet status would be to create an office from which it would be possible for a federal officer to control American education. Or, opponents might go even further, and challenge the departmental proposal, not only on the ground that it would not achieve the objectives sought, but that the objectives themselves should not be sought anyway. They might argue that there is no need to coordinate federal higher-education activities and that coherence of policy would be distinctly undesirable. The present study does not provide a basis on which the issue can be settled. It does, however, lead to several conclusions that might be of interest to those involved in the dispute. Of these, the most important is that, as of fiscal year 1947, the possible alternative methods of accomplishing what the proponents of cabinet status hope to accomplish through their proposal had not been tried. If, for example, it is desired to coordinate federal higher-educational relations to the end of simplifying contacts with institutions of higher education and of preventing certain contingencies, such as confusion or overcrowding, from developing, it is possible that the desired coordination might be achieved as well

72

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

through strengthening the existing Office of Education as through a new Department. Coordination through the U.S. Office of Education It is usually unwise to generalize all types of education provided in this country under the single heading "education." Certainly there are important variations in types of schools and educational institutions that need to be taken into account. Institutions of higher education differ from other types of schools not only in content of instruction, but also in administration, organization, and fiscal practices. T h e y ought not, therefore, to be lumped in one general class with other schools and treated as a mere subheading of "education." Even in the area of public education, many states administer higher education in ways entirely separate from other types of education. But when an agency already exists that has responsibilities toward educational institutions of all types, there appears to be little reason to break it up and replace it with a number of agencies, each devoting attention to a single type. T h e existing Office of Education, with its present arrangements for handling higher-education matters, may well provide the best and simplest method of dealing with the problems of coordinating federal activities in higher education and mitigating some of their effects. Educators who regard the problem of simplifying the educational relationships of the federal government as of first importance might wish to have the entire administration of all educational programs vested in an educational agency, 30 even facilities construction programs. Those who oppose this point of view would probably point out the argument that facilities construction programs ought to be in the hands of agencies specializing in construction, since the nature of the function rather than the nature of the beneficiary ought to determine the assignment. Those who make the latter argument, however, would perhaps agree that contacts with educational institutions might well undergo some form of coordination, leaving the construction phases of the programs in the hands of agencies specializing in construction, as was done in the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program (see page 194). In deciding the proper limits of action of a special agency designed to coordinate federal educational relations, it is important to keep in mind . that the objectives sought through coordination should determine the character and scope of the coordinating action. The problems that the proponents of cabinet status seek to solve have to do with preventing the federal government from interfering with, unbalancing, or confusing

FEDERAL AND NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 73 nonfederal education. They are not seeking controls in the reverse direction. Thus coherence and simplification of federal policies and programs are the objectives. The problem seems to be as much one of the amount of attention paid to the educational coordinating agencies that exist as it is one of departmental status. As was pointed out above, the very weakness of such agencies may be partially attributed to the fact that they have been bypassed so frequently in the past. In many cases, they were not able to handle the types of programs or functions on the scale that the federal government might have sought to use them. Certainly the Office of Education was in no position to handle a program of the scale of the Veterans' Readjustment Program under Public Law 346, although it would perhaps have been wise to give it a share in its administration. But reasons are not apparent why the present functions of the Office of Education could not be expanded and why it could not be strengthened to the point of being capable of exercising a measure of control over such activities as might need coordinating. The question is not whether it could be done, but whether it should. That office currently employs the services of some distinguished educators. Perhaps the desires of the proponents of cabinet status might be satisfied if it were better supported and staffed with more personnel of recognized standing, for it might then be in a better position to assert a claim to the right to coordinate activities in which relations with higher education play a part, including, perhaps, some measure of coordinating control over the institutional relationships of the Veterans Administration and the military services, although actual operation of programs would remain with the agencies now handling them. Such strengthening might be effected by Executive Order supplemented by enlargement of appropriations. Ample precedent exists for this type of coordination of federal activities. For example, the State Department normally coordinates the foreign relations aspects of the programs of nearly all agencies. Similarly, the Veterans Administration is the agency charged with coordination of federal activities dealing with veterans. And the Department of Agriculture for the most part administers or coordinates programs dealing with agriculture. The reasons for setting up these more or less centralized controls may have differed in each of the three cases, but simplification and coherence of policy were evidently factors in all three. Some might conclude that their existence demonstrates that cabinet status is a prerequisite to the establishment of such coordinating controls. But the Veterans Administration, of the three the one that perhaps most

74 RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION completely dominates administrative relationships with its special clients, lacks cabinet status. In the process of channeling federal contacts with educational institutions, the Office of Education, or any other federal agency designated to coordinate educational relations, would have little reason to attempt to limit the access of institutions of higher education to the various federal agencies by insisting on channeling their federal contacts. Such an effort would be futile, anyway, for those institutions have dealt and will continue to deal with many federal agencies on matters of direct concern to themselves. The general absence of coordination, which appears to have generated the movements favoring departmental status, seems to be significant in the programs in which the federal government takes the initiative and seeks to accomplish some federal objective through the institutions, and the need appears to be for some form of self-control on the part of the federal government, rather than for an effort to limit the activities of the institutions. N o r is there any apparent reason why a federal educational coordinating agency should be in a position of controlling or coordinating all federal programs dealing with higher education. Certain of the existing programs are so specialized that there appears to be little point in seeking to coordinate them through a general education agency. Medical and research activities are examples. Relations to medical teaching institutions ought probably to be handled on a separate basis, since such institutions are normally more closely associated with hospitals than with other schools of a more academic type. While medical relationships need to be carefully coordinated with other activities involving higher education, the logical agency to administer activities in the medical field seems to be the U.S. Public Health Service, which could remain responsible, maintaining necessary liaison with the educational coordinating agency. Similarly, it would seem appropriate to have a research agency coordinate research activities. A number of federal agencies operate scientific research programs that are at present largely uncoordinated. In many cases, institutions of higher education are utilized. However, highereducation relationships are not the principal part of the federal scientific research program. The President's Scientific Research Board, noting the problems created by the uncoordinated character of federal research activities, recommended that an interdepartmental committee be established to effect the needed coordination.31 If such a group is established, it might well include representation from the U.S. Office of Education, since administrative and other relationships with the institutions of

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION 75 higher education would be importantly involved in any federal scientific research program. The federal educational agency need not participate in decisions as to the substance of needed research. This clearly lies beyond its competence. However, when those activities come to involve iastitutions, it might be desirable to have some additional representation capable of studying the effects of the entire research program on educational institutions; and that should come from an educational rather than a research agency. As regards the internal organization of the U.S. Office of Education, it should be noted that most of the educational activities of the federal government are not distinct as to level of education, and that the problem of coordinating federal educational relationships therefore exists at the elementary, secondary, and vocational, as well as at the higher levels. Thus, an internal organization is called for that permits coordination simultaneously within the field of higher education and between higher and other types of education. This consideration indicates the desirability of continuing the existing set-up in the Office of Education, in which a Division of Higher Education is flanked by corresponding divisions for elementary, secondary, and vocational education. But the Division of Higher Education, if it is to exert any real influence on the activities of other federal agencies, would have to perform a function that it is evidently not in a position to perform under the existing circumstances—namely, a continuing and detailed study of the effects of federal programs on higher education generally and of the needs of the institutions themselves. Such a study would seem to require not only a sizable and well supported staff but also some form of representation from the institutions, perhaps in the form of an advisory board consisting of representatives of institutions of all types, both public and private, and of the various coordinating or conference associations around which they have grouped themselves. The proliferation of advisory bodies at the federal level has been criticized. Certainly, such bodies ought not to be appointed except when really needed. However, if means of simplifying relationships and studying the effects of federal programs are sought, it appears that the advantages resulting from the establishment of an advisory committee on higher education might outweigh the disadvantages. It would at least provide the Division of Higher Education with a ready source from which to draw information and guidance with reference to the probable effects of proposed federal programs or actions on institutions of higher education or on individual students, especially if it were empowered

76

RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

to make such studies of federal activities as it might wish and to offer criticism when and where it desired. It might be argued that the desired representation could be obtained equally well from existing agencies of the type of the American Council on Education, or even that the need for representation must be slight if the institutions of higher education themselves are not seeking it. The latter argument ignores the degree to which educators, while generally favorably disposed toward the impact of federal activities on higher education, have indicated concern about the problems of confusion, disorganization, and increasing dependence.32 As for the possibility of obtaining representation from existing agencies, it should be recognized that the problem of coordination has developed in a situation in which such agencies as the American Council were available for consultation. In spite of the ready accessibility of distinguished and competent advice, the Veterans Administration issued so important a directive as its Instruction i-A (see page 62) without consultation. It therefore seems that some machinery ought to be discovered that would give added emphasis to the views of educators on the effects of federal activities on institutions of higher education. It seems appropriate for the federal government, before undertaking actions that will affect special groups, to consult with the groups affected. W h y should it not take the initiative in seeing to it that representatives of such groups are available for consultation? It may well be that highereducation representation could be provided without action on the part of the government, but much can be said for the value of giving some official status to a body representative of institutions of higher education, at least from the point of view of those who seek better coordination and more coherence in federal programs. The mere fact that colleges, universities, and like institutions would have existing and continuing representation within the Office of Education might well cause that agency to be regarded as the one to consult about higher educational relationships, thereby lessening the by-passing that has led to confusion in the past. Also it would be relatively easier to bring the effects of the large-scale programs to the attention of the other agencies of government through such a committee. Not only would this procedure lead to better coordination of the present situation, but the implications of future programs that might affect institutions of higher education could be studied better than appears to be feasible under the existing set-up. Among the recommendations of the President's Commission on Higher Education was one calling for the establishment of a permanent

RELATIONS T O NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

77

National Commission on Higher Education.33 The recommendation, however, specified that the suggested commission should be composed of distinguished citizens, "mostly not connected professionally with education," appointed for long, overlapping terms. It is apparent, from the nature of its recommendation, that the Commission had in mind the creation of a body that would continue its work on a permanent basis. That work dealt basically with the question of the place of higher education in American life, devoting itself primarily to problems of equalizing educational opportunities and expanding the nation's higher educational plants and faculties. It specifically excluded from its purview any critical study of the organization or effects of federal activities. This exclusion, in the last analysis, provided the reason for undertaking the present study, the results of which indicate that the federal government's higher-education record can be criticized from several points of view, and that further study of many aspects of the situation is needed. A n y new body established to study federal relations to higher education ought to study the problems created by those relations and ought to be free to make recommendations for dealing with them. It seems, therefore, that a professionally qualified group directly representative of the institutions themselves would be preferable to a group of distinguished and disinterested civilians unequipped to analyze or anticipate the effects of past or future federal activities in this field. The distinguished civilians might make valuable contributions in indicating goals for educators, and they might be of indirect assistance in studying the effects of federal activities, but a group that regarded itself as unable to engage in an extended and detailed criticism of governmental administrative arrangements would be of little benefit to the institutions that need the benefit. The present study provides no basis for deciding whether or not the work of the President's Commission should be continued within the particular frame of reference that it adopted. It does, however, suggest that in the process of studying the long-term needs of the nation for higher education and possible means of satisfying those needs, close attention should be paid to federal administration and its effects, and that for this purpose a group professionally associated with the institutions would be more valuable than a nonprofessional group; and, further, that its value would be in direct proportion to the degree to which it was (a) representative of all types and levels of higher education, (b) readily available for consultation, and (c) able to assess the probable effects of proposed actions on institutions and students.

Chapter 3 FEDERAL POLICIES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION A REVIEW OF THE federal activities in higher education as they were in the year 1947 reveals that there was no uniform federal policy in this field. Certainly, the federal government had no policy of giving general support to higher education for such purposes as a general strengthening of the nation. On the contrary, higher education was regarded in nearly all programs as a service that could be obtained for special groups of individuals or for some special purposes, and the institutions were regarded as places where this service could be available. In both aim and application, the activities were highly specific. Relatively little concern was shown for the effect that the programs might have on institutions or individual students. It is not intended here to suggest directly changes in current federal policies. The present study has dealt with the question of what the policies have been rather than what they ought to be. The study does, however, suggest certain conclusions that future makers of federal educational policies might take into account. It ought to be recognized that the federal government has come to take a central and potentially dominant position in the general national scheme of higher education; that the effects of its programs, whether it wishes or not, are far-reaching and widespread; and that no institution of higher education in the United States today can afford to ignore the effects of federal activities. Each program that the government has operated may have been set up for highly specific purposes. Each may have had very limited aims in view. It may have been felt that the programs bore few relations to each other and minor relations to the institutions of higher learning. However, in the sum, these programs, when their impacts are all added together, constitute the most conspicuous element in the scene. As was noted above, in the fiscal year 1947, about 50 per cent of the combined institutional incomes of all institutions of higher education in the United States came directly from federal sources, and the total expenditures of the federal government for higher-educational purposes exceeded two billions at a time

F E D E R A L POLICIES

79

when all the nonfederal institutions of higher education were spending about one billion. Thus any change in existing federal highereducation policy is bound to have an important impact on nonfederal higher education. Even with no change in existing policies, the impact of the existing programs will become increasingly severe over the next f e w years. Probably the most noticeable case of difficulty f o r institutions of higher education will be associated with the closing down of the program of Veterans' Readjustment, which accounted for almost a third of total institutional income in 1947. T h e funds f o r this program will decrease rapidly, since it will no longer be possible f o r veterans to enter the program after 1951. Of itself alone, this will probably cause an important shrinkage of the scale of higher educational offering in the United States. If the effects of federal activities become increasingly severe, as seems probable, pressures are likely to develop in the direction of a reexamination of federal policies, and may well result in increasing study of two basic questions, neither of which has received treatment in the present study: (a) W h a t degree of responsibility f o r the higher education of the American people ought the federal government to accept? A n d (b) how ought it to exercise that responsibility? In dealing with these questions, it seems probable that programs of scholarships and institutional aid will be looked into. If this is done, the following considerations may be pertinent. F U T U R E SCHOLARSHIP

PROGRAMS

Student enrollments in 1947 were at a level almost twice as high as in any prewar year. A significant part of this expansion was caused b y temporary federal scholarship programs. Institutions that wish to reduce expanded enrollments may welcome the forthcoming contraction. But since income from student fees plays so large a part in the financing of higher education, it seems probable that a great many institutions will wish to maintain enrollments at levels not f a r below those of 1947. This will be difficult to do unless new federal scholarship programs are adopted, 1 and it therefore appears likely that pressures will be brought to bear on the federal government to establish programs of this type. A number of considerations lead to the conclusion that the federal government may ultimately look with favor on new scholarship programs. First, the same aims that led earlier Congresses to adopt the G . I . Bill

80

F E D E R A L POLICIES

of Rights may influence Congressmen in the direction of similar privileges for such young men as may be drafted under present Selective Service legislation. T h e Selective Service System has not been drafting men during most of the postwar period, but it may remain a necessity, and a sharp deterioration in the international situation may even lead to the adoption of a system of Universal Military Training. In either event, the promise of higher education to the individual draftee would make military service more palatable to the individual and to the voter. Moreover, without Selective Service or Universal Military Training, it would still be consistent with past recruiting policies if educational aid to the individual were used as a method of making voluntary enlistments more popular. For example, if the o f f e r of t w o years of higher education in a college of the enlistee's choice were offered as an incentive to encourage enlistments, such an offer would differ only in degree from the N a v y reserve officer and air training programs and the U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps Program as they operated in 1947. This possibility might seem doubly attractive to legislators, since it would give some promise of meeting the needs of the services f o r additional personnel without resort to the politically risky method of forced induction. Second, the largest and most important programs of the federal government in higher education in the past have been of the scholarship type. T h e major example is of course the Veterans' Readjustment Program now operating. But other programs of the past should not be overlooked. These include the various rehabilitation programs, for both veterans and nonveterans, and the activities of the National Youth Administration, or at least that part of them that included direct aid to students. T h e precedents for institutional aid are relatively weak and are in nearly all cases associated with undesirable features. But the precedents f o r aid to individuals are strong. Third, in higher education, as compared with other types of education, the institutions are relatively f e w in number and relatively distant f r o m each other. It is usually necessary, therefore, at least for those students who do not live in cities where institutions of higher education are located, to go to and live at the institution. Thus a higher education is relatively more expensive to the individual than other tvpes of education, even where tuition and other institutional charges are small or nil, since the major cost is not the cost of the education, but the living cost associated with it. This handicap to individual participation can be most readily overcome by granting funds to the individual student.

FEDERAL POLICIES

81

Fourth, aiding the individual and allowing him to select the institution he wished to attend has avoided a number of peculiarly difficult problems that have blocked other proposals for federal aid to education, especially the problem of the institutional control that is rightly thought to be associated with federal institutional subsidization and the problem of governmental support of denominational institutions. The main method of avoiding federal control when institutions were subsidized by the federal government has been to grant funds to states, which might then use the funds for state or other public institutions without changing the controls under which those institutions operated. While the public institutions of higher education might be subsidized in this way without danger of added controls, provided the federal funds were apportioned among the states on some objective basis such as that used in apportioning the grants-in-aid administered by the Children's Bureau, it has an entirely different connotation for private institutions, which would be subject thereby to state if not to federal controls. The problem of denominational support is a grievous one, since the denominational institutions and their backers tend to resist any program that leaves them out of account, while the supporters of the rigid separation of church and state resist any program that includes denominational institutions. Neither of these problems arises if the aid is granted to the individual rather than to the institution. All the above considerations lead to the conclusion that important pressures will probably develop urging that the federal government adopt a scholarship program on a large scale, and suggest that such pressures may, in the end, be successful. But if a scholarship program is to be adopted it should be based on an understanding of the types of problems created by past programs of this kind. The most important of these problems were seen to be asociated with growing dependence on federal financial resources and with overcrowding in the public institutions that were unable to restrict enrollments or to enlarge income sufficiently to care for the acded numbers of students. The tuition payment feature of the Veterans' Readjustment Program—combined with the subsistence payments—had the net effect of discriminating against the public institutions. If a future program went to the other extreme and omitted the tuition payment feature, substituting for it a flat grant of funds to the individual, it is entirely possible that its net effect would be to dis-

82

F E D E R A L POLICIES

criminate against the private institutions. Students receiving flat grants of funds would probably tend to go to institutions where they could obtain adequate training without added costs to themselves. If they selected the major private institutions, payment of the tuition fee would leave them relatively little for living expenses. In tuition-free institutions the same funds could be applied almost exclusively to meeting those expenses. The net effect of such a program might therefore be to place a premium on selection of a public institution. Since the program would presumably be aimed at assisting the most promising students, this would mean that the cream of the private institutions' students might be progressively siphoned into the public institutions. Of course, a number of students would continue to be attracted by the prestige of the major private institutions, if not of the lesser private ones; and institutions that have had extensive scholarship programs might devote the funds involved to providing tuition payments for the promising students selected under a federal subsidy program. But if the prestige of the private institutions ever began to decline, as might occur if the federal government granted fiscal relief to the statesupported institutions, thus enabling them to make themselves more attractive as compared with the private institutions, the latter would be left to find students among groups that could afford the cost of attendance but were not sufficiently promising to qualify for federal scholarships—a bleak prospect over the long run. Thus it seems that a future program designed to avoid discrimination as between private and public institutions would include both provision for payment of tuition, in order to protect private institutions, and some additional grants of funds to protect public institutions. A possibility would be an arrangement whereby the federal government would agree to pay to public institutions of higher education an amount per student equivalent to that paid to private institutions in the form of tuition. Such a proposal would perhaps have rough sledding in Congress, but it would have the advantage of providing an indirect subsidy for the public institutions proportional to the numbers of federally supported students, while still leaving the choice of the institution up to the student, which is the principal advantage of the scholarship programs. Another possibility would be for the public institutions to adopt a scheme of tuition charges, or higher student fees, backed up by a widespread program of fee-waiving for students who were in need and could not obtain aid from a public source. Federal legislators might regard this as a state effort to attract federal funds, but it would be based on the view that the federal government ought to accept some

F E D E R A L POLICIES

83

responsibility f o r institutions of higher education if it is going to use them to achieve federal purposes. There is an additional number of problems in scholarship programs, and these should be studied with the greatest care. Perhaps the most important are concerned with the national need f o r college and university graduates, and with selection of beneficiaries. The National Need for Higher Education When the President's Commission on Higher Education recommended that higher-education enrollments be expanded to about 4,600,000 by i960, it based its figure on two principal calculations: an estimate of future needs f o r professionally trained persons, and an estimate of the number of youth of college age (18 to 2 1 ) who had the basic intellectual equipment to absorb such education. T h e Commission estimated, on the basis of the results of the A r m y General Classification Test as equated with other recognized tests, that 4,000,000 youths of this age group would be present in the i960 population who would have the requisite intellectual equipment 2 and that the needs of the various professions would require an annual enrollment of 600,000 in graduate and professional schools. The estimate of professional need may perhaps be large, but the basis on which it was reached is reasonable, since the expansion of a number of professions, especially educational and medical, would be required if several current legislative proposals were adopted. T h e other estimate (of eligible youth), however, was not arrived at b y any such calculation of national need. On the contrary, the possibility of or need for such a number of higher-education graduates was not investigated at all. T h e assumption was that higher education should be available for all, to the limit of their personal abilities, and the A G C T scores indicate that 2,500,000 would be capable of schooling to the fourteenth grade—hence the recommendation f o r two-year community colleges—and another 1,500,000 to the sixteenth grade level, the equivalent of the current four-year bachelor's degree. A life of maximum cultural richness for everyone is a commendable aim which f e w would wish to question. However, when a particular number is selected, and selected solely on the basis of the individual students' capacities, as measured b y a particular test, important considerations have been left out of account. For example, w h y did the Commission decide to base its estimate of needs for professional education on an estimate of national need for leadership and higher skills, but to omit reference to this factor in making an estimate of the desirable level of

84 F E D E R A L POLICIES higher education up the sixteenth grade? Admittedly, the factor would have been difficult to investigate. But higher education produces more than a life of cultural richness. It also produces technological competence and leadership. The need for such competence and leadership in college graduates seems to be a consideration relevant to a determination of a desirable level of national effort. Further, if it was really interested in meeting needs, why did the Commission devote itself almost exclusively to the quantitative aspect of higher education, without considering the possibility that the needs of some areas might be, not for more room in institutions of higher education, but for maintaining existing capacities of institutions while improving the quality of their performance? It is conceivable that in some areas the net educational opportunity available to the people would be increased by restricting the capacities of existing institutions. The Commission considered higher education at three levels— namely, the fourteenth grade level, the sixteenth grade level, and the graduate level. It seems reasonable to suppose that the real needs of each state or region of the United States at each of these levels would differ, and within each level would differ as to types of education needed. Thus distortion is introduced by lumping them together and adding up the results without investigating the diversity which is one of the most pervasive characteristics of the American educational system. As Professor Seymour Harris pointed out,3 a national calamity would result if significantly larger numbers of persons were educated by colleges than could be absorbed by the economy in jobs of types that the colleges would have taught them to expect. Of course, more higher education might produce more individuals of improved capacity who might in turn develop added economic opportunities, thus utilizing the services of more persons with advanced training. The relationship between the general level of education and the general level of economic opportunity is in some sense reciprocal, although not in any direct ratio. But even assuming enlarged opportunities, it would still be necessary to take account of Professor Harris' point. The recommendation of the Commission might well be tempered by some more careful study of the numbers of college-trained persons whom the economy, assuming full employment, might be expected to absorb. Also, the number of adult persons who ought at any one time to be in school ought probably to be related to the basic economic needs of the nation. In a time of depression, as in the 1930s, when unemploy-

F E D E R A L POLICIES 85 merit is widespread, it may be desirable both to keep college-age youth out of the labor market and to give them an opportunity to advance themselves by making education available. This was among the principal purposes of the National Youth Administration programs of the 1930s. Undue expansion of educational enrollments, however, while desirable from the individual's standpoint, may lead to a situation in which the useful employable life of the individual may be shortened beyond the point of optimum return. Persons in student status are not only a general burden on the rest of the economy, which must in some fashion support them, but the potential production that might result if they were employed is lost. Education, including higher education, can be viewed as a form of capital investment, in which savings are invested in individuals in the hope of greater future return. It is reasonable to suppose that, as in other areas, the amounts that can be invested are not unlimited. There is certainly a point at which any economy, even the most productive, can no longer afford the luxury of additional higher education. A n y adequate picture of a desirable level of higher educational effort would have to bring all these factors into focus with each other. It is entirely possible that such a focus would reveal that the proposal of a level of 4,600,000 was eminently practicable and economic, although it should perhaps vary from year to year. It seems, however, that to demonstrate the desirability of such a level, more would be necessary than to calculate, as the President's Commission on Higher Education did, its cost to the federal government, and to equate that cost with a given percentage of the national income. Selection

of

Beneficiaries

Selection of the recipients of scholarships and fellowships also presents many complications. Should they be selected by the states in separate programs jointly administered by federal and state governments? Or should they be selected on a nation-wide basis? Is there any objective method of measuring the capacity for leadership and other moral and intellectual qualities that would best qualify a youth for higher education at public expense? Should the benefits be limited to persons who could not obtain education otherwise? Or should they be distributed among the entire population in accordance with ability, irrespective of efforts to equalize educational opportunities? H o w can a "means" test be fairly administered? These and other problems were

86

F E D E R A L POLICIES

settled automatically by the G.I. Bill of Rights, which covered any eligible veteran who could obtain admission to an accredited institution; but a future program would have to face them. If selection were to be a state function, the major institutions of national reputation would suffer unless the state programs permitted a selectee to choose to attend out-of-state institutions, but state legislators might prefer to favor local institutions. Also, uniformity of standards would be very difficult to enforce. On the other hand, if standards were set and supervised by the federal government, uniformity might result, but federal controls would be introduced. There is guidance here in the experience of the Armed Forces during the recent war in selecting persons for their college education programs, and in the Navy experience in selecting for the Regular R O T C Program, for which a series of objective tests were devised and largely administered by a private testing agency. T h e Navy program is currently in operation. However, those programs had the benefit of a constant supervision during the subsequent period of instruction to weed out the unfit. T h e method of selecting individual fellowship holders of the U.S. Public Health Service might also serve as a guide. This system depended on civilian boards, composed of leading experts in the various medical fields, which had the function of making the final decisions regarding grants. T h e system has been criticized on the ground that the expert members of the boards tended to favor fellowship projects proposed by their own and similar institutions. Since this criticism is not without foundation, the procedure would probably be difficult to adopt. Constant supervision of the work of students holding federal scholarships would not be practicable, especially if it attempted to operate, as it would probably have to, on the basis of the academic record achieved by the individual beneficiary. Standards of institutions vary widely, and the level of competence that might produce a low grade, or even a failing grade, in one institution might make a commendable record in another. If any set standard of academic achievement, measured in grades higher than those required of others to maintain good standing in the institution concerned, were to be the criterion of keeping a federal scholarship, a premium would be placed on selection by the individual of an institution with minimum standards. This would tend to defeat the ends of the whole program, since it would guarantee an increase in quantity at the expense of quality, forcing perhaps an almost uniform abasement of standards. Efforts to devise an equaliza-

F E D E R A L POLICIES

87

tion table for institutional standards would raise even more difficulties than do similar efforts in the tax appraisal field. Since supervision and control of this aspect of a scholarship program could hardly be carried out, it would be necessary to devise a substitute form of control, probably best done through accrediting of institutions. However, if accrediting were to be undertaken by the federal government, a whole series of complications would be introduced, as was indicated in the preceding chapter. The alternatives, therefore, would appear to be either to leave accrediting in the hands of private associations, as it is for the most part handled today, or to grant the function to the state school authorities, as was done under the G.I. Bill of Rights, accepting as necessary the risk that they might then include in the program everything from universities of national reputation to barber colleges. Other problems of selection would arise depending upon the nature of the aims of the program adopted. If the basic aim is equalization of educational opportunity, then more scholarships should be made available to persons who live in areas where there are no institutions of higher education, especially for farm youth, since, with few exceptions, they cannot attend colleges while living at home as city youth can in cities where there are colleges. Also, some test of the student's financial means would be required. A program operated in this way would deny a federal scholarship to a youth, otherwise qualified, who lived in a city where there was a tuition-free institution to which he could gain admittance, since his opportunity would be considered adequate. This procedure would overlook the possibility that the local institution might be one of very poor quality which might not, in fact, provide the opportunity he merited. On the other hand, if the aim of the program were to find the best qualified youths, irrespective of the availability of opportunity, and provide them with the means of obtaining a higher education, then it goes without saying that the amounts of money made available to the individual would have to vary with the needs of the student, or inequities would result. The youth who must live away from home in order to attend college would have larger expenses than the youth who could attend college while living at home. Also, it would be essential to recognize the greater financial needs of students at the graduate levels. It is one thing to provide the minimum amount needed by a young undergraduate and a quite different thing to support a more mature graduate student. This difference has normally been recognized, both by the institutions and by the federal government, in the traditional arrangements for fellowships. If one of the

88

F E D E R A L POLICIES

aims of a future federal program will be to produce trained and competent leadership, it seems that a fellowship program might make a more important contribution than a scholarship program, and this would require different levels of subsidy. T h e difficulty of determining the size of subsidy could perhaps be overcome b y setting up a program comprising a number of different types of aid, of both fellowship and scholarship types. The fellowship programs could be developed by extension of those now operated by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Public Health Service. T h e scholarship programs could be of three types: one covering payment of tuition and a reasonable subsistence allowance, one covering subsistence payments only, and one comprising tuition payments only. All youths might then be permitted to compete for the maximum benefits; those who failed could be then permitted to compete for the lesser benefits, choice of benefit depending on the individual's needs. This arrangement would have the advantage of combining maximum freedom of choice for the group of highest quality with reasonable opportunity f o r others. The Pepper Bill A bill 4 to establish a scholarship program was submitted to the first session of the 8ist Congress. Under this proposal funds would be granted to states, increasing up to $150,000,000 by 1952, for the purpose of setting up a program of scholarships and loans for students in colleges and universities. The basis for apportionment would be related directly to the population of ages 14 to 26 in each state as compared with the population of those ages in the nation, and inversely to the state's income relative to the national income. State agencies would select recipients and grant them funds at the rate of $ 1 2 5 per month if single, $150 per month if with one dependent, and J 1 7 5 per month if with two or more dependents. Certification of institutions of higher education would be in the hands of state school agencies, with the U.S. Commissioner of Education certifying foreign institutions. Reports would be required from state agencies to the federal government and the usual auditing controls would be in effect. This proposal overlooks some of the considerations noted here, both in that it establishes a scholarship program without provision for payment of tuition, and in that it grants the moneys to states. A realistic appraisal of the situation would recognize that funds for such a program must be made available to states, else the Congress would probably not support the program at all. However, this proposal may

F E D E R A L POLICIES

89

lead to the situation in which students within a given state may be limited in their selection of institutions. This could be overcome, if a provision were included requiring that the state agency granting the funds to the individual permit him to use the funds in institutions approved by any of the state school agencies. The bill would also be strengthened if it made provisions for payment of tuition and subsistence and if, perhaps, it set up categories of membership such as are indicated immediately above. Nevertheless, persons who believe that the federal government ought to develop a scholarship program will probably be inclined to support this bill. Under the circumstances in which federal policies normally develop, it almost never happens that a policy satisfactory to everyone emerges at first. The process of policy-making is one of giveand-take. Clarity and consistency are normally absent. Policy is a product of growth, and the growth must start somewhere. The development of federal relations to higher education has reached a point at which a bill of this type may be favorably received by the legislators at a not too distant date. With the ground prepared for a partial acceptance of the principle of federal support for individual students, the obvious next step for those who favor it is to set up a scholarship program, however inadequate, and to depend on the future for necessary refinements. INSTITUTIONAL

AID

Larger enrollments in institutions of higher education create pressures within those institutions that may have unfortunate effects. These are not limited to shortages of space and facilities, but also include overcrowding of classes with a resultant deterioration of the quality of instruction. If the federal government is going to share the responsibility for increasing or maintaining the present numbers of students in such institutions, the question arises whether it should also share the responsibility for mitigating the effects. The Veterans' Educational Facilities and Re-Use Housing programs were examples of at least a partial acceptance of such a responsibility. As was noted above, those programs may have been based more on the desire to grant effective services to veterans than to assist institutions, but they had the latter effect, in some part. They were, however, temporary and operated in a situation in which vast amounts of surplus properties were to be disposed of in any event, the schools providing one good and acceptable outlet. A future program would perhaps be based on a clearer recognition of the need and a larger acceptance of responsibility,

9

o

F E D E R A L POLICIES

The President's Commission on Higher Education estimated that foreseeable public sources of support, other than federal, would not be sufficient to meet future needs, and therefore recommended that the federal government underwrite part of the cost of the needed expansion, limiting this recommendation, however, to public institutions.5 The scheme was to be one of federal grants to states for general support of higher education, including capital outlay, on an equalization basis, relating the grants for each state to the total annual income or tax base of the state. This proposal has the advantage of avoiding federal controls since it introduces no controls not now operating. But it has several drawbacks. The most important of these is the omission of any assistance to private institutions. Relation to Quality of Higher

Education

Federal assistance to public institutions, if it goes to the point of giving them superior fiscal power as compared with the private institutions, may well have the effect of damaging the quality of the educational performance of the private institutions, especially if it enables the public institutions to make themselves substantially more attractive than private institutions to the best students and faculty members. The damage to some private institutions may be of minor importance, for some of them may currently be offering an educational performance of distinctly inferior quality. But many of the private institutions rank with the finest in the land, and some observers would contend that a group of them constitute the finest. In fact, the very types of higher education that the President's Commission would like now to see extended were largely developed by private institutions and those institutions today play an especially large part in training the future faculties of all institutions, both public and private. They have made important contributions to American higher education, and are still capable of similar contributions. Their ability to do this, however, might be adversely affected by widespread federal aid limited to public institutions. The basis on which the private institutions have made these contributions has been associated primarily with their capacity to attract and provide for faculty members of superior abilities and to give them the means and the opportunity freely to experiment in new fields with new methods and techniques. If the trends of the future are to be in the direction of ever-larger and more generous funds for the general educational expenditures of public institutions, without a correspond-

F E D E R A L POLICIES 91 ing increase in the power of the private institutions, a loss of valuable educational potential may develop, since even the most selfless professors must eventually heed the financial needs of their families, and the bidding power of the public institutions would be greater. This might eventually affect not only the relatively weaker private institutions, but even the strongest. Since public and private institutions operate under different types of control, their respective capacities to contribute to the highereducational scene might be expected to differ. Few would contend that one type was distinctly superior to the other in this regard, but many, noting the differences, might think that a desirable federal program should be designed to increase the capacities of each to contribute, or should at least not hamper either. The capacities of private institutions might be expected to exceed those of public institutions in areas of study that might be disapproved by state legislators, since the fact that those institutions depend importantly and directly on state legislatures for funds could not fail to have some influence on the decisions of their officers. This might be especially true in basic or pure research, in which results can scarcely be forecast, and which is therefore difficult to defend against a charge of impracticality. It might also be true in study and teaching of certain types of political phenomena that challenge accepted values, and in adopting untried teaching methods for experimental purposes. Also, it may be relatively easier for a private institution to concentrate funds and energies on a smaller group of more promising students without being hampered by the need to equalize opportunities among population groups—a consideration that might influence a state legislature. On the other hand, in many fields the public institutions may be in a position to make greater contributions than the private ones. This would be probable with respect to instruction and research of types the need of which has wide public recognition. Development of leadership and professional skills and extension of human knowledge are usually regarded as the basic functions of higher education. All may be and are accomplished through public institutions. But would the job not be more completely and better done if it were approached from the different points of view of the two types of institutions? In fact, would not the public institutions themselves be in a better position to achieve these objectives if they were constantly receiving refreshment and guidance from the somewhat freer

9

2

FEDERAL POLICIES

activities of the private institutions; and would not the somewhat 'different focus of the public institutions have a similar beneficial effect on the private ones? If the aim of the federal government in a program of support of higher education will be to ensure the highest quality of education for the maximum number of individuals, and this seems to be the aim contemplated by the Commission, then it appears that the private institutions ought to play a significant part and means ought to be found to protect their interests. In many of the public pronouncements in this area, and in the R e port of the President's Commission as well, there is a faint but noticeable bias in favor of the public institutions; or, to put it in different terms, a failure adequately to appreciate the role of the private institutions in the over-all scheme of higher education. Hungate 8 demonstrated that the regions in which the private institutions are strongest are the regions in which the public ones are weakest and in which the over-all opportunity for higher education, as related to economic potential, is least, largely for the reason that the very strength of the private institutions has made public efforts seem unnecessary. There are fewer "spaces" available in institutions of higher education in relation to the total population of college age in such states as New York and Massachusetts, for example, where the private institutions provide a relatively large share of the total number of spaces available (besides enjoying great prestige), than in the states of the Pacific Coast where the private institutions provide a relatively smaller share of the total. T h e result has been an opportunity for higher education for relatively fewer people in the areas of private strength. T h e inference of the analysis is that efforts should be undertaken to develop public institutions in those areas, in order to provide greater opportunity. This view appears to have influenced the President's Commission. T h e accuracy of the view, however, should not be allowed to lead to activities that would weaken the private institutions. T h e conclusion that the public institutions should be stronger does not include the conclusion that the private ones should be weaker. On the contrary, the proper conclusion to draw is that both types should be stronger, and that if the federal government has a responsibility to see that the one type is stronger, it has no obligation to weaken the other. This problem was not sufficiently faced by the President's Commission, perhaps influenced in this regard by the nature of its membership. It is apparent from a study of that membership that efforts were made to obtain representation from the private institutions, and among

F E D E R A L POLICIES 93 the educational representatives on the Commission the strength of the two types was about equal. There was no representation, however, from any of the major north-eastern private universities, nor was there any adequate representation from the major liberal arts colleges of that region, either from those associated with the major universities or from the independent ones. T w o women's colleges provided the only eastern liberal arts representation. The lack of representation from one of the principal areas of private strength may have led to a situation in which the Commission gave insufficient attention to the contributions of the private institutions of that region. It seems that the Commission failed adequately to consider a major factor—namely, that educational opportunity cannot be measured by equating "spaces" in institutions of higher education, for this omits the qualitative aspect. Not all institutions are equal in the quality of their educational performance, and there should be some recognition of superiority. It is not here proposed that efforts at expansion in the number of spaces available are efforts in the wrong direction. That also is needed. But a policy which in its search for quantity abandons or overlooks quality is short-sighted in the extreme. Aid to Private Institutions Any federal effort to provide general support for private institutions similar to the type of support recommended by the President's Commission would be sure to raise objections, not only from those who would oppose the grants as unnecessary, but also from the supporters of private institutions, since such support would either carry with it undesirable federal controls or raise insoluble problems of determining which institutions should receive funds. But at least three methods appear to be available for protecting the interests of the private institutions: a. including the tuition-paying feature in a future scholarship program, which would have the effects noted above; b. raising the percentage of gross income under which gifts to educational institutions are deductible for federal income tax purposes,7 which might have the effect of opening up to the private institutions a larger private source of funds and in this way offsetting the negative effects of the assistance granted to public institutions; and c. arranging for federal grants to private institutions for specific purposes such as research or expansion of programs in areas o f ' direct federal interest.

94

F E D E R A L POLICIES

Since the first of these methods has been characteristic of the most important scholarship programs of the past, there is some reason to think that it might be adopted. The other two are more controversial. Permitting additional deductions in calculating income for federal tax purposes might have the effect of reducing federal revenues and this would surely be opposed by many persons. A philosophy that appears to be gaining added acceptance would hold that the federal government has a direct responsibility for social services and ought not to allow private individuals, especially wealthy individuals, to decide what form of social service should be provided, or where, or how —that under this proposal government would abdicate responsibility, leaving it in unworthy hands. The view, as stated, is perhaps somewhat extreme, but its influence might well be sufficient to prevent adoption of this alternative, regardless of the advantages that it would offer in strengthening the financial resources of private activities of many types while avoiding federal controls. The objections to the third method (ad hoc grants) would perhaps emphasize the possibility of developing subtle and dangerous forms of federal control in any program of federal support for private institutions, no matter how specific its objectives, pointing out that the mere availability of federal funds would influence institutions to do whatever they might have to do in order to obtain those funds. The mere availability of federal funds for the support of expanded programs in fields of federal interest such as international relations or public administration might well cause a number of institutions to undertake development programs in these areas. It seems doubtful, however, that institutions that adjust their programs to take advantage of opportunities of this type can be said to have sacrificed their independence. They would still be free to carry out any other programs that they liked, and if their instructional programs and staffs were improved by participation in the federal government's designs, they might be in an even better position to proceed with their own aims, especially if the subventions carried allowances for institutional overhead.8 Of course, in considering a program of specific grants such as that suggested, it would be necessary to relate the grants to specific federal objectives and to establish standards to guide federal administrators in distributing them. Not all institutions offer educational opportunities of a quality that would interest the federal government; in fact, opportunities may be so limited in some private institutions as to make it improbable that expenditure of funds would achieve federal

F E D E R A L POLICIES

95

objectives. It would be unfortunate if every institution that associates itself with higher education simply by using the words, "college" or "university," felt that the use of such words entitled it to federal support. It would also be unfortunate if grants were converted into political favors f o r distribution to the faithful. Such abuses could be guarded against b y ensuring the qualifications of the administrators charged with deciding which institutions should receive grants and b y indicating the objectives of programs in highly precise ways. The purpose of such grants would be, not to support private higher education, but to achieve certain federal objectives of types to which private institutions may contribute. Thus it would not be so important to provide specifically f o r private institutions as it would be to arrange the programs in such a w a y as not to exclude them. T h e federal government mav have a number of objectives that can best be achieved through support of private institutions, or through support for both public and private, especially in such areas as professional or technological training and scientific research. It would be doubly advantageous if, in the process of achieving these specific objectives, the government could also rectify a possible unbalance resulting from its other higher educational programs. T h e President's Scientific Research Board recognized the need to find some means of financing research that would enable institutions of higher education to undertake needed projects, especially in the basic research that has characteristically been a university function in this country. T h e y recommended that efforts in this direction be coordinated with the recommendations of the Commission on Higher Education. Such coordination would be difficult, however, since an important share of the research talent, both for research projects and for training research personnel, is located in the private institutions, and these were not included in the program of institutional aid recommended by the higher-education Commission. It should be noted that the Commission's view has had little if any effect on the actual granting of research contracts. T h e federal government in implementing programs of research has in fact dealt with private institutions, as a grant of $1,000,000 to Columbia University to construct facilities f o r cancer research would indicate.9 T h e cry of federal control has yet to be raised about that grant. And it does not seem likely that it would be raised, f o r the danger of control does not appear to be inherent in a situation in which the federal government provides the facilities, since the only limitation lies in the need to use the facility f o r the purpose for which granted, and that is a

96

F E D E R A L POLICIES

purpose that the university also sought to effect. Where the will of the government and the will of the private institution coincide, there should be little objection to federal assistance. A bill submitted to the 8ist Congress 10 exemplifies for medical education the type of specific grant that might aid private higher education while achieving federal objectives. T h e bill would provide for payments to public and private medical, dental, and nursing schools in accordance with numbers of students enrolled, supplementing this with additional payments per student if enrollments are enlarged n and with matching grants f o r construction of facilities. Adoption of this bill would signalize the willingness of the Congress to assume a measure of responsibility for the availability of medical educational opportunities in the nation, without regard to the character of institutional control. T h e foregoing paragraphs have attempted to discuss what appear to be the principal issues facing the federal government today in its relationships with higher education. T h e y have attempted to view those issues in the light of the experience gained from a close look at the activities of the federal government as they were during the single fiscal year 1947. T h e principal lessons to be learned about those activities are: (a) they existed on a scale and in a diversity greater than has been generally realized; (b) their relationships with nonfederal higher education were, for the most part, unorganized and complex; and (c) their impact on nonfederal higher education was great, both in the sense that they affected all institutions of higher education, and in the sense that they were capable of upsetting the balance between public and private institutions by giving advantages to one or the other that neither could get in other ways. Observers will doubtless disagree as to whether the various effects of the federal activities here discussed were good or bad. T h e author's intent is not that these effects should be judged, but that they should be understood, especially by those whose actions will affect future federal policy.

Appendix

DEPARTMENT OF STATE THREE AGENCIES OF the Department of State dealt with higher education in 1947, the Foreign Service Institute, the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs, and the Office of American Republic Affairs. Their higher educational activities are described below. T H E FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE

The FSI is the primary agency for training Foreign Service Officers. It was established in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 1947, under authority of the Foreign Service Act of 1946.1 The State Departmental orders2 list the major functions of the Institute as follows: a. Ascertains the training needs of the Department and the Foreign Service, through study of their problems and through close liaison with the responsible administrative and operating officials. b. Determines in what ways and by what means these training needs may be met most effectively; and formulates appropriate plans and programs of training and instruction. c. Operates such programs and carries them through to completion, using such resources of the Department and the Foreign Service, of other federal agencies, and of private institutions, organizations, and agencies as may be appropriate and available. d. Correlates its training programs with the training activities of other federal agencies, including the National War College, and with those of universities and other institutions, organizations, and agencies which provide suitable training programs. e. Works cooperatively with the divisions concerned with personnel administration and management planning in the Department and with the foreign Service, to the end that training may be coordinated with the over-all improvement of both services. For purposes of internal administration the Institute operated as a division of the Office of the Foreign Service and the Director of the Institute ranked as a Division Chief. In addition to the usual administrative offices such as an office of the Director and a personnel office (here called the Office of the Registrar), the Institute had four main branches, each of which was a specialized school offering a particular type of training. These will be briefly described. The School of Basic Officer Training was responsible for training junior Foreign Service Officers, reserve and staff officers of the Foreign Service, and personnel of other federal agencies entering upon duties

loo D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E abroad. It also supervised the training activities of Foreign Service Officers throughout their probationary (Class-6) appointments.3 Essentially it was a school for indoctrination of new officers who were about to embark on their first duties. Their very first duty, as a matter of course, was assignment to this school.4 The course for new officers lasted eight weeks, with a new class of about 25 to 35 officers entering each month, so that at any given time two classes were in operation. The first half of the course dealt with the organization, administration, and functions of the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and other governmental agencies, and with study of foreign peoples, societies, and governments. The second half was devoted to technical training in various consular, economic, and administrative functions. The staff was drawn from universities as well as from the federal service. During fiscal 1947, 680 trainees took the basic course. The School of Advanced Officer Training had the function of improving the quality of the Foreign Service by providing training and continuous guidance to officers throughout their careers. It was responsible for advanced training in a number of specialized fields, including training in universities in specialties other than languages.5 Owing to lack of funds and personnel, the school was not yet in full operation by the end of fiscal year 1947. During that year it assigned five officers to universities for study in the field of economics, and 12 officers to war colleges; it presented also a special orientation course for specialists assigned to the Mission to Greece. The school was responsible for three phases of advanced training to supplement that of the School of Basic Officer Training. The first of these was designed to orient newly promoted Class-5 officers in problems of foreign policy and give certain among them specialized training in specific areas of the world or in some phase of economics. The second phase consisted of advanced instruction offered to selected officers upon promotion to Class-4. The third phase was open to a limited number of officers of Classes 2 and 3, corresponding to the instruction given at the National War College (q.v.) and was intended to prepare them for top positions in the Service. None of these types of advanced training was in full operation in 1947. The school also offered all Foreign Service personnel returning to the United States from duty abroad a course designed to reorient them to the American scene.6 The School of Management and Administrative Training conducted courses and training services for administrative and clerical personnel in

D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E 101 the Foreign Service and the State Department. A good share of these services was not at the higher educational level, but a Basic Foreign Service Administrative Training Course and a Departmental Administrative Training Course were of a professional character similar to many college and university courses, although of very short duration. The former lasted five weeks, the latter ten days; in 1947, 22 officers took the former course and 102 the latter. Each was designed to train administrative and management officers of the respective services in the administrative management and budgetary techniques and procedures essential to effective service. This unit also supervised the interns in public administration who were sponsored by the Civil Service Commission and the National Institute for Public Affairs. There were 12 such interns working under supervision for periods of four months each during fiscal 1947.7 The School of Language Training provided training in languages and cultures both in Washington and at its own field installations in Peiping, Shanghai, Nanking, and Beirut. Instruction was given in 35 languages in classes, in individualized instruction, or in tutorials paid for by the Institute. All new Foreign Service Officers and many Departmental Officers assigned to duties abroad were required to undertake language training, so the school operated a large teaching program. It also occasionally arranged to have selected officers receive special language training in universities, and 15 officers were so trained during fiscal 1947. Although 1,048 officers received training of some type through this school in fiscal 1947, the service was not considered adequate and a considerable expansion was planned, including establishment of new field installations at Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Teheran, and New Delhi.8 Expenditures for the Institute in fiscal 1947 for salaries of the 33 persons permanently employed were $135,025.® Other costs included salaries of Foreign Service Officers attending the various schools and tuition and fees for officers assigned to universities. The latter item amounted to about $20,000 for the 20 officers involved, and their salaries and allowances, at not less than $5,000 per officer, totaled upwards of $100,000. Salaries of officers assigned to the School of Basic Officer Training for the two-month course would be about $600 per officer, or about $400,000 for the 680 officers who attended. These calculations omit many items of expenditure and are minimal in each case. A minimum estimate of the cost of the Foreign Service Institute may therefore be tabulated as follows:

9

2

F E D E R A L POLICIES

activities of the private institutions; and would not the somewhat different focus of the public institutions have a similar beneficial eifect on the private ones? If the aim of the federal government in a program of support of higher education will be to ensure the highest quality of education for the maximum number of individuals, and this seems to be the aim contemplated by the Commission, then it appears that the private institutions ought to play a significant part and means ought to be found to protect their interests. In many of the public pronouncements in this area, and in the Report of the President's Commission as well, there is a faint but noticeable bias in favor of the public institutions; or, to put it in different terms, a failure adequately to appreciate the role of the private institutions in the over-all scheme of higher education. Hungate 6 demonstrated that the regions in which the private institutions are strongest are the regions in which the public ones are weakest and in which the over-all opportunity for higher education, as related to economic potential, is least, largely for the reason that the very strength of the private institutions has made public efforts seem unnecessary. There are fewer "spaces" available in institutions of higher education in relation to the total population of college age in such states as New York and Massachusetts, for example, where the private institutions provide a relatively large share of the total number of spaces available (besides enjoying great prestige), than in the states of the Pacific Coast where the private institutions provide a relatively smaller share of the total. T h e result has been an opportunity for higher education for relatively fewer people in the areas of private strength. T h e inference of the analysis is that efforts should be undertaken to develop public institutions in those areas, in order to provide greater opportunity. This view appears to have influenced the President's Commission. T h e accuracy of the view, however, should not be allowed to lead to activities that would weaken the private institutions. T h e conclusion that the public institutions should be stronger does not include the conclusion that the private ones should be weaker. On the contrary, the proper conclusion to draw is that both types should be stronger, and that if the federal government has a responsibility to see that the one type is stronger, it has no obligation to weaken the other. This problem was not sufficiently faced by the President's Commission, perhaps influenced in this regard by the nature of its membership. It is apparent from a study of that membership that efforts were made to obtain representation from the private institutions, and among

D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E 103 By late 1947 the agreement had been carried out between the United States and each of the other republics which ratified the Convention, but not mutually between the other republics. Also, while the number of fellowships granted for study in the United States had been up to the number agreed, a relatively small number of U.S. scholars had received fellowships for study in the other republics. This was partly owing to lack of funds on the part of these republics and partly owing to the recent war, which prevented full participation. Foreign students interested in fellowships applied directly to their ministries of education, which made up a list of five names for submission via diplomatic channels to the U.S. The Department of State referred the lists to the U.S. Office of Education, which had an Advisory Committee on Fellowships to make the final selections. In the case of U.S. students, application was made directly to the U.S. Office of Education, whose Advisory Committee prepared lists of five names for submission to the other republics. N o limitations were placed on the fields in which fellows might study, except that they had to be such as could be pursued in a graduate school associated with an academic, professional, or scientific institution. b. Travel and maintenance grants were made to selected students who could obtain scholarships or fellowships from sources other than the above program and who lacked sufficient funds to take advantage of the opportunity. These grants were administered in conjunction with the Institute of International Education, a private, nonprofit organization. U.S. students applied for grants directly to the U.S. Office of Education, selection being made by the Advisory Committee noted above. Students from other republics applied through the local U.S. diplomatic representation. Initial processing of their applications was by a local selection committee established in each Latin American republic. Recommendations of the local committees were forwarded to the Institute of International Education, which recommended those deemed qualified to the Office of Education, where final approval or disapproval was made. In case of approval, the funds were credited to the Institute of International Education, which arranged payment to the individual beneficiaries. Grants were for periods of from six months to one year, and were renewable. In fiscal 1947, 15 grants were approved.12 c. Administrative training in federal agencies,13 The Cooperation with the American Republics Act of 1939 authorized the President "to utilize the services of the departments, agencies, and independent

io4 D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E establishments of the government" in carrying out the C A R Program. Acting under this authority, the Interdepartmental Committee made arrangements for the training of selected persons in administrative specialties within the various agencies that were members of the Committee. Appropriation acts have annually appropriated a sum for the C A R with specific allotments f o r this administrative training, which consisted of intern-like training experiences not unlike those offered b y the Civil Service Commission for U.S. government personnel. Selection of trainees was the responsibility of the agencies in w hich the foreigners would work. Interested persons applied to the U.S. diplomatic representatives in their native lands, applications being processed b v the State Department and forwarded to the respective agencies for decision. Applicants were accepted only if they were employed by their governments or if they could demonstrate the public benefit that would accrue to their countries through the training. Funds to cover travel and maintenance expenses were provided for those selected and they usually worked in the federal agencies for extended periods running up to one year. In some cases formal training programs involving courses of study were provided by the training a g e n c y ; 1 1 in others on-the-job training was the only opportunity. T h e participating agencies and their respective allotments of funds for the fiscal year 1947 were: Department of Agriculture Extension Service Soil Conservation Service Bureau of Agricultural Economics Rural Electrification Administration Forest Service Agricultural Library Agricultural Research Administration Bureau of the Budget Department of Commerce Office of International Trade Civil Aeronautics Administration Bureau of the Census Coast and Geodetic Survey National Bureau of Standards Weather Bureau Federal Security Agency Office of Education Public Health Service National Office of Vital Statistics Social Security Administration Children's Bureau

$ 1,181,568

33-760 1,063,910

590.153

D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E

105

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Geological Survey Department of Labor Division of Labor Standards Bureau of Labor Statistics Women's Bureau Federal Communications Commission Interstate Commerce Commission Library of Congress National Archives Smithsonian Institution U.S. Tariff Commission Total Source: Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 774.

282,684

67,916

6,560 1,282 144,595 6,000 112,313 8,100 $3,488,741

During fiscal year 1947, 396 persons were employed on the C A R Program, and the administrative expenditures amounted to $1,971,150, which, when added to the above total, gives $5,469,891 as the total expenditure.15 This figure covers activities additional to those described in the preceding paragraphs, and some which were unrelated to higher education. See under Miscellaneous Activities, below. A part of this fund was also expended for libraries, cultural institutes, and the teaching of English in Latin American countries. A fair estimate would be that at least half of the total, or about $2,750,000 was for higher-educational activities. The Philippine Rehabilitation Program. The Act for the Rehabilitation of the Philippines 16 directed a number of federal agencies to provide training for Filipinos for the general purpose of assisting in the restoration of public services in the Islands. Under authorization of this Act, funds were appropriated to the Department of State for transfer to operating agencies in accordance with the direction of the Interdepartmental Committee referred to above. The program was getting under way in 1947, and had its first full year of operation in 1948. The agencies concerned, the number of Filipinos to be trained, and the number actually in training by the end of fiscal 1947 were: Agency Fed. Works Agency, Pub. Roads Admin. W a r Dept., Corps of Engineers Fed. Security Agency, Pub. Health Serv. U.S. Maritime Commission Department of Commerce Civil Aeronautics Admin.

Authorized Quota

In Training at End F.Y. i$4j

10 10 100 joa

o o 25 50

50b

50

io6 Weather Bureau Coast & Geodetic Survey Dept. Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serv. Total

D E P A R T M E N T OF job 20 » 125

STATE 31 20 21 197

b » Annually. 25 after 1947. Source: Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity Education, pp. 15-17.

in

The 1948 Budget (page 776) shows that $845,432 was allotted for the above training activities, but gives only a partial breakdown of the distribution to agencies. Exact fiscal data are therefore lacking. Agcncy quotas listed for 1947 are (with references to Budget pages): Public Health Service (p. 200) U.S. Maritime Commission (p. 143) Civil Aeronautics Administration (p. 405) Coast and Geodetic Survey (p. 408) Corps of Engineers (p. 882 ) Total

$120,000 111 194,000 19,1 jo 40,000 $484,582

The actual cost of the program would, of course, be in excess of either of the above totals, since they include only expenditures f o r trainees, and omit costs of providing facilities and teaching personnel which in some cases, especially fisheries training, would be considerable. The Fulbright Program. Although this program was not in operation during the fiscal year 1947, it ought to be mentioned since it will become one of the principal educational programs of the Department of State. The A c t 1 7 authorized the Secretary of State to use foreign currencies obtained from sale of surplus war materials to pay certain expenses for American students and teachers who wished to study abroad and for foreigners who wished to study here. The Act labels these as "exchanges," but this is a misnomer, since there is no man-forman exchange, and American students receive measurably greater benefits than the foreigners, since tuition and subsistence payments are not made f o r foreigners studying in the United States, but American students receive such payments. Agreements have been negotiated with 22 nations contemplating expenditures of $ 137,550,000 over a twenty-year period. 13 The Department of State utilizes the U.S. Office of Education in administering the program. Power to select recipients is lodged in the Office of Education's Board of Foreign Scholarships. Miscellaneous Activities19 of the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs included: a. Exchange of Professors and Teachers, which U.S. policy has sought to encourage, especially with the other American republics. The State

D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E 107 Department was in general control ot such exchanges, administering them through the Office of Education except in the case of exchange professorships, which the Department handled directly. The International Relations Division of the U.S. Office of Education (q.v.) was the cooperating agency. Expenditures for this activity were slight in 1947, except for certain funds used in promoting teacher exchanges with Latin American republics, which were provided from the general C A R appropriation. b. Orientation Centers for the purpose of orienting foreigners who came here for study under the above programs were maintained out of the general C A R appropriations. Three centers were operated in 1947, the principal one being at Wilson Teachers College in the District of Columbia. The others were located at the University of Michigan and Bucknell University. O F F I C E OF A M E R I C A N REPUBLIC A F F A I R S

Certain educational agencies were located in the Office of American Republic Affairs, notably the Inter-American Educational Foundation, Inc., and the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. The Inter-American Educational Foundation, Inc.,2" was a government-controlled corporation created in 1943 under the National War Agencies A c t 2 1 for the purpose of raising the level of the educational efforts of the other American republics. It operated on the basis of cooperative agreements and involved expenditures by both the U.S. and the republics concerned. The program provided for sending experts to the republics, interchange of educators for training purposes, and preparation of teaching materials. Vocational education, teacher training, improvement of rural life and agriculture, development of community schools, health education, and teaching of English were emphasized. Few of its activities related to higher education, but two phases of the program fitted that category: teacher training in Latin American countries, and travel and study grants for professional personnel coming to the United States to study. By August 1947, 79 such grants had been made. Since funds appropriated for the Foundation remained available until expended, annual appropriation data have little meaning. From the inception of the program, the total appropriated from all U.S. government sources was $5,088,275. Of this $1,523,691 was expended in fiscal 1947. The higher-educational activities mentioned above consumed only about $200,ooo.22 During the fiscal year 1948, the Foundation was merged with the

,o8 D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E Institute of Inter-American Affairs 23 which now operates under federal charter and has an Education Division to carry out the functions of the former Foundation. The Institute of Inter-American Affairs was also a government corporation and was administered in much the same way as the InterAmerican Educational Foundation, the two even sharing common personnel.24 It was created in 1942 under authority of the Third Supplemental Defense Appropriation Act -5 for the purpose of improving the health and general welfare of the peoples of the western hemisphere by means of cooperative programs in the fields of public health, sanitation, and food supply. The programs were not primarily educational, although they involved training for professional personnel, including travel and study grants for study in the United States. Between January 1946 and August 1947, 281 persons were brought to the United States for training.26 The total appropriations for the Institute from its inception were $65,434,236, of which $9,120,073 was expended in fiscal 1947. Of this, a relatively small part, about $250,000 27 was spent on the higher-educational activities mentioned above. FISCAL S U M M A R Y

Estimates of State Department expenditures on activities in higher education for the fiscal year 1947 may be summarized as follows: Foreign Service Institute Office of Int. Information and Cultural A f f a i r s Cooperation w i t h A m e r . Republics Program Rehabilitation of the Philippines Office of A m e r i c a n Republic A f f a i r s Total

$655,000 2,750,000 845,000 450,000 $4,700,000

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY THE

U . S . COAST

GUARD

the military services, the Coast Guard has its own commissioned and noncommissioned personnel and its own provisions for internal discipline and training. A part of this training is higher education, especially that provided for commissioned officers, which consists of post graduate instruction similar to that offered by the U.S. Navy Post Graduate School (q.v.) and cadet instruction at the Coast Guard Academy. Graduate Instruction. Advanced and specialized instruction was given to selected Coast Guard officers in civilian colleges and universities and at the advanced schools of the military services. The program was administered by the Coast Guard Office of Personnel and was supported by annual appropriation acts which provided the only authorization.1 Officers were selected after completion of at least three years of sea duty and obligated themselves to remain in the Service for not less than five years following completion of instruction. In 1947 course offerings included a two-year communications engineering course at M.I.T., a three-year naval construction course at the same institution, a sixteen-month course in business administration at Harvard, and a threeyear law course at George Washington University.2 In the fiscal year 1947, 25 officers were assigned to full-time resident study in universities and 39 officers were assigned to full-time resident study in schools of other services, such as the Joint Schools and the Naval War College. Also 107 officers were assigned to various short courses of less than three months' duration. Assuming that the annual pay and allowances of the officers undergoing full-time resident instruction would average $4,000, which is reasonable in view of their length of service, the cost of maintaining them while under instruction would be not less than $260,000. Expenditures on the instruction itself amounted to $18,000. Totaling these yields $278,000 as a minimum estimate of the cost of the instructional program. The U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut, was the principal source of regular commissioned officer personnel for the Coast Guard. Its program of instruction was similar to the curriculum of a liberal arts college that grants the B.S. degree, with perhaps somewhat greater emphasis on mathematics, engineering, and the natural sciences. LIKE

110

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y

Admission was by competitive examination administered by the Coast Guard Headquarters. The normal entering class consisted of about 150 cadets. In fiscal 1947, 301 cadets were under instruction at the Academy. E x penditures totaled $1,2 30,000.® O F F I C E OF THE COORDINATOR OF ENFORCEMENT

A number of professional courses were offered by the Office of the Coordinator of Enforcement under the administrative control of a Director of Training. The courses were primarily intended as in-service training for Treasury officers whose duties involved enforcement or police activities, although from time to time personnel from agencies outside the Treasury were admitted. T h e major activity was a three-week basic course in criminal investigation and law enforcement required of all new officers in the Department whose duties involved enforcement of law. It emphasized the law and techniques of search and seizure, use of firearms, shadowing, and similar techniques. During the calendar year it was given eight times to a total of 276 agents. The course was not given during the latter half of fiscal 1947, although it was repeated in following years whenever recruitment of new agents created a need for it. A n advanced course of two weeks' duration was given from time to time to experienced agents in order to bring them up to date on new techniques and procedures. During the calendar year 1946 it was given twice to 36 officers, and during the first six months of 1947, 17 times to 418 officers. In addition to the basic and advanced courses, the Coordinator of Enforcement provided a correspondence course in criminal investigation and constitutional law and the following special courses: a. Treasury Intelligence Unit Special Course—a two-week course in income tax investigation, tax law, and administrative techniques, given 10 times in calendar 1946 to 560 officers. b. Special Fingerprint and Moulage Course—given 18 times in 1946 to 295 officers. c. Special Course for the Uniformed Force, U.S. Secret Service— given as needed to this special group and concerned with such matters as protective techniques and disposal of suspicious packages. There was no special budget for enforcement training in fiscal 1947. It operated as a part of the Office of the Coordinator, and engaged the full time of only one professional employee. Instructors were drawn from agents of the various agencies for whom the training was provided, which were: the Bureau of Customs, Coast Guard, Secret Service,

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y

111

Bureau of Internal Revenue (Intelligence and Alcohol Tax Units), Bureau of Narcotics, and Foreign Funds Control. In fiscal 1947 training was provided for the personnel of the following outside agencies: Department of Commerce, Office of Price Administration, and the internal revenue departments of the states of Maryland and Georgia. Expenditures amounted to about $i7,ooo. 4 BUREAU OF INTERNAL

REVENUE

The Training Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue offered a series of in-service training courses, some of which were professional in character, for the most part in the field of income tax law. Law enforcement training for Bureau employees was provided by the Coordinator of Enforcement. The Bureau handled for itself the training required for its employees whose duties were more concerned with administration than with enforcement of law. All courses were restricted to Bureau personnel, no outsiders being admitted. Classes were conducted both in Washington and the various field offices, and there were a number of correspondence courses. Courses given in Washington in 1947 were: a. Internal Revenue Agents Course: a sixty-day intensive training in income tax law, both individual and corporation, estate and gift tax law, and procedural and administrative matters. All new internal revenue agents were required to take the course, and 343 did so in fiscal 1947. b. Classes in accounting and income tax law: provided for Bureau personnel (other than agents) who, by taking the classes, might qualify themselves as internal revenue agents and then take the course noted above. Six classes were given in 1947 for 403 students. Outside Washington courses were given for deputy inspectors and deputy collectors in each of the 64 collection districts, usually for the purpose of refresher training. In fiscal 1947, 8,105 employees attended 252 such courses, most of which were of short duration, varying from one to two weeks in length. Correspondence courses were offered on a very large scale in income tax law, estate tax law, corporation and excess profits tax law, business and commercial law, evidence and procedure, and accounting. During the fiscal year 1947, 27,614 employees took 56,615 correspondence courses and an average of 31,429 papers were graded per month. The Training Division of the Bureau consisted of a total of six professional employees who prepared and gave courses, plus 18 graders for the correspondence courses, and clerical staff. Instructors were also drawn from the regular service. Expenditures for this training amounted to $183,000 in fiscal 1947."

DEPARTMENT OF WAR 1 was one of the largest and most active educational agencies of the federal government, carrying out a large number of training programs at virtually every level of education. Since military subjects are usually different from those encountered in civilian institutions, it is difficult to determine which should be regarded as part of higher education. Certain of the activities were clearly higher-educational, such as the detailing of officers to civilian colleges and universities and the operation of the Junior College in the Canal Zone. But by far the largest part of the educational activity of the W a r Department was conducted in its own schools and dealt with subjects that had no counterparts in civilian institutions.

T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

F o r the purposes of the present study, it was decided to treat the education of commissioned officers as being higher education. This results in minor distortions, since some courses f o r enlisted men required a high school diploma for eligibility, and therefore fitted the definition of "post-high school education" used by the President's Commission on Higher Education. But it offers many advantages. It makes it possible to present a clear and fair picture of the scope and scale of the more advanced educational efforts of the Department; and it does not falsify the situation in any important respect, since officers are normally graduates of accreditcd colleges and the additional training required of them is of the order of the graduate professional training required in other professional fields. Enlisted men are not normally offered courses of the same type, nor do they normally have the same educational backgrounds. Also, it makes possible a classification of the programs in the same w a y as the Department classifies them. Supervision and control of the entire W a r Department educational system were exercised by the Organization and Training Division of the W a r Department General Staff. During the fiscal year 1947, its functions also included supervision of Air Force training, although this was in fact done with a minimum of control. T h e Division operated no schools, but confined itself to staff functions involving planning and coordination of the activities of existing schools, many of which were set up during the nineteenth century, prior to the establishment of the W a r Department General Staff. T h e fiscal year 1947 was not a typical one from the point of view of

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

113

A r m v organization. F o r that matter, the A r m y probably never has a typical year. Demobilization had been completed by early in the year. T h e postwar plans for the A r m y had been agreed on, but the full scale of planned recruitment had not yet developed. In general, training activities operated on a scale considerably reduced below that of fiscal year 1946, during part of which the war was still going on. Fiscal 1947 was the first year of peacetime operations. Fiscal year 1948 showed a still greater drop in educational activities. This drop, however, did not continue, and fiscal 1949 was a year of activity on a larger scale than either of the years that preceded it. It should be emphasized that A r m y educational activities are designed to meet specific needs, and therefore a course which is given one year may not be given in the next, while courses that have not been given in five or ten years may suddenly be needed. For this reason, 1947 courses are here included which may not be given again. T h e y are listed here because they contribute to an understanding of the breadth and character of the educational operations of the A r m y . Another administrative matter which should be emphasized concerns the method whereby the A r m y establishes courses. 2 When the need f o r instruction in a given matter is established, responsibility for setting up and operating a course is assigned to a given command, and a "capacity," at which the course is supposed to operate, is established. T h e capacity is a measure of the calculated need and of the arrangements made by the responsible command to fill that need. It is not the equivalent of attendance. A course for 50 officers may actually have had only 30 officers in attendance. Since the actual attendance figures were in many cases difficult to obtain, the capacity figures have been used. These serve the purpose of indicating the scale at which the course concerned was planned and staffed, if not its actual scale of operation. In fiscal year 1947, capacities were not as a general rule filled. In many cases, attendance was below 50 per cent of capacity, owing primarily to a shortage of manpower in nearly all categories at a time when the A r m y still had important military missions. T h e problem of releasing officers for training was severe f o r all the military services throughout fiscal year 1947. From time to time, the A r m y permitted qualified foreign military personnel to attend courses at A r m y schools, as, f o r example, limited numbers of nationals of specified countries were admitted to the Military Academy at West Point, N . Y . Information on this part of the military educational program is not available. In describing the higher-education programs of the W a r Department,

ii4 DEPARTMENT OF W A R the schools for commissioned officers are treated first. These are classified as Ground Forces Schools, Air Forces Schools, Schools of the Administrative and Technical Services, and W a r Department Schools, the distinctions being based on the staff or operational agency that had responsibility. Second, the programs for persons aspiring to a commission in the Army are treated. These include the U.S. Military Academy, the Officer Candidate Schools of the Ground and Air Forces, and the Reserve Officers Training Programs in civilian institutions. Third, the Joint Schools that operate as an interdepartmental responsibility under the Joint Chiefs of Staff are treated, followed by the civilian schools programs, including all education for military personnel in civilian institutions of higher education and the courses offered by the U.S. Armed Forces Institute. Miscellaneous activities and fiscal details are treated last, accompanied by a summary table showing numbers of officer students trained. 3 SCHOOLS FOR COMMISSIONED

OFFICERS

T h e general plan * for education of officers of the postwar Ground Army contemplates education at five different levels. Upon commissioning, the new officer attends a basic officer's course of about four months' duration which is required 5 of all new ground officers. Upon completion of this training, the new officer is assigned to the second part of his basic education at the school of the branch 8 to which he will be attached, where the so-called "Branch Basic Course" will occupy him for another five months. Upon its completion he reports for duty with the branch to which he is assigned. Within three to ten years thereafter he reports back to the school of his branch for another course which is designated "Branch Advanced Course." This is the second level of training. It is also required of all officers in the branch and lasts about ten months. T h e third level, reached eventually by about one half of all regular officers, is that of the Command and General Staff Colleges of the Ground and Air Forces. These schools are attended between the seventh and fifteenth years of commissioned service. If the officer has been notably successful in his Army career and at the three levels of schooling noted above, he may be selected to continue his education at the next two levels, which are operated jointly by the W a r and Navy Departments. T h e fourth level is the Armed Forces Staff College. Here the course is of approximately five months' duration and is normally taken by an officer shortly after his completion of the course at one of the Command and General Staff Colleges. T h e fifth and highest level is occupied by the National W a r College and the Industrial

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R "5 College of the Armed Forces. A relatively small number of officers arrive at this level. All five of the above levels of schooling were in operation during the fiscal year 1947. The general plan of education for officers of the Air Forces is described under Air Forces Schools. Each of the branch schools offered abbreviated versions of the regular basic and advanced courses known as "Associate Courses." These were intended for officers who could not take the time to attend the longer courses. Normally they were of about three months' duration and were taken by National Guard officers, members of the Organized Reserve Corps, or Regular Army officers of branches other than the one giving the course. The content of the "Associate Courses" was the same as that of the regular courses, but instruction was abbreviated and practical and field exercises omitted, thereby accounting for the saving of time. The War Department prescribed as part of the curriculum of each of the branch courses a certain number of common subjects which consumed about 35 per cent of the class hours of the branch advanced courses in 1947. Since the branch schools' only reason for existence was to train branch personnel in matters they needed to know to operate within the branch, this scheme was reviewed, and in May 1947 the prescribed hours of common subjects were reduced to about 25 per cent of the total course hours in each school; but the course still included more than 450 class hours devoted to such subjects as psychology and leadership, personnel management, intelligence, operations and training, and logistics. In addition to the regular branch courses, almost all the schools for commissioned officers provided courscs in specialties related to the basic functions of the branch. These courses not only had the aim of specialized training for officers, but also sought to equip the officer students to act as instructors of enlisted men in the same specialties when they returned to their units. Army Ground Forces Schools The Ground General School, Fort Riley, Kansas, offered the Basic Officer Course (17; 220) 7 required of all newly commissioned Ground officers, consisting of instruction in Army organization, military administration and justice, and military subjects common to all branches of the Army but not covered at West Point, in the Officer Candidate Schools, or in the R O T C colleges. It also offered an Officers Intelligence Course (13; 105) dealing with intelligence and reconnaissance opera-

116 D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R tions of the smaller military units, an Advanced Horsemastership and Animal Management Course (37; 15) for commanders of horse units, and an Installation Intelligence Officers Course (3 ]A; 50) for post, camp, and station intelligence officers. The Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, provided the four standard branch courses: the Regular Basic Branch Course (22; 90), the Associate Basic Branch Course (13; 1,575), the Regular Branch Advanced Course (39; 220), and the Associate Branch Advanced Course (13; 600). It also provided a Communications Course ( 1 8 1 2 0 ) in the use and maintenance of infantry communications equipment and a Motor Course (12; 100) in maintenance of infantry vehicles. The Airborne Section of the Infantry School offered the following special courses: Basic Airborne Officers Course (6; 240), Advanced Airborne Officers Course (6;2o), Airborne Communications Equipment Course (4; 80), Parachute Riggers Course (8; 36), and a Pathfinders Course (8; 32), the last dealing with the specialized techniques of locating and assembling airborne units after a drop in enemy territory. The Mountain and Winter Warfare School,s Camp Carson, Colorado, offered a single course for a handful of officers, including Marines, in the techniques of winter warfare and glacier operations. The Armored School, Fort Knox, Kentucky, offered the four standard branch courses, Regular Basic (22; 26), Associate Basic (13; 280), Regular Advanced (37; 120), and Associate Advanced (13; 70), and in addition courses in armored communication equipment ( 1 8 % ; 55), maintenance of motor and track vehicles, and a refresher course for Armored officers of the Reserve and National Guard (2; 120). The Artillery School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was the principal school of the Artillery Corps, and had branches for Coast Artillery at Fort Winfield Scott, California, and for Antiaircraft Artillery and Guided Missiles at Fort Bliss, Texas. It offered the four standard branch courses, Regular Basic (25; 50), 0 Associate Basic (13; 400), Regular Advanced (41; 170), 10 and Associate Advanced (13; 240), and special courses in the following subjects: artillery intelligence and survey (i8V>; 60) methods of obtaining and using intelligence about enemy artillery and terrain features, including the use of radar in range finding, sound and flash ranging, and meteorology; maintenance and operation of transportation equipment of artillery units, such as mobile guns, ammunition carriers, tractors, and trucks: 1 1 artillery communications equipment; and artillery spotting by pilots of liaison aircraft (33; 180). The latter course was given in cooperation with the Air Forces and involved

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 117 24 weeks of flying instruction at San Marcos Field, Texas (see AAF Flying Schools). The Antiaircraft and Guided Missiles Branch, Fort Bliss, Texas, offered an Associate Basic Course (13; 240), but no regular courses. It also offered a Guided Missiles Course (37; 40), dealing with the special characteristics of such weapons, an Associate Course on the same subject (13; 35), and special courses on antiaircraft artillery communications equipment ( 1 8 3 0 ) , the use of radar in antiaircraft artillery batteries (37; 40), and the maintenance of antiaircraft artillery vehicles. There was also a course (22-30; 56) to train teams of instructors for use with antiaircraft artillery units and a special research and analysis course (37; 15) to train officers to do research in problems of gunnery and guided missiles. The Seacoast Branch, Fort Winfield Scott, California, offered an Associate Basic Course (13; 60), a Submarine Mines Course ( 1 8 1 0 ) in the techniques of laying and disposing of harbor-defense mines, a course in the use of radar in seacoast artillery operations (18%; 20), and a course (18y 2 \ 25) for seacoast artillery gunners. The Physical Training and Athletic Directors' School, Camp Lee, Virginia, gave a single course (8; 300) for officers responsible for recreation and morale activities. The Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was the senior school of the Army Ground Forces, controlling the course content of all other Ground Forces Schools. It resembled the Air University in this respect, with the difference that the Air University actually commanded a number of schools. Until recently the College operated under the direct control of the War Department, but in January 1947 it was placed under the command of the Army Ground Forces.12 Its mission was to prepare officers for staff and command duties with senior units, and, by research and study, to improve Army tactical and administrative procedures. The course offering consisted of a Regular Course (42; 500), an Associate Course (16; 200), an orientation course for civilians (3; 50), 13 and a refresher course for National Guard officers (2; 200). The relation of the Associate to the Regular Course was different from that in the other Ground Forces Schools, in that it was not simply an abbreviated version, but actually had a different content, being directed at staff and command problems at the level of the Army division, while the Regular Course dealt with similar problems at the level of the higher Army units. Quotas of officers to be selected for attendance in the Regular Course were set by the War Department, and for 1947 included 250 for the

118

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

Army Ground Forces, 150 for the Administrative and Technical Services, and the remaining spaces for Navy, Air Force, and foreign officers. Of the Administrative and Technical Services, the Corps of Engineers and the Quartermaster Corps had the largest allotments, with 32 and 23 respectively. The other Services varied from 17 to a single space (Chaplain Corps), with the average about 8. Quotas for the Associate Course were 65 for National Guard and 135 for Organized Reserve Corps. 14 Selection of individual officers to attend the Regular and Associate courses was made by the Personnel and Administration Division of the War Department General S t a f f 1 5 and was limited to officers with from seven to fifteen years of commissioned service who had graduated with distinction from the regular advanced courses of their respective branches. It was planned that about 50 per cent of all regular officers would be selected for the Command and General Staff College, 16 but because of general personnel shortages and lack of space at Fort Leavenworth, the percentage of officers that actually received training up to 1947 was substantially less. The appropriation for the Command and General Staff College for the fiscal year 1947 was $345,000." This figure excludes costs of pay of personnel, instructors as well as students. The Army Officer Candidate School was operated by the Army Ground Forces. It is treated under "Schooling for Future Officers." Army Air Forces Schools The schools of the Army Air Forces were organized under two commands, each of which was dircctly subordinate to the Commanding General, Army Air Forces. These were the Air University and Air Training Command. A third command had some part in it, the Air Matériel Command, which operated the Air Institute of Technology. However, since the course offering of the Institute was controlled by the Air University, it is treated under that heading. The general plan for education of air officers was in many ways similar to that for ground officers, but was less rigid. Upon commissioning, the new officer reported to a unit for duty, without being required to attend any course or school. Depending upon whether he was a tactical or technical officer (that is, pilot or other) he would at a later time attend either tactical or technical schools, each of which operated at both basic and advanced levels, as with the Ground Forces Schools. Whether or not an officer attended the more advanced levels of the Air Command and Staff College, the Air W a r College, and the Joint Schools depended upon selection by the Commanding General, Army Air Forces.

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 119 The rapid expansion of the Air Forces during the last war created a serious training problem, because a large proportion of the new officers commissioned as regulars had relatively little formal schooling as compared with other regular officers. There were even cases of officers who did not have a high school diploma, and considerable numbers of the 18,000 officers commissioned in the regular service during and after the war lacked college level training. T o take care of the training needs of this group, the Air Forces planned an expansion of the schools noted below, especially in the higher brackets. Nevertheless, the top level schools such as the Air War College and the Air Command and Staff College would never be able to handle more than a small part of this load. It was planned that eventually 90 per cent of the training backlog would receive instruction at the Air Tactical School level; that perhaps 50 per cent would go through the Air Command and Staff College, but not more than 5 to 10 per cent would reach the Air War College level.18 The Air University, Maxwell Field, Alabama, as a principal command of the Army Air Forces, was responsible for the conduct and supervision of training offered at the schools noted immediately below, and controlled the doctrine of all Air Forces Schools. In this sense it was comparable to the Command and General Staff College of the Army Ground Forces, with the difference already noted that it was also a command, having direct control of the following schools. a. The Air War College, Maxwell Field, Alabama, was the senior Air Force school and offered a single course (37; 100) dealing with the strategic aspects of air warfare and interservice coordination of military operations. In its concern with future plans and over-all policies it was more like the Naval War College than like any institution of the Ground Army. b. The Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell Field, Alabama, offered a Regular Course (37; 225) and an Associate Course (12; 100) aimed at the command and staff problems of the larger Air Force units. It corresponded to the Ground Forces College at Fort Leavenworth, and like that college drew its students from among officers of 7 to 15 years of commissioned service who were graduates of the advanced courses of the lower schools. c. The Air Institute of Technology, Wright Field, Ohio, was a subcommand of the Air Matériel Command, although the content of its single course (1 or 2 years; 19 275) was determined by the Air University. The Air Forces considered the course to be the equivalent of that leading to an undergraduate degree in engineering. d. The Air Special Staff School, Craig Field, Alabama, and Gunter

,2o D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R Field, Alabama, gave courses in the following subjects for officers of Air Special Staff Divisions: aircraft inspection (10; 150), management and personnel administration (4; 700), public relations 20 (8; 50), cartography and cartogrammetry (10; 200), intelligence (8; 300), and maintenance and operation of air communications equipment (18; —). e. The Air Tactical School, Tyndall Field, Florida, offered a single course (12; 1,500) for officers of one to four years of commissioned service dealing with tactical operation of various types of air units and tactical cooperation with other forces. f . School of Aviation Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, operated a course (12; 300) of training for flight surgeons and medical examiners. The Air Training Command was the other principal training agency of the Air Force. It had general charge of functional training of air officers, including both operational and support aspects, and had three main divisions: the Flying Division, which operated the Flying Schools noted below ; the Technical Division, which operated the Technical Schools; and the Indoctrination Division, w hich operated the Air Officer Candidate School (see page 126). a. AAF Flying Schools w ere located at a number of fields. During the fiscal year 1947 the general program of pilot training was undergoing retrenchment, and by the end of that year only five schools were in operation, located at Randolph and San Marcos Fields, Texas; Williams Field, Arizona; Mather Field, California; and Barksdale Field, Louisiana. All were engaged in the process of training pilots. Courses were Primary Pilot Training (15-20; 500), Basic Pilot Training (15-20; 500), Advanced Single-engine Pilot Training (15-20; 175), Transition Pilot Training (P-80) ( 7 % ; 50), Transition Pilot Training (Helicopter) ( 1 1 ; 1 1 ) , Advanced Two-engine Pilot Training (15-20; 325), Advanced Four-engine Pilot Training (15-20; 325), Instrument Pilot Training (Blind Approach Procedures) (10; 50), Liaison Pilot Training 21 (24; 60), Fighter Gunnery (8; 10), and extensive course (52; 100) for air bombardment officers on the use of navigation and radar in aerial bombing. b. AAF Technical Schools were located at the six fields noted below and dealt with the technical and ground support aspects of air operations, as distinguished from the operational aspects of the A A F Flying Schools. Chanute Field, Illinois, provided courses 22 for aircraft maintenance officers (basic maintenance) (40), aircraft structural repair officers (6), aircraft weight and balance officers (2), B-29 aircraft maintenance officers (8), B-29 electrical system maintenance officers (8), ground

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 121 safety officers (2), Link synthetic trainer instructors (10), polar indoctrination instructors (2), and two courses for weather officers, a basic course (32; 125) and an advanced one (10; 5). Keesler Field, Mississippi, gave courses for chemical officers (chemical warfare) (20), supply officers ( 1 3 ) , and personnel management instructors (4). Lowry Field, Colorado, gave courses for airplane armament officers (24), aerial photographic officers (24), photo-interpreters (36), statistical control officers (9), post engineers (8), armory maintenance and repair officers (small arms) (8), aviation ordnance officers (12), ammunition supply officers (8), automotive maintenance and repair officers (8), air intelligence officers (20), radar scope photo-interpreters (36), flak intelligence officers 23 (12), air technical intelligence officers 24 (12), and prisoner of war interrogation officers (12). Scott Field, Illinois, gave courses for communications officers (28), telephone and telegraph officers (24), cryptographers (5), and signal equipment maintenance and repair officers (16). Fort Francis Warren, Wyoming, gave courses for aviation engineer unit officers (12) and air installation officers (8, fire prevention and construction and maintenance of air installations). The Technical School at Boca Raton, Florida, gave courses for aircraft warning officers, 25 electronics officers (42, airborne electronics equipment), radar weather officers (42, use of radar in weather observation), radar maintenance and repair officers (16), and weather engineering and survey officers (52). Schools of the Technical and Administrative

Services

Each of the Technical and Administrative Services operated at least one school for its own personnel, and a number of them operated more than one. The pattern of basic and advanced courses, both regular and associate, was in general followed, as in the schools of the Ground Forces. The Army Finance School was operated by the Finance Department at St. Louis, Missouri, and offered a Regular Basic Branch Course (22; 5), and an Associate Basic Course (10; 35). Advanced courses were not given during the fiscal year 1947 because constructive credit (q.v.) had been allowed to a sufficient number of officers to meet needs. The Chemical Corps School, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, offered the four standard branch courses, Regular Basic (20; 20), Associate Basic (12; 35), Regular Advanced (40; 50), and Associate Advanced

,22

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

( 1 2 ; 50), and special courses for unit gas officers (4; —) and flame thrower instructors (2; 25). The Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, offered the four standard branch courses. Regular Basic (22; 60), Associate Basic (12; 130), Regular Advanced (42; 20), and Associate Advanced (10; 40), and special courses in maintenance of mechanical equipment (6; 25), engineer administration (8; 50), and in the methods of the Engineer Mechanical Advisory Service ( 2 ; 8 ). The Ordnance School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, offered the standard branch courses, Regular Basic (22; 35), Associate Basic ( 1 2 ; 30), Regular Advanced (34;—),and Associate Advanced ( 1 2 ; — ) , and courses in the following special subjects: 29 ammunition ( 2 1 ) , armament matériel ( 2 1 ) , automotive matériel ( 2 1 ) , fire control matériel ( 2 1 ) , ammunition field supply (8), automotive maintenance (10), small arms maintenance (4), instrument repair (4), bomb disposal (9), ordnance staff procedures (8), ordnance general supply (4), ordnance maintenance service (8), artillery maintenance (9), ordnance extreme cold weather maintenance (4), and a general course (4) on the functions and organization of the Ordnancc Department intended for officers of other branches. The Ordnance Department also operated an Ordnance Automotive School at the Atlanta (Georgia) Ordnance Depot giving courses in organizational automotive maintenance (4; 30), automotive preventive maintenance ( 1 ; 10), and automotive evacuation and recovery (4; —). The Quartermaster School, Camp Lee, Virginia, gave the standard branch courses, Regular Basic (22; 75), Associate Basic (10; 30), Regular Advanced (42; 100), and Associate Advanced (10; — ) , and special courses for food service instructors (4; 30) and instructors in the use of gear specially designed for cold weather operations (6; 75). 27 The Quartermaster Corps also operated a Quartermaster Subsistence School at the Food and Container Institute of the Armed Forces, Quartermaster Depot, Chicago, Illinois, which gave a single course (22; 32) on food administration; and six Food Service Schools, one for each Army Area, each of which gave a course in mess management (4; 20) and in food service supervision (4; 20). The Signal School, Fort Alonmouth, New Jersey, gave the four standard courses, Regular Basic (20; 44), Associate Basic ( 1 3 ; 70), Regular Advanced (40; 25), and Associate Advanced (13; —), and also offered courses in radar fundamentals (3), radar components (9), and the use of radar in fire and searchlight control (12). The Signal Corps also operated the Signal Supply School at the

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 123 Holabird Signal Depot, Baltimore, Maryland, which gave a course for signal supply officers (40; 20), and the Signal Corps Photographic Center, Astoria, Long Island, New York, which offered courses for motion picture cameramen (17; 7) and still photography officers (17; 4)The Transportation Corps School, Fort Eustis, Virginia, gave the four standard courses, Regular Basic (22; 30), Associate Basic (12; 50), Regular Advanced (37; —), and Associate Advanced (12; —), and courses in inland waterways and coastal traffic regulations (8; —), highway traffic regulation (8; —), and rail traffic regulation (8; —). It also offered special courses for ROTC instructors (10; 20), stevedoring operations officers (8; 22), transport commanders and ship transportation officers (8; —), waterports operations officers (8; —), harbor craft officers (20; 20) and motor transportation officers (8; 32). The Army Information School, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, offered a course for public relations officers (12; 300) and one for staff information and education officers (12; 300). The Adjutant General School, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, offered the four standard courses, Regular Basic (22; 50), Associate Basic (10; —), Regular Advanced (28; —), and Associate Advanced (10; —), and special courses in recruiting methods (4; 200), and personnel classification. The Provost Marshal General School, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, offered an Associate Basic Officers Course (10; 35), an Associate Advanced Officers Course (10; 35),28 and special courses for military police officer investigators (6; —), provost marshal officers (3; —), and military government officers (6; 3,000). The Chaplain School, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, offered only a basic course for chaplains (12; 125). Army Special Services School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, offered courses for Army exchange officers (10; —), civilian managers of post exchanges (5; —), and a special course of training (10; —) for recreation officers. Medical Department Schools, The Army Medical Department, which included the Medical, Dental, Veterinary, and Army Nurse Corps, operated a number of schools and training programs. a. The Medical Field Service School, at the Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, offered a Regular Basic Course (8; 650), and special courses in military neuropsychiatry (16; 50), roentgenology (12; 50), electroencephalography (4; —), psychiatric nursing (20; 25), mess administration (2; 12), physical medicine

,24

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

(12; —), medical equipment maintenance 29 (26; 58), hospital administration (26; — ) , optical repair (21; 3), psychiatric social work (26; — ) , clinical psychology (26; —), physical reconditioning (8; 50), and dietetics (52; 10). b. The Research and Graduate School at the Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., offered a single course (8; — ) in tropical medicine. c. The Army School of Malariology, Fort Clayton, Canal Zone, gave a course in malariology (12; —). d. The Meat and Dairy Hygiene School, Chicago Quartermaster Depot, Chicago, Illinois, gave a specialized course for veterinary officers in meat and dairy hygiene (8; 20). e. The Army Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C., offered no regular courses but did provide services to medical schools and trained pathologists in that specialty. Nearly all Army pathologists are assigned to duty in this Institute at one stage or another of their Army careers.30 The Medical Department also provided graduate professional training for medical, dental, and veterinary students, both officer and civilian, in the form of residencies and internships at most Army hospitals. This activity was substantially the same as that of the Navy, Veterans Administration, and U.S. Public Health Service (q.v.) in the same area. War Department

Schools

These schools were classified as War Department Schools because they came under the direct operational control of the War Department General Staff or of some higher level. With the exception of the Military Academy, however, they were all operated by the Chief of Intelligence, and might equally well be classified as intelligence schools. Military Intelligence Service Language School, Presidio of Monterey, California, had administrative charge of all Army language instruction and gave courses not only in languages but also in the cultures of the areas in which the languages were spoken. Some of the courses were of great duration involving study at this school, in civilian universities, and in foreign countries. Information regarding course capacities is not available, but the authorized enrollment for the entire school was about 400 officer students. The offering consisted of a Russian language and area course (4 years), a Russian language course (6 months), a Japanese language and area course (4 years), a Chinese language and area course (4 years),

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 125 a Portuguese language course (4 months),31 and a Spanish language course. The Strategic Intelligence School, Washington, D.C., offered a single course (22; 120) on strategic intelligence. The Counter-intelligence Corps School, Camp Holabird, Maryland, offered a course (—; 1,000) for counter-intelligence agents. The Army Security Agency School, Vint Hill Farms Station, Warrenton, Virginia, dealt with such matters as signal intelligence and communications security, offering a basic course (26; 50), and an advanced course (46; 50), and special courses for officers engaged in radio intelligence (14; 50), cryptanalysis (17; 96), and radio traffic analysis (16; 96). The U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, was classified as a War Department School by the Department. Since its function was education of prospective officers, it is treated below. SCHOOLING FOR F U T U R E

OFFICERS

There were three principal routes to a commission in the Army, each of which involved higher education. These were: a. Graduation from the U.S. Military Academy, b. Successful completion of the Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at a college where it was offered, and c. Successful completion of the course at the Officer Candidate Schools of either the Ground or Air Forces. The U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, offered a fouryear course, similar in many ways to the offerings of civilian liberal arts colleges, but with the addition of certain engineering subjects as well as considerable emphasis on military matters. The course led to the degree of Bachelor of Science which was recognized and accredited by the usual accrediting agencies. Entrance to the Academy was conditioned on successfully passing physical and intellectual examinations and on recommendation by a member of Congress or by the President of the United States. The curriculum underwent considerable change after the recent war, especially in the direction of providing more training in air operations than previously (all students were required to take orientation in air operations) and of amphibious training. Joint training in amphibious operations was given jointly with the midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy in the Chesapeake Bay area. However, the course was still a general course, not designed to produce specialists, but to produce trained and disciplined officers capable of leadership and of specialization at a later date.

126 DEPARTMENT OF W A R In fiscal year 1947 there were 2,496 cadets at the Academy. The faculty consisted of 265 persons, mostly military. The normal annual rate of admission of cadets was 725. The Academy also arranged for its faculty and other officers who were about to join the faculty to take courses under instruction at civilian institutions of higher learning. In fiscal 1947, 115 such courses were followed, expenses being borne by the Academy. The appropriation for the Academy for fiscal year 1947 was $7,474,000, including $1,864,000 for pay of cadets, but excluding the pay of the military personnel assigned to the staff.32 The Officer Candidate School of the Army Ground Forces. During fiscal year 1947 this school was in operation at Fort Benning, Georgia, but at the end of the fiscal year it was moved to Fort Riley, Kansas. It provided a basic course (26; 3,600) to train officer candidates. During fiscal year 1947 it operated at about 50 per cent of this capacity owing to lack of qualified applicants. During most of that year, entrance to the school was limited to enlisted members of the Regular Army. In April 1947 a new plan was put into effect 33 by which it was hoped to raise the number of qualified applicants to 5,400. Under this plan, entrance to the school was opened to qualified enlisted members of the Organized Reserve and of the National Guard as well as to certain qualified civilians without prior military experience. The Officer Candidate School of the Army Air Forces, San Antonio, Texas, fulfilled for the Air Forces the same purpose as the above school did for the Ground Forces. It gave a single course (24; 500). As with the Ground OCS, the quotas were not met. In December 1946, only 131 officer candidates were under training at this school. The plan for additional recruitment mentioned above also applied to this school and was expected to assist materially in filling capacities. Reserve Officers Training Corps Programs were the outgrowth of the program for the training of reserve officers established at the time of the first world war, under basic authorization of the National Defense Act of 1916. 3i They provided the process whereby students in civilian colleges and universities were given military training to qualify them for reserve commissions on graduation. The Air Forces and the Ground Army operated separate programs, each of which emphasized the needs of the respective specialties, but this system dated only from 1946. There had been a few Army Air Force ROTC units established in the 1930s, but these were abolished before the recent war, Air Forces trainees being taken from the other

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

127

R O T C units. However, in order to meet the needs of the Air Force, and perhaps in preparation for the separation of the services which took place in September 1947, separate units were established to begin operation in the fall of 1946, and hence had their first year of operation in fiscal 1947. R O T C units of the Air Forces were established at 76 colleges and universities at that time, as compared with 138 colleges and universities with Ground Force units. The Air and Ground programs both followed a common pattern to the extent that each was administered at the college by a regular officer of the appropriate service, who was known as the Professor of Military Science and Tactics; each offered two years of training in common and general subjects followed by two years of specialization; academic credit was granted by the institution concerned; 35 the reserve officer candidate received uniforms and a small allowance in commutation of rations; he spent at least one six-week summer period in active field training; and he received a reserve commission upon graduation. These programs were somewhat less elaborate than the N a v y program established under the Holloway Plan. Students made no arrangements with the Army or Air Force until after they were admitted to the college concerned, at which time they might elect to follow one of the R O T C courses. N o contract for service of any special type was drawn between the student and the service, and he was not required to accept the reserve commission upon graduation. A considerable expansion of R O T C units, both ground and air, has been planned, since these programs give the best promise of overcoming the current shortage of officers. The maintenance of the Air Forces and the Ground Forces at currently authorized strengths will require many more new officers annually than can be produced by the Military Academy. Legislation to effect such expansion was introduced in the 80th Congress 36 but was not passed. According to the 1947 expansion plans, the number of colleges involved in the Ground Forces program would be increased to about 250, enrolling about 100,000 students at all times and with an annual output of 25,000-30,000 as against the 138 colleges enrolling about 25,000 and graduating about 6,000 annually. The Air Forces planned an expansion from 76 colleges and an enrollment of about 16,000 to 150 colleges and an enrollment of about 50,000. The appropriation for fiscal 1947, for both of the above programs, was $16,782,000. This included subsistence and other pay for students. For fiscal 1948, in which year the budget requests were made in the

i;8 D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R same form, the separation of the departments having followed the submission of the budget data,37 the request was about $25,000,000. The appropriation omitted the pay and allowances of military personnel assigned to duty at the colleges where R O T C units were maintained, who numbered about 1,100 officers and 1,600 enlisted men of the Ground and Air Forces. Assuming an average dispersion of ranks and grades (including at least one Colonel and one Master or First Sergeant per unit), their pay and allowances would average not less than $5,000 per officer and $2,000 per enlisted man, making a total personnel cost of not less than $8,700,000. This, w hen added to the above appropriation, would yield an estimate of expenditure for fiscal year 1947 of $25,482,000. JOINT

SCHOOLS

These include the high-level schools which were jointly operated by the Army and N a v y in fiscal year 1947 and which are now operated by the Department of National Defense. They are: the National War College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces Staff College. Responsibility for the administration of each of these schools belonged jointly to the War and Navy Departments. However, in order to simplify administration and affix responsibility for the day-to-day problems of each school, the Undersecretaries of War and Navy made an agreement :s according to which the War Department maintained, operated, and had budgetary responsibility for the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, while the Navy maintained and had budgetary responsibility for the Armed Forces Staff College. Control of curriculum or "doctrine" was vested in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National War College,39 Washington, D.C., had the mission40 of preparing selected officers of all services for joint command and staff duties at the highest levels. It offered a single course (42; 108), covering such matters as the interests and objectives of the United States and other powers, the United Nations and bi- and multi-lateral pacts, implications of atomic energy and its applications to warfare, factors of national power, and the integration of national power and foreign policy. For the course offered in fiscal year 1947, the 108 students were divided as follows: Army Navy Air State Department

33 officers (8 from the Technical Services) 3 1 officers (6 from the Marine Corps and 1 Coast Guard) 28 officers 16(12 Foreign Service Officers)

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

129

Admission to this course was by selection by the service concerned in accordance with quotas established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A minimum of ten years of commissioned service was required together with a distinguished record in earlier schooling. The faculty of the College consisted of 16 regular Army, Navy, and Air officers supported by one Foreign Service Officer from the State Department and five resident civilians. In addition, a number of civilians of distinction were invited to lecture from time to time on a honorarium basis. Administrative control was vested in a Commandant selected in rotation from each service, assisted by deputies from each other service and from the State Department. Industrial College of the Armed Forces,*1 Washington, D.C., was a sort of technical companion of the National W a r College. Together, they shared the highest position in the educational activities of the military services. The major difference between them lay in the nature of the subject matter with which they dealt. The National W a r College was concerned with matters of command and policy in warfare and power relationships. The Industrial College of the Armed Forces was more concerned with problems of economic mobilization and industrial production. Its mission 42 was to train officers of the armed forces for duties involving procurement planning and procurement, along with mobilization of the national economy and economic warfare; to evaluate the economic war potential of foreign nations; to conduct studies and researches in the above fields; and to foster close relationships between the armed forces and civilian engineering, scientific, educational, and industrial groups in the study of the social, political, and economic impact of war. The single course (42; 1 1 5 ) was devoted to research and study of problems of the mobilization of the national economy for war. Quotas for 1947 were established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as follows: Navy Army Air Forces Army Ground Forces Administrative & Technical Services Undersecretary of War Total

35 officers 23 officers 10 officers 45 officers 2 officers 115

Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia, trained selected officers in joint (that is, combined Army and N a v y ) operations. Joint staff techniques and procedures formed the greater part of the curriculum, together with the organization and employment of all types of forces. Quotas 43 for the single course (21; 300), as assigned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal year 1947, were:

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R Navy 50 officers Army Air Forces 4J officers Army Ground Forces JÎ officers Administrative & Technical Services 20 officers Total 150 Fiscal. The appropriation to the War Department for the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces for fiscal 1947 was $294,000. This did not include pay of any military personnel, either faculty or student, nor did it include the upkeep of the post at the former Army War College, which had functions in addition to advanced instruction. The appropriation for the Armed Forces Staff College was contained in the Navy Department appropriation for instruction, not differentiated for this school. The cost of pay and allowances for personnel attending these schools can be calculated as not less than $5,000 per officer,44 in view of the relatively senior ranks involved. This item would therefore amount to not less than $ 1,500,000. C I V I L I A N SCHOOLS PROGRAMS

Detailing of military personnel to civilian colleges and universities. The Secretary of War has long had authority to send Army and Air Force personnel to colleges and universities for special instruction under provision of the National Defense Act of i9i6, 4 '' since variously reenacted, with the limitation that not more than 2 per cent of the authorized commissioned strength of the service might be under such detail at any one time. Experience of the last war indicated the very great need for officers trained in a large number of technical specialties, involving subjects not normally part of the curriculum of any of the military schools, but provided by many civilian institutions. Much of this need might be met in time of war by mobilization of civilian experts, but in time of peace the services must provide for themselves. This more or less normal need was considerably aggravated since the last war by the integration into the regular Army and Air Force of large numbers of former reserve officers,46 many of whom had not had a college education, and some of whom did not even possess high school diplomas.47 Officers in this category may have had highly distinguished war records, but they would suffer by comparison with better educated officers in their later careers. T o meet the expanded educational needs of the Army and Air Force, the 80th Congress adopted a new policy by which up to 8 per cent of the commissioned personnel of the Army and Air Force might be sent to civilian institutions simultaneously, in the discretions of the Secretaries of the respective departments.48

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 131 As the program operated during fiscal 1947, five separate divisions of the War Department provided civilian higher education for their personnel, under the general direction of the Director of Organization and Training, W D G S . These were: (a) Army Ground Forces, (b) Army Air Forces, (c) War Department General Staff, (d) the Technical and Administrative Services, and (e) the U.S. Military Academy. All these operated at the graduate level, but only the first two were concerned with undergraduate instruction. The procedure was that the agency that required the training for its personnel make the necessary arrangements, seeking approval of plans and necessary coordination from the Director of Organization and Training, WDGS. 4 9 In general, periods of training were limited to two years, although exceptions were made in the case of certain courses that required longer to complete.00 University instruction was provided only to meet the needs of the Army and not for the general purpose of raising the educational level of commissioned personnel, as is the case in the Navy's Five Term Transferee Program. In the end, however, it may be difficult to distinguish the results of the two programs. Officers selected for such education remained on active duty while under instruction, receiving their regular pay and allowances; most of their expenses, specifically tuition and other academic fees, were paid from War Department appropriations, under contracts drawn with the institutions involved. During fiscal 1947 almost all of the courses were at the graduate and professional levels, since the undergraduate programs were only just starting. Plans called for undergraduate training for 500 junior officers during fiscal 1948. The graduate courses (with enrollment) included such subjects as business administration (84), public administration (3), chemistry (4), economics (2), geology ( 1 3 ) , journalism (6), physics (74), psychology ( 1 ) , administrative engineering (7), chemical engineering (8), civil engineering (106), electrical engineering ( 1 0 1 ) , engineering physics (3), guided missiles (73), industrial engineering ( 1 ) , mechanical engineering (43), mining engineering (10), textile engineering (4), languages (18), law (3), political science (foreign service) (3), and various medical studies ( 7 4 ) . " Plans of the Director of Organization and Training called for the addition of the following numbers of officers during fiscal 1948: Type of Training

Scientific and graduate training Potential WDGS officers Personnel administration

Officers 3° 34 35

I

3

2

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R Foreign area and language training 86 Industrial mobilization training 161 Air Force scientific & technical training 455 Ground Force scientific & technical training 286 T & A Services scientific & technical training 317 U.S. Military Academy instructors training 74 Junior officer undergraduate training 500 Total 1,978

With the carry-over from the previous year, there would be about 2,600 in training in civilian institutions. In addition to the above courses, arrangements were made from time to time for military personnel to take short courses under instruction at civilian institutions, especially during the summer sessions of the principal schools. During the summer of 1947, 44 officers attended selected short summer courses. Arrangements might also be made with special schools to provide specified training under certain conditions. Examples were the Army Safety Courses offered in fiscal 1947 at Northwestern University and N e w York University. The former was a three-week course in motor vehicle safety and traffic control for 81 officers; the latter a four-week course of similar nature for 151 officers, a total of 232. Very little fiscal information is available on these programs. Appropriations for part of these activities were made to the Quartermaster Corps under the general title, "Incidental Expenses of the Army," and to the Corps of Engineers (for 50 officers) under "War Department Civil Functions, Maintenance and Improvement of Existing Harbors and Works." For the former the 1947 appropriation was $674,ooo.62 For the latter the sum was not specified but can be calculated as about $50,ooo.53 There were, however, additional training functions not covered by either appropriation. Assuming that $1,000 per officer per year is the average cost of administering such a program, the cost of a program for about 2,000 officers, as in fiscal 1947, would be about $2,000,000. Such an estimate omits the additional expense to the government of the pay and allowances of officers on such duty. This would, at the ranks involved, average upwards of $5,000 per officer, or $10,000,000 for 2,000 officers, making an estimated total of about $12,000,000 for the programs. Army Education Program (USAFI). The United States Armed Forces Institute was the principal activity of the so-called "Army Education Program," which was designed to provide educational opportunity in other than military subjects for all personnel of the Armed Forces. Its headquarters were in Madison, Wisconsin, and it operated

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

133

in fiscal year 1947 through eight branch offices, located in various overseas areas. T h e program provided a number of services for military personnel, both officer and enlisted, and for civilian educational agencies; these consisted of U S A F I courses, correspondence courses offered by other agencies, provision of courses under instructors at Army Education Centers, payment of part of the expense of courses of instruction in institutions located near military installations, and examination and evaluation of military educational experiences. Responsibility for the control of the entire program was vested jointly in the War and Navy Departments. For the N a v y Department, administration was handled by the Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for Training and Welfare. For the War Department, the responsible section was the Troop Information and Education Division of the W a r Department Special Staff. Basic authority for the program was contained in Army Regulation 350-3100 of December 24, 1941, which established the Army Institute (the name was later changed) and in an A c t of Congress.54 The original program was for Army personnel only, but in September 1942 its facilities were opened to all service personnel on a cost basis. It was not until the beginning of fiscal year 1947 that joint operation and responsibility became a reality. At that time a committee consisting of eleven prominent civilian educators and two representatives from each of the services was appointed for the purpose of determining the over-all educational policies which the program would carry into effect. This committee still has control of the content of the U S A F I curriculum, within the general framework of service policies and availability of appropriations (curtailment of which has caused a restriction of the offerings of the program in the higher levels). USAFI courses were of two types: correspondence courses and standard or self-teaching texts. The former consisted of a series of pamphlets with instructions for study and test assignments which required grading. The standard or self-teaching texts consisted of either simple reprints of standard textbooks which the student was expected to use as study material, or of such texts interspersed with question exercises, hints as to how to study, and additional material representing an attempt to "write the instructor into the book." A t the beginning of fiscal year 1947, in addition to high school and technical courses, U S A F I offered a total of 67 correspondence courses and 368 selfteaching courses at the college level.55 The subjects covered included nearly all those in the normal college curriculum. Average monthly en-

i34 D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R rollments in all USAFI courses, including those at low er levels, during the first half of calendar 1947 approached 13,000; the total number of active enrollments was near 300,000 in March 1947; and more than 13,000 lessons were being processed by Headquarters and Branches during that period. Courses of Other Agencies. In addition to the above courses USAFI made arrangements with a number of colleges and universities that offered correspondence courses to provide them for military personnel. At the beginning of fiscal year 1947 there were 73 such cooperating colleges and universities. By the end of the year the number had been cut to 59. The number of courses offered by the reduced number of institutions was in excess of 6,000. Students enrolling for these courses paid whatever enrollment fee was charged by the institution concerned and also paid for any special texts required. USAFI paid the cost of the lessons. About 15,000 personnel were enrolled in such courses at the end of fiscal year 1947. Instruction at Army Education Centers. Commanders of units and areas were authorized 06 to establish Army Education Centers where courses of instruction were given to Army personnel. This program was designed to supplement the correspondence and self-teaching courses and replaced the Army School system which was in operation during the war and included Shrivenham, Biarritz, and Florence universities. Teaching personnel were recruited from civilian life as well as the Army. Figures are not available as to what proportion of the courses offered were at the college level. At the end of fiscal year 1947 there were 1,060 Education Centers operating, of which 923 were in overseas commands and 137 in the United States. There were 1,469 instructors, of whom 731 were civilians and the remaining 738 were full or part-time military personnel. More than 50,000 personnel were taking the courses offered, and on off-duty time only, except in a few courses in subjects immediately applicable to military duties. Courses at Institutions near Military Installations. Military commands were authorized 87 to pay 7 5 per cent of the tuition costs for courses which officers and enlisted men took on off-duty time at schools or colleges near their places of duty. The maximum amount paid for any individual was $25 per course per semester, and the student paid all fees except the tuition fee. By the end of the calendar year 1947, about 3,500 Army personnel were taking such courses. Examination Services were of three types: a. End-of-course tests designed to test mastery of the various USAFI

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 135 courses. There was a special test for each of the college level courses offered, which students interested in obtaining credit at a civilian institution might take. b. Subject examinations designed to test the level of competence of the student in a given field. During fiscal 1947, 82 such tests were available, of which 52 were in college subjects, including languages. c. General Educational Development Tests at both high school and college levels. No student was required to take any of these tests, but he might find it to his advantage to do so, since credit was given by some civilian institutions for work completed or achieved while in the service. The General Educational Development Test was based on the view that many personnel through service experience achieved the equivalent of the broad cultural basis which they might otherwise have obtained in the first two years of collcge. The travel associated with military service, the necessity of living among different peoples in new and strange lands, the various educational opportunities provided by the military, all might lead to considerable educational growth, and this growth might not appear on service or other records. The tests were developed in order that personnel returning to civilian schools might report educational growth for translation into terms of academic credit for advanced standing. The college level test consisted of four comprehensive examinations with a subject examination in one of the fields of mathematics. The areas tested were: correctness and effectiveness of expression, interpretation of reading materials in the social studies, interpretation of reading materials in the natural sciences, and interpretation of literary materials. The American Council on Education recommended that up to 24 points of academic credit be granted for successful completion of the college level test, and this was done in some places. Evaluation and Accreditation Services. In order to assist civilian institutions in granting credit for completion of USAFI courses, as well as other educational experiences, USAFI was authorized to make official reports to civilian educational institutions on matters concerning accreditation for educational work completed on an individual basis or in Army Education Centers. This plan was developed by USAFI in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation of Service Experiences of the American Council on Education, which published a handbook 58 designed to help civilian institutions in granting credits. Most of the institutions of higher education in the United States accepted USAFI certifications for some credit, although the amounts granted

,36 D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R varied widely. More than 2,000,000 men were granted some academic credit in this way. A t the end of fiscal year 1947, cumulative enrollments in all courses offered under the Army Education Program had reached about 1,825,000 and about 300,000 military personnel were at that time engaged in some phase of its operations. According to estimates made by U S A F I the total cost of these programs, including instructors in the overseas commands and in the United States, was about $2,9oo,ooo.This includes the appropriation for USAFI, which was $1,000,000, and funds appropriated to the overseas commands, which applied them to instructional purposes to the extent of approximately $650,000. MISCELLANEOUS

Extension Courses. During March 1946, the Army instituted a very broad program of so-called "Extension Courses" as a part of the whole program of postwar readiness. This involved the creation and administration of a large number of correspondence courses bv all the schools of the various arms and services in a manner similar to the Extension Courses offered before the recent war. It was directed primarily at the reserve components of the postwar Army who would not under normal circumstances be able to take the time to attend the courscs offered at the various schools. Each school was to appoint an officer who was to be known as Director of Extension Courses and to set up a department charged with the administration of the program. Courses were to be offered at six different levels corresponding to the rank of the students, from officer candidates to Lieutenant Colonels. Each school was to develop a series of subcourses in its specialties for each of these levels. Uniform systems of reporting, including quarterly reports to the War Department, were established. This system was getting under way during fiscal year 1947 and was in wide use by the end of the year, except that the Air Forces had not yet developed their courses. By the end of September 1946, 1,230 students were enrolled in courses. By the end of the calendar year the number had grown to 10,134; by the end of March it was 16,756; and by the end of the fiscal year the enrollment was 19,383 of whom approximately onethird were Army Ground Forces officers and the other two-thirds were officers of the Technical and Administrative Services. Eventually, extension courses are expected to be offered by almost all of the Army schools here considered. The Panama Canal:'9

Responsibility for the civil government of

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

137

the Canal Zone was vested in the Secretary of W a r . Civil government includes schools and therefore the W a r Department has long operated a school system in the Canal Zone, the activity being carried in the W a r Department budget under the general heading "Civil Functions." T h e school system includes provision for higher education in a junior college, located at Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, which offers a regular junior college course designed to enable its graduates to enter the third year of a regular four-year liberal arts course at any recognized college in the states. During fiscal year 1947 the college had a faculty of 23 and a student body of 258, graduating 50 students.60 It is not practicable to try to calculate what part of the expenditures f o r the school system of the Panama Canal in fiscal 1947 was utilized f o r the junior college, since the appropriation was a lump sum, and the facilities used were shared with other activities. FISCAL S U M M A R Y

It is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the total cost of A r m y training activities. In very f e w cases did the W a r Department budget show estimates for officer training, and, even when it did, the only expense shown was the actual cost of the training without any notation as to the exact numbers of personnel involved, or the cost of paying them. Since in almost every case the pay and allowances of the personnel would exceed b y a large margin the tuition and administrative costs, no true cost picture is given. A n example of this is the estimates f o r the Civilian Schools Programs. While it cost only $1,000 per year to send an officer to a civilian university, in terms of tuition, books, fees, and administration, it cost about $5,000 in pay and allowances to maintain him while studying there. This last might not be an educational expense, but it was certainly a cost of the program and had to be borne b y the government. Personnel undergoing instruction were, b y that very token, not engaged in the work f o r which they were presumably commissioned; one of the costs of training ought therefore to be the cost of maintaining a man on the payroll even though undergoing training. However, in the W a r Department estimates, pay and allowances of personnel were carried in one lump sum for all of the regular personnel of the A r m y , and hence can be separated out f o r each project only b y a work schedule showing f o r each project the numbers and ranks of the personnel engaged and the length of time served b y each. This is a task of such difficulty as to discourage its execution. However, in some of the estimates provided to the President's Commission on Higher Edu-

138

DKPARTMF.NT OF

WAR

cation pay and allowances were included, with the result that the sums reported b y that Commission are difficult to compare with the data here reported. A close perusal of the Budget

( 1 9 4 8 ) shows the following sums re-

ported f o r educational activities. It should be noted that, in almost every case, these items include moneys for the training of enlisted personnel, which is more closely related to secondary vocational education than to higher education. Budgetary Project or Function Appropriation Agency National War College $294,000 Command & (General) Staff Coll. 345,000 674,400 Quartermaster Corps Tuition of military personnel 466,907 Schools, boards, and training 750,000 Education and training .Transportation Corps Equipment, supplies, and other Signal Corps expense for training 1,014,000 Tuition for training of pilots 709,620 Air Corps Education and training (misc.) 2,745,900 Education and training Medical Department J.4°7.557 Operation of Engineer Schools Corps of Engineers 511,000 Ordnance Military training Orelnance Department 2,584,000 Chemical Warfare Service (Corps) Education and training 465,000 Infantry School 434,460 Army Ground Forces 919,226 Artillery School Armored School 7".7*5 Ground General School 88,800 Miscellaneous education & training 102,760 Pay of Cadets U.S. Military Academy 1,864,000 5,610,000 Maintenance, Military Academy 1,237.550 National Guard School training 16,782,000 ROTC Citizens Military Training Total $40,727,905 T o this should be added the following calculated items: Civilian Universities Program (less QM Appropriation above) Army Education Program (USAFI) Joint Schools, pay and allowances of students R O T C , pay and allowances of military personnel Total Grand Total

$11,2 50,000 2,900,000 1,500,000 8,700,000 $24,350,000

24,350,000 $65,077,905

T h i s sum contrasts with the more than $70,000,000 reported b y the President's Commission on Higher Education, 61 even though it contains costs of enlisted as well as officer training. T h e disparity is accounted f o r b y the fact that in assembling the data for the President's Commission the Bureau of the Budget took pay of student personnel into account. Other factors which would have to be considered if these were civilian

D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R

139

schools would concern plant upkeep and management. In most cases, training installations were located on important A r m y bases serving other purposes than officer instruction—compared with which, indeed, such instruction was strictly secondary. W h a t share of the cost of these bases should be apportioned to training cannot be determined, but any such calculation would revise the above totals sharply upwards, probably to amounts in excess of the estimate of the President's Commission. ARMY

AND A »

SCHOOLS

A P P R O X I M A T E N U M B E R S OF O F F I C E R S T U D E N T S I N F I S C A L Y E A R 1 9 4 7

Ground Forces Schools Ground General School Infantry School Armored School Artillery Schools Physical Training & Athletic Directors School Command and General Staff College Air Forces Schools Air W a r College Air Command and Staff College Air Institute of Technology Air Special Staff School Air Tactical School School of Aviation Medicine Air Training Command Schools A A F Flying Schools A A F Technical Schools Schools of the Administrative and Technical Services Finance School Chemical Corps School Medical Department Schools Engineer School Ordnance Department Schools Quartermaster Corps Schools Signal Corps Schools Transportation Corps School Information School Adjutant General School Schools of the Administrative and Technical Services Provost Marshal General School Chaplain School Special Services School War Department Schools MIS Language School Strategic Intelligence School Counter-intelligence School Army Security Agency School

350 3> 2 J° 650 1,700 300 900 100 325 275 1, joo 1,500 300 3,000 2,000 40 175 1,000 250 150 600 150 200 600 250 3,000 b "5

400 40 1,000

350

A

D E P A R T M E N T ARMY

AND A I R SCHOOLS

O F

W A R

(Continued)

A P P R O X I M A T E N U M B E R S OF O F F I C E R STUDENTS IN F I S C A L Y E A R

Schooling for Future Officers U.S. Military Academy A G F Officer Candidate School A A F Officer Candidate School Ground Forces R O T C Air R O T C Joint Schools National W a r College Industrial College of the Armed Forces Armed Forces Staff College Civilian Schools Programs Total

1947

a

2,500 3,600 500 25,000 16,000 100 115 300 2,000 74,595

» The figures here given are rough approximations based on authorized capacities. They are not the equivalent of actual attendance. In a typical month, December 1946, enrollments approximated 58 per cent of authorized capacities. b Includes military government course.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE T H E F E D E R A L B U R E A U OF INVESTIGATION"

THE FBI provided graduate professional instruction for its special agents through four types of courses, and in addition provided professional instruction for personnel of other agencies. Instruction for FBI Special Agents. Introductory training was given in a course required of all new agents. The course covered all subjects pertinent to the duties of the special agent, including the organization and administration of the FBI and the Department of Justice, constitutional law, practical and applied psychology, ethics, professional standards, interviews, fiscal problems, internal security matters, federal criminal procedure, care and use of firearms, defensive tactics (handto-hand combat), latent fingerprints, the science of fingerprint classification, crime scene searches, laboratory aids in crime detection, identification and preservation of evidence, and techniques of investigation, raids, surveillance, and arrest. Sixteen weeks was the normal duration of the course, although during the recent war it was shortened to 12. The tempo of the course and the number of times that it was offered annually varied with the rate of intake of new agents; thus during the war, at a time when new agents were being taken in at a rate of 50 per week, it was extremely busy, but was suspended for a period just following the war. Figures are not available to show how many agents took the course in fiscal 1947. Refresher training was mandatory for all Special Agents who were required to follow a special two-week course once every two years. A class of from 40 to 50 agents was in session at all times. Since the number of special agents on duty in the fiscal year 1947 was about 3,800, half of whom, on the average, would normally attend this course, attendance in that year was probably in the region of 1,900. The load, of course, varied from year to year depending on the number of agents, which in turn varied with the functions assigned to the Bureau. In view of the part played by the Bureau in security matters in the recent past, it can be assumed that these activities have expanded over 1947. Special schools were organized from time to time as the need arose for giving experienced agents special training. Details about these schools are not available. Field training was also provided for all agents under the direct super-

i42

D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E

vision of the special agents in charge of the FBI field offices, assisted by specially qualified agents such as those who attended the special schools noted above. Subjects of instruction covered such matters as new investigative methods, care and use of firearms and equipment, and new statutes affecting the jurisdiction of the FBI. Training for Officers of Other Agencies. The FBI National Academy was the principal school in which the FBI trained outsiders. It was a formal school, complete with registrar, library, and commencement exercises, and was located in the Department of Justice Building in Washington with an annex on the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia. It offered a twelve-week course three times yearly to selected officers of other jurisdictions. Nominations for the school were made by local or state police administrators; decision as to admission was made by the FBI after investigation. N o tuition or other fees were charged. Ten weeks were devoted to such subjects as police administration and organization, scientific methods of law enforcement, prevention and detection of crime, traffic enforcement, juvenile delinquency control and prevention, practical psychology, evidence, sociology and law enforcement, and criminal and constitutional law. In the following twoweek period, the student selected a special field for intensive study, according to the needs of the department that nominated him. The philosophy of the Academy was to train persons who would in turn train others, so that its influence would be expanded beyond the numbers who attended. Its graduates have normally become instructors and organizers of schools in their departments. With the graduation of the 37th group of students in Alarch 1947, the total number of graduates since the founding of the Academy in 1935 was 1,806. But the FBI estimated that Academy graduates had contributed to the training of more than 100,000 local police officers. During fiscal 1947, classes averaged about 100 students each, and the figure has more recently been cut to about half of that number. Local training of law enforcement officers was not a responsibility of the FBI, but in all of the Bureau's field divisions special agents acted as instructors and course planners for training schools established by local or state law enforcement agencies. The initiative in setting up such schools always came from local authorities, although special agents and National Academy graduates normally provided most of the instruction. Authorization for the above activities was not contained in any specific legislative provision. However, the FBI considered the training of competent personnel "necessary for the detection and prosecution of

D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E

143

crimcs against the United States," 1 which was the principal purpose for which appropriations were made. It was not practicable to calculate the cost of the above training. N o funds were put exclusively to this purpose and all the personnel concerned had other duties, instructing being only a part of the normal duties of the FBI special agent. The Hoover Commission 2 calculated expenditures on training of special agents as $324,000 in fiscal 1947, and on the FBI National Academy as $8,000 in the same period. These figures surely fail to account for many of the costs, since the salaries of newly appointed special agents taking the basic course would by themselves exceed $300,000 if two to three hundred agents were trained, as seems probable. And the figure of $8,000 for a school operated on the scale of the National Academy seems ludicrous, although that may well have been the net cost, if personnel factors are left out of account. Certainly the figure of $350,000 can be accepted as minimal for the total FBI educational program. I M M I G R A T I O N AND N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N 3

SERVICE

The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the educational institutions at which aliens might undertake studies to those "designated . . . and approved by the Attorney General which shall have agreed to report to the Attorney General the termination of attendance of such immigrant student." This provision has led to the creation and annual publication of a list of approved institutions * at which aliens may study. The certification is available to all institutions that seek it, as the publication states on its fly-leaf, and no significance is to be attached to the omission of any school. Its real significance lies in the use made of schools in simplifying the administration of the immigration laws, since any school that fails to report the termination of attendance of any alien student is removed from the list, thereby preventing other aliens from attending.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY that governed the discussion of higher education in the W a r Department govern the treatment of naval higher-educational activities. Education of officers will be taken as equivalent to higher education in this section for the same reasons as with the A r m y . In general the activities of the N a v y Department in the field of higher education were similar to those of the A r m y . T h e y served the same purposes for the forces afloat and for the naval air components that the A r m y schools did for the A r m y Ground and Air Forces. In most cases they were organized in much the same w a y , and the differences that existed were in many cases due to different methods of the two services based on the differences of the media in which they operate. T h e courses offered during fiscal year 1947, which are those treated here, were, as with the A r m y , in a state of flux during that year. Demobilization had been completed but the postwar N a v y had not yet been built up to authorized strength. T h e year was therefore one of relatively light activity. In this case, too, fiscal 1948 was a year of even lighter activity. Fiscal 1949, however, was to produce a higher level of activity than either of the two preceding years. As with the A r m y , course capacities were not normally filled during 1947, and for the same reasons. Nevertheless, it is considered valuable to mention these capacities in cases where the actual numbers of students are not known, since they do provide a measure of the scale at which the activity was carried on. Administration of education and training in the N a v v was somewhat more centralized than in the A r m y . T h e Bureau of Naval Personnel had charge of nearly all schools, except Air and Medical. In some cases control of the content of what was taught might be vested in other authorities; for example, the content of the courses at the Naval W a r College was controlled by the Chief of Naval Operations. But, even in such cases, administration lay with the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Within the Bureau of Personnel, control was vested in an Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for Training and Welfare, who had general supervision of all such educational activities. T h e division directed b v this officer published a monthly bulletin, 1 the June 1947 issue of which has been in part relied on in the account here presented. Everv six months (January and June issues) this bulletin contained a list of all

T H E S A M E CONSIDERATIONS

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y

145

naval schools and courses except those in aeronautics and medicine and surgery. These listings are of major importance to all who would study naval training activities. Each of the ten Naval Districts in the United States possessed a Director of Training who was operationally responsible to the Commandant of the District but functionally under the orders of the Chief of Naval Personnel. This officer exercised supervisory control over training activities within the District. The exceptions to this scheme were: the Naval War College, administered under the direct control of the Chief of Naval Personnel and the Chief of Naval Operations; certain activities on the West Coast under the direct control of the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet; and the Potomac and Severn River Naval Commands, which were separate units not controlled by any Naval District and which included such important schools as the Naval Academy and the Naval Medical School at Bethesda, Maryland. The general plan for education of officers in the postwar N a v y was developed by the Holloway Board. This Board, which included civilians as well as senior naval officers, submitted a report that was approved by the Secretary of the Navy in October 1945 and now governs naval officer training. The Report of the Board was divided into three parts. The first part concerned procurement and undergraduate training of officers. This part received congressional sanction in the passage of Public Law 729 of the 79th Congress,2 which contains the authority for the presently operating N R O T C and N A C P Training Programs, as well as for the commissioning of selected persons from civilian colleges and directly from the enlisted ranks in the Fleet. The second part of the report concerned methods of providing training for officers commissioned in the regular N a v y from the Reserve or from temporary status in order that they might not be made to suffer at a later date for a relative lack of training by comparison with the graduates of the Naval Academy. This part established the Five Term Reserve Transferee Program, reestablished the General Line program for education of transferred officers. It was designed to help overcome the disparity between the 40,000 officer authorized strength of the postwar N a v y and the 12,000 regular officers on duty. This gap of 28,000 officers could not be filled from officer procurement and training programs alone. Transfer of reserve officers into the regular Navy had to account for about i8,ooo.3 The third part of the report dealt with the plan of education for commissioned officers. It was based on these assumptions: a. The system of education should be adequate to train officers in

146

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E

NAVY

peacetime to perform all of the duties that might be assigned to them in war, and especially should produce an adequate number of officers qualified to exercise high command in time of war. b. There would be in the regular N a v y a number of officers considerably in excess of the number required to man all billets, in order that a sufficient number might engage in educational activities, either as instructors or students. T h i s part of the report outlined three major periods in the education of officers: a period of basic training and education during the first six years of commissioned service in the grades of Ensign and Lieutenant (junior grade); a period of common and technical education from the sixth to the t w e l f t h years of commissioned service in the grade of Lieutenant; and a period of command and staff education in the twelfth to thirtieth years in grades of Lieutenant Commander and above. During the first six-year period officers were to be detailed to junior officer duties aboard ships and might attend one or more of the special and technical schools. T h e periods of sea duty were to be designed to enable them to put to use the information gained in the various schools and to give them a wide variety of naval experience. During this period each officer would be expected to choose his field of career specialization in which he would receive training at a later time. A t the beginning of the second period all line officers were to attend the General Line School f o r ten months to further broaden their k n o w l edge and to make up f o r any lack of variety in their previous assignments. A f t e r completing the General Line course, they would attend either schools of other services or technical or professional naval courses, supplemented b y administrative duties ashore. During this period officers would spend three years at sea and t w o ashore in rotation, in order to take advantage of the training opportunities. During the third period selected officers w o u l d attend either the Naval W a r College, the Command and Staff Colleges of the G r o u n d or A i r Forces, or one of the Joint Schools 4 or any combination of them. T h i s plan was largely in operation during fiscal year 1947 and has been further implemented since. T h e first and second parts of the report are now f u l l y implemented. T h e General Line School has been reestablished at N e w p o r t , Rhode Island, and another General Line School opened at Monterey, California, in February 1948. T h e combined capacities of these schools, 1,100, will liquidate the backlog of reserve and temporary officers transferring into the Regular N a v y b y 1954, after which these schools will be able to take up their permanent functions.

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y 147 The third part of the report is not yet completely implemented, especially as regards the second period of training envisaged therein, namely, the common and technical education period. This is because the General Line Schools, as mentioned above, have been entirely occupied with a function that has greater priority, and because the Post Graduate School has not had the capacity to take the great load involved. It is proposed to move the Post Graduate School from its present location, where it hampers the expansion of the Naval Academy, to a new location on the West Coast.5 The Navy administered Air, Medical, Marine Corps, and graduate instruction of officers as separate entities. It divided other types of officer instruction into three principal categories, distinguishing between functional (that is, operational) training, and "special" (that is, functional nonoperational) training, and divided special training into technical and nontechnical categories. Following the Navy's system of organization, naval schools are treated in the following order in this account: Advanced Officer Training, Post Graduate Schools and Courses, Special Technical Schools for Officers, Special Nontechnical Schools for Officers, Functional Officer Training, Medical Training, Air Officer Training, Marine Corps Schools, Schooling for Future Officers, and Miscellaneous Activities. ADVANCED OFFICER

TRAINING

Under this general heading the Navy included the Joint Schools and the Naval War College, which provided the highest levels of education offered to naval officers. The U.S. Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, operated under the functional control of the Chief of Naval Operations and provided courses for selected officers dealing with study and research in problems of naval warfare. The College offered three regular courses: a Senior Course (42; 67) 6 dealing with technical problems of naval organization and operation and with study of international relations and limited to officers of the rank of Captain or Commander; a Junior Course (42; 35) 7 for Commanders and Lieutenant Commanders; and a Logistics Course 8 (42; 46) dealing with logistics planning, organization, and administration. The War College also offered a number of correspondence courses in which 1,178 officers enrolled during fiscal 1947. The appropriation for the War College for fiscal 1947 was $245,000, which covers only the upkeep of the institution, salaries of civilian personnel, maintenance, and supplies. It does not include the pay and allow-

148 D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y ances of either staff or students. With 102 student officers and 39 officers on the staff, all of senior ranks, pay of personnel would amount to considerably more than the appropriation, probably about $900,000 for this item alone, making for a total cost of about $1,150,000 for the year. POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLS AND COURSES

The U.S. Navy Post Graduate School, Annapolis, Maryland, was a sort of administrative command, not only providing a number of courses itself, but also administering all programs in which naval officers pursued graduate courses in civilian institutions. It also commanded the General Line Schools and the Naval Intelligence School, thus centralizing the control of all advanced academic training except at the War College. The school provided a large number of courses, mostly in advanced technological fields,9 and mostly involving a period of study at the Post Graduate School followed by a period under instruction in a civilian institution. Many of these courses were three years in length. The purpose of the period at the Post Graduate School was to prepare the officer to undertake the civilian training and to enable him to orient it to the needs of the Navy. In fiscal 1947, 589 officers were following such courses under the control of the Post Graduate School, and the faculty numbered 84. Under the Holloway Plan the School will eventually provide graduate instruction for 1,600 officers annually. The total appropriation for fiscal 1947, to cover tuition and fees at civilian universities and operating expenses of the School, including salaries of civilian staff members, was $744,000, of which $410,000 was for tuition and fees. Assuming that the average pay and allowances of the officer students was not less than $3,000, the total for such pay would be not less than $1,750,000. Pay of the 27 naval officers on the staff, at not less than $6,000 per officer, would total $160,000, making a total expenditure for this school of $2,684,000. The Naval General Line School, Newport, Rhode Island,10 was originally established as a school at which young officers would be given additional professional training following a few years at sea, having much the same purpose as the Advanced Courses of the various Army Branch schools. But this purpose had to be put aside in favor of giving general line training to the large number of officers who transferred into the regular naval service after the last war and whose training was deficient. The school operated under the control of the Post Graduate School and gave a single course (42; 525) in general naval administration

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y 149 and operations. N o specific appropriation was made to this school, but on the same basis as the above the pay and allowances of its students would amount to about $ 1,600,000. The Naval Engineering School, Newport, Rhode Island, was a subcommand of the General Line School and gave a single course (6; 525) in steam engineering for students in that school. The Naval Intelligence School, Washington D.C., provided a basic course (12-23 months) 1 1 on all phases of naval intelligence and courses in the Chinese (18 months), Japanese (14 months), Russian, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian (3-6 months) languages. SPECIAL TECHNICAL

SCHOOLS FOR

OFFICERS

The Naval Civil Engineer Corps Officers School, Port Hueneme, California, provided a single course ( 1 0 % ; 153) to train graduate engineers for duty in the Civil Engineer Corps. The Naval Damage Control Training Centers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Treasure Island, California, each provided courses for damage control officers (6; 450), for commanding and executive officers ( 1 ; 250 in damage control procedures), and in radiological safety (6; 2,0). The Naval Cheinical Warfare Unit, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, provided a course ( 1 ; 450) of indoctrination in chemical warfare for the officers who took the damage control course at the Philadelphia Center above. The Gunnery Officers Ordnance School, Washington, D.C., trained ship's gunnery officers in the operation and maintenance of shipboard ordnance in two courses: an antiaircraft installations course (16; 150) and a major caliber installations course (16; 150). The Naval Photographic Interpretation Center, Washington, D.C., provided courses in photographic interpretation (15; 75) and photogrammetry (15; 40). The Naval Electronics Engineering School, M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachusetts, gave an extensive course (1-2 years; 200) in the maintenance and repair of electronics materiel, and an abbreviated version (8; 200) of the same course designed to bring technical officers up to date on new types of equipment. The Naval Combat Information Center Officers School, Glcnview, Illinois, provided a single course (16; 600) on the techniques of operation of the Combat Information Center (carrier warfare). The Naval Electronics Maintenance School, Great Lakes, Illinois, provided a course (1 year; 70), principally for warrant officers, in the

i5o D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y operation and maintenance of all types of radar and sonar equipment. The Naval Electronics Matériel School, Treasure Island, California, provided a course (23; 300) for junior officers in the theory and practical operation of radio, radar, sonar, and radar-counter-measure equipment. The Naval Supply Corps School, Bayonne, New Jersey, was the basic school of the Naval Supply Corps and offered a basic course (9 months) on all aspects of naval disbursing and supply and a shorter version (5 months) of the same course, taken by 700 officers. The Naval Water Tenders School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offered a course (3; 500) to train officers in operation and maintenance of modern high-pressure boilers. The Naval Torpedo School, Newport, Rhode Island, offered a course (8; 40) in the actual operation and firing of torpedoes, one on torpedo handling, maintenance, and repair (8; 20), and special courses for very small numbers of officers on electric torpedoes (6 months), 12 steam torpedoes (8 months), fire control (2 months), exploders (2 months), aircraft torpedoes (8-10 months), submarine and destroyer torpedoes (2 months), and depth charges( 2 months). The Naval Deep Sea Divers School, Washington, D.C., gave a course (20-25; 9°) ' n rescue and salvage diving operations and in underwater repair techniques, and a special course (12; 9) for medical officers on the medical problems associated with deep sea diving. SPECIAL NONTECHNICAL SCHOOLS FOR OFFICERS

School of Naval Justice, Port Hueneme, California, gave a course (7; 410) for legal officers and instructors in legal procedure. School for Corrective Services Officers, Terminal Island, California, gave a single course (6; o) on problems of maintaining discipline. Although the school was a regularly constituted naval school, it was not, like its counterpart, the School for Welfare and Recreation Officers (one course, 4 weeks), in operation during fiscal 1947. School for hiformational Services Officers, Columbia, Missouri, gave a course (12; 10) for public relations officers. The Five Term Reserve Transferee Program was a special effort to provide college education for officers who had transferred into the regular Navy and who had less than five terms of college education.13 Such officers were sent to N R O T C colleges or to George Washington University until they had completed five terms, when they were deemed prepared to take the course at the General Line School. The basic purpose of the program was to give the relatively undereducated officers an

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y 151 opportunity for education in order that they might compete on an equal basis in their later careers with officers whose basic education had been more complete. Tuition and other expenses were paid by the N a v y on a contract basis, and the officer students received their normal pay and allowances while under instruction. In fiscal 1947, 855 officers were pursuing undergraduate studies under this program. Assuming that, as with other programs of this type, it cost about $1,000 per year, in tuition, fees, and administrative expenses, to maintain an officer at a civilian institution, the basic cost of the program would have been about $850,000. Pay and allowances of these officers would average not less than $3,000 each per year, totaling about $2,500,000 for the 855 officers involved. Adding these would yield a total estimate of the cost of this program of about $3,350,000. FUNCTIONAL

OFFICER

TRAINING

Fleet Sonar Schools, Key West, Florida, and San Diego, California, cach offered identical courses in anti-submarine warfare for prospective commanding and executive officers (4; 300), antisubmarine warfare officer instructors (8; 250), antisubmarine warfare deck officers (35300), and submarine sonar officers (6; 160). The Submarine School, New London, Connecticut, gave a basic course (25; 80) for submarine officers, and special courses for prospective commanding and executive officers (6; 50), submarine special weapons officers (16; 30), and aviation special weapons officers (8; 6). The Naval Net Training School, Tiburon, California, gave a special course (6; 17) on the installation and maintenance of harbor defense nets and booms. The Naval Harbor Defe?ise School, Fort Winfield Scott, California, was operated in conjunction with the Seacoast Artillery Branch of the Artillery School (see page 1 1 7 ) and provided a single course ( 1 2 ; 10) in harbor defense. The Mine Warfare School, Yorktown, Virginia, gave a basic course (17; 120) for mine warfare officers and special courses in degaussing (1259) and aerial mines (8; 15). The Naval Salvage School, Bayonne, New Jersey, provided a single course (14; 60) on ship salvage. The Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo School, San Diego, California, provided courses for torpedo control officers (6; 200) and antiaircraft control officers (12; 40). The Combat Information Center Team Training Center, San Diego,

152 D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y California, gave a basic course for CIC teams (6; 350), a more advanced course ( 1 3 ; 30), and a course for prospective commanding and executive officers (2; 50) in the same specialty. MEDICAL

TRAINING

The Naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery operated five schools directly, contributed to the operation of a sixth, and administered the various naval hospitals in which residency and intern training were provided. The Naval Post Graduate Medical School, Bethesda, Maryland, offered a basic course (26530) at the graduate level for naval medical officers and provided training in a number of specialties in conncction with the naval hospital at the same location. The Naval School of Hospital Administration, Bethesda, Maryland, gave a course (42; 50) of training for officers of the Hospital Corps. The Naval Public Health Service School, Berkeley, California, gave a course (1 year; 40), in conjunction with the University of California, in sanitation, venereal disease, and rodent control. The Naval Dental School, Bethesda, Maryland, provided training (—; 60) for naval dentists. The Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Pensacola, Florida, gave a course (16; 70) for medical officers in the theory and practice of aviation medicine. For selected officers, the course included flight indoctrination and led to the position of Naval Flight Surgeon. The Joint Army-Navy Medical Equip?nent Maintenance School (see Department of War, Medical Department Schools), St. Louis, Missouri, gave a course (26; 4) administered in conjunction with the Army Medical Field Service School. Residencies and Internships in naval hospitals and for naval officers in civilian hospitals were identical with those of the other federal agencies and their civilian counterparts. Naval medical officers were regularly assigned for a year's residence in hospitals (251, of which 166 in naval hospitals), and naval hospitals provided regular internships (305) for new graduates of civilian medical schools.14 The 1947 appropriation for "Instruction of Medical Department Personnel" was $1,734,540, 15 which included the cost of training enlisted men but excluded pay and allowances of officer personnel undergoing instruction. A I R OFFICER

TRAINING

Training of naval air officers resembled Army Air Force training more than it did any other naval training. It was entirely dissociated

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y

153

from the Bureau of Naval Personnel, being directly commanded by a Chief of Naval Air Training who was operationally responsible to the Chief of Naval Operations and functionally responsible to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics. His command was strikingly similar to the A A F Air Training Command, consisting of two principal training subcommands, the Naval Air Training Command and the Naval A i r Technical Training Command, which directly corresponded to the Technical and Flying Divisions of the A A F A i r Training Command. A third naval command had charge of refresher flight training for the Naval Reserve, but did not offer formal courses. The Naval Air Training Covmiand was charged with basic and advanced training of naval pilots and operated three schools in 1947, at Pensacola, Florida, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Jacksonville, Florida. Each school participated in the training of naval pilots, their courses being geared together in such a w a y that the entire training system formed a unit followed by all potential officer pilots. T h e course began at Pensacola with a preflight training course ( 1 0 ) 18 for all potential pilots, consisting of general background instruction including such matters as naval administration and organization in addition to necessary technical instruction preparatory to actual flying training. Graduates then proceeded to Corpus Christi where they underwent a course (42) in advanced flight or operational training. This was followed by an additional period of specialized training ( 1 0 ) at Jacksonville in one of three principal operational specialties, multi-engine aircraft, aircraft carrier operations, or operation of catapult-mounted battleship and cruiser aircraft. T h e actual length of each of these courses varied from the above depending on circumstances such as the state of the weather, which, b y reducing the number of flying days, might lengthen the course. All the courses were operated on a year-round basis, with personnel being fed into the course every two weeks. T h e whole system was geared to produce about 2,500 trained pilots in fiscal 1947. T h e Air Training Command also operated schools f o r training in two specialties: two Fleet Air Electronic Training Units, at N o r f o l k , V i r ginia, and San Diego, California, which provided special operational training in the use of radar in antisubmarine air operation; and two AllWeather and Night-Fighter Training Schools, at Barbas Point, Oahu, T . H . , and K e y West, Florida. The Naval Air Technical Training Coitrmand operated nine Technical Training Centers, each of which included a special school for officer training. Each of these schools gave a single specialized course. T h e names of the schools are suggestive of the contents of the courses.

i54 D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y Aircraft Maintenance Officers School, Memphis, Tennessee ( 1 6 ; 4 8 ) ; 1 7 Aviation Electronics Officers School, Memphis, Tennessee (52; 80); Naval Radar Training School, Glenview, Illinois (26; 600); Aviation Supply Officers School, Jacksonville, Florida (7; 100); Aviation Ordnance Officers School, Memphis, Tennessee (16; 40); Photography Officers School, Pensacola, Florida (24; 36); Catapult and Arresting Gear School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (4;-); Target Aircraft School, Santa Ana, California (4; - ) ; and Ground Controlled Approach School, Olathe, Kansas ( 1 2 - 1 6 ; 100). M A R I N E CORPS T R A I N I N G

The Marine Corps made extensive use of the schools of the other services for training purposes, especially the senior schools such as the Naval War College and the Post Graduate School. 18 It also operated a number of its own schools under a command known as The iMarine Corps Schools with headquarters at the Marine Barracks, Quantico, Virginia, which was, in turn, under the general staff supervision of the Division of Plans and Policies of the Marine Corps Headquarters. Each school gave a single course, the content of which is suggested by the name of the school. 10 Schools were: The Basic School, which gave a course (26; 75) corresponding to the Basic Branch Courses at the various Army schools; The Amphibious Warfare School, which gave a senior course (32; - ) for officers in the upper echelons of command and a junior course (22; - ) for Captains and Majors; The Air Observation School (16; -); The Automotive Mechanics School (20; - ) ; The Communication Officers School (28; - ) ; The Ground Officers Ordnance School (24; - ) ; The Air Officers Ordnance School (18; - ) ; The Supply Administration School (24; - ) ; The Naval Supply and Accounts School (20; - ) ; and The Aircraft Engineering and Maintenance School (24;-)-20

Fiscal data on Marine Corps schools are not available. The only item in the Budget that would specifically apply is $761,400 for "Supplies for Schools," and this item omits all personnel costs, both student and instructor, as well as administrative overhead. These costs would be difficult to calculate since all Marine Corps schools are parts of large installations on which officer training is an incidental function. SCHOOLING FOR F U T U R E

OFFICERS

The U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis. Maryland, has been the principal source from which the Navy has drawn its regular officers. Its fouryear course of study, like that of the Military Academy, resembled the

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y 155 four-year Bachelor of Science course in many liberal arts colleges, although with greater emphasis on engineering and military subjects. Appointment to the Academy depended on examination and on recommendation by the President (75), the Vice President (5), or a member of Congress (5 each). In 1947 there were 2,875 midshipmen at the Academy, and the normal admission rate was approximately 900 annually. The 1947 appropriation for the Academy was $4,326,000, exclusive of pay and allowances of naval staff personnel and of midshipmen. Of this amount, $1,980,000 was for pay of civilian employees and $1,950,000 was for maintenance. Since the pay of a midshipman was about $750 per year, the item for 2,875 of them would be about $2,150,000, making an expenditure of about $6,476,000. Addition of pay of officer instructors would enlarge this figure. The Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, operating in 52 colleges and universities, provided a source from which the Navy and Marine Corps obtained both regular and reserve officers. The program was established by Public Law 729, 79th Congress, and differed in many important respects from the corresponding Army and Air Force programs, although its administration was similar. As with the Army and Air programs, courses were given for academic credit in colleges and universities on contract between the institution and the service, under the command of a regular officer who had status in the institution as "Professor of Naval Science," and the graduates were offered commissions. There the resemblance stopped. In the N R O T C program there were two types of students, "regular" and "contract." The latter category consisted of students whose status was similar to that of Army R O T C students, being admitted to the program after they had been admitted to a college that had an N R O T C unit. They were under contract with the Navy to accept a reserve commission in the Navy or Alarine Corps on graduation and to take one sixweek summer cruise. They took courses in naval science (five hours per week) throughout their undergraduate careers, received a uniform, and in the last two years drew an allowance in commutation of one ration amounting to about $20 per month. "Regular" students were in an altogether different category. T h e y were selected by examination conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board. After selection, they were enrolled in one of the N R O T C colleges, provided that they could meet the institution's standards, and signed contracts obligating themselves to complete four years of academic training followed by two years on active duty. During the period of academic training, all tuition and scholastic fees were paid by the

156

DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y

N a v y and the student received an allowance of $50 per month in addition, although he followed the same course of study as the "contract" student. On completion of the course, he was given a temporary commission in the regular Navy or Marine Corps for his two-year period of active duty, at the end of which he might be offered a permanent regular commission. Failing that, he was given a reserve commission and placed on inactive duty. This program replaced the wartime training programs, and hence was getting under way during fiscal 1947. The regular students in that year were persons who were already in training under one of the Navv's wartime training programs at the beginning of that year. Fiscal 1948 showed a considerable increase in enrollment over fiscal 1947. At the end of fiscal 1947 there were 5,434 officer candidates under the program, of which 2,100 were regulars. Approximately 1,500 of these were seniors who were graduating. The Naval Aviation College Yrogram 21 was the naval counterpart of the Air R O T C . It provided for the selection and education of naval aviation officers under arrangements somewhat similar to those of the "regular" N R O T C students. Naval Aviation Officer candidates were selected in the same examinations as the "regular" N R O T C students. They were then sent to any one of nearly 700 accredited colleges or universities, it not being necessary to go to an N R O T C institution. After two years of academic work at these institutions, under the same terms as the regular students (that is, with academic expenses paid and compensation of $50 per month), they were ordered to flight training for a period of 18 months, at the end of which they were given temporary commissions and reported to the fleet for active flying duty. After one year of such duty, they might apply for permanent regular commissions in the N a v y or Marine Corps. If accepted, they were sent to colleges, universities, or professional schools for two additional years, during which they were on active duty under instruction, having academic expenses paid and drawing their regular pay and allowances. If not accepted for a regular commission, they accepted reserve commissions for inactive duty and were entitled to two additional years at the college of their own choice, with academic expenses paid, and a monthly allowance of $100. During fiscal 1947 there were approximately 3,300 students under this program, approximately 790 of whom finished the first period of college training in June of that year. These two programs were administered as a unit by the Navy Department, Bureau of Naval Personnel. The appropriation for N R O T C for

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y

«57

fiscal 1947 was $3,346,000. Further appropriations for the "College Training Program" under the general budget heading of "Naval Reserve" for that year were $8,699,168. The allowance under the same item for "Aviation Cadet Program" ( N A C P ) was $7,979,237. An additional cost was the pay of midshipmen and commissioned and noncommissioned personnel who devoted full time to the programs. Pay of midshipmen would amount to about $1,034,000." Pay of personnel who conducted the programs is more difficult to estimate. There was a total of about 250 officers and about 400 enlisted men at the 52 N R O T C colleges. Their pay and allowances, assuming an average dispersion of ranks and grades (including at least one Captain and one Chief Petty Officer per unit), would average not less than about $5,000 per officer and $2,000 per enlisted man, for a total of about $2,000,000. A n estimated minimum cost of the programs could therefore be calculated as follows: N R O T C Appropriation College Training Program Aviation Cadet Program Pay of Midshipmen Pay of military personnel Total Estimate

$3,346,000 8,699,168 7.979.137 1,034,000 2,000,000 $23,058405

MISCELLANEOUS

The Navy engaged in a small number of other activities directly related to higher education, but not covered above. Navy Public Speaking Course, Georgetown University. This course (15; 100) was set up under contract with the institution for the purpose of improving the public relations abilities of officers on duty in Washington. Guided Missiles Lecture Course (6; 200) was set up in the N a v y Department in Washington as an orientation for officers on duty there. A Nuclear Physics Lecture Course ( - ; 100) had the same objective. Naval Civil Orientation Course, Columbia University, (2; 120) was arranged for the purpose of giving civilians who had important business contacts with the N a v y an understanding of naval organization, administration, and problems. The Naval Gauge Laboratories, located at five N R O T C universities, served the dual purpose of providing convenient locations for checking precision instruments and of training personnel in the use and repair of such instruments. The laboratories gave no courses, but the N a v y considered service in them as duty under instruction.

158

DEPARTMENT

OF T H E

NAVY

FISCAL SUMMARY Fiscal data covering naval officer education can be summarized as follows: Item Approx. Amount $246,000 Operating expenses 900,000 Pay of naval personnel, including students 410,000 a Tuition and fees Post Graduate School 364,000 a Operating expenses 1,910,000 Pay of naval personnel, including students 1,600,000 Pay of student personnel General Line School Tuition and fees 8jo,ooo • Five-Term Program Pay and allowances of student personnel 2,500,000 Operating expenses 4,316,000 Naval Academy 2,150,000 a Pay of Midshipmen 3,346,000 Basic appropriation NROTC 8,699,000 College Training Program 7,979,000 Aviation Cadet Program 1,043,000 a Pay of Midshipmen 2,000,000 Pay of military personnel $38,314,000 Subtotal A * Indicates amounts duplicated in the Budget figures cited below. Duplications total $4,808,000.

Agency Naval W a r College

Study of the Budget ( 1 9 4 8 ) indicates that the following amounts were also appropriated f o r training activities. These include training for enlisted men. It is not practicable to differentiate the share devoted to officer training. Agency Instruction, Navy

Item Appro.r. Amount Officer training $2,882,007 Functional training 1.>47.834 Educational services 835,000 Training aids 147,200 Administrative expenses 162,190 Pay and allowances of Midshipmen Bu. Supplies & Acc'ts. 3.183473 Bu. Medicine & Surgery Instruction of Medical Department personnel '.734.Í40 Marine Corps Supplies for schools 761,400 Naval Training Station, San Diego, Oil. i ,500,000 Naval Training Station, Newport, R.I. i ,500,000 Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, 111. 2,675,000 Naval Training Station, 1,500,000 Port Deposit, Md. $18,078,644 Subtotal B Rounding off and totaling subtotals A and B, and deducting duplications of $4,808,000, yields a total estimate of naval expenditures of $ 5 1 , 535,000. This total omits pay of officer personnel attending schools, cx-

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y

159

cept as noted above, and in the case of subtotal B includes the cost of training some enlisted men, although not the whole cost of enlisted training. While this inflates the total to some extent, it is doubtful that it falsifies the final estimate, since there are many activities for which no estimate is made, such as the operating expenses and staff salaries of the General Line School, and it has not been possible to calculate the pay of officer students at most of the schools noted, especially for Functional, Air, Médical, and Marine Corps training. NAVY

O F F I C E R SCHOOLS AND COURSES

A P P R O X I M A T E N U M B E R S OF S T U D E N T S IN F I S C A L Y E A R

1947

Advanced Officer Training Naval War College Postgraduate School General Line School Naval Intelligence School Special Technical Schools for Officers Civil Engineer Corps Officers School Naval Damage Control Training Centers Gunnery Officers Ordnance School Naval Photographic Interpretation Center Naval Electronics Engineering School Naval Radar Training School Naval Electronics Maintenance School Naval Electronics Matériel School Naval Supply Corps School Naval Water Tenders School Naval Torpedo School Naval Deep Sea Divers School Special Nontechnical Schools for Officers School of Naval Justice School for Informational Services Officers Five-Term Program Functional Officer Training Fleet Sonar Schools Submarine School Net Training School Naval Harbor Defense School Mine Warfare School Naval Salvage School Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo School CIC Group Training Center Schooling for Future Officers U.S. Naval Academy NROTC NACP

100 600 525 150 900 150 115 200 600 70 300 700 joo 40 100 900 10 855 1,800 200 20 50 100 60 240 700 2,875 5,500 3,300

a

160

D E P A R T M E N T NAVY

O F F I C E R SCHOOLS AND COURSES

O F

T H E

A P P R O X I M A T E N U M B E R S OF S T U D E N T S IN F I S C A L Y E A R

Medical Training Naval Medical School School of Hospital Administration Public Health Service School Dental School Postgraduate Residency Training for Medical Officers Internships for Medical Officers School of Aviation Medicine Air Officer Training

N A V Y

(Continued) 1947

S

30 40 40 60 250 300 70

Naval Air Training Command 2,500 Naval Air Technical Training Command Aircraft Maintenance Officers School jo Aviation Electronics Officers School 80 Naval Radar Training School 600 Aviation Supply Officers School 100 Aviation Ordnance Officers School 40 Photography Officers School 35 Ground Controlled Approach School 100 Marine Corps Schools Marine Basic School 75 Amphibious Warfare School 150 Miscellaneous Public Speaking Course 150 Guided Missiles Lecture Course 200 Nuclear Physics Lecture Course 100 Naval Civil Orientation Course 150 Total 26,880 • Figures are, in general, based on approximations of authorized capacities. Actual enrollments were in many cases below these levels.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THE

GRADUATE

SCHOOL

school operated within the Department in Washington and provided courses at both graduate and undergraduate levels. Its mission was to provide: 1

THIS

a. Graduate education for the convenience of employees who desire advanced degrees but find it difficult, both for personal and official reasons, to complete all study in residence at another institution; b. Educational and experience opportunities in those subjects and areas in which the Department and Government have unique facilities and resources; c. Cooperative programs with the Land-Grant and other institutions and agencies under which members of these institutions and agencies may utilize to advantage educational and experience opportunities represented by the unique facilities of the Department and Government; d. Programs under which Department employees may take advantage of educational and experience opportunities, related to their work in the Department, at the Land-Grant and other institutions and agencies; c. Educational opportunities for employees to train themselves, on their own time and at their own expense, for proficiency in their present positions and for advancement to positions of greater responsibility; f. Opportunities for professional, administrative, and technical employees to keep abreast of latest developments in their respective fields so that they may perform more effectively the responsibilities assigned to them; Cultural, creative, and leisure time opportunities; h. Cooperation, on behalf of the Department, with other departments and agencies in undertakings designed to develop, through educational activities, the improvement of the service and the increasing of employee usefulness. Authorization for this activity derived from Acts of Congress and from Executive Order. Since the authorization has been criticized by the Comptroller General 2 it is worth quoting the paragraphs that the Comptroller General criticized but the school found adequate.3 a. Resolved . . . That the facilities for research and illustration in the following and any other governmental collection . . . shall be accessible . . . to scientific investigators and to students of any institution of higher education now incorporated . . . under the laws of Congress or of the District of Columbia, to wit . . . [a list of twelve agencies, including the Department of Agriculture] 4 b. . . . that facilities for study and research in the government departments, the Library of Congress, the National Museum, the Zoological Park, the

162

D E P A R T M E N T OF

AGRICULTURE

Bureau of Ethnology, the Fish Commission, the Botanic Gardens, and similar institutions hereafter established, shall be afforded to scientific investigators and to duly qualified individuals, students, and graduates of institutions of learning in the several states and territories, as well as in the District of Columbia, under such rules and restrictions as the heads of the Departments and Bureaus mentioned may prescribe." 5 c. T h e Civil Service Commission shall, in cooperation with operating departments and establishments, the Office of Education, and public and private institutions of learning, establish practical training courses f o r employees in the departmental and field services of the classified Civil Service, and may, by regulation, provide credits in transfer and promotion examinations f o r satisfactory completion of one or more such training courses.8 T h e school was administered b y a small General Administrative Board and b y a permanent Director, and was supported b y student fees, receiving no subsidy f r o m the Government. 7 H o w e v e r , the Comptroller G e n e r a l 8 pointed out that it does not have to p a y f o r buildings, light, or heat, since it operated within the buildings of the Department of Agriculture. T h e offering was wide, comprising over 200 courses in nearly all of the major fields of learning, including all the social and natural sciences as well as the humanities. T h e fields of government and public administration w e r e stressed. T u i t i o n charges amounted to eight or nine dollars per semester hour. Credits granted b y the school, w h i c h gave no degrees, w e r e recognized b y the U . S . Civil Service Commission and many institutions of higher learning. 8 In addition to the course offering in Washington, the school arranged f o r correspondence and other courses f o r field personnel of the Department of Agriculture. T h e f a c u l t y consisted of about 300 persons, almost all of w h o m w e r e regular federal employees w h o instructed in the school on the side. A c c o r d i n g to information supplied b y the registrar to the writer, there w e r e 7,743 students regularly enrolled during the academic y e a r 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 4 7 . T h e r e are no exact figures on h o w m a n y of these w e r e government or Department of Agriculture employees, but the Registrar estimated that about 95 per cent of the students w e r e employees of the government, of w h o m about 20 per cent w e r e f r o m the Department of Agriculture. E v e n assuming that these figures are only v e r y r o u g h l y correct, it is nonetheless evident that this school was not an in-service training institution in the usually accepted sense of training f o r positions within the agency, and this despite the statements of some students. 10 Advantages undoubtedly accrued to the government as a whole f r o m the f a c t that people w h o otherwise would be unable

D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E 163 to pursue graduate studies were here given that opportunity, but the majority of the courses offered were only distantly related to agricultural subjects, so that the school seemed more like a university than an in-service training program. EXTENSION

SERVICE

The Cooperative Extension Programs of the Land-Grant colleges were the general responsibility of the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture, which was charged with the administration of the federal funds involved. These programs were initiated by federal appropriations and are still partly supported by them. It is not implied that the educational content of these programs was such as would qualify them to be considered in the general area of higher learning. They are rather included here because they were activities of institutions of higher education and were a part of the educational program of the federal government, involving close (and controversial) relationships with such institutions. While efforts had been made in the states to carry out educational programs of this type prior to 1914, it was with the passage in that year of the Smith-Lever A c t 1 1 that the movement first received real impetus in the form of federal appropriations for the encouragement of such activities. The activities envisaged by the Act were to be instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics for persons not attending the Land-Grant colleges. The general purpose was to extend the teaching activities of these institutions to reach a population that could not otherwise be reached and thus to spread the results of agriculture and home economics research and learning beyond the normal limits of the colleges and the Agriculture Experiment Stations attached thereto. A sum of $10,000 for each state was appropriated. This was to be supplemented by an additional sum, to increase annually until it reached $4,100,000, making, after 1921, a total annual appropriation of $4,580,000. The additional sum was to be appropriated among the states in the proportion that their rural populations bore to the total rural population of the United States. The $10,000 was an outright grant, but the additional sums were made subject to state matching on a dollar-for-dollar basis. From time to time additional statutes authorized and appropriated further funds, and widened the coverage of the original program. These were: a. The Capper-Ketcham Act12 appropriated an additional $980,000 for distribution to the states in equal shares of $20,000 on the same

164 D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E terms as the $10,000 grant under the Smith-Lever Act. This was to be supplemented by a fund of $500,000 which was to be apportioned to the states under the same conditions as governed the Smith-Lever apportionment. There was a proviso that at least 80 per cent of all sums appropriated by the Act were to be used for the payment of the salaries of county extension agents.15 b. The Bankhead-Jones Act14 provided for the further support of extension work by making a permanent appropriation of $8,000,000 which was to be increased annually by $1,000,000, leveling off at $12,000,000 annually. Of this sum, $980,000 was for grants of $20,000 for each state, the remainder to be distributed to the states in accordance with the relation that their farm (not rural) population bore to the total farm population of the United States. N o matching provision was included. However, no state was to be eligible to receive funds unless it had complied with the matching provisions of the earlier SmithLever and Capper-Ketcham Acts. c. The Bankhead-Flannagan Act15 broadened the purposes for which Extension Service funds might be used to include a number of matters which were not directly connected with agricultural research but tended to improve rural life, and made additional appropriations for the purpose. These amounted to $4,500,000 in fiscal year 1946, increasing by an additional $4,000,000 in fiscal 1947 and an additional $4,000,000 in fiscal 1948 16 making an eventual total of $12,500,000. d. Others. The coverage of the Extension Service was widened to take in the territories by a series of Acts extending the benefits to them 17 on the same conditions and with the same proportional benefits as to the various states. Further funds have from time to time been appropriated in the Annual Appropriation Acts for the Department of Agriculture for expenditure in the Secretary's discretion. The programs established by these appropriations constituted a cooperative undertaking of the federal government, the states, and the Land-Grant colleges, in which federal funds were used to encourage the development of services to rural and farm populations. They operated in each state under a Director of the State Extension Service, who was appointed by the Board of Trustees of the Land-Grant college of the state. The appointment was reviewed by the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture, but approval has been routine with very f e w exceptions, which have occurred when state officials sought to use the office for political advantage.18 In many cases, this officer was the Dean of the College of Agriculture, or the Director

D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E

165

of the Agricultural Experiment Station, or both. 19 He was the official representative of the Extension Service in the state and the direct superior of the county agents in their connections with these programs. A very close relationship with the teaching and research programs of the Land-Grant colleges was essential in the administration of these activities, since the whole purpose of the program was to extend them outwards from the institutions to the rural populations. F o r this reason grants were made to the schools themselves rather than to some intermediate state agency. T h e means by which the information was brought to the rural populations included all of the usual media of public transmission, plus demonstration projects, meetings of farmers, preparation of exhibits, and creation of organizations of farmers, farm youth, and farm women, all brought to the farm level in the person of the county a g e n t . T h e Director of the State Extension Service was responsible f o r keeping the federal Extension Service informed of the activities of his unit, including submission of budget data and operation plans, the certification of the expenditure to the Treasury being conditioned on approval of these by the federal government. Expenditures by the federal government on these programs in fiscal 1947 were: Smith-Lever Funds (including territorial amendments) Capper-Ketcham Funds Bankhead-Jones Funds Bankhead-Flannagan Funds (including territorial amendments) Additional Cooperative Funds Additions for Territories For Administration (exclusive of Bankhead-Flannagan) For Administration (Bankhead-Flannagan) Total O F F I C E OF FOREIGN A G R I C U L T U R A L

$4,704,710 1,480,000 12,000,000 8,330,000 555,000 163,950 776,900 170,000 $28,180,560

RELATIONS

This office was charged with supervision of the U.S. allotment to the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences at Turrialba, Costa Rica, created by the 1944 Convention of the American Republics. T h e Institute was in many ways a parallel of our Land-Grant agricultural colleges, combining agricultural research with advanced agricultural teaching and an extension program for spreading the results of the research to a wide audience. Although its educational functions were secondary to its research functions, they were nonetheless not inconsiderable. The total number of students at the Institute in fiscal 1947

166

D E P A R T M E N T OF

AGRICULTURE

was only 14, all of whom were doing graduate work, but this should not be taken as typical, since this agency will doubtless be more f u l l y patronized as its services become better known. T h e present Director states 20 that its educational services will eventually draw to it three types of students: (a) qualified individuals w h o wish to use the facilities of the Institute for the purpose of carrying out their own studies; (b) candidates for the doctorate who will here complete the requirements f o r the degree, having fulfilled the basic requirements elsewhere; and (c) candidates for the degree of Master of Agriculture, who will spend two years at the Institute and who will achieve a level of competence not necessarily related to research. Administrative control of the Institute was vested in a governing board composed of the Directors of the Pan-American Union. T w o committees assisted the board in formulation of policy, an administrative committee and a technical advisory committee. T h e U.S. representatives on the former were men of professional standing, being in each case principal administrators of Land-Grant colleges. The U.S. representative on the latter committee was a member of the staff of the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations. T h e Institute had a staff of 24 professional employees, including the Director, who was formerly associated with the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations. Fiscal support came from the republics adhering to the Convention, each of whom contributed one dollar for each thousand of their population. In fiscal 1947 the U.S. contribution was $158,960."

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BURF.AU OF FOREIGN AND D O M E S T I C C O M M E R C E , O F F I C E OF S M A L L BUSINESS

office conducted a program designed to extend the services of various university schools of business to small businessmen in the same way that the Agricultural Extension Service program extended those of the Land-Grant colleges. Known as the Business Extension Service, and administered bv the Office of Small Business, it was getting under way on an experimental basis during fiscal 1947, having set up relations with only three universities by the end of the year. These were the Universities of Indiana, Michigan, and Texas. 1 The program envisaged advice and assistance to universities in establishing and broadening their offerings in the field of small business and in undertaking research in small business problems. It included granting funds under certain circumstances for the purpose of developing short extension courses in small business management and practice. Funds for this purpose were authorized by the George-Barden Act, but appropriations were not made. The cost of the program was negligible in fiscal 1947 owing to the fact that only one person 2 was employed full time on i t 3 and to lack of appropriations. It is to be anticipated, however, that the program will expand in the future. THIS

WEATHER

BUREAU

The Weather Bureau provided higher education for certain of its employees under authority of Public Law 691, 79th Congress 4 at certain colleges and universities. During fiscal year 1947 this took the form of sending six employees to New York University for one year's training.5 In fiscal 1948 the number was increased to ten.8 Arrangements with the University were made by the Weather Bureau, which paid tuition and other costs, and continued the salaries of the personnel undergoing training. Persons selected for such training must undertake to remain with the Weather Bureau for five years after completion of training. Expenditures in fiscal 1947 on this training totaled $17,690. The planned expenditure for fiscal 1948 was $32,653.'

D E P A R T M E N T C I V I L AERONAUTICS

OF

COMMERCE

ADMINISTRATION

The Civil Aeronautics Administration conducted a single program, which, because it influenced colleges and universities, should be mentioned briefly. This was the Aviation Education Program under which the Civil Aeronautics Administration sought to influence the curricula of the nation's schools, including the colleges, in the direction of including material about aviation. The broad grant of authority contained in the Civil Aeronautics Authority Act of 1938 was assumed to authorize activities of this kind.8 The activity consisted entirely of rendering assistance to state agencies and to institutions of higher education that wished to set up programs of aviation education. No actual teaching was done by the CAA. Teaching materials were prepared for use in classes and elsewhere. Field staffs were maintained in each of the regional offices of the CAA for the purpose of working with the educational institutions and agencies. In the seven regional offices 14 persons were employed on the program, supplementing the five in the central office. It should be emphasized that very little of this activity is properly considered as lying within the field of higher education. However, the same persons who worked with school authorities to help them arrange visits to local airports for third-graders worked also with teachers colleges to help them establish summer courses in aviation education for teachers.9 The funds spent on the higher educational aspects of this program were negligible. U . S . PATENT

OFFICE

The Patent Office conducted four in-service training courses, which, like the programs of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, partook of the character of higher professional education. They were intended to meet the needs of professional employees for legal and procedural background training. Courses at two levels were conducted for both patent examiners and trade-mark examiners. a. Initial or Basic Training. All new patent and trade-mark examiners were given specialized courses of training covering the basis of the patent and trade-mark systems, organization and functions of the Patent Office, and the mechanics of their respective jobs. In fiscal 1947, 247 professional employees took these courses. b. Advanced Training. Trade-mark examiners participated in a lecture course covering Trade Mark Law and its application. The course of

D E P A R T M E N T OF C O M M E R C E

169

lectures f o r the patent examiners dealt with the statutes and technical and legal regulations with which the examiner had to become familiar before he could perform the duties of the position without close supervision and constant review of the work produced. Advanced training was given to 213 professional personnel in fiscal 1947. T h e administration of the program was centered in the Personnel Division of the Patent Office, where a Training Branch was maintained f o r that purpose. T h e cost of such a program was negligible, since it included only part of the combined salaries ($8,491) of the two employees who devoted only part of their time to this training. N A T I O N A L B U R E A U OF STANDARDS

For a number of years graduate courses have been offered at the National Bureau of Standards. Starting in fiscal year 1947, the offerings were formalized with the creation of a National Bureau of Standards Graduate School to provide courses f o r Bureau personnel as well as outsiders. 10 Although the school has had a formal organization since 1947, complete with Registrar and certification of credits, it has granted no degrees. But its certifications have been accepted f o r credit toward degrees b y a number of institutions of higher education, including the principal eastern universities. T h e school operated under the direction of a committee composed of seven persons, five appointed by the Director of the Bureau, and two elected by the students. Instructors came from the Bureau staff and from institutions in the Washington area. Admission to many of the courses was accomplished b y satisfying the instructor of competence to do the work, and was open to private persons and employees of other federal agencies on payment of fees. Some courses—called in-hour courses—were not open to the public and were open to personnel of other federal agencies only b y special arrangement. T h e latter courses were intended as in-service training, with the aim of improving the competence of Bureau personnel. Off-hour courses were offered in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. T h e in-hour courses covered the same fields and mechanics and metallurgy in addition. N o fees were charged for the in-hour courses, costs being borne by the National Bureau of Standards on a fee basis, but a charge of $7.00 per term of 20 class-hours was made for the o f f hour courses. There were three such terms per school year. 1 1 During the school year 1947, which coincided with fiscal 1947, about 300 students took courses in the school.

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY U . S . O F F I C E OF EDUCATION

THE U.S. Office of Education was not the central point for administration of federal educational activities that its name might imply. It was originally established for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information about the school systems of the United States and for making such studies as might be deemed appropriate. 1 It did not originally have any administrative functions other than the one of reporting to Congress on the utilization of the lands granted under the first Morrill Act, 2 and its functions have remained primarily investigative and informational. From time to time, the Congress has seen fit to assign to it the responsibility for the administration of certain projects, such as Alaskan Education, 3 but the tendency has been much more marked to overlook the Office when it comes to making administrative arrangements for large-scale federal activities, as is made abundantly clear by comparison of the activities described under this heading with those in the rest of this study. Several divisions of the Office engaged in higher-educational activities. Among them the most active were the Divisions of Higher Education, Vocational Education, International Educational Relations, Surplus Property, and Central and Auxiliary Services, which included Library Services. T h e Office of Education has never had a very generous appropriation. Services of the type rendered by the Office have been the object of economy drives on more than one occasion, and at one time there was a drive to reduce the functions of the Office, as an incident of which the salary of the Commissioner of Education was actually reduced by 25 per cent.4 Total administrative expenditures for the Office for fiscal year 1947 were $1,404,242. Of this $74,210 was for the Higher Education Division. 5 Information is lacking on which to calculate what proportion of the funds f o r the other divisions was applied to purposes in the field of higher education. Higher Education Division T h e principal activities of the U.S. Office of Education in the field of higher education were centered in this Division. It performed a number of regular functions of a more or less continuous nature which are

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 171 discussed below. The permanent personnel of the division in fiscal 1947 totaled only 12 persons, supplemented by about 35 temporary employees associated with the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program. Its principal activities were: a. The Veterans' Educational Facilities Program was established by the Meade Bill, amending Title V of the Lanham Act, on August 8, 1946,® and was primarily administered by the Bureau of Community Facilities of the Federal Works Agency. The function of the Office of Education was limited to the process of finding that a need for a facility actually existed. This was done by some 35 agents of the Division located in the various field offices of the Bureau of Community Facilities.7 During fiscal 1947, 1,585 such "Findings of Need" were processed by this Division,8 and $230,497 was transferred from the Federal Works Agency appropriation for its administration.8 b. "Higher Education." This journal was published bi-weekly during the academic year by the Division and was one of the principal sources for scholars in this field. It specialized in articles of general interest to such scholars and in keeping abreast of the latest developments, especially legislative developments. During fiscal 1947, 18 issues were published and distributed to a mailing list totaling about io,ooo.10 c. Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. Responsibility for administering certain of the federal funds distributed annually to the socalled "Land-Grant colleges and universities" was assigned to the U.S. Office of Education and was handled for the Office by this Division. Specifically the Division performed the functions of the Office with regard to the appropriations authorized by the following acts: second Morrill Act of 1890, 11 the Nelson (1908) Amendment to the second Morrill Act, 12 and the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935. 15 By the first of these acts, federal moneys arising from the sale of public lands were to be granted to the states and territories for the endowment and support of institutions at the rate of $15,000 annually, increasing by $1,000 annually for ten years, after which the grants were to continue at the level of $25,000. The Nelson Amendment provided an initial appropriation for each state and territory of $5,000, to be increased by $5,000 each year for four years, after which it was to continue at the rate of $25,000 per year. The Bankhead-Jones Act authorized, subject to annual appropriation by the Congress, the following additional sums: $980,000 to be distributed in grants of $20,000 each to the states and the Territory of Hawaii, and an added sum for distribution among the states and the Territory of Hawaii in accordance with their populations. This sum was to start at $500,000 and build up to

172 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY $1,500,000 over a period of three years, starting in 1936. These grants now total $5,030,000 annually.14 Other federal funds were appropriated for the Land-Grant colleges and universities, but these are the only ones administered by the U.S. Office of Education. The Division had the function of certifying to the Secretary of the Treasury the institutions entitled to receive funds and the amounts for each. 15 Annual reports on these disbursements were made to the Congress.18 Indeed, the function of reporting to Congress on the expenditures for the Land-Grant colleges and universities is one of the oldest functions of the Office of Education and was one of the reasons for the original founding of the office. 17 There were 69 Land-Grant institutions, including one each in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. 18 Of these, 17 were for Negroes in states maintaining separate institutions. Statistics regarding the enrollments, degrees granted, and incomes of all these institutions were published annually by the Division. From time to time the Division engaged in certain other activities directed toward the Land-Grant institutions. In fiscal 1947 these included studies of curricula of less than degree length in such institutions and of tuition trends.19 d. The Educational Directory was issued annually by the Office of Education in four parts, the third part of which listed colleges and universities of the United States, and was the major listing of such institutions published anywhere. 20 It listed the name, location, principal officers and divisions, control, accreditation, and nature of student body of the following institutions: all colleges, universities, teachcrs colleges, professional and technological schools, and junior colleges and normal schools, if these were accredited by the usual accrediting agencies. The Office of Education did no accrediting itself. Nonaccredited universities, colleges, and teachers colleges were included if they had a fouryear course, had more than 100 students in residence, and graduated at least ten annually. Nonaccredited professional and technological schools were included if they enrolled more than 25 resident students in courses of college grade, and graduated at least five annually. Nonaccredited junior colleges and normal schools were included if they required a high school diploma for entrance, offered two years of work of college grade, and enrolled 50 or more resident students in such work. The total number of institutions listed in the Directory for 1947 was 1,700, and this is usually taken as the number of such institutions in the country at that time. e. Howard University, a private institution for Negroes, located in

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

173

the District of Columbia, was in part supported by federal funds and was subject to annual inspection by the U.S. Office of Education. 21 Control was vested in a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees 22 but was limited by the annual inspection and report made by this Division and by the necessity of following federal fiscal procedures. Since federal funds, which amounted to about 60 per cent of the income of the University 23 in fiscal year 1947, were dependent upon continued congressional approval, it cannot be said that the Trustees were completely free to operate the institutions as they saw fit. The University consisted of an undergraduate college of liberal arts, a graduate school offering courses leading to the master's degree, and eight professional schools. All of these were accredited with the exception of the Engineering School. The University had 7,120 students during the school year 1946-1947, of whom 4,732 were in the liberal arts college, and 489 earned degrees were granted. The faculty consisted of 426 instructors, of whom 251 were employed full time.24 In 1947 the federal appropriation for the support of Howard University was $2,578,450. This included funds for supplies and equipment as well as for construction of buildings. /. Bulletins and Circulars. The principal function of the U.S. Office of Education was preparation and dissemination of information concerning the systems of education in the United States.25 This function was performed bv the regular publication of studies of matters of interest in this field.26 This publication varied from short pamphlets to major studies, entitled "Bulletins," which were sometimes of considerable length.27 During fiscal year 1947, 20 bulletins and 17 shorter studies were published.28 g. The Adult Education for Negroes Project was a special project financed in part by the Carnegie Corporation and developed by several Negro institutions of higher education in conjunction with the Office of Education. It involved training personnel and preparing teaching materials for use with adult Negro illiterates. During fiscal 1947 a three-week institute for such teachers was conducted jointly by the Office of Education, Fisk University, and Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial College. In addition classes were provided for teachers at Virginia State College for Negroes and at Fort Valley State College (Georgia). 29 Vocational Education

Division

The major share of the activities of this division were not in the field of higher education. In at least one area, however, it had important

174 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY operations, which, because of their professional nature, entered this classification. This was training of teachers of vocational subjects, which was a prominent part of the Vocational Education program and was normally carried out, with federal aid, in private or state-controlled teachers colleges or normal schools throughout the country. The activities were derived from funds appropriated under the SmithHughes,30 George-Barden, 31 and George-Deen 32 Acts. Smith-Hughes Funds. The Smith-Hughes Act made a continuing appropriation, which now amounts to $7,167,000 annually, for the purpose of federal cooperation with states and territories in promoting vocational education of various types and for training vocational teachers. Funds were distributed to the states on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. The specific share apportioned to each state was determined in accordance with population, but no state received less than $10,000 for purposes of teacher training.33 The above amounts were increased by $30,000 for the Territory of Hawaii, of which $10,000 was for teacher training,34 and $105,000 for the Territory of Puerto Rico, of which $15,000 was for teacher training.35 The share of the appropriation used for the training of teachers in fiscal 1947 amounted to $1,114,760.36 George-Barden and George-Deen Funds. The funds actually expended in fiscal 1947 were those appropriated under the authorization of the older of the two acts, and amounted to a total of $14,200,000. Of this amount $1,054,000 was allotted for training of teachers, the specific amounts for each state (and for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia) being determined in accordance with their populations—no state or territory to receive less than $io,ooo.37 The same dollar-for-dollar matching basis for distribution of funds applied to this Act as to the above. The principal changes made by the GeorgeBarden Act were in its provisions for the expenditure of more funds, $29,301,740, as compared with $14,483,000 authorized and $17,750,000 (fiscal year 1948) as compared with $7,167,000 appropriated.38 Administration of these funds was vested in the Vocational Education Division of the Office of Education. Plans for the utilization of the funds were prepared by the various states and territories, approval by the Vocational Education Division being required before certification would be made to the Treasury authorizing disbursement. Audit of state accounts was also a function of the Division, as was compilation of the annual reports required from the state agencies concerned.39 Each state maintained a Board of Vocational Education to cooperate with the Office of Education in the administration of these funds. Each

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

17 5

board had a director or executive officer, who in some cases might be the chief school officer of the state. T h e state boards undertook all of the planning functions as well as all contacts with local school systems. T h e Office of Education maintained a small force of personnel in the field for purposes of liaison. Surplus Property

Division

Prior to the recent war, legislation existed under which the Armed Forces were authorized to "donate" (that is, give free of cost) certain types of surplus property to nonprofit educational institutions.40 This legislation was extended and amended by the Surplus Property A c t of 1 9 4 4 " which authorized the disposal of additional types of property (especially real property), arranged for disposal to many other types of agencies, and created the administrative machinery for such disposal, including donations by the Armed Forces. Under a decision of the Surplus Property Administration (and later of its successor, the W a r Assets Administration) the assistance of the Federal Security Administrator was sought in the distribution of such property to educational and other institutions. 42 He delegated this function to the U.S. Office of Education which established this division for the purpose of rendering such assistance. T h e determination of what property was to be disposed of, and to whom, and at what price, rested entirely in the hands of the W a r Assets Administration. T w o steps in the process were referred to the Office of Education: (a) determination of the relative needs of the educational institutions of the country, and ( b ) notification of what types of property would be of use to educational institutions. Educational participation in the notification process consisted of providing educational representatives to inspect sites and equipment about to be declared surplus for the purpose of locating and identifying types of property that would be of use to educational institutions, in order to prevent their too quick disposal to other agencies, and to make up lists of such property for the information of the institutions that might be concerned. Determination of needs required a more complicated administrative set-up. T h e W a r Assets Administration approved disposals to schools contingent on a "certification of need" made by the Office of Education and based on numbers of veterans enrolled. T o make this determination, the Office of Education enlisted the aid of the states, by asking each of them to establish a "State Educational Agency for Surplus Property" 43 to survey the needs of the various educational institutions within its borders and to make allocations of available property among

,76

FEDERAL SECURITY

AGENCY

them. T h e Office of Education made allocations as between the states. Under normal circumstances the Office of Education accepted the decisions of the state agency, and the W a r Assets Administration accepted the decisions of the Office of Education, although this was not a requirement. T h e cost of administering the federal part of the program was borne b y the W a r Assets Administration, which transferred to the Office of Education funds f o r the pay of the 13 persons employed in the central office and the 45 field representatives of the program. In fiscal year 1947 the total amount transferred was $932,435." It is difficult to determine federal expenditures on this program, since the property disposed of is not easily valued. If the acquisition cost to the federal government is considered, very large sums are involved. If the "fair value" is considered, a measure of the federal service to the nation's educational institutions is obtained, but no true picture of the cost to the government is given, nor of the cost to the educational institutions. If the return to the government is calculated, the only significance lies in the fact that this measures the cost to the nation's schools to participate in the program, and no measure of the amount of property acquired is possible, since some of the property was given without cost (donable personal property) while some was sold at discounts ranging from 40 per cent to 95 per cent from the fair value. T h e total acquisition cost of Armed Forces donable property made available to states in the period from October 1946 to September 1947 45 was $208,330,060. T h e fair value of this property would be considerably below this, and its cost to the nation's educational institutions w as nil. With regard to real property, b y October 1947, U.S. Office of Education representatives had received a total of 2,127 requests (800 in fiscal year 1947) on which field reports certifying need had been filed f o r 2,095 ',892 had been approved b y the W a r Assets Administration. These approvals covered disposal of 56,826 acres and 9,652 buildings of all types. T h e acquisition cost of this property was $253,680,095; its fair value was $43,613,041; but actual payments to the W a r Assets Administration for property received totaled only $2,770,033.87. What percentage of this was for institutions of higher education is not known, but it may be assumed that it amounted to a considerable share. Since about 62 per cent of all veterans in schools were attending institutions of higher education, and since the extra needs of the nation's schools and colleges were in good part created b y their veteran populations, it is not unreasonable to expect that about 62 per cent of the allocations would have been for institutions of higher education. 46 On

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

177

this basis the higher-educational share of the total acquisition costs under these two programs would have been approximately $286,500,000. As is noted in the description of Federal Works Agency activities, this figure has little significance since the properties were not originally acquired for educational purposes and their disposal was a temporary incident. The significance of these programs, as with the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program, lay in the administrative arrangements involved. Since the total administrative cost of the program was $932,435, the approximate share to allot to higher education can be calculated by applying the same percentage as above. This would yield an administrative cost of approximately $580,000. ¿Miscellaneous Activities Library Functions. The Office of Education maintained a library and a system of providing services to libraries. Services were not restricted to libraries of institutions of higher education, but certain of the functions were primarily associated with higher education. For example, the most complete collection in the United States of catalogues of institutions of higher education was kept and maintained here. A collection of unpublished graduate theses in the field of education was also maintained and this was the principal source for such materials. Before the last war an annual publication was issued under the title "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education." The project was dropped during the war and was not resumed owing to lack of funds; however, bibliographic materials were still collected in 1947 and were sent on request to interested persons as a part of the library's normal service to students in the matter of preparing bibliographies on selected topics. Interlibrary loans of materials not available elsewhere were regularly made.47 The Office also maintained a section concerned with services to libraries. There was a specialist in this section for college libraries. His duties consisted largely of continuing analysis of the organizational, administrative, and fiscal problems of such institutions, and preparation of studies in these areas. International Educational Relations. The Office maintained a Division to handle problems arising in the field of international education and to handle its cooperative responsibilities with the Department of State in the matter of exchanges of students, teachers, and teaching materials. Responsibilities included: a. Evaluation of academic credentials, involving an estimate of the academic backgrounds of foreign students for appropriate educational

178

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

placement. About 300 educational institutions in the United States requested evaluation of more than 2,600 foreign transcripts during fiscal

1947."

b. Exchange of students and teachers. In fiscal 1947 more than 225 foreign academic personnel were the direct responsibility of this Division. In addition, the 30 graduate students who came to the United States under the provisions of the Buenos Aires Convention were the responsibility of the Division, which assisted in their selection and guided them while here, arranging for their placement in 26 institutions of higher education and for the payment of their tuition fees and allowances. It cooperated with the Department of State in the selection and processing of the 13 American graduate students who received travel and maintenance grants for study in Latin American republics and assumed responsibility for the care and guidance of the 29 teachers from the other American republics who came here under the auspices of the Department of State. It performed a similar function in the selection and processing of the 74 British and American teachers who exchanged places for the year." c. Advisory Committee on Fellowships. This Committee was administered by this Division for the purpose of selecting fellows under the Cooperation with the American Republics Program (see p. 102). Fiscal Summary Expenditures of the Office in the field of higher education are difficult to calculate, since many of its services, such as the Library, existed for other purposes also. The following tabulation includes expenses which were clearly for higher education and is thus a clear minimum of expenditures in this field. Higher Education Division, administrative expenses Veterans Educational Facilities Program, FWA transfer Land-Grant colleges, annual grants Howard University Vocational Education, training of teachers Surplus Property Disposal, W A A transfer (62% of total) Total G A L L A U D E T COLLEGE

$ 74,210

230.497

5,030,000

2,578.450 2,168,760 580,000 $10,661,917

50

This institution was part of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, located in the District of Columbia and largely financed out of federal funds. It was established by Act of Congress in 1857 51 and operated under a self-perpetuating board of trustees, three members of which were members of Congress. Its position vis-a-vis the federal govern-

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 179 ment was about the same as Howard University, except that an even greater portion of its funds was provided from federal sources. General administrative supervision of the institution was lodged in the Federal Security Agency, and was in fact largely exercised with the aid of the U.S. Office of Education; however, its annual reports were made direct to the Congress and were included as separate items in the annual reports of the Federal Security Agency. Appropriations for the institution were made to, and defended by the Federal Security Agency. The administrative arrangements were being reviewed during fiscal 1947 52 but no changes were put into effect during that year. The college admitted without charge residents of the District of Columbia whose hearing loss was so great as to hamper their success in other colleges. For others there was a tuition fee of $700 per year, which might be met by scholarships provided by the federal government, either out of direct appropriations or out of District of Columbia funds. The course of study was similar to a regular four-year liberal arts course, supplemented in this case by an additional year at the prefreshman level. This extra year was needed because deaf mutes coming from most schools were insufficiently prepared to take the advanced work provided. The course of study naturally had an additional emphasis on speech training. Opportunities were also provided for teaching fellows with normal hearing to undertake training in the techniques of teaching deaf mutes. This work was at the graduate level. There were 160 students in the college during fiscal 1947, and 12 teaching fellows. Federal funds provided for the college in fiscal 1947, including funds transferred from the District of Columbia, totaled $191,961. 53 A n additional $30,804 was appropriated for administration of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf. Allowing two thirds of this as being for the college, which is reasonable since the college represented the major part of the total activity of the institution, the resultant sum is about $20,000, making a total for the college of about $212,000. U . S . PUBLIC H E A L T H

SERVICE

A n y description of the higher-educational activities of this agency must face at the outset the problem of differentiating research from education. This would be difficult in any field but is especially difficult in medicine, since most advanced medical training involves research and most research involves training. The activities here described concern training of personnel and direct relations with institutions of higher education for other purposes than the initiation of research

,80 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY projects, although each of them may have research as a subsidiary purpose. Descriptions of these activities follow. Research Fellowships. Research fellowships are training devices and are properly classified as belonging in the general category of higher education. Their purpose is to produce trained personnel rather than to produce research, even though significant research may be accomplished through them. U.S. Public Health Service fellowships were granted for research in two specialized fields, cancer and mental health, and in the field of general health, which in effect meant all medical fields other than cancer or mental health. Administration of the fellowships was largely in the hands of the National Institute of Health, the principal research arm of the Public Health Service. Applications for the fellowships were made by individual students and were processed by three special advisory boards which had status in law even though largely composed of nongovernmental persons. The National Advisory Health Council reviewed applications in fields other than cancer and mental health, which were covered by a National Advisory Cancer Council and a National Advisory Mental Health Council. Each council was established by statute 54 and had power to review applications for fellowships. The membership of the councils consisted of leading specialists in the various fields concerned and also included representatives of the interested agencies of the federal government, other levels of government, and private institutions. This was an interesting and unusual administrative organization, in which power to decide what government moneys would be spent, and by whom, was placed in the hands of private persons. It has not been free from criticism.65 Each council maintained "study groups" consisting of boards of experts in the various medical specialties who reviewed data and prepared materials for submission and final decision by the councils. There were more than 20 such groups. The decisions of the councils were certified to the Surgeon General, who then certified the approved grants to the Treasury for payment. While the language of the statutes was definite in limiting the Surgeon General to applications approved by the councils, it did not specifically require him to approve the findings of the councils. It was therefore possible for the Surgeon General to refuse to approve the findings of the councils; he could not, however, substitute his judgment for theirs. The value of the fellowships varied with the level of the intended work and with the status of the individual applicant. Junior fellowships

FEDERAL SECURITY A G E N C Y 181 for holders of the bachelor's degree carried stipends of $1,200 for fellows without dependents and $1,600 with dependents, in addition to payment of tuition fees. Holders of the master's degree were eligible for fellowships of $1,600 and $2,000 depending on dependency status, in addition to tuition fees. Regular fellowships for holders of the doctor's degree were for $3,000 and $3,600 on the same terms. Recipients could utilize the fellowships at institutions of their own choice.56 The Mental Health Fellowship program was established at the beginning of fiscal year 1947 and no funds were appropriated to carry it out during that year. Nevertheless, arrangements were made by the Public Health Service to prepare itself for the time when funds would be available (fiscal 1948) and 14 research fellowships were approved.51 Awards of other fellowships in fiscal 1947 totaled 110, of which 30 were awarded for cancer research and training by the National Advisory Cancer Council and the remainder for general health research and training by the National Advisory Health Council.58 The Graham Report 69 estimated that expenditures on these programs, including administration, totaled $194,000 in fiscal 1947, and would total about $500,000 in fiscal 1948, by which time the mental health program would be in operation.®0 Provision for Training by Grants-in-Aid. In order to provide assistance to teaching institutions to expand training in the fields of mental health and cancer, grants were authorized by the Public Health Service and Mental Health Acts cited above. These two programs represented efforts on the part of the federal government to overcome a serious shortage of trained personnel in these fields. Grants were conditioned on approval by the National Advisory Mental Health Council and the National Advisory Cancer Council, respectively, and by the Surgeon General. The mental health grants were getting under way in fiscal 1947 and no moneys were expended. However, provision was made for future expenditures. Applications for grants were received from 147 institutions to expand training in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, psychiatric social work, and nursing. Of these 51 were approved, the great majority in medical schools, representing an allocation of $1,040,000 for fiscal 1948.61 The mental health grants might be spent for training and for research, but not for buildings and equipment. The cancer grants were intended to help develop integrated curricula in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer,62 and were therefore limited to medical and dental schools. The statute permitted grants to be used for

182

FEDERAL SECURITY

AGENCY

purchase of land and buildings; however, this was not done during 1947. At the end of fiscal 1947 about 15 medical schools were participating in the program, involving grants of about $450,ooo.63 Training Stipends for Individuals. These stipends were the counterparts of the above programs of institutional grants-in-aid. They were limited to the fields of cancer and mental health, and granted upon recommendation by the Advisory Councils and approval by the Surgeon General. They consisted of payments of $10 per day to make it possible for younger doctors to undertake training in hospitals and medical schools in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and in the various fields of mental health. Doctors seeking stipends made their own arrangements with the institutions of their choice, which then certified to the Public Health Service that the individual was acceptable to them and that he would in fact receive the desired training. At the beginning of fiscal year 1947, 26 trainees were on duty under the cancer program. During the fiscal year 43 additional trainees were appointed; 17 trainees completed training during the year; and 52 were on duty at the end of the year. 64 The appropriation for this training for the fiscal year was $250,000 65 of which about $200,000 was expended.88 In the mental health program no appropriations for fiscal 1947 were made, but, as with the other parts of the mental health program, arrangements were made for the expenditure of funds contingent on availability in fiscal 1948. Stipends were requested for 1,114 persons, of which 210 were granted. U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps. This program was established by the Bolton Act 6 7 for the purpose of increasing the number of trained nurses in the country and at the same time utilizing the services of the trainees during the period of training, thus adding to the number of hospital personnel immediately available during the emergency. The program involved payment of tuition, fees, and small maintenance allowances for nurses in two categories: "cadet" nurses, that is, nurses receiving their three-year basic training; and graduate nurses who for various reasons needed refresher training. The program provided somewhat more attractive opportunities for young women entering the field of nursing than thev might otherwise have had. The advantages took the form of payment of tuition and other fees involved and of a maintenance allowance of $45 for the first nine months, plus insuring that the schools concerned also paid the cadets a maintenance allowance after the nine-months period had passed. Such allowances had been customary in some, but by no means all, nursing schools, and had generally been below the $30 minimum level estab-

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

183

lished by the program under the Bolton Act. Also, uniforms and insignia, traditionally bought by the student nurse, were to be provided by the federal government. Rigid standards of eligibility of nursing schools for participation in the program were established, including accreditation by the appropriate state agency, approval by the American College of Surgeons of the hospital with which the school was connected, and proof that adequate opportunity was available for experience in medicine, surgery, obstetrics, and pediatrics. Students in the program had to sign statements that they would enter military, federal, or essential civilian nursing for the duration of the war. That there was here an effort to raise or influence the standards of the schools of nursing, at the same time as to attract larger numbers of young women into the profession, is not to be doubted. Recruitment for the program was stopped in October 1945 after the surrender of Japan. However, provision was made for nurses already enrolled to finish their studies on federal scholarship. Since the course lasted three years, a number of nurses were still in training in 1947. At the beginning of fiscal 1947, 1,076 schools of nursing were participating in the program. This was reduced to 1,054 by the end of the fiscal year. During the year, 34,000 cadet nurses graduated, leaving 33,000 in the program to complete their training during the ensuing year. The appropriation for the basic training program for fiscal 1947 was $14,718,732 and for administration $466,446.08 Actual expenditures on the basic training program totaled $i2,263,ooo.69 This expenditure represented a decline from that for 1946, which was more than $43,000,000, but was significantly larger than the $4,829,197 for fiscal 1948. The effect of this program on recruitment of nurses for nursing schools may be seen in the figures of new enrollments in nursing schools for the years in which it operated as against those years in which it had ceased recruitment. Fiscal Year Enrollment 1945 61,471 1946 39,820" 1947 32,216 a

Includes recruitment under the Bolton Act for only the first 3'/: months.

Source: FSA, Annual Report, ¡yf], p. 283.

Training of USPHS Personnel. The Surgeon General had authority 70 to detail personnel of the service to nonprofit educational institutions for "special studies of scientific problems." Upon this basis, 28 commissioned officers of the service were selected in 1947 for a year's

184 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY training at various accredited schools of public health on fellowships provided by the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.71 Assuming that the pay of these officers would average about $5,000 per year, the cost of this training to the government would total about $140,000. In addition to the foundation fellowships, special types of instruction were provided for service personnel. Among these were three-week orientation courses for new officers, given to a total of 76 officers during the fiscal year, and special training in tuberculosis control, given to 29 medical officers. The Division of Commissioned Officers reported 72 that as of the middle of fiscal 1947 59 officers were in training. An additional 16 medical officers were given training in cancer control.73 Data are lacking on which to calculate the cost of these services. instruction Offered by USPHS Personnel to Nonservice Persons. The training programs of the Public Health Service for persons other than service personnel can be differentiated into four types: (a) residencies and internships in Public Health Service Hospitals; (b) special nursing instruction; (c) special training opportunities for foreigners; and (d) various special training opportunities for medical and public health personnel, both private and public. a. Of the 24 Marine Hospitals operated by the Public Health Service at the end of fiscal 1947, 11 were approved as "teaching hospitals" for internship training by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association. Both straight and rotating internships of one year's duration were offered by these hospitals. In addition the marine hospitals offered graduate residency training of the usual three-year type. At the end of fiscal 1947, 37 physicians had been selected to begin their residency training during the following year and 56 were beginning their second or third years. b. Special nursing instruction was provided both as in-servicc training for nurses of the service and for nurses of other agencies. In fiscal 1947 an affiliate course in psychiatric nursing was given to 85 student nurses at the Public Health Service Hospitals at Fort Worth, Texas, and Lexington, Kentucky. A n additional postgraduate course in the same subject was given to 10 service nurses at Fort Worth. In addition, public health nurses of the regular service were assigned to various state public health agencies for the purpose of providing field training to university students in this field. During fiscal 1947, 10 nurses were assigned to such duty. c. As the principal medical agency of the federal government, the Public Health Service was the major source of professional guidance for

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

185

foreign medical and public health personnel. T o it naturally fell the duty of arranging for visits by foreigners interested in American activities in this field. This involved more than just answering questions and arranging introductions. The largest-scale services were, perhaps, arranging for the placement of persons who came here for training and providing opportunities for observation. Such services were provided for 217 visitors in fiscal 1947.™ The Public Health Service had also the function of assigning fellowships for medical training under the Cooperation with the American Republics (see page 102) and the Philippine Rehabilitation Program (see pages i o j and 106). Under the former, fellowships were assigned to 2 2 medical doctors, 2 nurses, and 1 laboratory technician from 15 American republics in fiscal 1947, while under the latter, 19 fellowships were awarded in 9 approved schools of public health.75 The 1947 budget for fellowships for Latin American personnel was $70,500 70 and that for Philippine Rehabilitation fellowships was $120,000." d. Since the Public Health Service was an agency that performed important research in the various fields of public health, and its personnel frequently made important contributions to the advance of knowledge in this field, it faced the problem of training the medical personnel of the country in the use of newly discovered methods and techniques. The medical profession has traditionally spread knowledge of new practices and techniques through the use of scholarly journals and demonstrations, backed with short courses in special matters in hospitals and medical schools. The Public Health Service utilized all these methods of sharing the results of research. The method of providing relief from labor pains in childbirth by continuous caudal anesthesia was developed by two Public Health Service physicians who conducted a course of training physicians and nurses in the use of this technique at the College of Medicine of the University of Tennessee. During the fiscal year 1947, 216 physicians and 33 nurses took the course. Current information on the various aspects of control of venereal diseases formed the subject matter of a series of seminars for lay workers. Six such seminars were held in various parts of the country, attended by about 450 persons.78 Orientation courses for health education students at Yale and North Carolina universities were given on the activities of the federal government in health education. The courses were supplemented by lectures on health education given by a number of USPHS personnel at a number of universities. Courses in a number of special subjects were also given at the Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, and its field stations. In fiscal 1947 the courses were: sanitary engineering (12 weeks), primary sanitation (12 weeks), advanced sanitation (12 weeks),

186 FEDERAL SECURITY A G E N C Y environmental control procedures for foreign trainees (4 weeks), evaluation of D D T dusting and murine typhus control (6 weeks), control of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases (4 weeks), fly and insect control (2 weeks), public health education (12 weeks), and industrial hygiene (12 weeks). In addition, a six-week course in laboratory diagnosis of parasitic diseases was given four times to 71 students.78 The cost of these services cannot be calculated on the basis of available information. Surplus Property Disposal. The Public Health Service became involved in the surplus property disposal program as the federal agency asked to certify, as to eligibility and need, the various public health claimants of surplus property. Medical schools were among the institutions qualified under the Act to purchase surplus properties at a discount of 40 per cent from fair value. The Public Health Service discontinued this function during fiscal year 1947, after medical schools and their hospital affiliates had been certified for orders of a fair value of about $i,i5O,ooo.S0 Actual sales, however, did not amount to this much, since the most desirable items were sold first to agencies that had higher priority than the medical schools. Fiscal Summary. Although the activities of the Public Health Service were not conducted on a large scale, they included participation in nearly every type of government activity in the field of higher education, ranging from services and grants to individuals and institutions to direct education of federal personnel. The exact amounts of money expended on these various programs cannot be calculated on the basis of available information, since most of the activities were only parts of larger programs which were not, in themselves, related to the field of higher education. Expenditures which can be calculated can be summarized as follows: Research fellowships $194,000 Training grants to institutions 450,000 Training stipends for individuals 200,000 U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps 12,363,000 Fellowships for foreigners 190,000 Total $13,397,000 T w o additional items of appropriation were listed in the 1948 Budget81 from which a number of other higher-educational activities were financed. These were "Demonstrations," $399,954; and "Training," $65,250; totaling $465,204. This, when rounded off and added to the above, yields a minimum estimate of expenditure on higher-educational activities of $13,862,000.

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY O F F I C E OF V O C A T I O N A L

187

REHABILITATION

T w o activities of this Office involved higher education. The first, and more important, was providing higher education to individuals as a part of the process of their vocational rehabilitation, a program wholly administered by the states under the supervision, and with the support of, the federal government. The other was a program of professional training institutes for the case workers who carried out the program in the various states, with the object of better preparing them for their duties and thus making for a more efficient use of federal funds. Authorization for both programs was contained in the BardenLaFollette amendments 82 to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1920.83 Vocational Rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation programs have been provided on the theory that enabling the disabled to obtain and keep useful employment results in an increase in the human resources of the nation as well as in relieving the disabled of the distress that accompanies their disability. The O V R program was administered by the states, the federal government confining itself to supervision and assistance. In each of the 48 states, and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, there was a "general rehabilitation agency" charged with administration of the program through a full-time, permanent official known as the Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Separate arrangements were made for the blind in 35 states. Thus there was a total of 87 state or territorial agencies with which the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation had to deal. In general, the expenses of the program were shared on an equal basis by the federal and state governments, except that the federal government assumed the total obligation for certain phases of the program. All of the necessary administrative costs, including those of vocational guidance and placement, whether in state or federal offices, were borne by the federal government. The federal government also bore the total cost of rehabilitating war-disabled civilians, such as persons disabled while on duty in the Civil Air Patrol, and others disabled as a result of federal service. Other costs, including the provision of higher education, were shared on a 50-50 basis.94 The grants to the states were contingent on certification by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Certification depended on approval of state plans for expenditure of the funds and thus was the means by which federal standards were enforced. In fiscal 1947, 510 grants were approved in the amount of $i4,i86,924-85

188 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY Individuals were eligible for benefits under this program if they (a) were of employable age, (b) had an occupational handicap by reason of disability, and (c) had some reasonable chance of employment if rehabilitated. A person found eligible for benefits was interviewed by a representative of the State Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, who, working with the individual concerned and on the basis of medical reports and vocational and other information, laid out a general plan for his rehabilitation. The rehabilitation plan frequently involved training, which in about one quarter of the cases was in institutions of higher education. After the vocational objective and plan were set, a determination of the feasibility ( that is, whether the plan would in fact result in the employability of the individual or not) was made by the state agency. The entire process of determining eligibility was exclusively a state function, but it was carried out in accordance with standards laid down by the federal office. The process of rehabilitation necessarily involved the coordination of many types of information, including the medical and psychiatric situation of the client, the availability and usefulness of various types of training, the availability of employment for special types of individuals, and many others. Similarly, obtaining needed services for clients required coordinating the activities of many different agencies, both public and private, and at all levels of government. In order to effect the necessary coordination, the federal office established relations with many of the agencies involved. During fiscal 1947 alone, new cooperative agreements were worked out between the office and the following agencies, among others: Veterans Administration, War Department, U.S. Public Health Service, Post Office Department, Treasury Department, Public Buildings Administration, Office of Indian Affairs, National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf, Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf, National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, American Heart Association, and so on. It is apparent that there is almost no end to the number of agencies with which activities of this type may have to deal. The writer has seen no reports of difficulties between the program that the Veterans Administration carried on under Public Law 16 and this program. However, in view of the almost exact duplication of their functions, it seems probable that difficulties would arise. The only recognizable differences are in clients and in methods of administration. The functions are the same.

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 189 Eligible disabled persons were not limited in the types of training they might take, except by the considerations implied in the requirement that genuine rehabilitation result from the training. It might include more than a regular college course, even in isolated instances including graduate training such as medicine or law. The number of clients for whom higher education was purchased is difficult to determine, since the Office did not report its service in terms of level of education. However, the Annual Report of the Federal Security Administrator gives indices upon which reasonable estimates may be based. It reports, for example, that of the 43,874 persons rehabilitated in fiscal 1947, about 32 per cent received training and that of this group about 2 3 per cent were trained in colleges, universities, and business colleges (page 620). This would work out to about 3,200 persons receiving higher education, but would not include the numbers of persons who received such training during the year but who were not declared rehabilitated. However, by applying the same percentages to the total number of active cases during the year a reasonable estimate of the number given higher education can be made. The number of active cases during the year was 170,141; thus an approximate number of cases receiving higher education would be 12,500 (32 percent of 23 per cent of 170,141). Training Institutes. In addition to the above program, the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation sponsored a number of training institutes for the professional counselors and rehabilitation workers of the various state agencies. In fiscal 1947, 20 such institutes were held in various parts of the country, attended by 581 state professional employees. Figures are not available to indicate the cost of the higher-educational parts of these programs. The total amount granted to the various states in fiscal 1947 was $14,186,924. The appropriation for administrative expenses was $564,300.88 However, if it can be assumed that the average cost per person rehabilitated through higher education would not be less than the average cost per person in schools of other types, a minimum figure for the higher-educational cost could be obtained by applying to the total cost of the program the ratio which the number of individuals rehabilitated in institutions of higher education bore to the whole number rehabilitated. On this basis the higher-educational cost would be about $1,000,000. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Except for special training for its own personnel, the Social Security Administration had only indirect relationships to the field of higher edu-

igo FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY cation, largely through the fact that various of the grants to states which it administered might in part be spent by the states for professional graduate training for their personnel. Four divisions of the agency had functions related to higher education. Training Division. This division provided a basic orientation course for new professional personnel and conducted seminars in social security problems for advanced staff members. The basic course was given everv month in w hich there were new personnel to take it, and included seven days of intensive study of the purposes and methods of the Administration and of the social security laws. It combined study of the activities of the various divisions of the Social Security Administration with study of the underlying conditions that created the need for such services. In fiscal 1947, 80 persons took the course. The seminars, three of which were conducted in fiscal 1947, were voluntary courses attended by interested persons employed by the Administration, partly on off-duty time. They were not related to the immediate needs of the SSA, but dealt with broad problems of policy and administration of professional interest to the participants. Subjects covered included comparative health insurance plans, and German social security administration and problems. Attendance during fiscal 1947 totaled 104. Children's Bureau. The Children's Bureau engaged in few activities directly involving higher education, but it administered three programs of grants to states which the states spent for higher-educational purposes under the supervision of the Bureau: (a) Maternal and Child Health Grants, (b) Grants for Crippled Children, and (c) Child Welfare Grants. Funds authorized 87 for expenditure in these programs amounted to $22,000,000 annually, distributed as follows: (a) for maternal and child welfare, $11,000,000 annually, of which $35,000 to each state on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis, with the remainder to be distributed among the states by a complicated formula based on the number of live births in each state in the year and giving special weight to rural live births, with a part of the total sum held back for special national programs and contingencies; (b) for grants for crippled children, $7,500,000 of which $30,000 to each state on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis, the remainder being distributed to the states in accordance with a formula based on the needs of the states and the total number of children under 21 years of age in each state, giving special weight to rural children; (c) for child welfare services, $3,500,000 annually, of which $20,000 to each state, without the matching provision, the remainder being allotted

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

191

in accordance with the proportion which the rural population of each state bore to the total rural population of the United States.88 T h e Children's Bureau's only function in these programs lay in the process of certifying to the Treasury the amounts to be paid and the agencies to which payments were to be made. State agencies were required to submit budgets and plans to the Bureau which had power to disallow certain activities, thus retaining control of the entire program. Among the state activities that the Bureau normally approved was expenditure of funds for professional training of state personnel. In fiscal 1947, expenditures on such training under the Maternal and Child Health Program alone amounted to about $i,ooo,ooo. 89 Of this, about one-half represented federal contributions." 0 Most of the personnel thus trained were public employees, but some states provided training opportunities for practicing physicians and dentists. T h e state agencies and the Children's Bureau were also concerned to initiate improved courses of graduate study in institutions offering work in the social and medical problems of children. In some cases, state agencies made contracts with schools to provide specified educational services. In 1947, eight schools were under contract to provide improved training for nurses; four had contracts for the improvement of training in medical-social work; and two had similar contracts for improving graduate studies in children's dentistry. 91 A n example cited in the Graham Report is of the contract between the state of Massachusetts and Harvard University, whereby Harvard agreed to develop a program of instruction in maternal and child health; in return, the university's School of Public Health received about $65,000 annually. Representatives of the Children's Bureau were involved in the initiation and approval of the program. Columbia University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Cincinnati had similar contracts. Funds to cover these contracts came from the special reserved categ o r y of "national projects" (see above), and were not subtracted from the funds available to the single state concerned, since they were made with institutions of national influence, and the training was available to persons from more than one state. Although these programs were administered by the states, it is evident that the federal government sought to accomplish two purposes through them: (a) to encourage the states, by the contingent gift of funds, to undertake social works of types that they might not otherwise develop; and (b) to improve the opportunities f o r graduate instruction in this field and the quality of the personnel.

I92

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

Higher-educational expenditures by the federal government under this program in fiscal 1947 totaled about $1,000,000. Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance,02 Although training of personnel for the entire Social Security Administration was a function of the Training Division in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance had so many more employees than any other part of the Administration that it operated its own in-service training program.93 For the most pan the program operated at the clerical and on-the-job training level and involved no highereducational activities. Three courses of legal training, however, should receive attention: a. Claims development. A course given to field employees responsible for making original determinations of entitlement and amount of benefit for persons filing claims for old age insurance benefits. It lasted two weeks and was given to 120 employees in fiscal 1947. b. Claims review. A course designed to prepare employees of the Bureau's area offices to review the claims referred to above. The review function involved a thorough knowledge of the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act and of the decisions of the Administrator in order properly to review and certify for payment the above original determinations. In fiscal 1947, 109 persons took the six-week course. c. Post-certification. A course for adjustment clerks in the area offices to enable them to perform the various adjustment actions arising from the above determinations, such as terminations, suspensions, and reinstatements for beneficiaries on the rolls. In fiscal 1947 the tw o-week course was taken by 1 1 1 persons. Administration of the Bureau's entire training program cost $45,640 in fiscal year 1947, while the training costs, in salaries, travel, per diem, and incidentals totaled $630,850, a total of $676,490. What part of this sum should be allocated to the above three courses cannot be calculated on the basis of available information. Bureau of Public Assistance. This Bureau had no functions directly related to higher education. It was, however, responsible for the administration of the programs of grants to states for old age assistance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind, on which large expenditures were made. Under a decision of the Social Security Board 91 the states were permitted to grant educational full-time leave to social security personnel for the purpose of attending schools of social work and might list the expense involved as "necessary for the proper and efficient administration of a state plan." These expenditures were thus subject to the federal matching provisions under the three programs men-

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 193 tioned above. The matching formulas involved were complicated, and might cover from one-half to two-thirds of the total cost, depending on the state concerned. However, in order to obtain approval of state plans for educational leave, "the principal factors which form the basis of the state's practice" of granting leave had to be submitted to the Bureau for approval. Criteria by which acceptable programs were judged were: a. The number of persons allowed to go on such leave should be such that the continuity of the service would not be affected and that a disproportionate sum would not be spent on it. b. There should be objective standards for selecting individuals for leave, including a requirement that the individual's service with the agency should be of such length as to warrant an objective evaluation, and that his potentialities for profiting by such leave should be demonstrated. c. The schools attended should meet the accrediting standards of the American Association of Schools of Social Work. d. The period of leave granted should be of sufficient length to give a real opportunity for advancement, in most cases at least one year. e. There should be an understanding that the individual would return to the service for a period of time sufficient to ensure that the program would benefit. f. The leave and the education should be financed by payment of salary to the individual rather than by direct payments to the institution concerned. Information is not available as to the number of persons who received such training in fiscal 1947, nor as to the amount of federal expenditures for such training under these programs.

FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY B U R E A U OF C O M M U N I T Y

FACILITIES

THE Bureau of Community Facilities engaged in two programs that affected the higher educational institutions of the country- These were the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program, under which certain facilities, including buildings and equipment, w ere made available to educational institutions from surplus stocks, and the Public Works Advance Planning Program, under which some colleges and universities received advances to prepare plans for future building. Veterans' Educational Facilities Program. This program was established by amendment 1 to Title V of the Lanham Act for the purpose of providing certain facilities from surplus federal stocks to enable educational institutions to carry out their responsibilities to veteran students who entered under the provisions of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. The program was limited to facilities other than housing, but included buildings and various types of personal property. Thus it was the companion of the Veterans' Re-Use Housing Program, administered by the Federal Public Housing Authority. Under the Act, the Federal Works Administrator was empowered to acquire from any federal agency any facilities which the War Assets Administrator certified to be available for such use. This acquisition involved no transfer of funds, since the ownership remained in the hands of the federal government until the Federal Works Administrator made final assignment to the benefiting educational institution. The funds appropriated for the program were not intended to cover the cost of the facilities, but only the cost of dismantling, transporting, and reerecting them. $75,000,000 was appropriated for this purpose,2 which, together with certain additional funds made available, brought the total amount for expenditure on such facilities to $83,000,000. The A c t specified that administration of the program was to be in cooperation with the Commissioner of Education, who was to arrange for the certification of the needs of the nation's educational institutions. The functions of the Office of Education in this program are described in the sections dealing with that agency. Under the procedure agreed with the Office of Education, an eligible school submitted a "justification of need," which was reviewed by a field representative of the Office of Education. This representative then made a "finding of need," without which no further action was taken

FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY

195

on the application. As of the end of fiscal 1947, 1,643 justifications of need had been submitted, and the representatives of the Office of Education had made 1,585 findings of need. T h e justifications were f o r more than 32,000,000 square feet of floor space and the findings were f o r more than 20,000,000. On the basis of the findings, applications were submitted to the Bureau of Community Facilities by 1,427 institutions, of which 1,383 had been approved by the end of fiscal 1947, calling for total allotments of $74,898,000. More than 95 per cent of these allotments, representing about $71,500,000, were for institutions of higher education. 3 Of the approved applications, 787 were for construction and equipment involving allotments of $72,902,000, the remaining 596 applications being for personal property only. T h e disparity is accounted for b y the fact that the cost of moving and warehousing personal property is relatively low as compared to the cost of demolition, transportation, and reerection of buildings. T h e personal property transfers involved more than 10,000,000 items of property, with a "fair value," b y the W a r Assets Administration standards, of $19,728,000. T h e Bureau of Community Facilities also worked out an arrangement with the W a r Assets Administration whereby educational institutions were certified f o r purchase of certain types of commodities at a higher priority than that obtainable under the donations program. T h e W a r Assets Administration sold supplies and equipment of a fair value of $18,000,000 to certified schools under this arrangement during the fiscal year 1947, at a discount from the fair value of 95 per cent. 4 T h e President's Commission on Higher Education reported that federal expenditures on this program in fiscal 1947 were 13 per cent of the total of $1,772,000,000 spent in this field by the federal government. 5 This would work out to an expenditure of about $230,000,000, which seems to be far out of line with the total appropriation of about $83,000,000 and the allocation actually reported by the Bureau f o r the year of about $75,000,000, of which not all was actually expended during that period. T h e disparity can be accounted for by the probability that the President's Commission figured into its totals some " f a i r " valuation of the buildings provided for the educational institutions. T h e annual report of the Commissioner of Education 0 states that " b y W a r Assets Administration values" the property requested by education institutions in their almost 1,650 "justifications of need" would aggregate $200,000,000. However, the Bureau of Community Facilities avoided placing a valuation on the properties disposed of, and no official figure exists. A letter from the Bureau's Deputy Commissioner f o r Planning in the author's files indicates that actual expenditures on the program up to the

196

FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY

end of fiscal 1947 amounted to about $27,000,0007 and that, if valuations of the various types of property provided are added to the amounts allotted, the estimate of $230,000,000 seems reasonable.8 However, if the same standards of reporting were applied to the structures and equipment provided for schools by the War Assets Administration through its surplus property programs, the total for those programs would exceed $286,000,000. Such figures serve only to obscure the real significance of such programs, which lies in the administrative relationships between the federal, state, and local agencies involved. In the case of the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program, there was a legislative requirement that the Office of Education be consulted on the determination of the need for facilities. This same provision was omitted in the companion program for veterans' housing, even though much of the information that might assist in making proper determinations was common to the two endeavors. The large sums involved can be accounted for by the fact that these programs were part of the postwar readjustment phase, and as such extended little beyond fiscal 1947. Public Works Advance Planning Program. Title V of the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944 0 authorized the Federal Works Administrator to advance funds to state and local bodies for the purpose of financing the preparation of plans for useful and needed public works, exclusive of housing. It was the intention that such funds would enable the local agencies to bring plans to the stage of contract letting, in order to be prepared in advance with a number of needed projects for such time as funds might be available. A total of $65,000,000 was eventually appropriated for the program, none of which could be spent for actual construction, with a termination date of June 30, 1947.10 N o private organizations, whether organzied for profit or not, were eligible to receive grants, but any state or local governmental agency which had authority to construct public works might apply. This included institutions of higher education, 90 of which had made applications by April 1947 for planning advances totaling $5,827,491 on 350 separate projects. Of these 165 had been approved, for advances of $2,673,036 on projects whose estimated cost would total $91,810,785. No official figures are available which would show the status of the program at the end of the fiscal year. However, the Bureau of Community Facilities estimated that the same percentage of the advances to institutions of higher education would hold as held for the first nine months of the year. On this basis, an estimate of the total expenditure of this program for institutions of higher education would approximate $3,000,000.

NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY FEDERAL PUBLIC HOUSING

AUTHORITY

conducted only one program in the field of higher education, but this single program was one of the most extensive and important ones for institutions of higher education at any level of government, being exceeded in cost only by the activities of the Veterans Administration. This was the Veterans' Re-Use Housing Program under which surplus wartime properties of the federal government were turned over to colleges and universities for the purpose of housing veteran students and faculty. The program expended almost four hundred million dollars in fiscal year 1947, about half of which was for services to colleges and universities. The program grew out of the conditions created by the passage in 1944 of Public Law 346, which made possible the attendance of very large numbers of veterans at institutions of higher education. The number of veterans who could be accommodated at such institutions was limited by availability of housing for them, and by the fall of 1945, when the influx of veterans began in earnest, the situation rapidly became critical. 1 The answer to this problem, which threatened the success of the Servicemen's Readjustment Program, was the passage by the Congress of the Veterans' Re-Use Housing A c t 2 in December 1945. This act amended Title V 3 of the Lanham Act, 4 which had merely given preference to veterans in filling whatever vacancies occurred in the public war housing constructed under the terms of the Lanham Act. Public Law 292 made possible an immediate program by appropriating $160,000,000 and authorizing the transfer of a total of $31,900,000 of other funds, making a total of $191,900,000 available. Additional appropriations were authorized in 1946 5 and $253,727,000 was appropriated 6 in April 1946, for a total appropriation of $445,627,000.' The moneys were authorized for the relocation and conversion of surplus war housing (barracks, quonset huts, dormitories) to provide temporary living accommodations for veterans at educational institutions and in municipalities. N e w construction was specifically prohibited. The proportion of housing to be provided for educational institutions and that for municipalities were to be determined by their relative needs for veterans' housing. The federal government was to bear the major T H E F E D E R A L P U B L I C HOUSING A U T H O R I T Y

198

NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY

share of the cost and to provide the buildings and in some cases erect them. T h e local unit was to provide the site and the utilities. T h e F P H A was authorized to acquire surplus housing and structures suitable f o r conversion to housing from whatever federal agencies possessed them, together with building materials and equipment. A target of 200,000 units to be provided in the calendar year 1946 was set." Because of rising costs, how ever, it became necessary to revise this figure downwards in order to keep within the sums appropriated, and the new target was set at about 180,000 units.9 A t the end of 1945 when the program was under discussion in Congress, it had been contemplated that the larger share of the housing would be provided from the temporary structures erected near defense facilities b y the F P H A under the Lanham Act. These structures were already in use as housing and would require no conversion, but might need to be dismantled and put up again in new locations where there was greater need. During the early part of the program this was the case. The large number of cancelations of contracts coincident with the end of the war led to a decreased demand for this housing and it seemed that the program could largely be accomplished by its relocation. In early 1946, however, this trend was definitely reversed. Under the provisions of the Lanham Act, unoccupicd spaces in the temporary housing were to be allocated to war workers and veterans and their families on an equal basis. Starting in early 1946, the spaces vacated by the out-migrating war workers came to be in great demand for veteran accommodations, without appreciably decreasing the demand for similar accommodations in other areas. T h e F P H A had therefore to turn to other sources for materials and structures. Public Law 292 had authorized other agencies to turn over to F P H A all suitable buildings and materials when they should be declared surplus. T h e armed forces thereby became the main source from which such items could be drawn. Agreements were drawn up between the F P H A and the W a r and N a v y Departments and the Surplus Property Administration by which transfers would be facilitated. Altogether, about two thirds of the housing eventually came from such surplus stocks and about one third from F P H A ' s own housing inventory. 10 T w o types of contracts with local sponsoring agencies were worked out. Under the first of these, called "in-quota projects," the F P H A undertook to provide and erect the housing from its own appropriated funds. Under the second, called "ex-quota projects," the F P H A agreed only to provide the basic structures and the local sponsor assumed all necessary expenses for dismantling, transporting, reerecting, and con-

NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY

199

verting. In either case the local sponsor assumed the cost of the site and of the necessary preparation of the site f o r the structures, including utilities. It also assumed title to the property and responsibility f o r management, maintenance, and removal of the structures after they had served their temporary purpose, in accordance with Section 313 of the Lanham A c t 1 1 which sought by this provision to prevent permanent competition between such temporary public housing and permanent private real estate. T h e actual construction was done b y a total of 35 contractors, some of whom operated in more than one of the nine F P H A regions, on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. Master contracts were drawn under which they obligated themselves to accept "proceed orders" (in lieu of contracts) from the regional offices of the F P H A for construction and demounting jobs up to a number of units specified for each contractor. 1 2 In dealing with colleges and universities the F P H A was not required to deal either with other federal agencies or with state agencies. T h e procedure was in sharp contrast with that adopted by the Federal Works A g e n c y in carrying out the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program. A Committee on Housing was established b y the American Council on Education to provide for national coordination while similar committees of the institutions affected were established in the various F P H A Regions. 13 Regional quotas were established b y the National Housing Agency, which allocated specified amounts for each of the two types of sponsors (educational institutions and local governmental agencies) in each of the F P H A Regions. Within each region, more detailed quotas were worked out by the regional representative of the National Housing A g e n c y in collaboration with the Regional Director of the F P H A . 1 4 Specific allocations were determined f o r municipalities on the basis of the most recent population figures and for educational institutions on the basis of the current enrollment of veterans. In general, allocations as between the t w o types of beneficiaries were about equal. Under the "exquota" part of the program, in which the beneficiary paid the costs, allocations were based on demonstrated need and availability of structures. 15 Applications from the individual sponsors of either type were received in the Regional Offices of the F P H A , and allocations were made within available quotas. As of August 1946, 2,040 local agencies, including educational institutions, had requested allocations of 522,800 units. A n additional 470 agencies requested accommodations without specifying the number needed. 18 Assuming that the additional agencies required relatively the same amounts, a fair estimate of total requests would amount to more

zoo

NATIONAL HOUSING

AGENCY

than 600,000 units. In view of this heavy oversubscription of the total offering (less than 200,000), the system of allocation of available units assumed added importance. In spite of constant difficulty owing to shortages of essential building materials and the constantly rising cost of operations which entailed a sharp reduction in the over-all activity, the F P H A was able to carry out a substantial part of the program by the end of fiscal year 1947. As of the end of that year, "in-quota" allocations of housing units to various agencies totaled 181,446. Of these 97,775 or 53.9 per cent were to educational institutions. T h e total number of units completed was 168,197. Of the remaining uncompleted units 4,727 were under construction and 8.522 were suspended for lack of funds. 17 In J u l y 1947 the 80th Congress, by Public L a w 256, appropriated $35,500,000 for the purpose of completing the 8,522 suspended allocations. T h e total number of allocations represents a decrease from the 198,995 allocations made as of May 30, 1946, necessitated by the rising cost of operations. 16 In the "ex-quota" part of the program (that is, not federally financed), allocations totaled 80,804, of which 53,271 had been completed by June 30, 1947. 19 Of these allocations, 53,558 units were f o r educational institutions.-0 A s of the beginning of fiscal year 1947, the unexpended balance f o r the program was $406,516,027. Expenditures during the year were $374,818,451, of which $6,006,000 was for administrative expenses. The unexpended balance at the end of the year was $31,697,571. 2 1 These figures cover all expenses of the program, including facilities provided for local governmental units. Assuming that the cost of units provided for colleges and universities was the same as that f o r municipalities, a rough estimate of the cost of the program of aiding the colleges and universities can be made by applying to the total expenditures f o r fiscal 1947 the per cent of units (53.9 per cent) allocated to educational institutions, yielding a total estimate of $201,976,732 as the amount spent under this program for institutions of higher education during fiscal 1947. This figure includes no allowance for the value of the housing facilities erected. It should be recognized that this expenditure was a nonrecurring item and that the circumstances that rendered it necessary were incidental to the termination of the war. However, it should also be recognized that the facilities provided, whether called temporary or not, are likely to be in use f o r a long time to come and represent an almost permanent accretion to the capital equipment of the institutions where they are in use, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 313 of the Lanham A c t to the contrary. Also, if the number of students in institutions of

NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY 201 higher education is going to be increased in accordance with the recommendations of the President's Commission on Higher Education, or even maintained at the present level, significant additions to the present housing facilities will have to be provided. That this may become a problem for solution by the federal government should be recognized, and in that case this program, and others of its type, may well provide the precedents upon which such building programs will be based.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION conducted three types of programs that involved higher education. Of these, by far the most important, both in size and in significance, was the program for the readjustment of servicemen under what is popularly called the " G . I . Bill of Rights." The others were programs f o r the rehabilitation of servicemen with service-connected disabilities and for residency training of doctors in Veterans Administration hospitals. Each of these is described below. T H E V E T E R A N S ADMINISTRATION

SERVICEMEN'S

READJUSTMENT

This program was established b y the Servicemen's Readjustment A c t of 1944 1 as amended. 2 It provided for payment of tuition and fees, subsistence allowances, and incidentals involved in the education and training of veterans of the recent war in approved institutions. T h e program far exceeded in scale anything previously attempted by the federal government, accounting, in fact, for over two thirds of all federal expenditures on higher education. While not all aspects of the program involved higher education, the major share of it did. T h e non-highcreducational aspects included on-the-job and farm training and arc not covered here. This was a "clientele" type of program, limited not so much in the kinds of activity that it might include, as in the type of individual whom it might serve. Only persons who served in the armed forces of the United States and its Allies during the last war were eligible for benefits, and the length of time for which a veteran might draw benefits was partially determined by the length of time served on active duty. Relatively little discretion was left to the Veterans Administration as to inclusion and exclusion of individuals. Eligible persons were entitled under the law to have certain expenses of attendance at institutions of learning defrayed by the federal government, as well as to receive monthly subsistence allowances, which during fiscal 1947 amounted to $65 if single and $90 if with dependents, while in attendance at such institutions. These amounts have been raised to $75 for single veterans, $105 for veterans with one dependent, and $ 1 2 0 for veterans with more than one dependent. 3 Subsistence payments were to be reduced in cases in which the veteran had outside sources that raised his total income above $ 1 7 5 per month for veterans without dependents and $200 f o r veterans with

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

203

dependents. More recent legislation 4 has raised the limits to $ 2 1 0 f o r veterans without dependents, $270 for veterans with one dependent, and $290 for veterans with t w o or more dependents. Under the program, the veteran was allowed to choose the institution he wished to attend, the only limitations being that he must be admitted by and maintain good standing in the institution concerned, and the institution must be approved. T h e latter was scarcely a limitation since approval was the responsibility of the state educational authorities 5 and %\as very perfunctorily given, not only to the principal nonprofit educational institutions, but also to many operated for profit. T h e latter in some cases included dancing schools, learn-to-drive schools, beautician courses, and like "educational" institutions. T h e Administrator of Veterans Affairs had power to add to the list of institutions approved by the state authorities, but in no case did he use it.6 T h e Veterans Administration exercised no control over the course of study that the veteran elected; that was settled between the veteran and the institution concerned. Also there was no supervision of any schools by the Veterans Administration, which was limited in this regard by a specific provision of the statute.7 T h e only reports required of the school were of irregular attendance and of failure to meet standards. A veteran seeking educational opportunity under this program had first to obtain a so-called "certificate of eligibility." This entitled him to the benefits of the program, and was obtained from the local representatives of the Veterans Administration upon request and furnishing of data to show that the individual was entitled to such benefits, including a certificate of discharge under conditions other than dishonorable from the armed forces of the United States or an Ally. Upon enrolling in an approved institution, the veteran presented this certificate, which was endorsed b y the institution and forwarded to the local offices of the Veterans Administration for processing and payment. It should be borne in mind that there were two different types of payment involved: (a) payment of the subsistence allowance to the individual veteran, and (b) payment to the school of the tuition fee, other fixed fees, and additional required expenses such as for books. T h e former involved a difficult and complicated check of the records to determine whether or not the individual was drawing allowances under any of the other programs of the Veterans Administration. T h e latter was simpler. Normally the Veterans Administration did not pay the tuition charges and other fixed fees until the end of the period or semester f o r which the veteran was enrolled. Since this worked something of a hard-

2o 4 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ship on institutions that normally required payment of fees in advance, a system of prepaying 75 per cent of tuition and other necessary charges was established in 1947, but only in the case of "well-established, nonprofit colleges and universities." 8 T h e maximum permissible payment f o r tuition f o r an academic year was $500, which at the time of its adoption was adequate to cover the cost of tuition in nearly all colleges and universities. A f t e r the passage of Public L a w 346 a general upward trend of tuition fees developed, accelerated perhaps b y the fact that many schools could raise their fees to this limit without substantially reducing the number of their students. Rising costs, however, certainly contributed, and it became necessary to throw onto the individual veteran the responsibility f o r making up the difference. This was later mitigated b y permitting the veteran to use the total amount he was entitled to in a shorter period of time, thus allowing for payment of tuition charges in excess of $500. T h e administration of the program, under the law, was such as to allow the Veterans Administration little room for discretion. It was not in a position to supervise any of the educational institutions involved, nor could it control the courses followed by individual veterans. W h a t ever they selected, so long as it conformed to the requirements of the institution, was beyond the reach of the federal government. Under these circumstances, there was little danger of a growth of federal control of educational institutions. However, if the power of certification of institutions had been given to the Administrator, matters might have been substantially different. While the influx of veterans into the highereducational institutions of the country was not an unmixed blessing for all schools, it was an advantage for enough of them to make many, in all probability, conform to whatever the requirements for certification might be. T h e Graham report 9 states that although there was no supervision of nonprofit educational institutions by the Veterans Administration, there was an effort in the case of the profit-making institutions to insure that the veteran was actually in attendance and was acually receiving a course of training approved by an appropriate state agency. T h e Veterans A d ministration maintained the right to terminate subsistence allowances (note, not tuition payments) in cases where it believed that the training was not being given in accordance with the law, a course of action that could be adopted only in the most extreme cases. This report states that many abuses developed in this area. It should be noted here that the same provision that guarantees the independence of the nonprofit institutions makes impossible an effective control over the profit-making ones.

V E T E R A N S ADMINISTRATION

205

The readjustment program was the most important and largest activity ever attempted by the federal government in the field of higher education. At the end of April 1947, 1,125,999 veterans were attending institutions of higher learning under it. 10 This was the peak number for fiscal 1947, the figure at the end of the year being lower. The peak figure is, however, the most significant one because it represents a period in the middle of the school year of most institutions. It is to be expected that the numbers enrolled would drop off after this date. Figures for fiscal 1948 and 1949 were even larger, and those for 1950 showed the commencement of a decline in veteran enrollments.11 It is interesting to note as a sidelight that not all of the above students were attending schools in the United States. There were 1,073 veterans in schools in the Philippine Islands, 50 in the Canal Zone, and 1,445 ¡ n other countries, mostly in Europe. Fiscal details are difficult to obtain since the Veterans Administration does not report its expenditures in terms of levels of education. However, it is possible to check what certain authorities have stated in this regard and to reach a rough estimate of expenditures from the figures given in the Annual Report of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs for 1947. The President's Commission on Higher Education reported that the total expenditures of the Veterans Administration, presumably for all three programs here described, reached about $1,170,000 in fiscal 1947. 12 This seems conservative to the author, when compared with estimates obtained from study of the Veterans Administration's own figures. The total number of veterans enrolled in schools at the peak in 1947 under Public Law 346 was 1,825,118. Of these, 1,125,999, or 61.7 per cent, were enrolled in institutions of higher learning. By applying this percentage to the various expenditures for direct benefits reported by the Veterans Administration for this program it should be possible to arrive at rough estimates of expenditures thereon. This can be shown in the following table: Expenditure in Fisc. 1947 on Approx. Expenditure Schooling under P.L. 346 on Higher Ed. F o r Subsistence $1,566,952,570 X 61.7 = $967,000,000 F o r Tuition 501,360,334 X 61.7 = 310,000,000 Other 75,939,635 X 61.7 = 47,000,000 Totals $2,144,252,539 $1,324,000,000

On this basis, the expenditures would amount to about one and onethird billion dollars, exclusive of administrative expenses. This is probably a minimum figure since the errors in the estimating are on the low side. The subsistence figure is probably about accurate, since the

206

VETERANS

ADMINISTRATION

sums per person would be the same, whether the veteran was enrolled in an institution of higher learning or of a different type, on the reasonable assumptions that the numbers of veterans with dependents and the periods of time involved were evenly distributed. T h e tuition figure is probably low, in view of the relatively higher tuition charges of many institutions of higher education, as compared with those of other types of institutions. N o basis is available to the author for evaluating the other expenses, but since they were relatively small they would not alter the totals significantly, even if entirely excluded. T h e Graham R e p o r t 1 3 notes that over 28,000 persons were engaged in administering the program in fiscal 1947, but that this figure dropped to about 26,000 b y the end of the fiscal year and was expected to drop further in 1948. This same group of 28,000 was also charged with the administration of the program under Public L a w 16, described below. VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION

This program was established by the A c t for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Servicemen of 1943 14 as amended. 15 It provided individual counseling, training, and financial benefits for disabled World W a r II veterans of the armed forces of the United States and its Allies. T h e intention of the program was to restore employability lost by reason of service in the war, through either education or job training. Only parts of the program that involved education in institutions of higher learning are treated here. T h e prerequisite to eligibility for benefits was a finding by the Veterans Administration that the individual had a service-connected disability rated at 10 per cent or more. T h e veteran made a claim for disability compensation to the Administration. When the claim was awarded, the notification of such award to the veteran included notification of eligibility f o r benefits under this program. When the veteran then applied f o r admission to the program, he was interviewed b y representatives of the Veterans Administration or by a vocational counseling agency which provided this service on a contract-fee basis. Prior to the interview medical consultants of the administration reviewed the individual case and passed on the veteran's fitness to take training, indicating usually the kinds of work for which he was not fitted. T h e interview was designed to establish whether a need for education or training existed, and if it did, the type that would rehabilitate him. T h e interview resulted in the setting of an "employment objective," which education might help attain. Kinds of education and lengths of time f o r which benefits were available were determined by

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

207

the objective, and not by the time served on active duty. Decisions reached jointly by the veteran and the counselor in the interview were then reviewed by the Veterans Administration to determine that the objective lay within the capacities of the veteran and that it led to the probability of employment. Upon approval by the Veterans Administration, arrangements were made by contract with the selected educational institutions f o r the enrollment of the veteran and for payment of tuition and other fixed charges, as well as for such other special services as the institution might be able to render and the Veterans Administration might consider necessary, including provision of readers f o r blind veterans or special advisement services. Subsistence allowances were paid directly to the individual veteran, in addition to whatever disability allowance he might be entitled to. T h e monthly subsistence allowance was $65 in the case of veterans without dependents and $90 f o r those with dependents. These were subject to variation in that the minimum payment to each veteran including both his subsistence allowance and his disability payment, had to total at least $105 per month in the case of a veteran without dependents, and $ 1 1 5 in the case of a veteran with one dependent. Increments were granted for more dependents as follows: (a) $ 1 5 f o r a dependent parent, (b) $ 1 0 f o r one child, and ( c ) $7 f o r each additional dependent. Thus a veteran whose disability payment was low, or who had dependents, might receive a larger subsistence allowance than is indicated above. A program of this type involves considerable coordination of activities, especially insofar as the advisement of veterans is concerned. Medical and psychiatric data must be coordinated with information on training and employment opportunities, and both of these must be coordinated with the aptitudes and desires of the individual veteran. T h e point at which this coordination took place was the interview, which in most cases had to be given at a place convenient to the veteran, and had to be handled by persons who possessed the pertinent information and the training necessary to the success of such endeavors. T h e peak enrollment in fiscal 1947 was 128,877, whom 82,953, o r 64.4 per cent, were enrolled in institutions of higher learning. 18 A s with Servicemen's Readjustment, this occurred in April 1947, the numbers dropping off by the end of that fiscal year, but here also the peak figures are more significant. Calculation of the costs of this program is subject to the same infirmities as the calculation for the one described immediately above.

2O8

V E T E R A N S ADMINISTRATION

Estimates of expenditures on direct benefits, how ever, can be made on a similar basis, shown as follows: Expenditures in Fiscal 1941 Probable Expenditure on Schooling under on Higher Education Public Law 16 (AXB) For Subsistence $208,857,707 X 64.4 = $135,000,000 For Tuition 24,358,689 X 64.4 = 16,000,000 Other 8,883,112 X 64.4 = 6,000,000 Totals $242,099,508 $157,000,000 It should be noted that the costs of administration of both this program and the preceding one have not been included in the calculations. Since the two programs shared administrative personnel, it would be very difficult to calculate the share to be chargcd to each. As for the cost of the two, the only calculation the writer has seen is contained in the report of the group headed by Professor Graham 17 which reports a total administrative expenditure of $106,382,761, and states that this is an approximate figure. This is probably a minimum figure, since the programs that it covers represented considerably more than one fifth of the total expenditures of the Veterans Administration, while the sum here noted is under one fifth of the total administrative appropriation f o r fiscal 1947 (more than $550,000,000). Although administrative costs of programs do not vary directly with their total costs, the relationship provides a rough guide which suggests the reasonableness of the figure reported by Professor Graham. R E S I D E N C I E S IN V E T E R A N S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

HOSPITALS

T h e Veterans Administration obtained the professional services of doctors in return f o r its services to them in the form of opportunities f o r professional training and advancement. Hospitals, both public and private, have normally availed themselves of the services of young doctors who sought to rise in the profession and in return have provided opportunities for training in the various specialties of the profession under the direction of regular staff members. When shortage of competent medical personnel began to threaten the success of the entire medical program f o r veterans, the Veterans Administration found it necessary to adopt the traditional methods of the medical profession as a means of obtaining the necessary personnel. The procedure involved establishment of medical residencies in the veterans' hospitals, and was authorized by special legislation reorganizing the V A Department of Medicine and Surgery and permitting the employment of professional personnel without regard to the requirements of the Civil Servicc Commission. 18

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

209

T h e residencies thus created were in every w a y similar to those in other hospitals. T h e y were generally of three years' duration, during which time the resident was in training under staff specialists in partial preparation f o r the various medical or surgical specialty board examinations. He was also, and at the same time, rendering medical service to veterans. While some of the residents might later apply for, and be accepted in, the permanent employment of the Veterans Administration, this program was not intended as a method of recruitment of permanent personnel. It was rather intended as a method of attracting to these hospitals a number of high-grade, competent, younger personnel to supplement the regular staffs of the institutions. T h e program was administered in close cooperation with the medical schools of the nation. It was carried on at 64 veterans' hospitals, which in this training program were associated with 59 medical schools. T h e deans of these schools constituted a committee which advised on the operation of the program and assisted in recruiting residents and specialists. In addition, each of the deans concerned had a special advisory position with the hospital or hospitals located near his medical school, offering professional guidance. T h e residents themselves were selected from among the post-intern graduates of medical schools and numbered some 1,600 engaged in training in 18 specialties and subspecialties 1 9 at the end of fiscal year 1947. T w o months later the number had risen to 2,040 20 and was planned to increase to about 2,400 in fiscal year 1949, after which it was to level off at about 2,000. T h e faculties of the medical schools concerned also contributed to the program as consultants or attending specialists. T h e former were called upon f r o m time to time f o r demonstrations in the veterans' hospitals and were paid on a fee basis. T h e latter were permanent, parttime employees, on a salary basis, who usually acted as heads of departments and who supervised the work of the residents. There were 2,318 such consultants and attending specialists at the end of August 1947. In cases in which the veterans' hospitals were not able to provide needed training opportunities f o r residents, a program was developed whereby contracts were let with the medical schools to provide the training, under authorization 21 which permitted the Administrator to detail medical personnel of the Veterans Administration to civilian medical schools f o r training. According to the report reference above, about $340,000 was spent on such contracts in fiscal year 1948. T h e appropriation f o r this program f o r fiscal year 1948 was 1 1 0 , 500,ooo.22 T h e corresponding sum for 1947 is not available; however, since the 1947 program was about 80 per cent as large as the 1948 one,

VETERANS

2 IO

ADMINISTRATION

a reasonable estimate would be about $8,000,000. Of this about $5,250,000 would be f o r salaries of residents (at $3,300 each) and most of the remainder f o r consultants and attending specialists. FISCAL

SUMMARY

Totaling the various figures given above for the three programs provides a measure of the vast activities of the Veterans Administration in higher education. Allowing f o r administrative personnel in the Medical Residency Program and totaling the numbers of residents and staff personnel from medical schools yields an estimate of about 4,500 professional employees in the medical programs. Addition of the 28,000 involved in the administration of the programs under Public Laws 16 and 346 indicates a total personnel commitment of about 32,500. Approximate total expenditures for fiscal 1947 can be shown in the following table: Direct benefits under P.L. 346 Direct benefits under P.L. 16 Administration of P.L.'s 16 and 346 Medical Residency Program Total

$1,324,000,000 157,000,000 106,000,000 8,000,000 $1,595,000,000

This sum is almost three times greater than the combined income of the more than 1,600 institutions of higher education which reported their incomes in the year preceding the last war. 23

MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES U . S . MARITIME

COMMISSION

THE U.S. Maritime Commission conducted three programs in the field of higher education. These were (a) instruction for officer candidates in the Merchant Marine Cadet Corps, (b) special instruction for licensed (that is, officer) personnel, and (c) reimbursement of states for expenses incurred in state maritime academies. All were supervised by a Training Division, which was one of the principal staff sections of the Commission. The instruction corresponded closely with that given by the Coast Guard, with which the Maritime Commission had close connections. It also had close relations with the N a v y Department, although the Merchant Service was not a military service. Merchant officers were usually also commissioned in the Naval Reserve and the instruction offered them normally included naval science and tactics, taught in the schools of the Merchant Marine by naval officers assigned for that purpose. The U.S. Merchant Marine Cadet Corps was established in 1939 by amendment 1 to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 2 for the purpose of training persons to serve as licensed personnel on merchant vessels. T w o schools were operated: the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, and the U.S. Merchant Marine Cadet School at Pass Christian, Mississippi. The first offered a four-year course leading to the bachelor of science degree. The second provided only the first year's instruction, and in this respect duplicated the first year's work at Kings Point Academy. The second year's training for cadets was at sea on merchant vessels. The third and fourth years' work was given at Kings Point only, the graduates of which received not only a B.S., but also a license as Third Mate or Third Engineer, and commissions as Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve and the U.S. Maritime Service. The curriculum included a number of common subjects for both deck and engineering cadets, including English, history, natural sciences, and language training. Deck cadets took additional technical courses such as seamanship and navigation, while engineering cadets studied naval architecture and steam, diesel, and electrical engineering. Naval science was required of all cadets. B y the end of fiscal 1947 the Cadet Corps had reduced its wartime training activities to its peacetime level, which contemplated a con-

2i2 MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES stant complement of about i ,600 cadets in training at all times, of whom 1,050 would be at Kings Point, 200 at Pass Christian, and 350 at sea. This would graduate about 350 officers per year. 3 The appropriation for the two schools for fiscal 1947 was $3,925,929.'' U.S. Maritime Service Training for licensed personnel. For the purpose of upgrading the personnel of the Merchant Marine, the U.S. Maritime Service operated a number of schools under the same authority as the Cadet Corps Schools. Those providing instruction for licensed personnel were located at Sheepshead Bay, New York, and at Alameda, California. For engineer officers there were courses in marine steam engineering,6 diesel engineering, marine refrigeration (60 days), and marine electricity (60 days). Deck officers were given courses in advanced navigation, seamanship, cargo stowage, and the use of emergency equipment. Each school offered a course in electronic theory for radio operators, designed to enable them to obtain and maintain radar and Ioran equipment. In fiscal 1947 these schools trained about 5,200 officers at a cost of about $2,750,000.® The Maritime Service also conducted a series of correspondence courses through the U.S. Maritime Service Institute, located at the Sheepshead Bay Station. Although correspondence courses were intended for all personnel, both licensed and unlicensed, they were for the most part concerned with technical and professional subjects in the marine and engineering fields. In fiscal 1947, 38 extensive courses were offered, for which there were about 11,000 registrations.7 The 1947 appropriation for this activity was $227,369.® State Maritime Academies. Five states 9 provided training for Merchant Marine officer candidates in maritime academies established under legislation adopted in 18 74,10 which authorized the Secretary of the Navy to furnish to such schools a suitable vessel and authorized annual grants of $25,000 to each school, on a matching basis. Reorganization Plan I V of June 30, 1940, transferred these functions to the Maritime Commission. The funds have since been raised to $50,000 annually for each school, and a number of services have been added. The schools operated throughout the recent war, but that of Pennsylvania was discontinued as of the end of the school year in May 1947, and no plans exist to reopen it. The others continue. Supervision of the schools was a function of the Maritime Commission, but was limited to ensuring that their graduates were able to qualify for commissions in the Maritime Service. The three-year course of study in these schools was similar to that at

213

MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES

the Kings Point Academy, including general educational subjects in addition to technical ones, and led to the degree of Bachelor of Science. School capacities were: N e w York, 350; Maine, 200; Massachusetts, 200; and California, 150. 11 Federal appropriations in fiscal 1947 included $375,000 for reimbursement of states and upkeep and repair of federally owned vessels made available to the schools, and $950,000 for operating expenses,12 a total of $1,325,000. Totaling the various expenditures of the Maritime Commission for higher education and omitting administrative expenses yields an estimate for the Commission in this field: Cadet Corps Schools U.S. Maritime Service Schools State Maritime Academies Total

$3,925,929 2,750,000 1,325,000 $8,000,929

C I V I L SERVICE COMMISSION

T h e Civil Service Commission was the federal agency responsible f o r administration of the Federal Administrative Intern Program, 13 an effort to give useful administrative training to selected government employees. The training was of the order of professional education for public administration, and as such is properly included as higher education. Although administration of the program was centralized in the Civil Service Commission, the program itself was a cooperative endeavor, unifying and utilizing the services of a number of agencies in the interest of providing administrative experience for the employees selected. It grew out of the internship program of the National Institute of Public Affairs, the success of which demonstrated the value of activities of this type. However, in the National Institute of Public Affairs program, interns were selected from among recent college graduates, and were given training in federal agencies without cost to the agencies. Under the program here described, the agencies continued to carry the interns on their rolls while under training. The program was, therefore, properly labeled an in-service training activity. Control of program policies was vested in an interdepartmental committee on which the cooperating federal agencies were represented. The Bureau of the Budget, Federal Personnel Council, and National Institute of Public Affairs were also represented. Clerical and administrative facilities were provided by the Civil Service Commission. Federal employees alone were eligible for selection, and in practice

2 14 MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES selection was largely limited to employees stationed in Washington. Requirements included: at least two years of work experience, personal qualities indicating aptitude for leadership, and recommendation by immediate supervisors and agency heads. Selection was made by subcommittees of the interdepartmental committee. Although the training was considered to be at the graduate level, no college degree was required for selection and about 40 per cent of the interns did not possess such degrees. The training consisted of: Orientation through an intensive series of lectures, discussions, and readings, lasting two weeks, in which the intern was presented with an overview of federal government functions, procedures, and problems. Rotating Work Assignments for each intern, which were based on analysis of individual needs and interests, and included various types of work experience in agencies other than the intern's own. Functional specialities included personnel management, budgeting and fiscal administration, management, analysis of work programming, and other areas of administration. Each work assignment lasted for 2 2 weeks. College Study. Through a special arrangement with American University, interns were granted scholarships for a single course at that university. While the course was not a requirement of the program, only under the most unusual circumstances did an intern fail to take it. Group Conferences were held at regular intervals during the period of rotating work assignments to enable the interns to exchange experiences and hear speakers discuss various technical topics. The entire course lasted about six months, and had a normal capacity of 30 interns. The course was given twice per year, scheduled to coincide with the terms of American University. The direct costs of this program included only payment of the Civil Service Commission administrative personnel. This amounted to about $10,000 in fiscal 1947.14 However, if the pay of the interns while in training is taken into account, the figure would be considerably higher, and would perhaps yield a closer picture of the total cost of the program to the federal government. Since the salaries of the interns varied from about $2,500 to about $4,500," it is reasonable to assume that the average salary was $3,500. The half-yearly salaries of 30 interns for two programs per year would therefore come to about $100,000 per year. This added to the above cost, would yield a total cost in the neighborhood of $110,000 for fiscal 1947.

MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES T H E LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

2I

5

16

In its services both to individuals and to institutions the Library of Congress is one of the most important activities of the federal government in the field of higher education. This institution, established in 1800,17 has grown to be the leading library in the nation. Although its principal function has been to serve as a library for the Congress, it has assumed so many added functions that this can no longer be considered its most significant one. Its services are at least equally important to: a. other agencies of government b. scholars c. university libraries d. teachers in institutions of higher education, to whom its facilities were extended by the Joint Resolution of April 12, 1892, 18 and the Deficiency Act of March 3, 1901. 19 Its principal services for scholars and universities were: a. work space and facilities for scholars in the library in Washington b. interlibrary loans of materials which may not be available in libraries to which the scholars have access c. locating printed materials for scholars, often serving as a last resort in discovering the location of some rare item. For this purpose the Library maintained a "union" catalogue of items in the principal collections of the United States. d. providing printed catalogue cards of nearly all publications printed annually in the United States, thus saving university and other libraries the time and expense of duplicating the effort e. preparing bibliographies of available studies in most fields of scholarly research f. preparing and distributing to blind students large numbers of books both in Braille and in the form of records, or "talking books" The scale of activity of the Library is indicated by its budget of $6,200,505 for fiscal year 1947,20 but available data provide no basis for calculating what part of this sum could be considered as devoted to higher education. D E P A R T M E N T OF THF. INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN A F F A I R S

In connection with its general responsibilities for the education of Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs received appropriations for certain higher-educational services to Indians. Under the terms of the In-

2 16 MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES dian Reorganization Act of 1934 2 1 the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to pay for tuition and other charges for Indians in vocational schools and colleges, within the limits of available appropriations.22 A n annual appropriation of $250,000 was also authorized for reimbursable loans to Indians for educational purposes, with the proviso that not more than $50,000 might be loaned to Indian students in high schools and colleges. In fiscal 1947, under the reimbursable loans program, $40,000 was appropriated,23 of which $37,000 was expended.24 The Budget 23 also allotted $10,000 for the tuition prepayment program, of which $2,000 was expended.26 T H E DISTRICT OF C O L U M B I A

The federal government was partially responsible for the upkeep and operation of two teachers colleges operated by the public school system of the District of Columbia, the James Ormond Wilson Teachers College and the Miner Teachers College—the former being restricted to white students, the latter to colored. Both were located within the District and offered four-year courses at the undergraduate level, leading to bachelor degrees and teaching certificates. The Wilson Teachers College also offered the orientation course for visiting foreigners in cooperation with the Department of State. Each college had a faculty of 34 persons, and in fiscal 1947 had the following numbers of students enrolled: Wilson Teachers College, 408; Miner Teachers College, 514. The expenses of these schools were met out of the appropriation for public schools from the District General Fund, which in fiscal 1947 amounted to $66,495,492.54. Of this, $8,000,000 was the contribution of the federal government, the remainder being raised from local taxes and other sources.27 The federal contribution to the support of the public schools can therefore be computed as being approximately 12 per cent of the total. The total expenditure for the two colleges in fiscal 1947 was $569,528.12, 28 12 per cent of which yields $68,000 as the federal contribution.

FISCAL SUMMARY

1

of the higher-education activities here described may be calculated as follows. Activities for veterans are listed separately since the sums involved are so massive as to make the other estimates seem unimportant. T H E TOTAL COST

Department or Agency

Division or Bureau

Appro»:. Expenditure in Fiscal Year 1941

ACTIVITIES FOR VETERANS

Veterans Administration National Housing Agency Federal Works Agency Subtotal A

Fed. Public Housing Authority Bureau of Community Facilities

$1,595,000,000 202,000,000 71,500,000 {1,868,000,000

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Department of State

Department of Treasury War Department Department of Justice Navy Department Agriculture Department Federal Security Agency

Foreign Service Institute Office of Am. Republic Affairs Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs Bureau of Internal Revenue Coast Guard Coordinator of Enforcement FBI Training Extension Service Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences U.S. Office of Education Gallaudet College Office of Vocational Rehab. U.S. Public Health Service Social Security Administration Bureau of Community Facilities

Federal Works Agency U.S. Maritime Commission Miscellaneous Bureau of Indian Affairs Civil Service Commission Teachers Colleges, D.C. Subtotal B

$655,000 450,000 3,595,000 183,000 1,230,000 17,000 65,078,000 350,000 51,535,000 28,181,000 159,000 10,662,000 212,000 1,000,000 13,862,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 8,001,000 39,000 110,000 68,000 $189,387,000

Totaling subtotals A and B yields an over-all estimate of $2,057,387,000. If to this is added an estimate of the value of the properties acquired in fiscal 1947 b y institutions of higher education under the

218

FISCAL

SUMMARY

various programs f o r providing facilities to those institutions, as was done b y the President's Commission 011 Higher Education in the case of the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program, the follow ing w ould emerge:

Department or Agency Federal Works Agency

Federal Security Agency

National Housing Agency

Subtotal C

Approx. Expenditure in Division or Bureau Fiscal Year 1947 Bureau of Community Facilities J158,000,000 (for the VEFP, $230,000,000 less the approx. $72,000,000 reported above) U.S. Office of Education acting 60,000,000 as agent for the War Assets Administration (fair value of property received by colleges and universities under the Surplus Property Programs, on findings of need by the USOED) Federal Public Housing Author- 200,000,000 ity (est. fair value of approx. 100,000 housing units provided for institutions of higher education under the Veterans' ReUse Housing Program) $418,000,000

A d d i n g subtotals A , B, and C gives a total representing the over-all investment in these activities from the point of view adopted b y the President's Commission on Higher Education. T h a t total is $ 2 , 4 7 5 , 387,000.

NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. The President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, 6 volumes, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1947. 2. While collecting materials for this study, the author, on numerous occasions, asked educators what they would estimate, off-hand, as the total federal expenditure on higher education, including college and university benefits for veterans. Only one of the persons queried made an estimate larger than one billion dollars. j. $571,288,116. See U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education, 1938-1940, II, chap, iv, 22, 38. The figure is the total for educational and general income, including all income associated with instruction, research, administration, salaries, library, extension, and other costs, excluding only the income of auxiliary enterprises, such as businesses, and custodial funds (that is, those deposited with the institution as banker). 4. Educational Policies Commission, Federal Activities in Education, Washington, 1939. 5. National Advisory Committee on Education, Federal Relations to Education, 2 vols., Washington, 1931. See especially Table 4, II, 127-133. 6. Citizens Federal Committee on Education, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, October, 1947, MS in 2 vols, in U.S. Office of Education. 7. U.S. Office of Education, Educational Directory, Part 3, Colleges and Universities, Washington, D.C., issued annually. 8. It should be noted that the President's Commission, in making its calculations, lumped together activities of all the types noted. This failure to discriminate types produced certain distortions, for the activities were of such variety as not to be strictly comparable with each other. For example, technical military training for Army officers, which was regarded as "post-high school education" by the President's Commission, is a different kind of federal activity from the federal contribution to the education of a veteran under Public Law 346 in a civilian university, which was also "post-high school education." The two differ not only in educational content and in administration, but also in the relations of the federal government to the students and the educational institutions involved. T h e y ought therefore to be treated separately. In the present study the basic line of division is between higher-education activities internal to the federal government (Chapter 1) and federal activities involving relationships with non-federal higher education (Chapters 2 and 3). 9. T h e Hoover Commission Task Force, which investigated these activities

22o NOTES: F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R at a later period than the present survey, decided against attempting to summarize expenditure data, pointing out that it was virtually impossible to obtain uniformly accurate data, although the Task Force did assemble a considerable amount of information on the subject. See Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, pp. 347, J57-590. The terms of reference of the present study prevented adoption of a similar point of view, since an effort to spell out the estimates of the President's Commission required the use of expenditure data, however inadequate. Minor inaccuracies in expenditure data ought not to be regarded in too important a light. The significance of the federal activities in higher education lies in part in their scale and diversity, and their scale is effectively indicated by minimal estimates. 10. In cases in which actual payment was made on deliver)'. For instance, arrangements with contractors under the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program provided for payment upon completion on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. 1 1 . The creation of the Office of Secretary of Defense and the separate Department of the Air Force (by the National Defense Act of 1947, Public Law 253, 80th Congress) occurred after the close of fiscal year 1947. The terms " W a r Department" and "Army Air Forces" are therefore used throughout. 12. Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 58 Stat. 284. 13. Public Law 7J9, 80th Congress. 14. See p. 68. 15. About $100,000,000 in 1947. See note 25, p. 223. Research activities and expenditures have not formed a part of the present study, but they constituted an important item of income for institutions of higher education. 16. $39,000,000.

1. T H E F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T AS E D U C A T O R 1. See p. 26. 2. Except Medical, Air, and Marine Corps schools. 3. See, for example, Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, Minutes of Evidence, New York, 1935, the testimony of J. M. Gaus, pp. 30J ff. 4. Senate 2111 (H.R. 5181), 81st Congress. 5. By the Task Force on the National Security Organization (Eberstadt Committee) of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. See their Report, National Security Organization, p. 83. 6. The position adopted by the Hoover Commission on this matter is substantially in accord with this view. See Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Social Security, Education, Indian Affairs, p. 32. 2. F E D E R A L R E L A T I O N S T O N O N F E D E R A L HIGHER EDUCATION 1. Note, for example, the part played by the Institute of International Education, a private agency, in the administration of the Cooperation with the American Republic fellowships; see page 103.

NOTES: RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

221

2. See Bibliography. j. See, for example, Federal Security Agency, Final Report of the National Youth Administration, 1936-1943, pages 146 ff. The schools were not, of course, operated at the higher level, but are cited here as examples of direct federal operation of schools to overcome what were regarded as deficiencies in state and local school systems. 4. ¡bid., page viii. 5. The program exhausted its funds shortly after the close of fiscal 1947, but was reactivated for a two-year period by Public Law 352, 81st Congress, (approved Oct. 3, 1949) which authorized appropriation of $100,000,000 for the purpose. 6. The Capper-Ketcham Act of 1928,45 Stat. 711. 7. See G . A . Works and M. Barton, The Land-Grant Colleges, Staff Study No. 10, The National Advisory Committee on Education, Washington, 1939, P"

55

' 8. Of course, the President's Commission on Higher Education was expected to indicate the lines of a desirable federal policy, but doubts can be raised as to its degree of success (see pages 77, 83, 84, 90). All fund-granting programs operated in fiscal year 1947, with the exception of research and the relatively small activities of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, were limited to dealing with public institutions of higher education. Since an important part of higher education is provided by private institutions, the effects of this limitation might be serious. The implications of the tendency to grant financial support to public institutions alone are discussed below (pp. 89 if.). 9. 57 Stat. 153 (1943). 10. President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy, Washington, 1948, V , 64 ff. 11. Senate 526, 80th Congress, vetoed Aug. 6, 1947. The bill would have vested the power to decide what research should be undertaken in a board of civilian scientists over whom no federal agency, not even the President, would have had direct control. Thus, as the President pointed out, there was no assurance that the needs of the government would be met. 12. In the nature of the case, these would be almost exclusively institutions of higher education, because most other educational institutions have few resident students, especially resident veteran students. In fact, the Reports of the F P H A seem to use the terms "educational institutions" and "colleges and universities" interchangeably. 13. 55 Stat. 361. 14. 59 Stat. 674. 15. The research activities of colleges and universities, undertaken on contracts with the federal government, were, of course, of equal or greater importance, and involved federal expenditures in the region of $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1947 (see page 223). Not only were these of special importance to the government, but they constituted one of the major sources of income

222

NOTES: RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

for the institutions in that year. Research activities, however, were not investigated in the present study. 16. Report to the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, by the Committee on the National Security Organization (Eberstadt Committee), MS, III, 157 (unpublished). 17. See, for example, the statement of Hollis P. Allen in Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, p. 362. "The danger to education lies more in the uncontrolled spread of uncoordinated and specialized educational functions over the government without regard to effective over-all educational development." 18. Federal Register, X I V (Sept. 10, 1949), 5562, interpreting and applying Public Laws 266,81st Congress, and 862,80th Congress. 19. See New York Times, Sept. i j , 1949, p. 1. 20. Ibid. 21. Source: President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, Washington, 1947, Vol. VI, Table 46. The figure represents the average for all private institutions of higher education for the year 1947. Obviously, the actual percentage would vary sharply from institution to institution, but would in very few cases be less than fifty per cent. 22. Educational expenditures increased less, proportionally, than resident enrollments in institutions of all types, but the gap was greater in the public institutions. Using the year 1932 as a base period, the President's Commission on Higher Education found that by 1947 educational expenditures had risen by only 82 per cent while student enrollments had increased by 104 per cent. See Report of the Commission, Vol. VI, Table 42. While income from students' fees in private institutions amounted to 75 per cent of all income, it was only 38 per cent in the public institutions. The added numbers of students, therefore, bore a relatively smaller share of the increased costs in the latter institutions. {Ibid., Table 46.) And these figures take no account of the reduced value of the 1947 dollar as compared with that of 1932. 23. Information supplied by the Registrar of the institution. 24. Source: President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. VI, Tables 24, 42, and 46. The figure is the total for educational and general income (see note 3, p. 219). In assessing the significance of the differences between public and private institutions, it should be borne in mind that numbers of institutions, numbers of students, and income are all divided approximately equally between the two types, but that the public group contains far larger numbers of junior colleges, teachers colleges, and normal schools, while the private group contains relatively larger numbers of universities of complex organization, four-year colleges of arts and sciences, and professional schools. See U.S. Office of Education, Educational Directory ¡946-1947, Part 3, p. 8. Thus it is roughly true that the

NOTES: RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

223

higher the level of higher education, the larger the proportion of private institutions. Data are lacking for a precise analysis of the percentage of dependence of the two types of institutions on the federal government. However, even in the case of the public institutions it is evident that the federal government was responsible for as large a share of income as were the states, and perhaps the federal share exceeded that of the states. Federal payments of student fees amounted to 25 per cent of all public institutional income in 1947, and federal grants-in-aid represented about 7.5 per cent. The exact amounts received by public institutions for research and in other ways cannot be calculated on the basis of available information, but they would certainly raise the total percentage of federal support. In the last year for which figures are available (1940, see President's Commission, Higher Education for American Democracy, VI, Table 43), the public institutions received 20 per cent of their income from sources other than federal or state governments. Even assuming that this percentage was halved in the postwar period, it would mean that, with a probable federal share in excess of 40 per cent, and with other sources contributing 10 per cent, the state contribution would be less than jo per cent. 2 j . The estimate is derived from data contained in the Report of the President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy. The Report does not specify amounts expended for research in institutions of higher education, but using its data a reasonable estimate can be made. See Volume III, pp. 173— 178, from which the data noted below were drawn. Federal expenditures on scientific research in 1947 amounted to $625,000,000, exclusive of the expenditures of the Atomic Energy Commission. Of this sum, the defense departments accounted for $500,000,000. Of the remaining $125,000,000 for all other federal departments, all but $25,000,000 was spent for research within federal agencies. As of January 1, 1947, the defense departments had contracts outstanding with universities and similar institutions in the amount of $83,000,000. Assuming that the defense departments increased their commitments in universities during the remainder of the year, and that a part of the nondefense expenditures of $25,000,000 were made in universities, it is reasonable to suppose that the universities' share would be in the region of $100,000,000 for the year. This conclusion is supported by the report that the Agricultural Research Administration alone spent $12,332,000 on university research in 1947. See Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, p. 557. T h e same Report also shows Atomic Energy Commission expenditures on university research in 1947 of $22,127,000 {ibid., p. 559), but since it is not certain whether the over-all figure for total institutional income reported by the Office of Education to the Commission on Higher Education (about $1,000,000,000) includes or excludes the A E C expenditures, they have not been taken into account.

224

NOTES: RELATIONS TO NONFEDERAL EDUCATION

It is not necessary to seek absolute precision for the purposes of the present study. It is enough to note that the figure of $100,000,000 is probably a low estimate, and raising or lowering it by a few millions would make relatively little difference in the major conclusion, which is that about jo per cent of higher-education institutional income derived from federal sources. Since 1947 there has been a significant rise in the level of federal expenditures for university research. The Hoover Commission Task Force Report referred to above contains a table (pp. J57-J90) that lists, among other items, estimated federal expenditures on university research programs for the fiscal year 1949. Those federal-university research items alone add up to more than $200,000,000. 26. See Table j , 27. Especially with reference to the provisions of Public Law 268, 79th Congress (59 Stat. 624) amending the Veterans' Readjustment Act (58 Stat. 284). It is not feasible to make a realistic assessment of the seriousness of a decline in federal spending, because available information is not sufficiently precise. At the beginning of the academic year 1949-1950, higher-education enrollments were above those of the previous year, although veteran enrollments were lower. See R. C. Story, "1949 Fall College Enrollment," Higher Education, V I (Dec. 15,1949), 85. Perhaps this was indicative of a trend toward permanent enlargement of college and university student bodies, and perhaps such enlargement would offset the effects of declining federal spending in support of veteran students. It is too early to be certain about this matter, but the author persists in thinking that few institutions will regard with pleasure the approaching withdrawal of the federal government from the veterans' programs, and that important pressures will therefore develop in the directions indicated in the next chapter. 28. See, for example, Educational Policies Commission ( N E A ) and American Council on Education, Federal-State Relations in Education, p. 42: "This agency . . . must have sufficient rank to deal directly with Congress and the President so that the voice of education will be heard in Washington." See also President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, III, 40 ff., and the Report of the National Council of Chief State School Officers, School Life, XXIX, No. j (Feb. 1947), p. 9. 29. Social Security, Education, Indian Affairs, p. 6. 30. It should be noted, however, that some educators would resist efforts to channel or direct their contacts with the federal government, whether by the Office of Education or by a department. Institutions of higher education generally, and especially the private ones, have resisted the establishment of state coordinating bodies of the types that have long operated in relation to other types of education. Many universities might prefer dealing with a large number of federal agencies to being required to deal through a single one. This would be probable in the case of the major private institutions that already have extensive and useful contacts in government, just as those institu-

NOTES: FEDERAL POLICIES

225

tions would probably be less concerned about confused relationships with the federal government than other types of institutions. 31. President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy, I, 65. 32. See, for example, Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, pp. 351-360, which summarizes the opinions of some university administrators. 33. Higher Education for American Democracy, III, 49. 3. F E D E R A L POLICIES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 1. See note 27, above. 2. The President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, I, 39-44. 3. S. Harris, New York Times Magazine, December 26, 1948; and The Market for College Graduates, Cambridge, 1949. 4. Senate 788,81st Congress. 5. Higher Education for American Democracy, V , j i f f . 6. T. L. Hungate, Financing the Future of Higher Education, chap. ii. 7. Under existing legislation, persons donating funds to institutions certified by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may deduct only 15 per cent of gross income for this purpose. 8. In many of the research contracts arranged by the federal government with private universities the sums payable have been determined by adding an allowance for overhead to the calculated cost of the project. There has been no uniform practice in this area, but allowances in some cases have amounted to a considerable item of income for institutions. See President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy, III, 181. Extension of this practice to other areas than research would assist many institutions. 9. See New York Times, December 17,1948. 10. Senate 1453, 81st Congress, which passed the Senate on Sept. 23, 1949. The bill failed to be reported out of committee in the House. 11. This feature is designed to enable institutions that wish to expand enrollments to meet part of the added costs resulting from expansion. D E P A R T M E N T OF S T A T E 1. Public Law 724, 79th Congress, Title VII, Section 701. Although the FSI was established late in the fiscal year 1947, it refers to that year as its first because its functions blended smoothly with those of the earlier Division of Training Services, whose job it inherited. See W. P. Maddox, "The Foreign Service Institute of the Department of State," Higher Education, Vol. IV, No. 4 (Oct. 15, 1947). 2. Section 1.1835. 3. Ibid., 1.835 (c), (4). 4. See FSI, Budget Estimates for the Fiscal Year 1949, Office of the Foreign Service, July 25,1947, p. 9 (departmental publication). 5. Departmental Orders 1.1835 (c), (5).

226

NOTES: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

6. See Budget Estimates, p. 9. 7. Ibid., pp. 1 1 , 1 3 , 3 7 . 8. Ibid., pp. 43-47. 9. Ibid., pp. 6, 58. 10. Public Law 355, 76th Congress, J3 Stat. 1190. 11. See T . E. Corner, "Fellowship Opportunities and Teaching Positions in Other Countries," School Life, X X X , No. 3 (Dec. 1947), 3. 12. See ibid., p. 4. Also T . E. Corner, "Assistance for Study in Other American Republics," Higher Education, IV (April 15, 1948), 188. 13. For the account here given see Citizens Federal Committee on Education, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, pp. 13-1 j (Graham Report). 14. For example, the Bureau of the Census. See Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce, 1947, p. 37. 15. Budget of the U.S., 1948, pp. 774, 775. 16. Public Law 370, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 128. 17. Public Law 584, 79th Congress. 18. See, for example, "The Fulbright Act," School and Society, L X V I (July 19, 1947), 37. 19. See Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, pp. 18-20. 20. For the account here given, see Budget of the U.S., 1948, pp. 1323—1330. 21. 57 Stat. 528. 22. The number of travel and study grants is derived from Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 40. The estimate of $200,000 accords with the unpublished estimate supplied by the Institute to the President's commission on Higher Education in May 1947. See p. 6. 23. By Public Law 369, 80th Congress. 24. For example, they had the same President. 25. JJ Stat. 818. 26. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 40. 27. See note 22 above. D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y 1. The language of the 1947 Act reads: "not to exceed $18,000 for cost of special instruction, including books, laboratory equipment and fees, school supplies, and maintenance of students." Public Law 504, 79th Congress. 2. For information relative to these courses, see U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant's Circular No. 43-46, of November 22, 1946, and Personnel Circular No. 7-47, of March 11, 1947; also Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1947, p. 140. 3. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, p. 588.

NOTES: DEPARTMENT OF WAR

227

4. Ibid., p. 588. 5. Ibid., p. 588. DEPARTMENT OF W A R 1. The old scheme of organization, in which the Air Force was part of the Army, prevailed throughout fiscal 1947, and is therefore followed here. The Department of the Air Force was created by the National Defense Act of 1947, Public Law 2j 3, 80th Congress, approved July 26, 1947. 2. The use of the word "course" by the Army requires some explanation. It does not designate a single subject taught at stated hours as it usually does in a civilian institution. Its meaning is closer to that employed in referring to the "Engineering Course" or the "Law Course" at a university to signify the whole professional training offered to a student. "Course" in the Army sense refers to a coordinated and unified whole that includes many subjects and to which the officer devotes his full time. This system has many advantages, not the least of which is that it concentrates the attention of the student. 3. Many, if not all, the schools here noted gave courses during fiscal year 1947 that were "classified," that is, secret. No mention of such courses can be made here. While the number of such courses was not inconsiderable, their inclusion would not materially alter the character or scope of the present description. 4. Set forth in Army Regulation 350-5 of September 12, 1946. 5. When an officer, through experience or in other ways, has gained the knowledge equivalent to that of a graduate of a required course, he is granted "constructive credit" equivalent to completion of that course, and relieved of any requirement to take it. See War Department Circular No. 62 (1947), Part II. 6. Branch refers to the arms (Infantry, Artillery, Armored) and services (Quartermaster, Signal, etc.) of the Army. Officers who will be assigned to a service (except Signal or Engineer Corps) must first serve two years with an arm. These officers attend the Branch Basic Course of the arm in which the two-year detail is served. 7. Numerals following course titles are intended to indicate the length of the course measured in weeks, and its annual capacity. Thus, the Basic Officer Course lasted 17 weeks and had an annual capacity of 220 officers, the relatively small load reflecting, in this case, the relatively reduced rate of commissioning of new officers without constructive credit in 1947. 8. Inactivated at the end of fiscal 1947. 9. In the Artillery Corps, regular officers were required to be familiar with all types of Artillery, but reserve officers were permitted to specialize on a single type. The "regular" courses therefore involved training at more than one of the Artillery schools, while the "associate" courses did not. Of the 25 weeks of the Regular Basic Course, 10 were given at Fort Bliss and the remaining 15 at Fort Sill.

228 N O T E S : D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 10. Including seven weeks at Fort Bliss. 11. This course has been canccled since 1947; artillery officers now take the motor course at the Armored School. 12. War Department Circular No. 5 (1947). 13. Similar to the Navy's course at Columbia University, see p. 157. 14. War Department Circular No. 202 (1946). 1 j . The Personnel and Administration Division controlled selection of individuals for training, while the Organization and Training Division was concerned primarily with the institutions in which the training was provided and the content of the courses offered. Thus, the Command and General Staff College was a staff responsibility of the O&T Division, while the student body of the College was a staff responsibilityof P&A, which maintained a staff section charged with selection of officers for all senior schools—that is, for the three top levels of officer education. 16. War Department Circular No. 378 (1946). 17. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 830. 18. See, for example, H. W . Baldwin, New York Times, Jan. 14, 1948. 19. One year for officers with three years of college; two for those with two. 20. For officers who completed the course at the Army Information School, see p. 123. 21. See The Artillery School. 2i. All Technical School courses were designed to produce officers trained in particular specialties, and the names of the courses suggest the duties of the officers receiving training. Where the names are not suggestive of the course content, explanatory data are supplied in parenthesis. Capacities of all of these courses were small, the yearly output per course averaging about 60. Figures in parenthesis indicate the duration of the courses in weeks. 23. Included a period of training at the Antiaircraft Artillery and Guided Missiles Branch, the Artillery School, Fort Bliss, Texas. 24. Referred to enemy air materiel and included a period of instruction at the Air Institute of Technology, Wright Field, Ohio. 25. Four courses dealing with four different types of ground radar aircraft warning equipment, durations varied from 38 to 42 weeks. 26. Information was not available as to the capacities of these courses. Numerals in parenthesis indicate durations. 27. Included two weeks at the Quartermaster Experimental Clothing Laboratory, Mt. White, N . H . 28. Regular Basic and Advanced Courses were not given during fiscal 1947. 29. This course was actually given at the Army-Navy Medical Equipment Maintenance School, St. Louis Medical Depot, St. Louis, Mo., but was administered under the control of the Medical Field Service School. 30. Major R. A. Sloan, "Public Health Aspects of Wartime Studies Conducted at the Army Institute of Pathology," American Journal of Public Health, X X X V I I (July 1947), 819.

N O T E S : D E P A R T M E N T OF W A R 229 31. Given at the Naval Intelligence School. 32. Budget of the US., 1948, p. 852. 33. War Department Circular 101 (1947). 34. 39 Stat. 156. 35. This usually amounted to three points of academic credit for each semester in the first two years and six points per semester thereafter, in schools operating on a semester basis. In some cases, however, less credit was granted. 36. H.R. 4134. 37. The actual separation of the departments was effected on September 18, 1947, the date being selected so as to follow the submission of the departmental requests to the Bureau of the Budget. For fiscal 1948, therefore, the Department of the Army was charged with the administration of certain services for the Department of Air, of which this was one. 38. Joint letter File W D G O T 353 (13 Jan. 1947) Subject: Respective Departmental Responsibilities for Officers Advanced Training Activities. 39. See War Department General Order No. 51 (1946). 40. See War Department Circular 378 (1946), Part I. 41. See War Department Circular 130 (1946). 42. War Department Circular 378 (1946). 43. See War Department Circular 225 (1946). 44. $2,500 per officer in the case of the Armed Forces Staff College because of the shortness of the course. 4j. 39 Stat. 166, Sect. 127a. 46. Under the provisions of Public Laws 281 and 670, 79th Congress (59 Srat. 663; 60 Stat. 925) which authorized such transfers and set the new commissioned strength of the Army at jo,ooo officers. 47. Of the 4,734 officers integrated under these laws by the end of fiscal 1947, only 1,390 had college degrees; see War Department letter, File W D G O T 000.8,16 July 1947, Subject: Training in Civilian Educational Institutions. 48. Public Law 670, 80th Congress. This legislation replaced Public Law 7, 78th Congress, under which the limitation of Sec. 127a of the National Defense Act had been set aside for the duration of the emergency. Under the old legislation, only 1,000 officers could have been sent to civilian institutions, which would have met less than half of the calculated needs of the services. 49. The general policy governing assignment of officers to civilian institutions for training was contained in War Department Circular 257 (1947). Army Ground Forces college training was controlled by A G F Letter 210.66 (7 Nov. 1946) GNGCT-12 (graduate level), and A G F Letter 210.66 (24 July 1947) WDGPA-O-AGF (undergraduate level). Air Forces training was controlled by A A F Letter 50-21, 29 Oct. 1946 (graduate level), and A A F Letter 50-71, 19 Dec. 1946 (undergraduate level). 50. For example, in fiscal 1947 three officers were pursuing three-year law courses at Harvard, George Washington, and the University of Minnesota

230 N O T E S : D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E and two officers were following three-year courses at Massachusetts Institute of Technology leading to the doctorate. 51. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of officers pursuing the course in fiscal 1947, exclusive of Air Forces, the U.S. Military Academy, and the language and area studies of the MIS Language School (see p. 124). The number of Air Force Officers who followed such courses in fiscal 1947 was 1,300, distribution not available. The various staff members of the U.S. Military Academy, and officers awaiting assignment there, followed 115 such courses in civilian institutions during that year. The quota for the language and area studies, which involved a year or more of training at civilian institutions, was 58 officers. These figures include persons undergoing advanced training in the fiscal year, regardless of what stage of their course they might be in. Some of them would therefore carry over into the next fiscal year, and a few even into 1949. 52. Budget of the US., 1948, p. 838. 53. Army Ground Forces requested $310,963 for this purpose for fiscal 1948, to operate a program for about 300 officers under advanced training. This would indicate a cost per officer of about $ 1,000 per year, which seems reasonable in view of the types of courses undertaken. 54. Public Law 580, 77th Congress, j6 Stat. 314, Sec. 1. 55. See United States Armed Forces Institute, Catalogue, 3d edition, July 1, 1946. 56. By War Dept. Memorandum 85-40-1, May 1947. 57. Ibid. 58. American Council on Education, A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services, Washington, 1946. 59. It should be noted in passing that governments of three of the territories of the United States maintain institutions of higher education, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii. These territories differ from the Canal Zone in that, although they operate under federal laws, they have their own governments and are more akin to states than the Canal Zone, having in fact been delegated the power to control their own systems of education; they are not, therefore, treated in this study. It should, however, perhaps be mentioned that while federal appropriations for the support of higher education in the territories are not regularly made, there was a sum of $975,000 appropriated to the Department of the Interior (by Public Law 580, 79th Congress, Chap. 719) in fiscal year 1947 for the establishment of a Geo-physical Institute at the University of Alaska. 60. Canal Zone Junior College, Announcement of Courses, 1947, pp. 7-9, 72. 61. President's Commission, Higher Education for American Democracy, III, 39D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E 1. Appropriation Act for 1947, Public Law 490, 79th Congress, Title II.

N O T E S : D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y 231 2. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Task Force Report on Public Welfare, p. 573. 3. 43 Stat. 153, Sec. 4 (e). 4. U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Educational Institutions Approved by the Attorney General, (annually). DEPARTMENT OF T H E N A V Y 1. The US. Naval Training Bulletin, published monthly by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and distributed to official activities and to interested civilian agencies, such as colleges and universities, which had some legitimate concern in naval training activities. 2. 60 Stat. 962. 3. See F. Moosbrugger, Capt. USN., "The Naval General Line School," Army and Navy Journal (July 19,1947). 4. See p. 128. j. This proposal was approved by Public Laws 302 and 303, 80th Congress, which authorized the acquisition of land and the establishment of a Post Graduate School with power, upon appropriate accreditation, to confer graduate degrees including the doctorate. 6. Figures in parenthesis indicate duration in weeks and capacity of the course. Thus the Senior Course lasted 42 weeks and had an enrollment of 67 officers. In this case officers from other Services were included: 9 from Army Ground Forces, 3 Army Air Forces, 4 Marine Corps, and one each from the Coast Guard and Foreign Service. 7. Included seven Army officers. 8. Instituted at the end of fiscal 1947. 9. Subjects included: Aerological engineering (3 yrs.), applied aerology (1 yr.) advanced natural science (2 yrs.), aeronautical engineering (3 yrs.), aeronautical armament engineering (3 yrs.), applied communications (1 yr.), business administration (2 yrs.), civil engineering (2 yrs.), electronics engineering (3 yrs.), law (3 yrs.), naval administration (5 mos.), naval construction and engineering (3 yrs.), naval engineering (3 yrs.), aviation ordnance engineering (3 yrs.), personnel administration (15 mos.), textile engineering (2 yrs.), applied naval engineering (2 yrs.), advanced management (13 weeks), and radiological safety engineering (3 yrs.). 10. A second General Line School began operation at Monterey, California, in February 1948. 11. Data on numbers of officers enrolled in the Intelligence School courses are not available. 12. Data on numbers of officers enrolled are not available. 13. Under authorization of Public Law 729, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 962. 14. The residency and internship programs are described in pamphlet, NAVMED-162, June 1946, "Essentials of Internship and Residency-Type Training in U.S. Naval Hospitals."

232

NOTES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

i j. Budget of the V.S., ¡948, p. 662. 16. Indicates duration in weeks. 17. Parenthesized numerals indicate durations and capacities of courses. 18. Which also served as the method of sending Marine Officers to civilian universities. 19. All schools were located at the Marine Barracks, Quantico, Virginia, except the Automotive Mechanics and Supply Administration Schools at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 20. See Marine Corps Commandants Letter of Instruction 1392 of December 26, 1946, and Maj. Gen. C. B. Cates, USMC, "Marine Corps Schools," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X I V (October 19, 1946), 135. 21. Also variously called the Naval Aviation Cadet Program. Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Navy (1946 and 1947) refer to it both ways. 22. This figure has been calculated by estimating the pay of midshipmen at the Naval Academy and subtracting the total from the appropriation for pay of midshipmen for fiscal 1947, which was $3,183,473 (Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 656). D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Regulations Governing the Graduate School, Feb. 21, 1947. 2. Schools and Training Courses in Government Departments, Letter of the Acting Comptroller General, Senate Document No. 182, 76th Congress, 3d Session, April 15,1940. 3. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School Bulletin, Catalogue Issue (Aug. 1947), p. 6, note 1. 4. Joint Resolution of April 12, 1892 (27 Stat. L. 395). 5. Deficiency Act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. L. 1039). 6. Executive Order No. 7916 of June 24, 1938, Sec. 8. 7. Graduate School Bulletin, p. 6. 8. Ibid., p. 3. 9. Cf. Graduate School Bulletin, p. 12; and L. H. Rohrbaugh, "The Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture," Higher Education, III (March 1, 1947), 1. 10. For example, L. D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, Macmillan, New York, 1948, p. 395: "Without question the most elaborate and one of the most successful in-service training institutions is the Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture." 11. 38 Star. 372. 12. 45 Stat. 7 1 1 . 13. For the significance of this provision, see p. 46. 14. 49 Stat. 436. 15. J9 Stat. 231. 16. Note: The additional $4,000,000 for fiscal 1948 was not requested in

NOTES: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

233

the Budget for that year, the appropriation continuing at the level of $8,500,000. See Budget of the United States, 1948, p. 276. 17. For Puerto Rico: 46 Stat. 1520; 50 Stat. 881. For Alaska: 45 Stat. 1251; 49 Stat. 1553. For Hawaii: 45 Stat. 571. 18. See Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 120. 19. See Educational Policies Commission, Federal Activities in Education, p. 14. 20. R. H. Allee, "The Americas Build an Institution," Higher Education, IV (Feb. 15,1948), 137. 21. Budget of the US., ¡948, pp. 764-76j. D E P A R T M E N T OF C O M M E R C E 1. Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce, 1941, p. 161. 2. Known as "University Contact Officer" at a salary of $7,102. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 411. 3. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 144. 4. The appropriate language reads: "Sect. 803. . . . the Chief of the Weather Bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, shall . . . (8) Detail annually, within the limits of available appropriations made by Congress, members of the Weather Bureau personnel for training at government expense, either at civilian institutions or otherwise, in advanced methods of meteorological science." j . Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce, 1947, p. 248. 6. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 141. 7. Ibid. 8. 52 Stat. 973. The pertinent language (Sec. 2) reads: "The Administrator is empowered and directed to encourage and foster the development of civil aeronautics and air commerce in the United States and abroad." 9. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 144. 10. Graduate School of the National Bureau of Standards, Announcement of Courses for 1946-1947, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1946, mimeographed. 1 1 . See "National Bureau of Standards Graduate School," Higher Education, III, No. 6 (Nov. 15, 1946), 7. FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 1. Section 1 of the statute originally creating the Office, 14 Stat. 434 (1867), reads as follows: "Be it enacted . . . that there shall be established, at the City of Washington, a department of education, for the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education

2 34 NOTES: FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country." 2. See note 17 below. 3. See D. H. Smith, The Bureau of Education, pp. 19 ff. 4. See ibid., p. 4. 5. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 203. 6. Public Law 679, 79th Congress (60 Stat. 958) amending 55 Stat. 361 and 59 Stat. 260. 7. Federal Security Agency, Annual Report of the Federal Security Agency, 1947, p. 214. 8. Federal Works Agency, Eighth Annual Report, 1941, p. 37. 9. Budget of the US., 1948, p. 178. 10. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, Part II, p. 207. 11. 26 Stat. 417. 12. 34 Stat. 1281. 13. 49 Stat. 436. 14. Budget of the US., 1948, pp. 174, 178. iy. Educational Policies Commission, Federal Activities in Education, p. 16. 16. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 208. 17. Section 3 of the Act establishing " A Department of Education" (14 Stat. 434) includes the following: "In the first report made by the Commissioner of Education under this act, there shall be presented a statement of the several grants of land made by Congress to promote education, and the manner in which these several trusts have been managed, the amount of funds arising therefrom, and the annual proceeds of the same, as far as the same can be determined." The grants of land referred to are those made under the first Morrill Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) for the endowment and support of colleges teaching, among other matters, "agriculture and the mechanic arts." They were omitted in the enumeration above because they do not involve current federal administration. See Smith, The Bureau of Education, p. 3. 18. U.S. Office of Education, Statistics of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, Bulletin 1947, No. i. 19. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 208. 20. U.S. Office of Education, Educational Directory, Part 3 (annually). 21. 20 U.S.C. 121. 22. See Educational Policies Commission, Federal Activities in Education, p. 137. 23. See Annual Report of the US. Office of Education, 1944, p. 25. 24. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, pp. 2521Î. 25. See note 1 above. 26. See C. H. Judd, Research in the U.S. Office of Education, p. 39.

NOTES: FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

235

27. Bulletin No. 9, 1930, Survey of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, was issued in two volumes, each of which was of more than 900 pages. 28. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, pp. 219 ff. 29. Ibid., p. 209. 30. 39 Stat. 929 (1917). 31. 60 Stat. 775 (1946). 32. 49 Stat. 1488, (1936). 33. 39 Stat. 929, Sec. 2. 34. By Public Law 35, 68th Congress (1924). 35. By Public Law 846, 71st Congress (1931). 36. FSA, Annual Report, 1941, p. 190. 37. 49 Stat. 1489, Sec. 3. 38. FSA, Annual Report, 194^, p. 189. 39. 39 Stat. 933, Sec. 8. 40. For donable Navy and Marine Corps property, the Act of May 23, 1930, as amended by the Act of Feb. 27, 1936 (46 Stat. 378; 49 Stat. 1144); for donable Army and Air Force property, the Act of Feb. 28, 1936 (49 Stat. 1147). 41. 58 Stat. 765. 42. See SPA Regulation 14, August 1945, 11 F.R. 8969. 43. See Federal Security Agcncy, U.S. Office of Education, "Surplus Property Memorandum No. 1," of Dec. 5,1945, p. 4. 44. Figure supplied to the author by the head of the Surplus Property Disposal Program, U.S. Office of Education. 45. Figures for the fiscal year are not available. 46. This is undoubtedly a minimum estimate. Similar considerations governed the distribution of facilities under the Veterans' Educational Facilities Program, in which 95 per cent of allocations were to colleges, universities, and professional schools. 47. In fiscal year 1947, 2,600 such loans were made. FSA, Annual Report, '947, P48. Ibid., p. 224. 49. Ibid., p. 227. 50. Ibid., pp. 2 jo ff. 51. 11 Stat. 161. 52. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 160. 53. Ibid., p. 167. 54. The cancer council by the National Cancer Institute Act, jo Stat. 560; that for mental health by the National Mental Health Act, 60 Stat. 421; and that for the other fields by the Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 682. The respective statutes not only set up the councils but granted them specific power to review applications for fellowships and grants-in-aid. $5. See p. 49. 56. See J. A. Crabtree, "U.S. Public Health Service and Higher Education," Higher Education, IV (Apr. 1,1948), 169.

236

NOTES: FEDERAL SECURITY

AGENCY

J7. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, pp. 353 f. 58. See President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy, Vt7i. 59. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 211. 60. This estimate is confirmed by the Budget of the US., 1948, pp. 191, 194. 61. Citizens Federal Committee on Education, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 212. 62. Crabteee, "U.S. Public Health Service and Higher Education," p. 170. 63. Budget of the US., ¡948, p. 194. 64. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 301. 65. Budget of the US., 1948, p. 194. 66. President's Scientific Research Board, Science and Public Policy, V , 102. 67. Stat. 153 (1943). 68. Budget of the US., 194S, p. 196. 69. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 283. 70. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 215 (c). 71. FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 274. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid., p. 380. 74. Ibid., p. 295. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid. 77. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 200. 78. Ibid., p. 408. 79. Ibid., p. 392. 80. Ibid., p. 387. 81. Ibid., p. 184. 82. 57 Stat. 374. 83. 41 Stat. 73j. 84. FSA, Annual Report, 194^, p. 592. 85. Ibid., p. 603. 86. Budget of the US., 1948, p. 178. 87. By Public Law 719, 79th Congress. 88. All the foregoing, FSA, Annual Report, 1941, pp. 123-132. 89. Ibid., p. 125. 90. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 236. 91. Ibid., p. 237. 92. For the information here given, see Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance letter to the Bureau of the Budget, May 27, 1947, their File N o . I 4 :D:PF.

93. Of the 12,380 employees of the Social Security Administration in fiscal

NOTES: FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY

237

year 1947, 11,156 were employed by the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance alone. See FSA, Annual Report, 1947, p. 1 59. 94. See Social Security Board Memorandum of Dec. 23, 1937, entitled "Use of Federal Administrative Funds for Paying Salaries to State Staff Members on Educational Leave in Schools of Social Work," as revised July 2, 1941. F E D E R A L WORKS A G E N C Y 1. Public Law 697, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 958. 2. By the Third Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1946, Public Law 521, 79th Congress. 3. Figure supplied by the Bureau of Community Facilities. 4. All the foregoing, FSA, Annual Report, 1947, pp. 35-41j. Higher Education for American Democracy, III, 39. 6. FSA, Annual Report, ¡947, p- 2157. This is considerably below the allotments because the program was administered through contracts on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, payments being made on completion. 8. But note that the President's Commission reported this sum as 1947 "expenditure" which it clearly was not, since the values of the properties represented expenditures accounted for in other ways and made at other times under other appropriations and for other purposes. 9. j8 Stat. 788. 10. F W A , Eighth Annual Report, 1947, pp. 42-44. N A T I O N A L HOUSING A G E N C Y 1. See editorials: "Housing of Veterans at Colleges," Higher Education, II (Jan. 1, 1946), 2; "Housing for Veterans," Higher Education, II (Feb. 1, 1946), y; "Higher Education's Number One Problem," School and Society, LXIII (Feb. 2, 1946), 76-77. During this period the services were demobilizing men at a rate of 750,000 per month, and many of the men were seeking admission to institutions of higher education. See Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Annual Report, 1946, p. 1. 2. Public Law 292, 79th Congress, 1st Session, 59 Stat. 674. 3. 59 Stat. 260 (June 1945). 4. 55 Stat. 361. 5. By Public Law 336, 79th Congress. 6. By Public Law 341, 79th Congress. 7. This total is reported in National Housing Agency, Annual Report, 1946, p. 43, as $445,637,000. The discrepancy of $10,000 is not explained. 8. See Annual Report of the Commissioner of the Federal Public Housing Authority, in National Housing Agency, jiA> Annual Report, 1946, p. 244. 9. Ibid., p. 249. The unit referred to was a statistical measure of the equivalent of the space required for one family, either a single family dwelling unit or dormitory accommodations for two people.

238

NOTES: VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

10. Ibid., p. 246 f. 11. Budget of the U.S., 1947, Corporation Supplement, p. 233. 12. N H A , ;th Annual Report, 1946, p. 245. 13. See D. H. Myer, "Colleges and the Housing Crisis," Higher Education, III, No. 6 (Nov. 15, 1946), 2. 14. Budget of the U.S., 1941, Corporation Supplement, p. 233. 15. N H A , 5th Annual Report, 1946, p. 245. 16. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 1149. 17. See Budget of the U.S., 1949, p. 1037. 18. See N H A , $th Annual Report, 1946, pp. 249, 270. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., p. 270. 21. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 1154. V E T E R A N S ADMINISTRATION 1. Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 58 Stat. 284. 2. By Public Law 268, 79th Congress, 59 Stat. 623, and Public Law 679, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 934. 3. By Public Law 411, 80th Congress. 4. Public Law 512, 80th Congress. 5. The pertinent language in the statute reads as follows: "4. From time to time the Administrator shall secure from the appropriate agency of each state a list of the educational and training institutions . . . within such jurisdictions, which are qualified to furnish education or training . . . which institutions, together with such additional ones as may be recognized and approved by the Administrator, shall be deemed qualified and approved to furnish education or training to such persons as shall enroll under this part . . . ," Public Law 346, Title II, Sec. 400 (4), 58 Stat. 289. 6. See Citizens Federal Committee on Education, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, II, 274. 7. "8. No department, agency, or officer of the United States, in carrying out the provisions of this part, shall exercise any supervision or control, whatsoever, over any State educational agency, or State apprenticeship agency, or any educational or training institution . . . ," Public Law 346, Title II, Sec. 400 (8), 58 Stat. 289. 8. See Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Annual Report, 1941, p. 46. 9. See Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, pp. 271 ff. 10. It is not certain that the definition of an institution of higher learning adopted by the Veterans Administration is the same as that used here. However, since the total number of such institutions given by the Veterans Administration is the same as the total number used by the U.S. Office of Education in its reports, and since the writer's definition is the same as that of the Office of Education, no significant differences would develop. The figures

NOTES: MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES 239 here given are taken from the Annual Report, 1941, of the Administrator of Veteran Affairs, p. 38. 11. See J. H. Goldthorpe, "Estimates of Future College and University Enrollment," Higher Education, IV (March 15, 1948), 157. Also R. C. Story, "1949 Fall College Enrollment," Higher Education, V I (Dec. 15, 1949), 85. 12. Higher Education for American Democracy, III, 39. 13. The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 275. 14. Public Law 16, 78th Congress, 57 Stat. 43. 15. By Public Law 268, 79th Congress, 59 Stat. 623. 16. The figures here given are taken from Administrator of Veterans A f fairs, Annual Report, 1947, pp. 38 ff. The other information is available from a number of sources, for which see the Bibliography. The report prepared by the group headed by Professor Graham for the Citizens Federal Committee on Education, to which this account owes much, is especially pertinent, although the figures given there do not agree in detail with those given here, perhaps because they were prepared before the official ones became available. 17. The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 276. 18. Public Law 293, 79th Congress, 59 Stat. 675. 19. Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Annual Report, 1941, pp. 4, 15. 20. See Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, pp. 277 if., which has contributed largely to the account here given. 21. 38 U.S.C. Sec. 15 (/) and 459. 22. See Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 281. 23. See Biennial Survey of Education, 1938-1940, Vol. II, chap, iv, Statistics of Higher Education, pp. 22, 38. The sum reported as total combined educational and general income in 1939-1940 from all sources, including student fees, endowment income, federal, state, and local governments, and gifts and grants, was $571,288,116. MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES 1. j3 Stat. 1182. 2. 49 Stat. 1985, as amended by 52 Stat. 953. 3. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 259. 4. Budget of the U.S., ¡949, p. 136. 5. Durations were one month, unless otherwise indicated. 6. See Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, Welfare Services (Task Force Report), p. 574. 7. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 260. 8. ibid. 9. Calif., Maine, Mass., N.Y., and Pa.

i4o

NOTES: FISCAL SUMMARY

10. 34 U.S.C. 1 1 2 1 - 1 1 2 3 . 1 1 . Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 261. 12. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 143. 13. Sources of data: F. G. Connor and R. H. Landis, "The Federal Administrative Intern Program," Personnel Administration, VIII, No. 4 (Dec., 1945), 1 1 , and H. Reining, "The First Federal In-Service Training Program," Personnel Administration, VII, No. 4 (Dec., 1944), 8. 14. Information supplied by the Civil Service Commission. 15. Connor and Landis, "The Federal Administrative Intern Program," p. 11. 16. The information here given is largely taken from Luther H. Evans, "The Library of Congress and Higher Education," Higher Education, III, No. 4 (Oct. 15, 1946), 1. 17. 2. Stat. 56. 18. 27 Stat. 395. 19. 31 Stat. 1039. 20. See Budget of the U.S., 1948, pp. 1 j-22. 21. 48 Stat. 984. 22. The language in the Annual Appropriation Acts is as follows: "the tuition (which may be paid in advance) of Indian pupils attending vocational or higher educational institutions under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe." 23. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 466. 24. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 100. 25. Budget of the U.S., ¡941, p. 463. 26. Citizens Federal Committee, The Organization of Federal Activity in Education, p. 100. 27. Budget of the U.S., 1948, p. 903. 28. Of which $292,171.36 was for Wilson Teachers College and $277,356.76 was for Miner Teachers College. Figures supplied by the Superintendent of Schools of the District of Columbia. FISCAL SUMMARY 1. Estimates are based on details in each of the sections above. Expenditures are listed as being under the agency which had principal responsibility for the program, even though, as in the case of the Institute of Agricultural Sciences and the Civil Service Commission, appropriations were made to another agency. Agencies omitted are those for which expenditures were insignificant (Commerce, Library of Congress, U S D A Graduate School).

BIBLIOGRAPHY M A T E R I A L S A R E ORGANIZED to follow subjects-matter headings as outlined in the text and Appendix. The first section includes titles analyzing federal higher-education activities and relationships, and is followed by sources on the activities of each of the departments and agencies. Only inadequate sources are available for some federal programs, especially those of the Federal Works Agency, National Housing Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Departments of War, Navy, Treasury, and Commerce. Direct contact with the representatives of those agencies was necessary to develop the materials in the Appendix. Under each subject-matter heading, references to material in periodicals follow references to books and pamphlets. GENERAL

Advisory Committee on Education. Report of the Committee. Washington, 1938. Bell, B. F. The Educational Activities of the Federal Government, 1935-1940. Unpublished master's thesis. Atlanta, 1941. Brody, A. The American State and Higher Education. Washington, 1935. Campbell, D. S., F. H. Bair, and O. L. Harvey. The Educational Activities of the Works Progress Administration. Washington, 1939. Citizens Federal Committee on Education. The Organization of Federal Activity in Education. MS, 2 vols. U.S. Office of Education. Washington, October 1947. The Graham Report. Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel. Minutes of Evidence. New York, 1935. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Commission Reports on: Medical Activities; Personnel Management; Social Security, Education, Indian Affairs; and Veterans Affairs. Washington, 1949. Task Force Reports on: Federal Personnel; National Security Organization (4 vols., of which three unpublished); Public Welfare; and Veterans Affairs (2 vols., unpublished). Washington, 1949. Covert, T . Federal Government Funds for Education, 1944-194$ and 19451946. Washington, 1947. Federal Government Funds for Education, 1946-1941 and 1941-1948. Washington, 1949. Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion. The Veteran and Higher Education, a Report to the President. Washington, 1946. Educational Policies Commission. Federal Activities in Education. Washington, 1939.

242 BIBLIOGRAPHY Educational Policies Commission. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration. Washington, 1935. Educational Policies Commission and American Council on Education (Problems and Policies Committee). Federal-State Relations in Education. 1 vols. Washington, 1945. Finley, Catherine M. Armed Forces Criticisfns of our Educational System. Unpublished master's thesis. George Washington University, 1946. Harris, S. The Market for College Graduates. Cambridge, 1949 Heer, C. Federal Aid and the Tax Problem. Washington, 1939. Herge, H. C. Wartime College Training Programs of the Armed Services. Washington, 1948. Hungate, T . L. Financing the Future of Higher Education. New York, 1946. Kelly, F. J., and J. H. McNeely. The Federal Student Aid Program. U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 14, Washington, 1935. Key, V . O. The Administration of Federal Grants to States. Chicago, 1937. Mackaye, R. C. Federal Relations to the Field of Higher Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1944. McNeely, J . H. Fiscal Control over State Higher Education. U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 8, Washington, 1940. Mort, P. R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York, 1936. National Advisory Committee on Education. Federal Relations to Education. 2 vols. Washington, 1931. National Education Association. One Hundred and Sixty Years of Federal Aid to Education. Washington, 1946. Noble, W . E. The Development of Administrative Controls in the Federal Grants for Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pittsburgh, 1946. Oldaker, H. L. The History of the Growth of Federal Control of Education through Federal Aid. Unpublished master's thesis. George Washington University, 1946. President's Scientific Research Board. Science and Public Policy. 5 vols. Washington, 1947. Quattlebaum, C. A. Federal Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education. Chicago, 1948. Quattlebaum, C. A. Highlights in the Development of Federal Policies and Activities in Education. Washington, 1944. Stine, M. C. Editorial Opinion on Federal Aid to Education. Unpublished master's thesis. George Washington University, 1945. U.S. Bureau of the Budget. The Budget of the United States. Washington, annually. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Education. Effect of Certain War Activities upon Colleges and Universities, House Report No. 214, 79th Cong., 1st Session, 1945. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Federal Aid

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

for Education. Hearings on S. 717 and S. 181, 79th Congress, 1st Session, 1945Federal Aid for Education. Hearings on S. 81 and Related Bilk, 80th Congress, 1st Session, 1947. Grants to Institutions of Higher Learning for Construction of Educational Facilities Required in the Education of War Veterans. Hearings on S. 971, 80th Congress, 1st Session, 1947. U.S. Federal Security Agency. Fiml Report of the National Youth Administration, 1936-1943. Washington, 1944. U.S. Federal Security Agency, U.S. Office of Education. Educational Directory. Washington, annually. Adams, A. S. "Note of Dissent," School and Society, LXVII (Feb. 21, 1948), 1 33Brown, F. J. "The Past Year and Tomorrow," American Association of Collegiate Registrars Journal, XXI (June, 1946), 183. Chamberlain, L. M. "Study of Fees Assessed at 61 State Universities and LandGrant Colleges and Payments Made by the V A , " School and Society, LXVI (July 19,1947), 47. Hollinshead, B. S. "The Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, X X X I V (Summer, 1948), 257. Hutchins, R. M. "Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education," Educational Record, XXIX (April, 1948), 107. "Double Trouble," Saturday Review of Literature, Vol. VII (July 17, 1948). Jacoby, N. H., et al. in Western College Association, Addresses, Spring Meeting, April 10, 1948, Claremont, 1948. Addresses on the Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education by N. H. Jacoby, L. T. White, and G. E. Outland. Laprade, W. T . "As One Teacher Sees It," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XXXIV (Spring, 1948), 38. Lynd, R. S., et al. "Appraisal of the Reports of the President's Commission on Higher Education," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XIX (April, 1948). A symposium evaluating each volume of the Report. Participants: R. S. Lynd, C. A. Dykstra, Harold Benjamin, B. J. Hovde, D. P. Cottrell, A. D. Simpson, and E. C. Elliott. "Report of the National Council of Chief State School Officers," School Life, XXIX, No. 5 (Feb., 1947), 9. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

U.S. Department of State. Educational Exchanges Under the Fulbright Act. Departmental Publication No. 3197. Washington, 1948. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Foreign Service, Foreign Service Insti-

244

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

tute. Budget Estimates for the Fiscal Year 1949. Departmental mimeo. Washington, July 27,1947. "Board of Foreign Scholarships," School and Society, L X X V I (Aug. 16, 1947), 116. Brossard, E. B. "The U.S. Program of Scientific and Cultural Cooperation with other American Republics," Bulletin of the Pan-American Union, L X X X (Oct., 1946), 541, and (Nov., 1946), 633. Corner, T . E. "Fellowship Opportunities and Teaching Positions in Other Countries," School Life, X X X , No. 3 (Dec., 1947), 3. "Assistance for Study in Other American Republics," Higher Education, IV (April 15,1948), 188. Ferris, W . C. "Preparing for the Foreign Service Profession," Junior College Journal, X V I (Jan., 1947), 197. Hopkins, F. S. "Training Responsibilities in the Department of State," Public Administration Review, VIII (Spring, 1948), 119. Maddox, W . P. "The Foreign Service in Transition," Foreign Affairs, X X V (Jan., 1947), 303. "The Foreign Service Institute of the Department of State," Higher Education, IV (Oct., 1947), 37. "The Founding of the New Foreign Service Institute," American Foreign Service Journal, X X I V , No. 4 (April, 1947), 18. McMurry, R. M., "The Division of International Exchange of Persons of the Department of State," Institute of International Education News Bulletin, X X I (May, 1946), 15. "Travelling Fellowships in Latin America," Higher Education, III, No. 12 (Feb. 1 j , 1947), 9. D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y

Hughes, R. Our Coast Guard Academy; a History and Guide. New York, 1944. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury. Washington, annually. U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Coast Guard. Commandant's Circular No. 43-46. Washington, Nov., 1946. Personnel Circular No. 4-41. Washington, March, 1947. Lamb, M. M. "Notes on In-Service Training in the Bureau of Internal Revenue," Business Education World, XXVI (Feb., 1946), 321. WAR

DEPARTMENT

War Department rules and regulations are issued in the form of the General Orders, Circulars, and Regulations referenced at many points in the text. American Council on Education. A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services. Washington, 1946. Canal Zone Junior College. Announcement of Courses, 1941. Balboa Heights, 1947.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Office of Education. Public Education in the Canal Z,one. Bulletin No. 8, Washington, 1939. U.S. War Department. Courses in US. Army Schools for the School Year 1946-1947. Pamphlet No. 20-21, Washington, 1946. Programs of Instruction for Military and Civilian Colleges. Memorandum No. 145-10-1, Washington, 1947. U.S. War Department, Air Training Command, U.S. Army Air Forces. A Prospectus of Air Training Command Courses, revised to June 30, 1947. Washington, 1947. U.S. War Department, Army Ground Forces. Courses of Instruction at Army Ground Forces Schools. Pamphlet, file no. 352.11 (19 May 1947) GNGCT-12. Washington, 1947. U.S. War Department, Army Service Forces. Courses of Instruction Given in Schools of the Army Service Forces. Manual M3. Washington, 1944. U.S. War Department, Governor of the Panama Canal. Annual Report. Washington, annually. U.S. War Department, U.S. Armed Forces Institute. Catalogue, 3d edition. Madison, July, 1946. List of Courses Offered by Cooperating Colleges and Universities. Mimeo. Washington, 1947. "Air University in Alabama," School and Society, LXIV (Sept. 21,1946), 198. Ash, J. E., and R. A. Sloan. "General Review of New Developments at the Army Institute of Pathology," American Journal of Public Health, X X X V I I (July, 1947), 815. Baldwin, H. W . "Air Forces Schools to Widen Classes," New York Times, Jan. 14, 1948. Fairchild, M. S. "The Air University," Higher Education, III, No. 1 (Sept. 2, 1946), 3. Gibson, W. B. "The Army Officer Educational Program," School and Society, LXIV (Dec. 14, 1946), 420. Jones, C. W. "Postwar Training for Signal Corps Reserve Officers," Journal of Engineering Education, X X X V I (Dec., 1945), 299. McConagha, G. L. "The United States Armed Forces Institute," Higher Education, III, No. 15 (April 1, 1947), 1. Partridge, E. E. "Air Forces Operations and Training," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X V (Sept. 6,1947), 1. Sloan, R. A. "Public Health Aspects of Wartime Studies Conducted at the Army Institute of Pathology," American Journal of Public Health, X X X V I I (July, 1947), 819. Taubman, R. E. "The Special Leadership Training Program of the Signal Corps Officer Candidate School," Journal of Applied Psychology, X X X I (Feb., 1947), 82. Tuttle, G. P. and J. T. Hastings. "The Guide to the Evaluation of Educa-

246

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

tional Elxperiences in the Armed Services," Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, X X (April, 1945), 281. Willis, J . M. "Brooke Army Medical Center," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X I V (Oct. 12, 1946), 129. "Air University in Alabama," School and Society, L X I V (Sept. 21, 1946), 198. D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E

Pilson, P. M. Training Programs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in World War II. Unpublished master's thesis. George Washington University, 1946. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI National Police Academy. Washington, 1940. Personnel Selection and Training in the FBI. Washington, 1941. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington, 1941. U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Educational Institutions Approved by the Attorney General. Washington, annually. Griffin, A. S. "Admission of Foreign Students into the United States," Immigration and Naturalization Service Monthly Review, III (Nov., 194s), 224. Hoover, J. E. "The Story of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Tennessee Law Review, X I X (June, 1946), 474. NAVY

DEPARTMENT

American Council on Education. Report on the Educational Program of the U.S. Navy Post Gradttate School. By an Advisory Committee to the American Council on Education, unpublished. Washington, June 27, '947U.S. Navy Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Essentials of Internship and Residency-Type Training in U.S. Naval Hospitals. Pamphlet NAVMED-762. Washington, June, 1946. U.S. Navy Department, Bureau of Naval Personnel. Catalog of Course of Instruction at the U.S. Naval Academy, 1946-1947. Washington, 1946. Naval Training Bulletin. Washington, monthly. June and January issues contain listings of naval schools. U.S. Navy Department, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Training Activity. Officer Training Activities. Memorandum Pers-42221-rb, July 15, 1947. U.S. Naval Academy, Post Graduate School. Catalogue for the Academic Year 1946-1941. Annapolis, 1946. U.S. Naval War College. Prospectus of Courses. Newport, annually. Will, J. M. Education of Naval Officers of the Postwar Navy. A Report (mimeo.) to the Secretary of the Navy by the Director of Training Activity, Training and Welfare Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Nov. 3, 1947.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

247

Cates, C. B. "Marine Corps Schools," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X I V (Oct. 19, 1946), 135. Connor, R. R. "Graduate Degrees for Naval Officers," Higher Education, II, No. 14 (March i j , 1946), 4. Hess, W . E. "The Navy Sponsors College Education Plan," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXX (Dec., 1946), Lang, J. C. "The Navy's College Education Program," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, X X X (Oct., 1947), 39. McConnell, J. D. "The Navy's Plans for Training Young Officers in Cooperation with Colleges and Universities," Nation's Schools, X X X I X (Jan., 1947), 20. Moosbrugger, F., "The Naval General Line School," Army and Navy Journal, Vol. L X X X I V (July 19,1947). "Post Graduate University," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X V (Jan. 31, 1948), 558. Spanagel, H. A. "The U.S. Naval Post Graduate School," Journal of Engineering Education, X X X V I (Dec., 1945), 280. Spruance, R. A. "The U.S. Naval War College," Army and Navy Journal, Vol. L X X X I V (May 31, 1947). Stanford, E. V . "Navy Plans for Peacetime Education of Naval Officers," Association of American Colleges Bulletin, X X X I I (May, 1946), 293. "The School of Naval Administration at Stanford," Army and Navy Journal, L X X X V (Sept. 6, 1947), 6. D E P A R T M E N T OF AGRICULTURE

Gaus, J. M., and L. Wolcott. Public Administration and the US. Department of Agriculture. Chicago, 1940. True, A. C. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States. Washington, 1929. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Graduate School Bulletin. Catalogue issue, Washington, annually. Regulations Governing the Graduate School, revised to Feb. 21, 1947. Washington, 1947. U.S. Congress, Senate. Schools and Training Courses in Government Departments. Letter of the Acting Comptroller General, Senate Document No. 182,76th Congress, 3d Session. Washington, 1940. Allee, R. H. "The Americas Build an Institution," Higher Education, I V (Feb. 15,1948), 137. Rohrbaugh, L. H. "The Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture," Higher Education, III (March 1, 1947), 13. D E P A R T M E N T OF

COMMERCE

U.S. Department of Commerce. Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce. Washington, annually.

248

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Graduate School. Announcement of Courses for 1946-1947. Mimeo. Washington, 1946. "National Bureau of Standards Graduate School," Higher Education, III, No. 6 (Nov. 15, 1946), 7. FEDERAL SECURITY

AGENCY

Educational Policies Commission. Federal Activities in Education. Washington, 1939. Judd, C. H. Research in the US. Office of Education. Washington, 1939. Hartley, L. E. A Critical Study of the US. Office of Education Shice 1933. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colorado, 1941. Smith, D. H. The Bureau of Education. Baltimore, 1923. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Office of Education. Survey of LandGrant Colleges and Universities. 2 vols. Bulletin No. 9. Washington, 1930. U.S. Federal Security Agency. Annual Report of the Federal Security Agency. Washington, annually. U.S. Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board. Use of Federal Funds for Faying Salaries to State Staff Members on Educational Leave in Schools of Social Work. Memorandum of Dec. 23, 1937, revised July 2, 1941, mimeo. Washington, 1941. U.S. Federal Security Agency, U.S. Office of Education. Statistics of LandGrant Colleges and Universities. Washington, annually. Works, G. A., and B. Morgan. The Land-Grant Colleges. Washington, 1939. Crabtree, J. A. "The U.S. Public Health Service and Higher Education," Higher Education, I V (April 1, 1948), 169. Russell, J . D. "The Role of the Division of Higher Education of the U.S. Office of Education," Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, XXXIII (Sept., 1947), 432. FEDERAL W O R K S

AGENCY

U.S. Federal Works Agency. Annual Report of the Federal Works Administrator. Washington, annually. Hewes, H. L. "The Federal Works Agency Assists Educational Plant Planning," The American School and University, ¡948 (New York, 1948). "Plans for Providing Temporary Educational Facilities," North Central Association Quarterly, X X I (Oct., 1946), 168. "Temporary Educational Facilities for Veterans," Higher Education, III, No. 1 (Sept. 2,1946), 7. NATIONAL HOUSING

AGENCY

National Housing Agency. Annual Report of the National Housing Agency. Washington, annually. "Higher Education's Number One Problem," School and Society, LXIII (Feb. 2, 1946), 76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

"Housing for Veterans," Higher Education, II, No. 11 (Feb. 1, 1946), 5. "Housing of Veterans at Colleges," Higher Education, II, No. 9 (Jan. 1, 1946), 3. Myer, D. H. "The Colleges and the Housing Crisis," Higher Education, III, No. 6 (Nov. 15, 1946), 2. VETERANS

ADMINISTRATION

Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion. The Veteran and Higher Education. A Report to the President. Washington, 1946. U.S. Veterans Administration. Annual Report of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. Washington, annually. U.S. Veterans Administration. Educational Opportunities for Veterans in Approved Institutions of Higher Education. Washington, 1946. Bradley, O. N., et al. "The Colleges and the Veterans Administration," American Association of Colleges Bulletin, X X X (March, 1947), 44. A symposium including O. N. Bradley, Raymond Walters, Alex. Guerry, and H. C. Dale. Bradley, O. N. "Education of Veterans," Educational Record, X X V I I (July, 1946), 376. Combes, A . L. "The Veterans Administration's Part in the Program of Veteran Education," Proceedings of the Convention of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools (1946), p. 83. Goldthorpe, J. H. "Estimates of Future College and University Enrollment," Higher Education, IV (March 15, 1948), 157. Robbins, E. G . "Prospects, Plans, and Problems of the Veterans Administration," Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service (College of Education, University of Kentucky), XVIII (March, 1946), 82. Stirling, H. V . "The Veterans Administration and the Universities in Partnership," in National Association of State Universities, Transactions and Proceedings, 1946, 153. MARITIME

COMMISSION

U.S. Maritime Commission. Annual Report of the U.S. Maritime Covmiission. Washington, annually. U.S. Maritime Commission, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Report of the Board of Visitors. Washington, 1946. "Report of the Academic Advisory Board to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy," Polaris, VII (April, 1948), 9. CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION

Connor, F. G., and R. H. Landis. "The Federal Administrative Intern Program," Personnel Administration, VIII, No. 4 (Dec., 1945), 11. McDiarmid, J. "The Changing Role of the U.S. Civil Service Commission," American Political Science Review, X L (Dec., 1946), 1092.

25o

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reining, H. "The First Federal In-Service Internship Program," Personnel Administration, VII, No. 4 (Dec., 1944), 8. L I B R A R Y OF

CONGRESS

Evans, L. H. "The Library of Congress and Higher Education," Higher Education, III, No. 4 (Oct. 15, 1946). 1. DEPARTMENT

OF THE

INTERIOR

Beatty, W . W . "Education Offered by the U.S. Indian Service," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, X X X I V (March j, 1945), 134.

GENERAL INDEX Administration of training, 23-27, jo, 31, 99, 112-114, 119, 120, 128, 144-145, 148 Administrative Intern Program, 24, 25 Advisory Committee on Education (1936), monographs, 4, 221 Air forces schools, 20, 21; Army, 116, 118-121, 125, 126, 127, 128-129, '38, 139; N a v y , 152-154, 156-157, 231 Alaska, 170, 172, 174, 187, 230 Allee, R. H-, cited, 233 American Council on Education, 53, 76, 135, 199, 224 Baldwin, Hanson W., cited, 228 Barton, M., cited, 221 Canal Zone, 27-28, 136-137, 230 Carnegie Corporation, 173 Cates, C. B., cited, 232 Certification, of individuals, 38, 85 f t , 88; of institutions, 32, 42-43, 53, 87 Citizens Federal Committee, survey, 4, 106, 181, 191, 204, 206, 208, 219, 226, 233. 234, 236, 238, 239, 240 Civilian courses for military personnel. Army, 131,132-136; Navy, 145,150-151 Civilian schools programs, 130-132 College Entrance Examination Board, «55 Colleges, see Universities and colleges Commission (President's) on Higher Education, 3-6, 9, 11, 76-77, 83-85, 90, 92> 93. 9S> >'2, 137"' 39- '95. 201, 205, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222-223, 224> 22 J< 230, 237, 239 Commission on Organization of Executive Branch, see Hoover Commission Connor, F. G., cited, 240 Control, federal, of education, 30, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47-50, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 6769, 71, 81, 94-96 Coordination of instruction, facilities, and relationships, 17, 22-27, 31-34; advantages of, 18, 22, 33; lack of, 17 ff., 32, 51 ff., 60 ff.; limitations of, 18, 20, 21, 22, 33; methods of, 24-27, 32-34, 70-71, 72-77; see also Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools

Correspondence courses, n o , i n , 133, 134, 136, 147 Crabtree, J . A., cited, 235, 236 District of Columbia, 45, 173, 174, 178, 179,187, 216 Duplications, interdepartmental, in instructional facilities and programs, 1722; intradepartmental, 19, 21; elimination of, 32-34 Education, Department of, proposal for, 7°~72 Educational Policies Commission ( N E A ) , 224, 233-234 Effects of federal activities on nonfederal education, 59-69; confusion, 6063; inequities, 63-64; overcrowding, 64-67; future, 78-96 Electronics instruction, 20, 33, 116, 117, 121, 122, 149-150, 151, 153, 154, 212, 231 Evaluation, limitations of, 8-9 Evans, Luther H., cited, 240 Expenditures, federal government, on higher education: former estimates, 3, 5, 6-7; estimates of present survey, 1 1 13, 78-79; in federal schools, 15-17, 108, 110, i n , 138, 143, 158, 169; in nonfederal schools, 165, 166, 173, 179, 183, 186, 187, 189, 191 Facilities, physical, provided to institutions, 7, 10, 50-55, 89, 175-177, 186, 194196, 197-201 Federal Personnel Council, 26, 31 Fellowships, 36, 40, 60, 86, 87-88, 102103, 178, 180-181, 184, 185 Foreign students, 30, 38, 59, 102 ff., 113, •43. '65. '77-'78, 184 G.I. "Bill of Rights," 10, 35, 79, 86, 87; see also Veterans Administration, Veterans Readjustment Program, in Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Goldthorpe, J . H , cited, 239 Graham, George, see Citizens Federal Committee

GENERAL INDEX Grants, to nonfederal institutions, 8, 1213, 43-50, 68, 81, 93-96, 163 fr., 168, 171 ff., 212, 221, 223, 225; to states, 37, 43. 9°. 93. i 6 3 ff- >68. ' 7 ' . "87. >9° 212-213; see also Facilities, physical Harris, Seymour, cited, 84 Hawaii, 171, 172, 174,187, 230 Health education, 107, 108, 152; see also Medical schools-, Children's Bureau, Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, in Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Holloway Board, 127, 145-147, 148 Hoover Commission, 32, 59, 70, 143, 219220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 239 Howard University, 172-173 Hungate, T . L., cited, 92 Institute for International Education, 103 Intelligence schools, military: Army, 115, 116, 120, 121, 124, 125, 139; Navy, 149 Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, 25 Joint training activities, 22-26, 109, 128, 152, 188 Judd, C. H., cited, 234 Land Grant colleges, 13, 44, 46, 48, 60, 171-172, 234; see also Agriculture, Department of, in Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Landis, R. H., cited, 240 Language training, 16, 19, 101, 105, 107, 124, 131, 149, 211 Library Service, 177, 215 Maddox, W . P., cited, 225 Maritime Service schools, 28, 29, 30, 40, 50, 211-213 Medical schools, 21; A r m y , 120, 123-124, 131, 138, 139; N a v y , 152; grants to, 181-182, 191; Public Health Service, 184; other aid to, 185-186, 209; Veterans Administration, 208-210 Merchant marine schools, see Maritime Service schools Meteorological training, 22, 116, 121 Moosbrugger, F., cited, 231 Myer, D. H., cited, 238 National Advisory Committee on Education (1931), 4, 219

National Education Association, survey for, 4 National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, 184, 188 National Guard, courses for, 115, 116, 117, 118, 126 National Institute of Public Affairs, 30, 101, 213 National Youth Administration, programs, 45, 80, 85 Nonfederal persons, federal training of, 27-29; see also Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Opportunity, equalization of, 3, 12, 43, 59-60, 64, 67, 70, 79, 83-89, 92, 96 Pepper bill, 88 Personnel, federal, training of, 6, 12, 15 ff., 27, 31; see also Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Photography instruction, 22, 121, 123, '49. '54 President's Scientific Research Board, see Scientific Research Board Programs, adequacy of in-servicc, 31-32 Public relations schools, 21, 120, 123, 150, Puerto Rico, 172, 174, 187, 230 Recruitment, for education, 40-42; military, aided by education, 80 Rehabilitation programs, civilian, 36, 37, 39, 80, 83; veteran, see Veterans Administration, Veterans Rehabilitation Program, in Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Reining, H., cited, 240 Report of President's Commission on Higher Education, see Commission on Higher Education Research, included in higher education, 6; omitted from survey, 7-8; federal expenditures on, 9, 13, 68, 22371; grants for, 8, 13, 94-96, 163 ff., 167, 221, 223, 225; encouragement of, 90, 91, 163 ff., 167; in federal schools, 117, 124, 162, 221, 223-224, 225 Rockefeller Foundation, 184 Rohrbaugh, L. H., cited, 232 Scholarships, proposed, 79-89; foreign, 103, 106; Navv, 150; see also Veterans Administration, Veterans Readjustment Program, in Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools

GENERAL INDEX Scientific Research Board, 8, 49, 95, 221, 223, 225, 236 Selective Service, influence on education, 10, 80; Act (1948), 10 Services, federal, to educational institutions: income, 7, 12-13, 68; administrative, 54, 62; curriculum, 54; enrollment, 66 ff., 79; see also Facilities, physical; Grants Services obtained from educational institutions, 55-59; see also Index to U.S. Departments, Agencies, and Schools Sloan, R. A., cited, 228 Smith, D. H., cited, 234 States, educational functions, 3, 38, 44, 46, 47,48,69, 81, 88,90-92, 163-164, 171, 174-175, 175-176, 187-188, 190-191, 212Story, R. C., cited, 224, 239 Surveys, previous, 3-5 Training Officers Conference, 27, 31 U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 16, 29 Universities and colleges, private and public distinguished, 65-67, 81-82, 9096; use of faculty for training in federal schools, 99, 100, 134, 209; extension programs with federal aid, 167; training of federal personnel in, 101, 109, 124, 126 ff., 130-131, 132, 133, 134, '49. '50, 15*. «55 f-. '57. 167, 214

2

53 listed: Alaska, U. of, 230; American U-, 214; Bucknell U., 107; California, U. of, 152; Canal Zone Junior C., 27, 137, 230; Chicago, U. of, 191 ; Cincinnati, U. of, 191; Columbia Institution for the Deaf, 178, 179; Columbia U., 95, 157, 191; Fisk U., 173; Fort Valley State C. (Georgia), 173; Gallaudet C_, 45, 47, 48; Georgetown U., 157; George Washington U., 109, 150, 229; Harvard U., 109, 191, 229; Hawaii, U. of, 230; Howard U., 45, 47, 48, 172; Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 165; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 149, 230; Michigan, U. of, 107; Miner Teachers C., 216; Minnesota, U. of, 229; New York U., 132, 167; North Carolina, U. of, 185; Northwestern U., 132; Puerto Rico, U. of, 230; Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial C., 173; Tennessee, U. of, 62, 185; Virginia State C., 173; Wilson Teachers C., 107, 210; Yale U., 185; see also Land Grant colleges Vocational education, 173-174; see also Rehabilitation programs Welfare and recreation schools, 21, 117, 123, 150 White, L. B., quoted, 232 Works, G . A., cited, 221

INDEX TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND SCHOOLS (Subordinate agencies are listed alphabetically under main entries.) Agriculture, Department of, 27, 29, 161166; Extension Service, 163-165; Foreign Relations, Office of, 165-166; Graduate School, 161-162 Armed Forces Staff College, see War, Department of Atomic Energy Commission, 88, 223 Cadet Nurse Program, see Federal Security Agency Children's Bureau, see Federal Security Agency Civil Service Commission, U.S., 17, 22, 26, 30, 31, 32, 101, 104, 162, 208, 213, 214 Commerce, Department of, 167-169; Civil Aeronautics Administration, 168; National Bureau of Standards, 27, 169; Patent Office, 16, 18, 168-169; Small Business, Office of, 167; Weather Bureau, 167-168 Defense, Department of, 34, 128 Education, U.S. Office of, see Federal Security Agency Federal Public Housing Authority, 51, 52, J3, 197-201 Federal Security Agency, 170-193 ; Cadet Nurse Program, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 4748, 80, 182-183; Children's Bureau, 36, 81, 190-192; Education, U.S. Office of, 5. 7. 38. 39- 44. 5 Z . 53. 6°, 61, 63, 70, 88, 103, 106, 107, 194, 195, 196, 218; as coordinating agency, 72-76; functions of, 170-178; Gallaudet College, 178-179; Public Health Service, U.S., 16, 17, 21, 30, 40, 53, 62, 86, 88, 179-186; Social Security Administration, 16, 189-193; Vocational Rehabilitation, Office of, 30, 187-189, 206-208 Federal Works Agency, 7, 45, 50, 194196; Community Facilities, Bureau of, 50-53. '94

Foreign Service Institute, U.S., see State, Department of Gallaudet College, See Federal Security Agency Industrial College of the Armed Forces, see War, Department of Interior, Department of the, 215-216; Indian Affairs, Bureau of, 39, 215-216 Joint Schools, 128-136; see also War, Department of, Joint Chiefs of Staff Justice, Department of, 16, 17, 141-143; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16, 17 (National Academy, 28, 29, 62); Immigration and Naturalization, 143 Library of Congress, 35, 215 Maritime Commission, U.S., 17, 211-212 National Housing Agency, 7, 197-201; Federal Public Housing Authority, Veterans' Re-Use Housing Program, 5°. 5«. 52> 53. 6 * . 89. «94. '97 National W a r College, see War, Department of Navy, Department of the, 7, 16, 17, 1923, 26, 144-160; Aviation Electronics Officers School, 20, 154; Combat Information Center Team Training School, 151; Five Term Reserve Transferee Program, 145, 150; Fleet Air Electronic Training Units, 153; Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo School, 151; Fleet Sonar Schools, 151; Guided Missiles Lecture Course, 157; Gunnery Officers Ordnance School, 149; Joint Army-Navy Medical Equipment Maintenance School, 22, 152; Joint Chiefs of Staff, see War, Department of; Marine Corps Schools, 20, 21, 154; Mine Warfare School, 151; Naval Academy, U.S., 16, 125, 145, 154-155;

256

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND SCHOOLS

Navy, (Continued) Naval A i r Technical Training Command centers, 153-154; Naval A i r Training Command, schools, 153; N a v a l Aviation College Program, 156157; Naval Chemical W a r f a r e Unit, 149; Naval Civil Engineer Corps School, 149; N a v a l Civil Orientation Courses, 157; N a v a l Combat Information Center Officers School, 149; Naval Damage Control Training Centers, 149; N a v a l Deep Sea Divers School, 1 jo; Naval Dental School, 152; Naval Electronics Engineering Schools, 20, 149; Naval Electronics .Maintenance School, 149; Naval Electronics Matériel School, 20, ijo; Naval Engineering School, 149; Naval Gauge Laboratories, 157; N a v a l General Line Schools, 145, 146, 147, 148-149, 159, 231; Naval H a r b o r Defense School, 1 5 1 ; Naval Intelligence School, 19, 148, 149; Naval Medical School, 145; Naval N e t Training School, 151 ; Naval Photographic Interpretation Center, 22, 149; Naval Photographic Officers Schools, 22; Naval Personnel, Bureau o f , 144; Naval Post Graduate Medical School, 152; N a v a l Public Health Service School, 152; Naval Public Speaking Course, 157; Naval Radar Training School, 20, 154; Naval R . O . T . C . , 155-157; Naval Salvage School, 1 5 1 ; Naval School f o r Aviation Medicine, 152; Naval School for Informational Service Officers, 21, 150; Naval School of Hospital Administration, 152; Naval T o r p e d o School, 150; Naval W a r College, 109, 145, 146, 147148; Naval W a t e r Tenders School, 150; N a v y Post Graduate School, 26, 147, 148; N a v y Supply Corps School, 150; Nuclear Physics Lecture Course, 157; School f o r Corrective Services Officers, ijo; School f o r W e l f a r e and Recreation Officers, 150; School of Naval Justice, 150; Submarine School, 1 5 1 ; W e a t h e r and Night-Fighter Training Schools, 153 Office of Education, U.S., see Federal Security A g e n c y Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, see Federal Security A g e n c y

Public Health Service, U.S., see Federal Security Agency Social Security Administration, see Federal Security A g e n c y State, Department of, 17, 25, 99-108; American Republic Affairs, Office o f , 107-108 (Inter-American Educational Foundation, 107; Institute of InterAmerican Affairs, 108); Cooperation with American Republics Program, 102-105, 107; Foreign Service Institute, 16, 17, 19, 26, 99-102 (Schools of Officer Training, 99-101; Schools of Language Training, 19, 1 0 1 ) ; Cultural Affairs, Office of, International Information and, 102-107 (Cooperation with American Republics Program, 102-105; Philippine Rehabilitation Program, 105-106; Fulbright Program, 106; Other Activities, 106-107,) ; Philippine Rehabilitation Program, 25, 28, 102, 105-106, 185; School of Basic O f ficer Training, 99; School of Language Training, 101; School of .Management and Administrative Training, 100-101 Treasury, Department of the, 16, 17, 22, 24, 33, 109-111; Coast Guard, 16, 40, 109-110; Coordinator of Enforcement, 110-111-, Internal Revenue, Bureau of, 111 Veterans Administration, 7, 10, 16, 21, 36, 39, 60, 62, 202-210; Veterans Educational Facilities Program, 7, 50, 5 1 , 72, 89, 171, 196, 199, 218, 235; Veterans Readjustment Program, 1 1 , 36, 37, 38, 57» 63, 79, 80, 8 1 , 1 9 7 , 202-206; Veterans Rehabilitation Program, 30, 36, 37, 38, 80, 206-208 Vocational Rehabilitation, Office of, sec Federal Security A g e n c y W a r Assets Administration, furnishing physical facilities to education, 50, 51, 53, 175-177, i94~196. >98 W a r , Department of (now Department of the A r m y ) , 7, 16, 17, 112-140; A . A . F . Flying Schools, 120; A . A . F . Technical Schools, 120-121; Adjutant General School, 123; A i r Command and Staff College, 119; A i r Institute of Technology, 119; A i r R.O.T.C., 127;

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND SCHOOLS Air Special Staff School, zi, 119; Air Tactical School, 120; Air University, 119; Air W a r College, 119; Antiaircraft School, 21, 116; Armed Forces Institute (USAFI), 2j, 132-136; Armed Forces Staff College, 23, 128, 129; Armored School, 21, 116; Army Air Forces Technical Schools, 20, 21, 22; Army Command and General Staff College, 117-118, 146; Army Education Program, see Armed Forccs Institute; Army Finance School, 121; Army Ground Forces Schools, 115-118, 126, 138, 139, 146; Army Information School, 21, 123; A r m y Institute of Pathology, 124; Army-Navy Institute of Dairy Hygiene, 22; Army Officer Candidate School, 118; Army Physical Training and Athletic Directors School, 21, 117; A r m y School of Malariology, 124; A r m y Schools, 16, 17, 19-23, 24-25, 114-128; Army Security Agency School, 125; Army Signal Corps Photographic Center, 22, 123; Army Special Services School, 21, 123; Army Technical and Administrative Services schools, 121-124; Artillery School, 20, 21, 116; Aviation Medicine, Schools of, 21, 120; Chap-

257

Iain School, 123; Chemical Corps School, 121; Counter-intelligence Corps School, 125; Engineer School, 122; Food Service Schools, 122; Ground Forces General School, 115; Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 23, 129; Infantry School, 20, 116; Joint Chiefs of Staff, as coordinators, 24-25, 32-33, 128-129; Meat and Dairy Hygiene School, 124; Medical Field Service School, 123; Military Academy, U.S., 16, 113, 114, 125-126, 138; Military Intelligence Service Language School, 19, 124; Mountain and Winter Warfare School, 116; National War College, 23, 100, 128-129; Officer Candidate School of the Army Air Forces, 126; Officer Candidate School of the Army Ground Forces, 126; Ordnance Automotive School, 21, 122; Ordnance School, 20, 21, 122; Provost Marshal General School, 123; Quartermaster School, 122; Research and Graduate School (Medical), 124; Reserve Officers Training Corps, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 58-59, 86, 125, 126-128, 155157; Signal School, 20, 122; Strategic Intelligence School, 125; Transportation Corps School, 123