MEETING THE
INCREASING DEMAND
FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION IN

NEW YORK STATE

A REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS

COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION:
- ‘Marion B. Folsom
John W. Gardner

Henry T. Heald
(CHAIRMAN )

DIRECTOR OF STUDIES:
Sidney G. Tickton

NOVEMBER, 1960


© Lea
_Ccs

1960

Additional copies of this report are
available from the Board of Regents,
State Education Department, Albany,
New York.

LIBRARY
TY OF NEW YORE

STATE UnxT STONY BROOK


Letter of
Transmittal

NovEMBER 15, 1960

To His Excellency, The Governor of the State of New York; and to
The Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York:

On December 21, 1959 you requested us to review the higher educa-
tion needs and facilities in New York State and to make recommendations
on the steps that the State could take to:

(1) assure educational opportunities to those qualified for college study;

(2) provide the undergraduate, graduate and professional training and
research facilities necessary for the continued development of the
State as a leading business, industrial, scientific and cultural center;
and

(3) contribute its proper share of trained personnel to meet the nation’s
needs for education, health and welfare services.

The recommendations in this Report are designed to accomplish these
objectives. They are the result of an intensive study of a broad range of
problems facing higher education in New York State, projected into the
future in the light of the prospective rapid increase in the college-going
population that can be expected by 1965, 1970, and in the generation
ahead. They are supported by a series of staff papers, consultants’ re-
ports, statistical materials and other documents, copies of which are not
being printed at this time but are being submitted to the Commissioner
of Education in typewritten form for such future distribution as he may
deem desirable. ;

We did not attempt, however, to provide a detailed prescription for


the expansion and support of the State University and private higher
education in New York State. This is the responsibility of the trustees
and officials of the State University and the private institutions them-
selves. Instead we have described the needs and responsibilities of
higher education in New York State during the next twenty to twenty-
five years and have recommended the broad outline of a plan and struc-
ture which will make it possible for these needs to be met. Thus there is
emphasis on administrative machinery and major policy considerations
rather than on the specific procedures or devices to accomplish the
objectives we have in mind.

During the course of our study we were fortunate to obtain the pro-
fessional assistance of Sidney G. Tickton as Director of Studies, and the
advice and consulting services of many leading educators, whose names
are listed at the end of this Report. The Committee is truly indebted to
them. We use this opportunity to thank them publicly and to express our
appreciation for their helpful assistance. We wish also to thank the many
other persons, too numerous to list, who provided us with helpful in-
formation.

We also appreciate the close cooperation given us by the officials of
the State Education Department, the State University of New York, and
the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York. They provided
us with a wealth of factual information, discussed with us frankly the
character of their responsibilities for various aspects of higher education
in New York State, and explored with us alternative courses of action for
the future. Without their sincere cooperation we could not have com-
pleted our assignment in the time at our disposal.

The problems of higher education have many facets and our study
covered many areas. Excluded, however, were problems concerning
college and university libraries. The Commissioner of Education ap-
pointed an Advisory Committee on Reference and Research Library
Resources in March, 1960, and this committee, we are informed, will
make a series of recommendations this year on the future development
of an adequate system of libraries throughout the State, including those
at colleges and universities.

Respectfully submitted,
Marion B. Folsom

John W. Gardner
Henry T. Heald (cHamman)


CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal

List of Tables vi

Report of the Committee:

IV.

Vv.

Vi.

Vil.

Vill.

IX.

Xt.

Xt.

Xilt.

Introduction 1

tii

Outlook for Enrollments

Goals We Should Strive For
Do We Need the Trained Manpower?

3

8

Where Will the Money Come From?

10

13

Realigning Higher Education Responsibilities

Strengthening Private Colleges and Universities

Expanding the State University System 27

Meeting the Needs for Health Personnel

The Student 41

Postscript on the High School

Conclusion 49
Statistical Appendix

List of Consultants

50
71

47

. Providing for Management Improvement

36
39

16
24


LIST OF TABLES

TABLES IN TEXT OF REPORT
A. Enrollments in Colleges and Universities in

B.

c.

New York State

Percentage of Students Enrolled in Public Colleges
and Universities in a Number of States

“Tax Dollars” for Teaching Students in Colleges and
Universities and Providing Scholarships in a Number
of States

TABLES IN STATISTICAL APPENDIX

1.

ww ow bo

ND OW

co

Enrollments in Colleges and Universities in
New York State

. Number of Births in New York State
. Number of High School Graduates in New York State
. Percentage of High School Graduates in New York

State Going to College Full Time

. Financial Aid to Students in New York State
. Comparison of Full-Time and Part-Time Enrollments
. Percentage of New York State Undergraduate

Students Going Outside of New York State

. Alternative Estimates of “Private” Enrollments

9. Alternative Estimates of “Public” Enrollments

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

Public Junior College Enrollments as a Percentage
of Total Enrollments in a Number of States

Outlook for Full-Time Enrollments in Public

Junior Colleges in New York State and in California
Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollments Classified by
Areas of Residence of Students

Percentage Increase 1959 to 1975 in Full-Time
Undergraduate Enrollments, By Areas of Residence
of Students

Jobs to be filled by New Workers in Professional
and Skilled Occupations in New York State

Gross Personal Income, United States and New York
State, 1951 to 1959

Gross Personal Income, United States and New York
State, 1959 to 1976 :
Expenditures for Teaching Students in All Public and
Private Colleges and Universities in Selected States
“Tax Dollars” Furnished by State and Local
Governments for Teaching Students in Colleges and
Universities and Providing Scholarships

Salaries Paid Nurses and Other Women Employees
Alternative Calculations of State Aid Based on
Degrees Expected to be Awarded in 1961-62

61

62

63

64

66

67

69

70


I INTRODUCTION

In the generation ahead, barring war or other national disaster, New
York State and the nation can expect to witness a greatly increased de-
mand for admission to colleges and universities. There will be more
young people qualified for post high school academic and technical edu-
cation; and more of these young people can be expected to have definite
college ambitions.

The increased demand for college and university admittance will not
be evidenced in its full magnitude, however, in one year, five years, or
even ten. It will begin to grow within a year and will skyrocket shortly
thereafter continuing upward for ten, twenty, twenty-five years and, in
fact, as far as we can see in the future. It will be so large as to make
everything we have been doing in higher education until now seem
insignificant in retrospect. It is the net result of three factors which have
developed in our generation and can be expected to continue for many
years to come. They are:

(1) a postwar birth rate which has been at high levels throughout the
past fifteen years;
(2) an increasing desire to go to college, not necessarily for four years or

_ full time, but certainly for a substantial period beyond high school;

and
(3) the increased capacity of many young people to go to college as a
result of the higher incomes of their parents.

Against this extraordinary background, it is critical for planning pur-
poses to make projections of potential college and university enrollments


for at least twenty-five years into the future. Forecasts to 1970 only,
commonly made in the reports we have studied, fail to pose the real
magnitude of the problem faced by higher education today. This is be-
cause children now being born will not start college, generally, for
eighteen years and will not finish, generally, until twenty-one years from
now; some may not finish until twenty-five years or more from the present
time.
There is greater uncertainty, obviously, in the projections for distant
years than for the near ones. Nevertheless, it is impossible to make realis-
tic plans unless there is some indication of the full potential ahead.
The adequacy of higher education, public and private, in New York
State during the next twenty-five years will depend principally on:
(1) the number of young people of college age demanding facilities for
higher education;

(2) the goals that the State sets for higher education policy;

(3) the need for trained manpower;

(4) the increase in productivity of the New York State economy;

(5) the amount of expenditures for higher education that will be financed
out of State and local taxes; and

(6) federal aid to higher education, if any.

What is the outlook to 1965, 1970, 1980 and 1985 for these factors?
And, what should we do now in New York State, to make sure that an
adequate system of higher education is ready for our young people when
it is needed, and where it is needed?

Let us look at the figures and the implications for policy formulation
in the future.

2 Introduction


Il OUTLOOK
FOR
ENROLLMENTS

The number of people in New York State wishing to go to colleges and
universities full time or part time who are able to do post-high school
work can be expected to reach 646,000 by 1965, 804,000 by 1970 and
1,270,000 by 1985. Compared to 1959 enrollments of 401,000, this will
be a 61 per cent increase in 6 years, a doubling by 1970 and a tripling by
1985. The figures are in the table that follows:

Table A Estimated Enrollments in Colleges and Universities in New York State

ee RL EEUU EEE EERE EEEREEREEEOR

Number
—
Full-time Index for
Fall of Full-time and the Total
Year Only Part-time (1959 = 100)
es
1959 (actual) 205,000 401,000 100
- 1960 217,000 425,000 106
1965 323,000 646,000 161
1970 402,000 804,000 200
1975 481,000 962,000 240
1980 551,000 1,102,000 275
1985 635,000 1,270,000 317

LEU EEE EEE

Five main factors underlie this expected growth in the number of

college students. They are: .

(1) an increasing number of young people of college age;

(2) an increasing proportion of young people graduating from high
school; :


(3) an increasing percentage of high school graduates going to college
full time; .

(4) an increasing number of part-time enrollments; and

(5) a declining percentage of undergraduate students from New York
State going to colleges and universities outside the State.

These five factors are described further in the Statistical Appendix.
They apply not only to New York State but also, in varying degree, to
Pennsylvania, California, Massachusetts, and every other industrial state’
in the country. They are being recklessly underestimated by many who
are too timid to look the long-run college admissions problem in the eye.
The fact is that going to college is rapidly becoming as important to many
individuals, and as necessary for the welfare of our country, as going to
high school became during the period between the two World Wars.

And going to college is economically possible, too, for a large propor-
tion of our population. If business continues at prosperous levels in the
future and personal incomes remain high, a large proportion of parents
can be expected to find ways to send their children to college despite the
cost involved. On the other hand, if business is at lower levels, there
will be substantial unemployment among unskilled young adults. The
chances are that many would enroll in colleges and universities.

Assuming that enrollments grow, where will the increases be—in pub-
lic or private institutions?

In the past, it has been the practice in New York State to permit private
colleges and universities to enroll all the students they could handle, and
to limit the expansion of public institutions to the balance. For the last
twenty years, for example, private institutions have enrolled about 60
per cent of the students, with the public colleges enrolling the remaining
40 per cent. On a conservative basis, we estimate there will be a relative
decline in private enrollments over the next twenty-five years because:
(1) Most of the leading private colleges and universities are developing

a more selective admissions policy. Some are already finding it neces-
sary to turn away high school students with good academic records.
(2) Many private colleges and universities will be unable to finance a
rapid expansion at a time when faculty and other costs are rising
sharply. Nearly all are operating at substantial deficits which have
to be covered each year by gifts from corporations, alumni, and
individual friends of the college. With present methods of operation,

4 Outlook for Enrollments


Enrollments skyrocketing

STUDENTS IN NEW YORK STATE
FIGURES IN THOUSANDS
1,400

PART TIME

: meg 4 SEADUATE
FULL TIME

UNDER-
@ GRADUATE
FULL TIME

1953 1960 "65

Heavier burden for public colleges

PRIVATE PUBLIC
2 . 20 40

60

TEXAS
CALIFORNIA

*New York Assumption A estimates 150 per cent increase in private enrolments by 1985.
**New York Assumption B estimates 100 per cent increase in private enrollments by 1985.



increased enrollments will result in even greater deficits and an even
greater need for gifts. These gifts can be expanded, but not rapidly
enough to permit large increases in enrollments.

Government aid would be a solution, but if it were great enough to
permit private institutions to continue to enroll 60 per cent of the stu-
dents, it would ultimately amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a
year, and would be so large as to change fundamentally the financial
and educational characteristics of the private institutions. They would
no longer be “private.”

A conservative estimate is that “private” enrollments will drop from
the present 60 per cent to something between 40 per cent and 50 per cent
_(probably closer to 40 per cent) of the total by 1985. This implies a much
heavier burden for “public” institutions in New York State, although

- even then their share of the total would be smaller than in a number of
other large states. Some examples are in the following table:

Table B Percentage of Students Enrolled in Public Colleges and Universities

Percentage in Public
Colleges and Universities

State . Category of Enroliment
1959 Future Years*

- California Full-time 80% 89% (1975)
Mlinsis Full-time and part-time 50 63 (1970)
Michigan Full-time equivalent 77 Above 77 (1970)
Minnesota Full-time 70 Above 70 (1970)
Texas Full-time and part-time 65 69 (1970)
New York Full-time and part-time 38 50-60 (1985)

*Percentages estimated by officials in the various states.

6 Outlook for Enrollments


More high school graduates

THOUSAND GRADUATES IN NEW YORK STATE

Percent of high school graduates in college*

PERCENT NEW YORK STATE GRADUATES
60

50

40

=

=
===

=
=
= =

=

==
"7959 21960 ‘65
*Part-time students are in addition,



lll GOALS WE
SHOULD
STRIVE FOR

The kind of education we give our children in colleges and universities
in the generation ahead depends on the goals we set now and during the
next few years. What do we want in higher education? What do we
need? What does our position in the world demand?

No one can answer these questions exactly, but we do know that
within a relatively few years — say, since the birth of many children
still too young to enter college — higher education in America has
been propelled into a distinctly new era by a combination of powerful
worldwide forces. There has been an accelerated pace of human events,

-an explosion of knowledge, a surge of population, an almost unbeliev-
able breakthrough in science and technology, and, possibly more impor-
tant than any other force, a menacing international contest between
democracy and communism.

It will not be enough, therefore, if our colleges and universities meet
the potental increases in enrollments merely by doing on a larger scale
what they have already been doing for many years in their classrooms
and laboratories. They will have to do it better than ever before, much
better — enough better to meet the fantastic demands the future may be
expected to impose on the American people.

Many of the men and women entering colleges and universities this
year, next year, and in the generation ahead will live a part of their lives
as adults in the 21st century. They must be prepared to meet its most
strenuous tests. Even the best models of education from the past will not
be good enough for them. This is because we have been producing what
Walter Lippmann calls an educational deficit. A few years before the


Russian sputnik illuminated our educational skies he said about our
educational effort:

I donot mean we are doing alittle too little. Imean we are doing
much too little ...Our educational effort ... has not yet been raised
to the plateau of the age we live in. We must measure ...it

not by what would be easy and convenient to do but by what it is
necessary to do in order that the nation may survive and flourish.
We have learned that we are quite rich enough to defend ourselves,
whatever the cost. We must now learn that we are quite rich enough
to educate ourselves as we need to be educated.

Over the years the people of the State of New York have been rich
enough, but they have not given enough thought, perhaps, to educating
their young people as they should be educated. Much more will have to
be done in the future than has been done in the past. There should be
goals — high goals; and they should include:

(1) wide availability and diversity of educational opportunity to students
with various intellectual capabilities and of all income classes in the
State;

(2) a strong system of public as well as private education, including
strong public universities; and

(3) the attainment of excellence in academic instruction and research in
all the institutions of higher learning in the State.

The recommendations in this report indicate where progress may be
made toward the achievement of these goals. But this will not be
enough. What also will be required is a new attitude toward public
higher education, a new state of mind, a new desire to put some real
meaning into the motto inscribed on the seal of the State University of
New York which says, “Let each become all he is capable of being.” If
we resolve to be guided by those words, public higher education in New
York will cease to be a limping and apologetic enterprise and will achieve
the spirit and style which characterize the nation’s great public institu-
tions.


Iv DO WE NEED
THE TRAINED
MANPOWER?

A question that never fails to arise when the possible doubling or
tripling of college enrollments in New York State is mentioned is, “Does
the country or the State need so much highly trained manpower?”

Estimates to 1975 (see Statistical Appendix ) indicate that the demand
for college-trained personnel will continue to grow. New York’s per-
centage of the nationwide total may decline slightly, but according to
the United States Department of Labor, New York will have to educate
over one million workers during the next fifteen years to meet the needs
for professional and technical manpower alone, and an additional num-
ber for the large and growing fields of management and technical sales.

A comparable estimate was made in a report released a few months
ago by the New York State Industrial Commissioner, in response to a
request by the 1959 New York State Legislature. He said (referring to
1957-1970):

... there will be over 600,000 job vacancies to be filled by
professionally qualified persons... The greatest needs will be
for teachers (150,000) and engineers (110,000).

He also said:
Large needs will arise for engineering and physical science

technicians, electronic technicians, and medical and dental
technicians.


New York needs MORE college-trained people
35
new WORKERS TO BE HIRED, 1960-75

Si! TO
/ EXPANSION OR RETIREMENTS OTHER OCCUPATIONS
T

YPE OF NEW JOBS WO

$00,000 700,000
PROFESSIONAL & MANAGERS & CRAFTSMEN &
TECHNICAL OFFICIALS FOREMEN
Pa LL + - adds up to 1.0-1.5 million
seamlions) college-trained people!

Enrollments vs. Capacity unpercrapuate sTupents*

STUDENTS IN NEW YORK STATE.
FIGURES IN THOUSANDS
500

PROJECTED MINUMUM
ENROLLMENT: GAP
in TO BE MET**

PRESENT
CAPACITY

1968 65 "70 15 20 1985

“Additional facilities may be needed for some graduate students and some part time students,
**By new construction or batter utilization of space.



And also:

About 600,000 persons must become qualified craftsmen if the
State’s need for skilled workers during the 1960's is to be satisfied.

Although the estimates of the United States Department of Labor and
the New York State Industrial Commissioner are subject to a number of
qualifications, we believe them to be conservative. There can be no
doubt but that the decades of the 1960’s and 1970's will witness an in-
creasing demand for people with community-college, four-year-college,
graduate- and professional-school backgrounds. The overwhelming evi-
dence is that our society is becoming ever more dependent on individuals
who have acquired a high order of formal education and training. This
is expressed not only in constantly increasing demands for individuals
trained in science and technology, but also for specialists trained in man-
agement, the social sciences, and languages.

12 Do We Need the Trained Manpower?


V WHERE WILL
THE MONEY
COME FROM?

Ten years, fifteen years, twenty-five years from now, the people of
New York State will have a greatly increased personal income out of
which to pay for higher education. If a high level of employment and
present price levels are assumed, the potential gross income of individ-
uals in New York State in 1975 can be expected to be about $90 billion,
a 100 per cent increase over the $45 billion in 1959 (see Statistical Ap-
pendix).

A gross personal income of $90 billion in New York State in 1975 is
equivalent to the gross personal income of the entire United States 20
years ago. We, as a State, can achieve this income because day after day
the whole nation is bringing to bear on the expansion of industrial pro-
ductivity all the ingenuity, the inventiveness, and the ability of our
people. It will be accomplished (in the absence of war) by the greatest
concentration of research and development on the problems of mankind
that the world has ever known.

Against this tremendous volume of personal income, how much will be
involved for higher education?

New York State spent $269 millions in 1958 for teaching the students
in all public and private institutions of higher education in the State (in-
cluding administrative and operating expenses allocable to teaching
functions but excluding contract research, nonteaching activities and
living accommodations — see Statistical Appendix). Similar expendi-
tures for the school year beginning in September, 1960, can reasonably
be expected to be about $300 million; and on this basis will stand at two-
thirds of one per cent, roughly, of the total gross personal i income of the
people of New York State.

13


By 1975 higher education teaching costs (as defined above) of $900
to $1,200 million (compared to the $300 million now) are well within
probability — an increase of 200 to 300 per cent in costs at a time when
enrollments are increasing by 125 to 150 per cent. The exact amount will
depend upon the future attitude of the people of New York State with
respect to higher education. It will reflect, also, a rise in the level of
faculty salaries. With the growth in enrollments, the reduction in the
number of students exported to other states, and the increased com-
plexity of our educational needs, more will have to be spent for highly
qualified faculty in the future than in the past. Salaries have been too
low for many years, with top-grade faculty members substantially sub-
sidizing, in effect, the education of their students.

Can we afford greater expenditures for college and university edu-
cation? Certainly we can. Although we could afford more, we have been
spending less relatively on higher education than many other com-
parable states—see Statistical Appendix. Our greatly increased gross
personal income will enable us to allocate increased funds for college
and university expenditures, as follows:

We estimate the increase in gross
personal income in this State
between 1959 and 1975 will be $45 billion

The increase in higher education

teaching costs (including overhead

but excluding research, etc., as above) .

in the same period can be estimated at $600 to $900 million

The increase in such costs will then be 1% to 2 per cent of the
increase in personal income

The total of such costs will then be 1 to 1% per cent of the total
personal income in the State
(compared to % of 1 per cent now)

Similar percentage relationships could be expected if the figures were
projected to 1980 and 1985.

14 Where Will the Money Come From?


There are those who feel that by 1975 we will certainly have federal
aid for education — at the college and university level as well as for
elementary and secondary schools, and that this will make the financing
even easier. But for this report we need not estimate the amount
of federal aid New York State might obtain a decade or two hence. The
fact is that increased expenditures for higher education are well within
the capacity of New York State’s residents. However, as they prepare to
meet them, State responsibilities for higher education should be re-
aligned, private higher education should be strengthened, and the State
University system should be expanded — all to the end that educational
facilities and well-trained faculties are made available to every type of
student, at every income level, and to meet all reasonable academic and

technical needs.

15


VI REALIGNING
HIGHER EDUCATION
RESPONSIBILITIES

To realign the responsibilities in an educational system that has grown
up over 175 years will take a lot of doing, but it must be done.

As of now, the machinery for the control and operation of higher
education in New York State is one of the most complex in the whole
country. It is unique in many respects — but it is not equipped to meet
the needs of the future.

At the top there is “The University of the State of New York,” the
supercoordinating body — not a university in the usual sense of the
word, but a policy-forming and administrative body. It is governed by
the Board of Regents, elected by the Legislature, who preside over all the
elementary, secondary, and higher educaiion institutions approved by
the State. All colleges and universities incorporated in the State, both
public and private, are “members” of the University of the State of New
York.

The administrative functions of the Board of Regents are handled by
the State Education Department. This is headed by the Commissioner of
Education, who is also President of the University of the State of New
York. Higher education is only a small part, however, of his heavy re-
sponsibilities for the supervision of all educational activities in the State.

Next and separate, but under the general supervision of the Regents,
is the “State University of New York” governed by a Board of Trustees
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The State Uni-
versity is a decentralized confederation consisting of one liberal arts
college, two medical schools, eleven colleges of education, eight other
professional colleges, six agricultural and technical institutes and
eighteen locally sponsored two-year community colleges.

16


The State University is subject to extremely tight controls imposed by
State executive agencies and the law. There are several levels of admin-
istrative organization between the various units and the Legislature or
the Governor. In addition, the State University as a whole appears to
have less administrative and management freedom of operation than
almost any other publicly supported institution or group of institutions
in the United States. .

Third is the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York which
is responsible for the operation and management of the four city col-
leges and three community colleges (in the Bronx, Queens, and Staten
Island). The Board is appointed by the Mayor, submits its budget to the
City Board of Estimate for approval, receives its State funds through the
State University, and is subject to the general supervision of its educa-
tional programs by the Board of Regents.

Fourth are the 126 private colleges and universities which are subject
to general supervision by the Board of Regents with respect to the
degrees they offer, the curriculums they provide, and any new campuses
they open. In other respects they go various ways of their own.

Completely apart from the higher education hierarchy in New York
State are a large number of organizations, institutions, and agencies
providing education of one kind or another beyond the high school.
Included in this category are the federal service schools (the United
States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Merchant
Marine Academy at Kings Point) and many educational programs at
industrial, commercial and financial corporations. Since these are not
under the jurisdiction of the Regents, the State Education Department
does not consider them as part of “higher education” in New York. How-
ever, the education and training provided in many of the courses in-
volved is similar to that provided by institutions of higher education
recognized by the State and in some cases is of a superior quality.

Outside observers marvel that an organizational structure as complex
as that existing in New York can operate effectively. The fact is that it
has not operated effectively — only good will on all sides, particularly
on the part of the Board of Regents, has prevented complete breakdown.

The first and foremost problem which faces the State, therefore, is
to streamline the organizational structure of higher education so that
colleges and universities will be able to meet the challenge of increasing
enrollments during the generation ahead. we prorosE a new alignment

17


of responsibilities in five organizational units:

(1) the Board of Regents;

(2) the State University of New York;

(3) the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York;

(4) new local boards of overseers for each public college and university;
and

(5) anew council of higher education advisors.

(1) Board of Regents

The Board of Regents is responsible for the most comprehensive job
of educational administration in the United States. In addition to its
responsibilities in the field of higher education it supervises the elemen-
tary and secondary school education of 2,800,000 children in five thou-
sand public schools; supervises all the museums, libraries, organizations
and agencies for education officially recognized by the State; registers
foreign and domestic educational institutions in terms of New York
standards, and fixes the value of their diplomas and degrees; administers
the licensing of eighteen professions; and is responsible for the operation
of the State’s Unfair Educational Practices Act. In the exercise of these
responsibilities the State Education Department, including the Com-
missioner of Education and his staff, has a host of administrative duties,
many of them mandated by law.

With all these duties and far-reaching responsibilities for the coordina-
tion of educational activities in New York State devolving upon the
Board of Regents, we believe there is no reason why the functions of the
Regents should overlap those of the Trustees of the State University, who
have a much narrower and more specialized activity to conduct. But we
strongly approve of the broad coordinating role of the Regents with
respect to all higher education in New York State, and in proposing the
reallocation of tasks we hope to enable them to exercise that responsi-
bility more effectively.

WE PROPOSE specifically, therefore, that where public colleges and
universities are concerned the functions of the Board of Regents, in
addition to those exercised with respect to private institutions, should
be limited to the receipt, critical review, and approval of a Master Plan
for the development and growth of a system of public higher education.

18 Realigning Higher Education Responsibilities


This plan should be a continually developing document prepared by the
State University and submitted at least once every three years to the
Board of Regents who should amend or add to it, hold public hearings
on it if necessary, and then act on it within three months after its sub-
mission by the State University.

(2) State University of New York

Full responsibility for planning and promotion of public higher edu-
cation throughout the State should be placed upon the State University
of New York, and its present powers of self-determination should be
extended and clarified to bring them up to the level which is taken for
granted by the great public universities of the nation. wz RECOMMEND
a number of steps to accomplish this.

First, the State University should prepare a Master Plan for public
higher education, obtain approval for it from the Board of Regents, and
then take the full responsibility for implementing the policies and goals
set forth in the Plan. The Master Plan should project the need for new
programs in existing public institutions and for new public institutions of
different types, and establish criteria for locating and establishing them.
The Master Plan should take full account of activities proposed by pri-
vate institutions, all of which should be requested to notify the Board
of Regents and the State University of their plans for the future.

Second, the expansion of the State University’s responsibility for plan-
ning and promotion of public higher education means that the State
University. must be freed of handicapping procedural requirements
which now limit its capacity to act decisively and effectively. This is
urgent if the needs of rapidly growing enrollments and of a presently
large number of educational emigrés from New York State to other states
are to be served within New York State. The State University should be
granted a large degree of freedom from existing budgetary requirements
for the establishment of individual positions and more leeway in shifting
appropriated funds from one educational purpose to another and in the
use of nonappropriated income (for example, income derived from non-
academic educational activities ).

The State University should also be granted the right to determine
what positions within its structure are “educationally related” and hence

19


can be established by the State University on its own initiative, rather
than requiring approval of the Civil Service Commission.

It should be granted, also, the option now available to the “contract”
colleges to make purchases, where cost or time or educational considera-
tions dictate, through sources other than the Division of Standards and
Purchase; this freedom would continue to be subject to existing arrange-
ments for the pre-audit and post-audit of expenditures.

Finally, and importantly, the State University should be given greater
freedom in carrying out construction work to build general instructional
facilities for which funds are appropriated by the Legislature. Unreason-
able delays in the approval of architectural plans and the actual initiation
of construction cannot be tolerated if rapidly expanding enrollments are
to be served. This probably means staffing the State University to handle
its own architectural, engineering and construction contracting services.

A clarification of the relationship between the Regents and the State
University Trustees and a realignment of responsibilities are essential
to the future effectiveness of higher education in New York State. With-
out them the State University will never be able to keep a first-class
president, nor will it be able to attain the stature of a great state institu-
tion of higher education.

The powers described above could be given the State University
Trustees by the passage of a constitutional amendment. However, this
is not required. The role of the Regents and the State University Trustees
could and should be clarified by the Legislature by changes in the appro-
priate statutes of the State.

Most, if not all, of the other objectives could be accomplished by
changes in, or interpretations of, existing regulations or procedures
established between the State University staff and the Budget Director’s
Office, the Division of Standards and Purchase, the Civil Service Com-
mission, and the Public Works Department. The Governor should take
the responsibility for bringing about the necessary actions in order to
avoid unwarranted delays.

(3) Board of Higher Education of the City of New York

The four city colleges are largely financed by the City, but the State’s
contribution toward the total cost has been growing, and it is reasonable

20 Realigning Higher Education Responsibilities


to expect that State aid to these colleges may continue to expand over the
next generation. WE RECOMMEND, therefore, that the State be repre-
sented on the Board of Higher Education in proportion to the funds
contributed by the State. To insure integration between the policies of
the State University and the Board of Higher Education, the State repre-
sentatives should be selected from among the Trustees and high adminis-
trative officials of the State University. These representatives would be
nominated by the Governor, and would exercise this additional responsi-
bility as part of their official function.

In this connection, WE RECOMMEND that the size of the Board of Higher
Education, which is already too large, be reduced to fifteen members
representing the City plus the additional members representing the
State. The law could provide that the reduction to fifteen City members
be accomplished by not filling vacancies as they occur during the next
few years.

The Board of Higher Education, reconstituted as proposed above,
should be responsible for planning, promotion and supervision of all
institutions now supported in whole or in part by the City of New York,
including the two community colleges now sponsored by the New York
City Board of Education and the Board of Estimate.

(4) Local Boards of Overseers

The administration of a college or university, even one which is part of
a larger system, is a demanding task, particularly during a period of
rapid growth. Important decisions of both management and policy
nature are required daily with respect to the internal functioning of the
institution and the performance of its role in the total system. Experi-
ence in the administration of systems of higher education shows that the
greatest effectiveness occurs when a strong local board is available to
help govern a public institution.

WE PROPOSE that a new strong Board of Overseers be established for
each public institution in the State to supplant existing advisory boards,
trustees, or councils. These new boards should be provided for by statute
and the duties of each should include: making recommendations to the
State University Trustees of candidates for president of the institution;
advising the president in the development of the budget and on program

21


planning required to meet the educational needs of the local area or
constituency; and marshalling local area and constituency support, both
moral and material, for the policies and programs of the institution.

One important purpose of establishing and developing local Boards
of Overseers and of making them responsible for the operational man-
agement of the various public institutions is to protect and expand the
State University’s role as a planning and coordinating agency by releas-
ing it from some of its present administrative duties.

The local boards should number 11 to 15 persons and should be repre-
sentative of the varied interests of the community or constituency served
by the college. Members should be appointed to terms of at least three
years’ duration, overlapping to provide continuity in the composition
of the board. The boards should be appointed by the State University
Trustees from candidates suggested by local area government agencies
or by constituent groups served, except that in New York City, the
Board of each of the city colleges and the community colleges would be
appointed by the Board of Higher Education reconstituted as outlined
above.

The Boards of Overseers should be truly identified with each institu-
tion and should not include persons who are members of the Board of
Regents, the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, or the
State University.

(5) Council of Higher Education Advisors

In addition to the agencies outlined above, there is permanent need for
a small body of prominent citizens to assess higher education in the
State, to compare it with what is being accomplished in other states, to
review progress that is made toward the achievement of the goals and
objectives set by the Governor and the Legislature, and to recommend
publicly and loudly what ought to be done to keep our system of higher
education in line with our needs—statewise, nationally, and in view of
the world situation.

WE PROPOSE that this body be authorized by the Legislature and ap-
pointed by the Governor and the Board of Regents for a four-year,
nonrenewable term at the beginning of his term of office. The members
should be outstanding leaders in the cultural, professional, civic, and

22 Realigning Higher Education Responsibilities


economic life of the State. They should be interested in higher educa-
tion but not employed by an institution of higher education. They should
be commissioned to make a report to the Governor, the Board of Regents
and the public one year from their date of appointment, and annually
thereafter, on the condition of higher education in New York, and on
the current and prospective needs of higher education and how they
are being met. Their report should also set forth the considerations
which the various agencies of higher education and the Governor and
Legislature should keep in mind in making education decisions for
the future.

The Council should have a small, highly qualified staff for its term of
office but it should have no administrative duties or functions other than
those connected with the preparation of its report. Its budget should be
adequate, and its life should expire at the end of each administration
immediately after the presentation of its fourth and final report.

The proposed Council of Higher Education Advisors would not in any
way supplant or overlap the duties of the Board of Regents, the Com-
missioner of Education, the State University, the New York City Board
of Higher Education, or the local Boards of Overseers. The Council’s
job would not be administrative or planning. Its function would be to

- observe, assess, review, and recommend.

23


‘

Vil STRENGTHENING
PRIVATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES

The recommendations and suggestions set forth above are designed
to make it possible for the State to exercise its responsibilities in the field
of higher education effectively and efficiently.

But the bulwark of higher education in New York State for many
years has been our private colleges and universities, and the great
tradition of meeting the need for higher education through a
combination of private and public institutions must be preserved

for the future.
Private institutions, as indicated earlier, can be expected to handle a

declining share of enrollments. Nevertheless, by 1985 they still may be
expected to enroll no less than 40 per cent of the full-time students in
the State. To be able to do this and to handle their pro rata share of
part-time students, they must be continued as strong and vigorous insti-
tutions — educationally, administratively and financially.

Private institutions of higher learning have important and unique
functions to perform. They give American education a diversity and
scope not possible in tax-supported institutions alone, and they have
an opportunity to emphasize, if they wish, individualistic patterns of
thought, courses of social action, or political or religious activity. In
New York State, private colleges and universities have performed this
function with great competency in the past. For the years ahead we
propose that the State help to insure the continuance of their effective-
ness by inaugurating a program of direct aid to private colleges and
universities. WE suGcEsT that this aid should:

(1) consist of a per capita grant to each institution for each student

24


graduated with a degree approved by the Board of Regents (except
divinity degrees and, of course, honorary degrees);

(2) be in an amount no greater than a small fraction of the total cost of
educating each student;

(3) vary with the level of the degree, inasmuch as education at advanced
levels is clearly more expensive than that offered in the earlier years;
and.

(4) be formally provided to the institution under the terms of a contract
drawn in accordance with the appropriation made by the Legislature.

WE succEsT further that planning and programming of State aid to
private colleges and universities be under the direct jurisdiction of the
Board of Regents, and that the amount proposed each year be included
by the Regents in the budget of the State Education Department.

Although the direct aid we propose is for the purpose of strengthening
private institutions and permitting private higher education to continue
as a substantial and influential factor in New York State, the payments
should not be so large as to change the character of private institutions
—particularly so as to make them too heavily dependent on the State
for their future financing. We believe that an aggregate payment not in
excess of 10 per cent of teaching expenditures in private colleges and
universities in the State would satisfy these requirements.

The program could be started in 1961-62 if desired with an expendi-
ture of $10 million (which is approximately 6 per cent of teaching ex-
penditures in private colleges and universities, as described in Chapter
V). This could be allocated to the various institutions in a variety of
ways depending on the relative weight given to the different degrees.
Some illustrative schedules are shown in the Statistical Appendix.

We are advised that a contract plan would not violate the State Con-
stitution where nonsectarian colleges and universities are concerned.
Weare not in a position, however, to say how sectarian institutions might
fit into this State-aid program. The issue has never been decided specifi-
cally by the courts and we are informed that views as to its potential
constitutionality are speculative.

Should there be a delay in settling this matter for sectarian institutions,
this should not prevent the drawing up of the contracts with nonsec-
tarian colleges and universities.

A State-aid program of the type we propose will be a new development

25


in the United States. We observe, however, that in Pennsylvania and in
many countries throughout the world the trend is toward some measure
of government assistance to enable private colleges and universities to
remain in existence.

The program of State aid described above would provide funds for
operating purposes. Private colleges and universities. will need capital
assistance, too. This should be provided by the New York State Dormi-
tory Authority under the provisions of the present statute. wE RECOM-
MEND that the Legislature pass again at the next session, and the people
of the State approve, an amendment to the State Constitution which
would put the State’s credit behind the Dormitory Authority’s bonds.

26 Strengthening Private Colleges and Universities


VIE EXPANDING
THE STATE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

The realignment (as outlined in Chapter VI) of the administrative
interconnections between the various State agencies involved in higher
education and the freeing of the State University system from many
restrictions will provide a streamlined mechanism for expanding public
higher education in New York State. But these actions in themselves will
not be enough to provide the State with a top-quality system of public
higher education with a character of its own, a strong system (not one
to just fill in the gaps), and one that will be widely available to stu-
dents of all income classes wherever they are located in the State.
Important changes must be made in addition, therefore, in the func-
tions and the educational policies of the public institutions. wE PROPOSE
that:

(1) The State colleges for teacher education
be converted into liberal arts colleges.

New York’s eleven colleges of education provide professional training
for teaching to some 20,000 full-time students. These colleges are dis-
tributed geographically so as to cover every part of the State except New
York City, where professional training for teaching for another 20,000
students is handled through State-financed programs at the colleges of
the City of New York. There are, in addition, teacher training programs

27


at seventy private colleges and universities which handle about 15,000
“education” students.

Among the aspects of education that we can do something about,
teaching is central. The preparation of teachers for our schools is one
of the critical areas for improvement and experimentation. Some funda-
mental and far-reaching reforms are in order, for the goals and interests
that have characterized American public education up to now are not
sufficient in this swiftly moving age.

WE PROPOSE, therefore, that the state colleges of education be con-
verted into liberal arts colleges, starting immediately. In those two or
three instances where it may not be possible to convert a college of
education into a good liberal arts college, the institution should become
a community college. The State should not create inferior liberal arts
colleges in place of inferior teachers colleges.

This recommendation rests on a number of assumptions and facts,
including the following:

(a) Teachers should have a good general education. They should be as
well educated as other college graduates in the communities where
they teach.

(b) Strong State liberal arts colleges with teacher-education programs
and low tuition would attract more students into teaching.

(c) The curricula of the State colleges of education need revision. The
professional courses in education have been increased out of propor-
tion to the legitimate subject matter in the field and some of the
courses in the arts and sciences appear to be of dubious academic
value.

When the colleges of education have become liberal arts colleges, the
curriculum for training teachers in a four-year program should be heav-
ily concentrated in the liberal arts and sciences. Professional “methods”
courses should be reduced in number. More attention should be given
to five-year Master-of-Arts-in-teaching programs.

The New York City colleges teacher training programs should follow
a similar pattern and provide, in addition, some special programs for
persons who plan to teach in New York City schools. The complex edu-
cational problems in large urban centers often require specially pre-
pared teachers.

28 Expanding the State University System


(2) The community-college system should be expanded.

A system of low-tuition, State-aided, locally supported and adminis-
tered two-year community colleges is an essential and major part of the
provision for higher education in New York State. The evidence indicates
that in the future two-year public institutions must provide collegiate
opportunities for a sharply increasing number of young people in this
State as elsewhere in the nation.

Conservative estimates place the total two-year community college
requirements in New York State at:

40,000 to 50,000 full-time students
within five years (the fall 1959
number was 16,000);

75,000 to 100,000 full-time students within
ten to fifteen years;

100,000 to 125,000 full-time students within
fifteen to twenty years.

Part-time students will be in addition to these numbers. Further details

are in the Statistical Appendix.
Community colleges must also be close to home for nearly all of these

students. This means that:

60 per cent of the facilities will have to be located
in the New York metropolitan area including
Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland Counties;

20 to 25 per cent will have to be located within
commuting distance of Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, and

Syracuse;

the remainder will have to be distributed around the State.

There will be a great need to provide for “university-parallel” pro-

29


grams which will allow such students as are capable, and who wish to
do so, to transfer to four-year colleges conveniently.
WE PROPOSE, therefore, that: 7

(a) existing community colleges be expanded with a top enrollment of
5,000 full-time students in the New York City area, and 3,000 full-
time students in other parts of the State;

(b) new two-year community colleges be built as rapidly as a minimum
enrollment of 500 students within two years of opening can be ©
expected;

(c) “university-parallel” programs be incorporated in the curricula of all
community colleges;

(d) upper-level liberal arts work for transfer students be provided at all
of the State colleges of education that are converted into liberal arts
colleges, as well as at the State University’s Long Island Center and
the four New York City colleges;

(e) the agricultural and technical institutes be converted into community
colleges; and

(f) the State provide a greater share of the money for community colleges
in the future than in the past.

More money from the State is important if the community colleges
are to be expanded rapidly enough to handle the educational job that
has to be accomplished in the future. One real stumbling block to a
rapid expansion of community colleges under the present law is the
requirement that local communities finance one-third of operating costs.
In general this means higher local property taxes—taxes which already
have increased greatly in recent years to meet the requirements of the
public schools.

The State could increase its share of the financing of community col-
leges in a number of ways. For example:

(a) It could increase its contribution from one-third of operating costs to
a higher percentage—say one-half of operating costs.

(b) It could increase its share of expenditures for capital itéms from the
present 50 per cent to, say, 100 per cent. This would be less effective
than increasing the State’s share of operating costs.

(c) It could make a flat grant to each community college for each full-
time student or full-time equivalent student. This could be similar
to the State grants to high schools.

30 Expanding the State University System


These alternatives should be considered by the next Legislature and
action taken. Our preference is for the first.

(3) Graduate work should be provided at two State University locations.

New graduate centers in this State will be essential during the next
twenty-five years in order to maintain and improve the quality of in-
struction. With their twin missions of advanced education and basic
research, graduate schools are the keystones of modern universities.
A great graduate school cannot exist in isolation, however. It must be a
part of a great university with all this implies in undergraduate and pro-
fessional education as well as graduate instruction.

New graduate schools and new universities are expensive and their
building takes many years. In the decades ahead they are unlikely to be
the product of private initiative. we PRoposE, therefore, that prepara-
tions be begun immediately for the establishment of graduate schools as
an integral part of two new publicly supported universities in New York
State.

These universities should be included in the State University system.
One should be established on the site of the State University’s new Long
Island Center at Stony Brook, which, with additional land in the imme-
diate vicinity of the present 500-acre campus, could be developed to
accommodate from ten to twenty thousand students including com-
muters. It would have easy access to the great research laboratory at
Brookhaven for graduate work in the sciences. The other university
should be established upstate, either through the conversion of an exist-
ing private institution or through the development of one of the present
campuses of the State University, and should be reasonably large in size
and scope too. We are not favorably disposed toward the development of
isolated graduate programs in widely scattered locations. =

The two new public universities should be designed to stand with the |
finest in the country, and to attract and hold able men and women from -
all over the world. They would bring to the State and help to advance
the technical and scientific industries that are playing an increasingly
important part in our national economy. The faculty and research staffs
would provide additional sources of advice and expert service for all
the public and private interests of the people of the State.

31


(4) Enrollment capacity should be expanded by better space utilization
and by year-round operation of campuses.

If the State University were to continue to follow historically accepted
space utilization practices during the next ten or fifteen years, appropria-
tions for new buildings to meet the enrollment demand would have to
be greater than the grand total provided for college buildings by the
Legislature during the past century. This would be unreasonable in view
of the fact that:

(a) classrooms and laboratories are occupied less than the maximum
available number of hours of the week, particularly during the late
afternoon and evening hours, at lunch and dinner time, and on Satur-
days;

(b) when classrooms are occupied, many seats are not filled; and

(c) classrooms are occupied less than the maximum number of weeks
of the year (thirty-three weeks is a common schedule — and even
in cases where there are summer sessions, classroom utilization is a
fraction of the potential).

Dr. John Dale Russell, Director of Institutional Research at New York
University and an authority on space utilization, says that in most col-
leges and universities across the country present facilities could handle
theoretically about four times the present number of students during the
regular session if rooms were filled to capacity. While the theoretical
limit is unlikely to be reached, no one can deny that much can be done
to improve space utilization and to reduce the potential requirements for
new funds for buildings to house increased enrollments.

We have been advised, and we have no doubt, that the State Univer-
sity has long worked toward a higher-than-average level of space utiliza-
tion. We recognize that there are numerous and formidable obstacles in
the way of improvement. Nevertheless, with the increase in student
numbers it will be possible to use classrooms intensively in off-hours and
on off-days. In order to encourage this, wz PRoPosE that special conces-
sions be made to faculty and students for courses scheduled during less
popular periods (such as a salary-increase differential or a reduced
teaching load for faculty, and reduced tuition or special campus privi-
leges for students ).

In addition there is the possibility of year-round use of campuses. The

32 Expanding the State University System


State University can no longer afford the luxury of keeping college class-
rooms, laboratories and libraries largely unoccupied three or more
months annually. It should investigate the possibility of adopting the
four quarter plan or trisemester system, each of which extends campus
use to 11 to 11% months a year.

A number of colleges and universities are experimenting with year-
round campus operation plans and report them to be successful. In
Pennsylvania, for example, the University of Pittsburgh, The Pennsyl-
vania State University, and one of the state teachers colleges are on a
year-round basis. The Pennsylvania State Senate was so impressed with
the results that it passed a Resolution commending these institutions
“for their forward looking approach in making their facilities available
to a larger number of students by instituting twelve-month programs.”
The Legislature then went on to say “It is hoped that other institutions
of higher learning in Pennsylvania will explore the possibility of insti-
tuting similar programs.”

(5) Opportunity for college-level education should be expanded by the
establishment of a statewide system of educational television.

There can be no doubt that the State University will have to proceed
even beyond the steps outlined above in order to bring high-quality,
low-cost, college-level training in a great diversity of fields of study to
all the students who want it, need it, and should have it in the years
ahead. One practical method is to broadcast college-level courses on
television. Recent experiments show that a high level of learning can
be accomplished when:

(a) the instructor is a superior teacher;

(b) the course is well organized and planned;

(c) “on-campus” as well as “off-campus” viewing facilities and areas are
available;

(d) appropriate textbooks, workbooks, laboratory exercises and other
materials are prepared in advance and placed early enough in the
students’ hands; and

(e) a careful follow-up of the televised course is arranged, through
seminars, workshops, discussion sections, laboratory experiments, or

other means.

33


A statewide program of television courses at the college level will take
a year or two to work out. wE succEst that the State start on the neces-
sary plans at once, therefore, taking the first steps towards establishing
a statewide education network linking all of the units of the State Uni-
versity, and the private colleges and universities, too, if they desire. To
be most effective this system should:
(a) provide programs of only the highest quality;
(b) require high standards of performance for credit;
(c) place control of educational policy for the program in a council com-
posed of leading college and university administrators;
(d) place responsibility for preparation of courses in the hands of experi-
enced faculty members; and
(e) provide for constant evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the
courses.

There is no reason to suppose that television broadcasting of college
courses will supplant the work performed by faculty members, nor will
it eliminate classroom attendance. High-quality collegiate television is
something extra. It is designed to:

(a) add to the student’s college study experience in cases where he might
otherwise be unable to continue his study;

(b) bring outstanding teachers and courses to even the most remote parts
of the State; and

(c) raise the level and diversity of educational offerings in every institu-
tion of higher learning, public or private, no matter how limited or
specialized its “on-campus” program might be because of financial
limitations or administrative policy.

(6) Auniform tuition charge for undergraduate work
should be established at all public colleges.

The cost of providing higher education is increasing all over the coun-
try. In New York State there will be a great need for additional sources of
financing at public institutions, particularly to permit payment of ade-
quate faculty salaries. The imposition of a uniform tuition charge for
undergraduate work at colleges of education, the New York City col-
leges, the agricultural and technical institutes, the contract colleges, and
other public colleges is long overdue. Decisions on tuition made ten,

34 Expanding the State University System


twenty, or even a hundred years ago are no longer relevant and should

be changed now that financial demands are mounting and can be ex-

pected to continue to mount at an accelerating rate in the decade or two
ahead.

WE PROPOSE, therefore, that starting in the fall of 1961 a uniform
tuition-and-fee charge of $300 per year be imposed on full-time, under-
graduate resident students at all public colleges in New York State —
including units of the State University, the community colleges, and
institutions in the New York City college system. Inasmuch as this action
would raise the charges for the great majority of full-time students in the
colleges involved and might in some cases impose difficult financial
burdens on students of limited means, wE PROPosE that tuition rebates
be given automatically to all “C” average or better students from families
with incomes of less than $5,000 a year (as shown by State income tax
returns) and to other hardship cases.

This proposal is based on the conclusion that:

(a) A tuition charge is essential if public colleges are to be financed ade-
quately in this State in the future when demands for education and
the costs of providing education can be expected to rise rapidly.

(b) A large proportion of students in public colleges and universities in
other states pay some tuition and fees and this has not excluded stu-
dents of limited means from these institutions of higher education.

(c) The tuition in many public institutions in other states has been raised
in recent years as legislatures found that additional substantial in-
come from tuition was an essential part of college and university
financing. :

(d) A large number of students now going to New York City colleges and
the State University colleges where tuition is free and fees are low
are financially able to pay a tuition-and-fee charge comparable to that
charged by other state universities and municipal colleges—or for
that matter, by community colleges in New York State, by Harpur
College, and by the State University’s Long Island Center.

(e) A tuition-rebate plan administered by student-aid officials of the
various colleges in accordance with general specifications laid down
by the Legislature, and making special provisions for hardship cases,
can prevent tuition from being a burden on students truly in need.

(f) By 1963 or 1964 a $300 tuition-and-fee charge, minus rebates under
the tuition-rebate plan, canbe expected to increase the net income
of the colleges and universities involved by $15 million a year.

35

’


IX MEETING
THE NEEDS FOR
HEALTH PERSONNEL

Last year the Surgeon General’s Consultant Group reported to the
nation that the problem of increasing the supply of medical school grad-
uates was urgent. Three major phenomena, they said, have combined
to create a growing need for physicians:

(1) a rapid growth in population, with a more than proportionate in-
crease in the younger and older age groups which need the most
medical service;

(2) an increase in the individual use of medical services as incomes and
educational levels have risen, more people have health insurance,
more hospital beds are available, and there is a wider understanding
of the value of medical care; and

(3) an increasing use of people with medical training for research, teach-
ing, public health and other governmental work.

The Consultant Group then went on to analyze the educational capac-
ity of the present medical schools and concluded that 20 to 24 new two-
year and four-year schools would be needed nationwide by 1970, of
which two should be in New York State.

We believe that the Consultant Group’s estimate is conservative and
that New York’s minimum needs may be higher than projected — cer-
tainly as the State looks forward to 1975 and 1980. It is essential, there-
fore, that planning for new schools in this State be given the highest
priority.

But New York State, we find, is not organized adequately to do this.
There is not an agency, nor a committee, nor even an official whose prin-

36
LOY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY OF Ni
Sea Oa ry BROOK



cipal duty is to lay the groundwork for training the number of doctors

needed in the State as a whole. Instead, the responsibility is diffused

among the general duties of the Governor, the Board of Regents, the

State Education Department, the Legislature, the medical societies, and

the deans of the medical schools.

This should be corrected. The responsibility for a program of action
should be assigned as soon as possible. wz pRoPOsE that the Governor
appoint, with legislative approval, a Temporary Special Executive for
Medical Education (a “temporary” appointment is required because the
salary needed to obtain a highly qualified person for this job is far above
the State salary schedule for executive personnel).

This Special Executive should draw up a detailed Master Plan for the
Expansion of Medical Education in New York State during the next ten
to fifteen years; and the Governor should present the plan to the Legis-
lature, after its approval by the Trustees of the State University and the
Regents, during the 1962 legislative session.

The Master Plan for Medical Education should provide programs for:
(1) construction of two or three new State medical schools within the

next ten to fifteen years, at least one of which should be an experi-
mental institution;

(2) expanded appropriations for the State’s upstate and downstate medi-
cal centers;

(3) State grants to private medical schools administered by the Board of
Regents; these should be on a matching basis (to either federal or
private funds) to enable the various schools to expand their teaching
facilities (in this connection efforts should be made to put the class-

rooms and laboratories of these schools on a year-round operation _

schedule);

(4) liberal financial aid to medical students, interns and resident physi-
cians at hospitals, with a stipend (graduated on a “needs” basis)
comparable to the amounts offered as fellowships to graduate stu-
dents in other fields; and

(5) better pay for interns and resident physicians at hospitals.

These programs, together with the per capita grants for operating pur-
poses described in Chapter VII, can be most effective if, at the time they
are being put into operation, the State also takes action to develop a
well-trained corps of auxiliary medical workers, particularly nurses.

37


The shortage of nurses and the resulting reduction in the availability
of health services to the population as a whole is evident at every turn.
The greatest numerical deficit is among bedside nurses, but there is also
need for graduate nurses, teachers of nursing, administrators of nursing
schools and programs, and other nursing leaders. There are five steps
that the State should take to improve the situation:

(1) expand programs for nursing education at the bachelor’s degree and
at the master’s degree level, and at diploma schools and the two-year
community colleges, too;

(2) sponsor the development of new ways of training young women as
bedside nurses, particularly through the use of audio-visual aids;

(3) establish an organization charged with helping public and private
hospitals throughout the State to analyze their nursing activities and
to use nurses more effectively;

(4) sponsor the offering of elementary nursing training in high schools
throughout the State as part of domestic science or homemaking
education programs (this will expose many young girls to the nursing
profession; some will take it up as a career; for the others the training
will be useful preparation for marriage and motherhood ); and

(5) encourage increases in nurses’ salaries to levels competitive with
other occupations requiring a comparable amount of training or
experience (nurses’ salaries are inadequate at the present time—see
Statistical Appendix; they must be higher in the future because New
York State needs more nurses than can be found among “dedicated
people” who will work long hours under unsatisfactory conditions
for inadequate compensation ).

These steps for nursing and the steps set forth above for expanding
medical education are the minimum needed in New York State in the
years immediately ahead. If associated with action aimed toward better
utilization of physicians’ and nurses’ services (a responsibility of doctors,
hospitals, and medical societies rather than education agencies) the
State will be well on the way toward an adequate supply of physicians
and nurses for the future.

38 Meeting the Needs for Health Personnel


xX PROVIDING FOR
MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENT

One weakness in higher education in New York State today, and in the
country as a whole, is the absence of agencies which can help colleges
and universities transform the results of research, reflective study, and
institutional surveys into actual practice. Even more critical is the ab-
sence of machinery to examine the administrative management and
educational practices embedded in the operation of many colleges and
universities, and the failure of these institutions to allocate an adequate
volume of funds for management analysis and internal research.

It has been said that education could learn from such dynamic indus-
tries as chemicals, electronics, petroleum, and even agriculture, in which
rapid technological improvement in recent years has enabled produc-
tivity to rise dramatically. A common characteristic of these industries
is the continuously high level of expenditures for research and develop-
ment designed to improve present processes and products. A typical
chemical company, for example, spends three per cent or more of its
sales dollar on research and development. Much is spent each year to
improve agricultural products and productivity. Nearly ten per cent of
the nation’s total Federal budget is for scientific research and develop-
ment. In contrast, total expenditures on research to improve the educa-
tional and administrative processes of higher education cannot amount
to more than one-tenth of one per cent of the educational dollar nation-
wide — and New York is spending no more than the national average.

- But it is not only the money that is not being spent. The fact is that at
a time when there are 425,000 students in this State it would be hard to
find twenty people who are working full time on research designed to

39


improve the technique of the educational or administrative processes
in our 176 colleges and universities.

In the decade ahead this must change. Colleges and universities in
New York State must bring to bear on their own situations the same kind
of creative ability they have applied extensively in the past to the prob-
lems of industry, agriculture and government. The dynamic imagination
so dramatically focused on new techniques and new patterns of thought
— by the Columbia University staff in its activities for the Manhattan
project, by the Cornell staff in its agricultural projects, by the New York
University medical men in their restoration of the crippled at N.Y.U.-
Bellevue, and by the various universities involved at Brookhaven —
must now be directed to the problems of higher education itself.

WE succEsT that the State help colleges and universities to do this.
One way would be to establish a new agency whose sole function is to
improve the technique of higher education in New York State. Briefly,
this agency could: .

(1) help colleges and universities create, develop and adopt new policies,
concepts, procedures, techniques and materials;

(2) encourage prompt use of emerging knowledge about administration
and educational practices;

(3) train a corps of people capable of serving as outside consultants and
as members of the staffs of colleges and universities; and

(4) act as a permanent consultative or advisory group which would help
public and private colleges and universities, upon request, to work
out solutions to specific problems of internal management and edu-
cational practices.

In view of the nature of its work, this new agency, though financed by
the State at its beginning, should not be located administratively or geo-
graphically within an institution of higher education or in an existing
State Government organization. On the other hand, it could be expected
to maintain close working relationships with the State Education De-
partment and the central office of the State University.

40 Providing for Management Improvement


Xi THE STUDENT

The recommendations made so far in this report have been concerned
with the organization and structure of higher education in New York
State and the provision for strong private and public colleges and uni-
versities.

We tum now to the student. How should his college experience be
strengthened? How should we insure that those students capable of
post-high school education will actually be able to go to college? There
are a number of steps which we succEsT be taken.

(1) The minimum level of attainment at colleges and universities
throughout the State should be raised.

This means, first, more careful selection of students at the time of
admission; second, higher minimum requirements for acceptable work;
third, elimination of courses of dubious academic content from college
offerings; and fourth, rewards and incentives for higher performance.

The Regents should take the leadership in developing a program de-
signed to improve attainment in all colleges and universities in the State.

(2) Students should be encouraged to attend classes the year round and to
obtain degrees in a shorter period of time than is now customary.

Going to college eight months a year is a custom that originated in an
agricultural economy. Going to college for a four-year span harks back

41


to the 12th century when English parents figured that four years of study
abroad was a reasonable length of time for young men to be away from
home. Taken over by Cambridge and Oxford and imported into the
United States by Harvard in 1636, four years for college at the under-
graduate level has become embedded in our educational structure.

However, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in three years and a bache-
lor’s-master’s degree combination in 3% to 4 years is practical and feasible.
Such a plan has been introduced at the University of Pittsburgh, will be
in full operation by the fall of 1961, and is uniformly applauded by fac-
ulty and students alike. It is providing the opportunity for thousands of
young people to shorten by one year the time spent in preparation for a
career. Graduates are enabled to start regular jobs or to embark on pro-
fessional education earlier, and to reduce thereby the over-all burden
of financing their college education.

It will be observed by some that many students must work during the
summer, that year-round going to college is too hard on young people,
and that a three-year program interferes with athletics as well as aca-
demic activities. President Grayson Kirk of Columbia University said
recently in this connection:

Physicians and psychiatrists assure me normal youngsters can take
the three terms in stride. During World War Il anda few years
afterward many students were on a forty-eight-week schedule and
showed absolutely no ill effects from it. And the level of
performance never was higher.

He also said:

The trimester college plan... involves no sacrifice of academic
elements or, for that matter, undergraduate tribal customs. There
may be even more participation in extracurricular activities with
students’ attention focused on the campus forty-five weeks a year.
Sports can continue on the present basis by dropping the freshman
eligibility rule, as it was during the War.

Special provisions may be necessary for those students who must work
their way through college. They may not be able to give up the four-year
time span. For other students, however, the three-year period for a
degree should be the “standard” plan.

42 The Student


(3) Students should be encouraged to obtain college credit by taking
“Regents examinations” at the college level.

A large number of students are now doing college level work by inde-
pendent study and in television courses, adult education courses, courses
at industrial plants, and other courses outside regular college curricu-
lums. One great difficulty with these courses is that they do not count
uniformly, if at all, toward the achievement of a college degree. Yet in
many cases the subject matter studied is equivalent to that offered in a
course in a regular college or university curriculum.

We can expect a great increase in the future in the number of students
in educational activities other than full-time, day-student programs as
the post-high school age population increases and the desire to do col-
lege work expands. Many of these students will be engaged in high-
quality study, and we propose that a program be established by the
Regents which would permit students to acquire regular college credit
for their achievements without regular attendance at formal college
classes.

The program we propose involves “Regents examinations” at the col-
lege level which would test the student’s knowledge, skills and command
of a given subject. For these tests we believe that:

(a) standards should be and could be kept at high levels of proficiency
— certainly not less than colleges now maintain for a passing grade;

(b) the aggregate amount of credit given should be limited; the total
should not constitute the entire college course; and

(c) credit should be awarded at the option of the college or university,
in accordance with an organized curriculum or course of study ar-
ranged between the student and the institution.

The system of credit by examination we propose is based on the follow-
ing conclusions:

(a) the demand for trained manpower during the next decade or two will
be so great that the State should encourage students to engage in
post-high school study of every form;

(b) high-quality post-high school education can be offered through tele-
vision courses, adult education courses, and by other means outside
the conventional curriculum of colleges and universities; and

(c) the offering of these courses outside the conventional curriculum can

43


extend the effectiveness of well-qualified faculty and alleviate the
seriousness of their potential shortage as enrollments increase.

The preparation and administration of these examinations would be
the responsibility of the Regents, in consultation with the faculties of
the various colleges and universities in the State. The Regents are al-
ready familiar with the problems and principles of statewide examina-
tions, since they now supervise an extensive system of high school ex-
aminations as well as licensing examinations in 18 professions. They
could also draw on the broad experience of the Educational Testing
Service, which develops and administers a variety of college-level ex-
aminations, including those for advanced placement; and of a number
of universities within the state which give a small amount of course credit
by examination (for example, the University of Buffalo and Columbia
University’s Schoo] of General Studies).

(4) Going to college for those who cannot afford it should be
encouraged by increased scholarships and loans.

During the school year 1960-61 more than 200,000 New York State
residents will be enrolled as full-time students in colleges and univer-
sities. The cost of a year’s undergraduate education will average about
$2,500 in a private college or university, and about $1,500 in a public
institution. These estimates include tuition and fees, board and room
(or an allocation therefor), and incidental and personal expenses.

To these 200,000 students the aggregate cost for a college education .
during this school year can be expected to amount to no less than $400 ~
million (the amount for part-time students will be in addition). New
York State is financing about 3 per cent of this total by tax money through
the State scholarship program. In addition the State aids its students indi-
rectly by taxpayer financing, in whole or in part, of the various units
of the State University system; and the State and New York City jointly
finance the New York City college system.

In the aggregate the measures of public support per capita for higher
education in New York State are small when compared to the levels in
a number of other states. In California (14 million population ), for ex-
ample, the “tax dollars” furnished in 1958 by the State and by local

44 The Student


governmental units for teaching students and providing scholarships in
colleges and universities amounted to $205 million — not including
capital funds (see Statistical Appendix). In New York, with a larger
population (16 million people), the total was less than half as great —
$87 million, including New York City colleges. Comparative figures on
a per capita basis for 1958 are as follows:

Table C “Tax Dollars” Furnished by State and Local Governments for Teaching Students in Colleges
and Universities and Providing Scholarships (Current Funds Only—1957-58)

State Per Capita State Per Capita
Amount Amount
California $15.17 NEW YORK $5.41
Michigan 11.82 North Carolina 5.18
lowa 10.29 Missouri 5.12
Minnesota 10.12 Connecticut 5.08
Indiana 8.55 Ohio 4.44
Minois 8.08 Pennsylvania 3.32
Wisconsin 7.65 New Jersey 3.15
Texas 7.61 Massachusetts 2.39

We have already recommended that the State University system be
expanded substantially. However, this expansion can provide an ade-
quate volume of higher education effectively to New York State resi-
dents only if:

(a) private colleges and universities are strong enough to handle 40 to
50 per cent of full-time students in the future as enrollments in the
State increase; and

(b) it is possible for an adequate share of qualified students in the State
to finance an education at a private college or university.

The program of State aid to private colleges and universities (pro-
posed in Chapter VII) and a substantial rise in State-scholarship aid are
required to make these two circumstances possible. we PRoPosE, there-
fore, that the State:

(a) increase the number of State scholarships available annually to 10
per cent of each year’s high school graduates instead of 5 per cent as
at present; ,

(b) increase maximum scholarship awards to $1,500 and determine all

45


scholarships on a “needs” basis established each year by the Regents,
except for a single-stipend minimum scholarship of $100 which win-
ners not in need would receive as an honorary award; and

(c) reduce the.cost of loans to students through the program of the New
York Higher Education Assistance Corporation by State grants to
pay the part of interest charges in excess of 3 per cent per year.

WE PROPOSE also that the State eliminate restrictions of the scholarship
program which require scholarship winners to attend colleges and uni-
versities within the State. This will broaden educational opportunity
greatly at no extra cost to the State.

Finally, the State should provide an annual appropriation for evaluat-
ing the scholarship program. Too many scholarship programs go along
for years without any organized reconsideration of their effectiveness.

46 The Student


XH POSTSCRIPT
ON THE
HIGH SCHOOL

Our report on higher education cannot be complete until it commends
the large number of high school teachers, guidance counsellors and
school administration officials in New York State for the manner in
which they prepare high school students for college. Teachers in the high
school grades require relatively high standards of accomplishment, and
the statewide use of uniform Regents examinations in high school sub-
jects taken as preparation for college has done much to encourage the
offering of high-quality high school courses throughout this State.

As a greater number of students go on to college in the future, pressure
on the high schools can be expected to increase for:

(1) better integration between high school and college programs, includ-
ing advanced academic work for able students; and

(2) more and better guidance for high school students planning to go to
college.

The Regents, as supercoordinating body for both high school and
college work in New York State, should direct the staff of the State
Education Department to take specific steps in each of these areas.

(1) Better Coordination
The State Education Department should move into this on a statewide

basis. Too many courses are duplicated in the last year of high school
and the first year of college. Statewide agreement between high schools

47


and colleges as to what the student should study, and when, would
benefit both high school and college curriculums.

. In addition more effort should be directed toward encouraging able
students to take advanced work in the eleventh and twelfth grades of
high school and to reduce the period of college attendance by “advanced
placement”; that is, skipping some of the first-semester freshman courses
and going directly into second-semester freshman courses, or even soph-
omore courses. The advanced placement program, now six years old,
depends for its success upon the availability to able students of ad-
vanced academic work in high schools. Twenty-seven per cent of the
high schools in New York State now offer such work.

(2) Better Guidance

The State Education Department should handle this also on a state-
wide basis. Steps should be taken to:

(a) inform guidance counsellors, college entrance supervisors, high
school principals and other school officials of current new develop-
ments taking place with respect to college entrance; (a coordinated
system of communication does not exist at the present time; high
school counsellors and students are frequently unaware of develop-
ments taking place in the various colleges and universities in the
State);

(b) increase the availability, in convenient form, of pertinent information
about colleges, particularly with respect to entrance standards,
scholarships, student body profiles, living arrangements, costs of
attendance including personal expenses and travel, social standards
and all the other aspects of college life with which the prospective
student is concerned;

(c) provide forums, workshops, conferences and similar activities for
advanced training of counsellors; and

(d) reduce the sheer volume of paper work devolving upon the counsel-
lor and the student in preparing applications for college entrance.

48 Postscript on the High School


x CONCLUSION

New York enjoys a position of national leadership in
elementary and secondary education; it does not enjoy as a State a
comparable position in higher education.

We now face an unprecedented rise in college and university
enrollments—a rise so dramatic that it will substantially alter
the shape of our higher educational system.

This is a state that believes in education. This is a state that
knows what excellence in education can mean. The people of
New York will not stand by and see their young people given less
than the best.

The State can follow either of two courses. It can yield
reluctantly and tardily to the enrollment pressures, patching the
system here and there, fighting off public discontent (of which there
will be plenty) and hoping that the problem will solve itself.

Or it can assume the position of leadership that becomes a
great state. It can build for the future with a vigor and determination
worthy of the people of New York.

We recommend the latter course.


STATISTICAL
APPENDIX

This appendix presents statistical materials relating to higher education in
New York State and provides estimates to 1985, where possible, in order to
show the magnitudes involved in the generation ahead.

A. Growth in Enrollments

concLusion: The number of persons in New York State wishing to go to
colleges and universities full time and part time and able to do post-high
school work can be expected to grow from 401,000 in 1959 to 646,000 by 1965
and 1,270,000 by 1985, as shown in the table that follows:

Table 1 Estimated Enrollments in Colleges and
Universities in New York State

Fall of Index
Year Number (1959 = 100)
1959 (actual) 401,000 100
1960 425,000 106
1965 646,000 161
1970 804,000 200
1975 962,000 240
1980 1,102,000 275
1985 1,270,000 317

FURTHER DETAILS: Five main reasons underlie the expected growth in the
number of college students. They are:

1. There will be an increasing number of young people of college age.

The college-age population is just beginning to reflect the high level of
births during and since World War II. These jumped from 199,000 in 1940 in
New York State to 235,000 in 1945, to more than 360,000 in each of the last
three years. Our estimates are based on the assumption that the level of births
will remain high for a number of years as shown in the following table:


Table 2 Number of Births in New York State

Year
Birth Group
Year Is 18 Number Index
of Birth Years of Age of Births (1940 = 100)
1940 (actual) 1958 199,000 100
1845 (actual) 1963 235,000 118
1950 (actual) 1968 302,000 152
1959 (actual) 1977 363,000 182
1962 (estimated) 1980 376,000 189
1965 (estimated) 1983 398,000 200

2. An increasing proportion of young people can be expected
to graduate from high school.

The percentage of the population finishing high school has been increasing
in the United States and in New York State for fifty years or more. The in-
crease was very rapid during the period between the World Wars and has
averaged about three-quarters of one per cent annually in recent years.
Further growth can be expected in the future, although some tapering off will
undoubtedly occur after 1970, as is shown in the table that follows:

Table 3 Number of High School Graduates

in New York State
Percentage of

Year Number Corresponding
of Age Group in
Graduates the Population

Actual

1910 11,000 10

1920 20,000 20

1930 55,C00 35

1940 122,000 55

1950 113,000 62

1959 140,000 69

Estimated

1960 161,000 70

1965 214,000 74

1970 232,000 77

1975 266,000 79

1980 289,000 81

1985 332,000 83°

51


3. The percentage of high school graduates going te college full time
can be expected to increase.

During the past fifty years there has been a steady increase in the propor-
tion of young people going to college. No one has any precise figures for New
York State, but significant gains have certainly been made since the end of
World War II, and the upward trend can be expected to continue. A conserva-
tive possibility is in the table that follows:

Table 4 Estimated Percentage of High School Graduates
in New York State Going to College Full Time

1st and 3rd and
Year 2nd Years 4th Years
of College of College

1959 (actual) 36% 22%
1960 36 22
1965 - 40 24
1970 45 25
1975 48 26
1980 51 26
1985 53 27

Going to college is rapidly becoming nearly as important to all levels of
society as going to high school became during the period between the two
World Wars. The social value of higher education has become increasingly
significant as the mobility of population has increased and mass communica-
tions have grown.

Young people are also being encouraged to attend college by the fact that
more jobs require two to four years of college training. Dr. Eli Ginzberg of
Columbia University and Director of the Conservation of Human Resources
Project says in this connection:

The overwhelming evidence is that our society is becoming ever more
dependent on individuals who have acquired a high order of formal
education and training. This is expressed not only in constantly
increasing demands for individuals trained in science and technology,
but also for specialists trained in management, the social sciences,
and languages.

There is every reason to anticipate that the decades of the 1960's and
1970's will witness an increasing demand for people with college,
graduate, and professional education.

52 Statistical Appendix


Colleges and universities also will be called upon increasingly to provide
in-service training for persons who are employed. There are already a large
number of cooperative arrangements between industry and institutions of
higher education to provide training programs for high-level personnel. These
can be expected to increase.

Going to college can also be expected to be bolstered by the economic well-
being of the country. Not only are incomes higher, but scholarship and loan
aid to students has increased substantially during the past few years and can
be expected to increase further in the years ahead because many expanding
programs are already under way. In 1959-60, students in New York colleges
and universities received $90 million of scholarships, loans and other financial
help, about one-half of which came from the Federal Government, as shown
in the table that follows:

Table 5 Financial Aid to Students in New York State—1959-60

ne eaeE aE EcaEESSnESnEnE nena

Amount
Type of Aid (Partly
: Estimated)
cS
In millions

Scholarships and fellowships
Granted by

1. the State of New York $11

2. the colleges and universities themselves 13

3. federal agencies (Veterans Administration,
National Institutes of Health,
National Science Foundation, etc.) 40
4. private organizations (National Merit Scholarship
Corporation, Woodrow Wilson

Fellowship Foundation, etc.) 3
Leans
Granted by
1. Higher Education Assistance Corporation 5
2. the colleges and universities themselves
(including federal loan program) 8
3. private organizations 1
Employment arranged by or in connection with activities
of a college or university
All forms, including assistantships and federal
research projects 10
Grand total $31

ne

53


4. Part-time enrollments can be expected to increase
along with full-time enrollments.

Many persons can be expected to upgrade their skills in the future through
part-time college attendance, particularly as the need intensifies for highly
trained and technically skilled manpower. Part-time enrollments are now
nearly equal to full-time enrollments, and can be expected to grow in the
future at about the same rate as full-time. A conservative projection of the
figures is in the table that follows:

Table 6 Comparison of Estimated Enrollments,
Full-Time and Part-Time, in Colleges
and Universities in New York State

Fall of Year Full-Time Part-Time

1959 (actual) 205,000 196,000

1960 217,000 208,000
1965 323,000 323,000
1970 402,000 402,000
1975 481,000 481,000
1980 551,000 551,000
1985 635,000 635,000

5. The percentage of undergraduate students going to schools outside
New York State can be expected to decline.

For many years New York has sent more undergraduate students to colleges
and universities outside the State than it received from other states. The
reasons include:

(a) the lack of a low-cost, high-quality State university in New York State
comparable to that existing in other leading states; and

(b) the desire of students to go to outstanding public and private institutions
in other states.

In the future other states can be expected to absorb a smaller proportion of
New York students than in the past. Public institutions already are imposing
tighter restrictions on the admission of out-of-state students, and private insti-
tutions, although they will expand, cannot be expected to increase enrollments
in proportion to the increasing size of the potential student body. A reasonable
projection of “out-migration” of students as a percentage of the total is shown
in the table that follows:

54 Statistical Appendix


Table 7 Estimated Percentage of New York State Undergraduate
Students Going Outside of New York State

Gross Net

Year Out-Migration Out-Migration*
1949-1950 (actual) 28% 9%
Fall 1958 (actual) 26 10

1960 26 10

1965 20 7

1970 "18 6

1975 7 6

1980 16 5

1985 15 5

*Subtracting students who come into the State

B. Will Increased Enrollments Be in Public or Private Institutions?

concusion: Although both public and private colleges and universities in
New York State can be expected to expand rapidly over the next generation,
their roles, as far as the percentage of students handled is concerned, may be
reversed. Private colleges now enroll 60 per cent of all students in the State.
Conservative estimates place their share at not more than 40 to 50 per cent by
1985.

FURTHER DETAILS: Obviously, many alternative estimates can be made of the
number of students the private colleges and universities in this State could
enroll over the next generation. After consulting with many college and uni-
versity officials in the State, we have made three—assuming a 50 per cent, a
100 per cent, and a 150 per cent increase by 1985. In each case the private
share of the total shows a decline. The figures, along with some historical data,
are in the table that follows:


Table 8 Alternative Estimates of “Private” Enrollments and
Comparisons of the Percentage of the Total Involved

Enroliments
in Private
Year Total Colleges and
Enrollments —_ Universities
in New York in New York Percentage

State State “Private”
Actual enrollments
1940-41 151,000 88,000 58
1950-51 272,000 170,000 62
1955-56 363,000 223,000 61
1959 (fall) 401,000 247,000 62
Assuming a 50 per
cent increase in
“private” in 25 years
1960 (fall) 425,000 250,000 59
1970 804,000 300,000 37
1985 1,270,000 375,000 30
Assuming a 100 per
cent increase in
“private” in 25 years
1960 (fall) 425,000 250,000 59
1970 804,000 350,000 44
1985 1,270,000 500,000 39
Assuming a 150 per .
cent increase in
“private” in 25 years
1960 (fall) 425,000 250,000 59
1970 804,000 400,000 50
1985 1,270,000 625,000 - 49

Whatever the private enrollment figures turn out to be, the public institu-
tions have to make up the rest. A summary of possibilities, based on the alter-
natives for “private enrollments” set forth above, is in the table that follows:

56 Statistical Appendix


Table 9 Alternative Estimates of “Public” Enrollments and Indices of Growth Involved

{tem
Total enrollments in New York State

Total “public” enrollments
After allowing for the
following increases in
“private” enrollments
by 1985:

50%
100%
150%

Index for “public” enrollments
(1960 = 100)
After allowing for the
following increases in
“private” enrollments
by 1985:
50%
100%
150%

1959

401,000

154,000
154,000
154,000

1960

425,000

175,000
175,000
175,000

100
100
100

1970 1985

804,000 1,270,000

504,000 895,000
454,000 770,000
404,000 645,000

288 511
259 440
231 369

A substantial and growing proportion of the “public” enrollments can be
expected to be concentrated in two-year public community colleges, a type
of institution which has shown itself to be adaptable to rapidly increasing and
diversified needs for post-high school public education. Opinions vary as to
how fast this growth will be, but everyone agrees the growth should be sub-
stantial. A comparison of the percentage of students in California, Illinois,
and Texas enrolled in public junior or community colleges, with the percent-
age enrolled in New York in the past and some alternative projections for the
future, is in the table that follows:

57


Table 10 Public Junior College Enrollments as a Percentage of Total College
and University Enrollments in a Number of States

Year California Ilinois Texas New York
Four States
(full-time and
part-time)
1930 16% 7% 8% 0%
1940 38 10 12 0
1950 35 10 13 4
1959 50 15* 20 9
Two States
(full-time)
1950 34 3
1959 42 8
New York Only
(full-time)
Alternative !
1965 , 12
1970 15
1975 17
1980 18
Alternative II
1965 14
1970 18
1975 20
1980 22
Alternative III
1965 16
1970 21
1975 23
1980 25

*Expected to increase to 26 per cent by 1970

Using these alternative percentages, the outlook for full-time enrollments
in two-year community colleges in New York State as compared with con-
servative projections recently developed for California is as follows:

58 Statistical Appendix


Table 11 Outlook for Full-Time Enrollments in Public Junior Colleges
in New York State and in California

a —————————

New York
a

Year Alternative I Alternative 1 Alternative Ill California
ee
1959 (actual) “16,000 16,000 16,000 90,000

1965 39,000 45,000 52,000 163,000

1970 60,000 72,000 84,000 205,000

1975 82,000 96,000 111,000 251,000

1980 100,000 121,000 138,000 not projected

a
These public junior college figures are for full-time students only. Part-time enrollments
will be in addition.

C. Geographic Distribution of the Increase in Students

conciusion: By 1975 the increase in full-time undergraduate students who

reside in the New York City metropolitan area (broadly defined to include,
besides the New York City boroughs, the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, West-
chester and Rockland) can reasonably be expected to be no less than 140 per
cent. Even greater percentage increases can be expected in other parts of the
State; in the Rochester area, for example, a 215 per cent increase between
1959 and 1975 may be expected.

FURTHER DETAILS: In 1959 about 57 per cent of the full-time undergraduate
students in New York State lived in the New York City metropolitan area,
broadly defined. This percentage is not expected to change substantially by
1975, by which time some 248,000 students may be expected to be residents
of the city and its suburbs. The figures, derived by projecting recent trends in
the various parts of the State, are as follows:


Table 12 Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollments in New York State Colleges and
Universities Classified by Areas of Residence of Students—1959 and 1975

———

Number -Percentage
Item 1959 1975 1959 1975
Estimated Estimated

ee
New York State students :
residing in:

New York City

metropolitan area* 102,800 248,100 57% 58%

Albany, Buffalo,

Rochester and

Syracuse areas 29,800 85,000 17 20

Remainder of the State 16,700 45,200 9 10
Out-of-state students
attending New York col-
leges and universities 31,600 50,900 17 12
Total 180,900 429,200 100% 100%

*Includes New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland Counties.

These estimates assume that out-of-state students enrolling in New York
colleges and universities, while growing in number, will be a smaller percent-
age of the total in 1975 than now. They assume also that the rate of growth
in the number of high school graduates and the proportion going to college
in the various parts of the State will increase in accordance with trends noted
in recent years. A summary table showing percentage increases, 1959-75, for
various areas of the State, follows:

60 Statistical Appendix


Table 13 Percentage Increase 1959 to 1975 in Full-Time Undergraduate
Enrollments in New York State Colleges and Universities
by Areas of Residence of Students

Number

Item 1959 1975 Percentage
Estimated Increase

New York State students

residing in:
New York City
metropolitan area” 102,800 248,100 141
Buffalo area 12,100 33,000 173
Rochester area 7,200 22,700 215
Syracuse area 5,300 15,000 183
Albany area §,200 14,300 175
Mid-Hudson area 4,000 12,600 215
Mohawk Valley area 3,100 8,100 161
Binghamton area 2,700 7,000 159
Northern area 2,700 7,000 159
Elmira area 2,200 5,500 150
Southwest area 2,000 5,000 150

Subtotal 149,300 378,300 153

Out-of-state students

attending New York col-

leges and universities 31,600 50,900 61

Total enrollments in

New York colleges

and universities 180,900 429,200 137

*Includes New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland Counties.

The foregoing figures are for full-time undergraduate students only. The
number of part-time students and graduate students may be expected to in-
crease also, more than proportionately in the New York City area and other
urban locations, and less than proportionately elsewhere.

61


D. Future Requirements for Trained Manpower in New York State

conc.usion: In the next 15 years New York will have to educate in colleges
and universities over a million workers to meet the needs for professional and
technical manpower alone, and an additional number for the large and grow-
ing fields of management and technical sales. (Source: United States Depart-
ment of Labor.)

FURTHER DETAILS: The total number of jobs in New York State exceeds 74%
million at the present time and can be expected to rise to more than 9 million
by 1975. At this level about 3% million jobs will be held by professional and
technical personnel, managers, officials and proprietors, craftsmen, foremen,
and kindred workers. (These are United States Labor Department classifica-
tions.) A large proportion of these people will be college trained.

During the next 15 years more than 2 million of these 3% million jobs will
be filled by “new” people—that is, people entering these jobs because of indus-
trial expansion, death or retirement of present job holders, or as the result of
present job holders shifting to other occupations or leaving the labor force
altogether. A rough estimate we prepared for 1960 to 1975 (based on 1957-70
figures prepared by the New York State Department of Labor) distributes
the 2 million new workers as follows:

Table 14 Jobs to be Filled by New Workers in Professional and Skilled Occupations
in New York State Between 1960 and 1975

Source of New Job
Death or Shift to Other

Category Retirement Occupation by Total
Industrial of a 1960 a 1960
Expansion Job Holder Job Holder
Professional,
technical and
kindred workers 425,000 300,000 175,000 900,000
Managers,
officials and
proprietors 180,000 270,000 110,000 560,000
Craftsmen,
foremen and
kindred workers 210,000 280,000 210,000 700,000
Total 815,000 850,000 495,000 2,160,000

There can be no doubt but that a very large proportion of the “new” holders
of these two million jobs will be college trained—not all will go to college for
four years, but certainly many will attend for a substantial period.

62 Statistical Appendix


In addition to the workers mentioned above, a significant, though smaller,
proportion of job holders classified by the Labor Department as clerical, sales
workers, operatives, and service personnel can be expected to have some col-
lege training. Included in these categories (in which two to three million jobs
will be filled by “new” workers by 1975) will be college students holding part-
time positions, college-trained secretarial workers, and clerical workers in
banks, insurance companies, brokerage offices and other financial institutions,
accounting firms, legal offices, real estate firms, head offices of national cor-
porations, and other workers in jobs not ordinarily “requiring” a college edu-
cation but in which college training frequently permits more rapid advance-
ment.

E. Ability to Finance Higher Education

conctusion: In the years ahead, the people of New York State can expect
to have a greatly expanded amount of personal income out of which to pay for
higher education. Using a set of reasonable assumptions on economic growth,
we estimate that the gross income of individuals in New York State can hardly
be less than $90 billion in 1975, compared with $45 billion in 1959.
FURTHER DETAILS: In 1959 the gross personal income of all persons in the
* State of New York amounted to $45 billion, according to the United States
Department of Commerce. At this level, it was approximately 11.8 per cent
of the national total of personal income. The percentage relationship between
the national total and New York’s share of personal income has remained rela-
tively constant since 1951, averaging 11.7 per cent as shown below:

Table 15 Gross Personal Income, United States and

New York State—1951 to 1959

: New York as a

Year United Percentage of
States New York Total United States
(in billions)

1951 $256.7 $30.2 11.8
1952 273.1 31.7 11.6
1953 288.3 33.3 115
1954 289.8 34.2 11.8
1955 310.2 36.5 11.8
1958 332.9 39.0 11.7
1957 351.4 411 117
1958 360.3 42.2 117
1959 383.3 45.1 11.8
1951-59 (average) 11.7



The gross personal income in New York State. is a rough measure of the
“total” out of which expenditures for higher education can be financed. It
consists of the aggregate income received by all individuals from all sources,

"including wages and salaries, incomes from unincorporated businesses, rents,
dividends and interest. It includes also such government payments to indi-
viduals as social security, unemployment insurance and veterans’ benefits.
This “total” is computed without any deductions for the payment of federal,
state or local taxes and is used as a basis for our comparisons because part of
the expenditures for higher education is financed by governmental units
out of taxes paid to them by individuals.

In 1970 the gross personal income of the entire United States can be ex-
pected to be about $633 billion and in 1976 about $807 billion, according to
the National Planning Association, an organization long known for careful
and reliable estimates of economic trends. If New York maintains its 11.7
per cent average share by taking such actions as are necessary educationally,
industrially and commercially, the personal income of its residents for 1976
would be $94 billion. The figures, including an interpolation of $91 billion for
1975 (a year used for enrollments and other statistics in this report) are in the
table that follows:

Table 16 Gross Personal Income, United States and New York State—1959 to 1976
{In 1959 constant dollars)

New York as
Estimate a Percentage*

Year Source of Estimates United for of the

for United States States New York United States

as a Whole Total State Total

{n billions

1959 Department of Commerce $383 $45 11.8
1970 National Planning Association 633 74 117
1975 Our interpolation 775 91 117
1976 National Planning Association 807 94 117

*Based on unrounded figures

The National Planning Association’s estimates are described in detail in
publications of that organization and need not be documented here. However,
it may be noted that N. P. A. assumes in its projections that there will be rea-
sonably full employment in the economy (with unemployment at not more
than 3% per cent of the civilian labor force), an increase in productivity per
worker, and a decline in the number of hours worked each week. Their pro-

64 Statistical Appendix


jections involve a growth potential for the economy that averages 4.2 per cent
a year, using 1955-57 as a base period.

This is a middle-of-the-road projection. The Committee for Economic De-
velopment, for example, projects a 3 per cent growth rate factor in a recent
report, while the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress establishes three
sets of assumptions involving growth rates of 4.2 per cent, 4.7 per cent and
5.2 per cent, respectively.

F. Expenditures for Higher Education—New York and Other States Compared

conctusion: In 1957-58 New York spent $269 million for the teaching of
students in public and private colleges and universities within the State. This
amounted to $1,080 per full-time student equivalent and to 6/10 of one per
cent of the gross personal income of all individuals in the State. New York
ranked high in dollar expenditures but relatively low in tax money per capita
spent on teaching students in its colleges and universities.

FURTHER DETAILS: Every two years colleges and universities send detailed
reports of their receipts and expenditures to the United States Office of
Education. Early in 1960, the Office made available to the National Planning
Association preliminary tabulations for the school year 1957-58. From these
tabulations the National Planning Association set forth for the first time the
cost of teaching students in colleges and universities (including a pro rata
share of overhead) separately from all the other expenditures commonly in-
cluded in college and university accounts—such as expenditures on research
contracts, housing and feeding students, running hotels and other commercial
businesses, athletic events, engaging in community service work or extension
work, and other nonteaching activities. It was then possible to compare expen-
ditures on teaching in a number of states—in dollar amount and relative to
personal income—as shown in the table that follows:


Table 17 Expenditures for Teaching Students in All Public and Private Colleges
and Universities in Selected States (Current Funds Only—1857-58)

Expenditures
Expenditure asa
per Full-Time Percentage

State ; Total Student of Personal
Expenditures Equivalent Income
In millions

California $ 237 $ 830 0.7
Connecticut 41 1,228 0.6
lilinois 14 1,070 0.6
Indiana’ 67 925 0.7
lowa 39 799 0.8
Massachusetts 114 1,119 1.0
Michigan 120 1,033 0.7
Minnesota 48 801 0.8
Missouri 52 796 0.6
New Jersey 47 908 0.3
NEW YORK 269 1,080 0.6
North Carolina 49 813 0.8
Ohio 114 910 0.6
Pennsylvania 136 913 0.6
Texas 100 638 0.6
Wisconsin 45 759 0.6
16 states, together 1,622 917 0.6
United States

as a whole 2,364 879 —

Note: Includes teaching costs, departmental research and pro rata share of
overhead only.

The comparisons were made for only sixteen states because of the consider-
able amount of work and expense that would have been involved in a fifty-
state report. States included were those bordering on New York, other large
industrial states, and states with large college-going populations. In the ag-
gregate the sixteen states accounted for about two-thirds of all college and
university enrollments in the United States in 1957-58 and 70 per cent of the
expenditures for teaching.

The special study made it possible also to compare the “tax dollars” per
capita and the percentage of personal income furnished by State and local
governments for teaching students in colleges and universities and providing
scholarships. (Note: New York has the. largest “tax” expenditures for scholar-
ships; several other states have substantial programs.) The figures are shown
in the table that follows:

66 Statistical Appendix


Table 18 “Tax Dollars” Furnished by State and Local Governments for Teaching
Students in Colleges and Universities and Providing Scholarships
in Selected States (Current Funds Only—1957-58)

Percentage
State Total Amount of Personal
Involved Amount Per Capita Income
In millions
California $205 $15.17 0.6
Michigan 91 11.82 0.5
: NEW YORK 87 5.41 0.2
| Illinois 78 8.08 0.3
Texas 68 7.61 0.4
Ohio 41 44 02
Indiana 38 8.55 0.4
Pennsylvania 37 3.32 0.2
Minnesota 34 10.12 0.5
Wisconsin 29 7.65 0.4
lowa 29 10.29 0.6
North Carolina 23 5.18 0.4
Missouri 22 5.12 0.3
New Jersey 18 3.15 0.1
Connecticut 11 5.08 0.2
Massachusetts 11 2.39 0.1

Note: Excludes construction, research contracts, housing students, etc.

The great variations in the systems of higher education across the country
and the diverse activities conducted by colleges and universities, many of
which are important but tangent to the education of students, make it difficult
to draw over-all conclusions from the usual interstate comparisons of higher
education expenditures. In every case the comparisons are subject to many
qualifications and to careful definitions of items which are included or ex-
cluded from the underlying figures. The study of the National Planning Asso-
ciation attempts to overcome some of these difficulties.

67


G. Salaries of Nurses and Other Women Employees Compared

coNnc.usion: In New York City and elsewhere in the State, salaries of nurses
are frequently $400 to $800 a year less than the amounts paid to office workers
with approximately the same length of training.

FURTHER DETAILS: In New York City general duty nurses with two years of
collegiate training or three years of hospital-school training and having passed
the State licensing examination were paid $3,700 to $4,250 a year for a forty-
hour week early in 1960. Women office workers with two or three years on-
the-job training (at full salary, it might be noted) were paid $4,100 to $5,050
on the average for a thirty-six hour week.

Practical nurses with one year of practical nursing training and having
passed the State licensing examination were paid $2,750 to $3,250 in New
York City, while women office workers with one year on-the-job training
commanded salaries of $3,600 to $3,950 a year.

A similar relationship of salaries paid nurses and those paid women office
workers with comparable periods of training exists in other parts of the State.
Some examples based on reports of the United States Department of Labor,
the New York State Nurses Association and a number of other agencies are
in the table that follows: ;

68 Statistical Appendix


Table 19 Salaries Paid Nurses and Other Women Employees—Early 1960

Nurses

NEW YORK CITY

General duty nurses at
following hospitals

Flower Fifth $3,720
Bronx 3,744
Joint Diseases 3,800
Mt. Sinai 3,900
Presbyterian 3,900
St. Luke’s 3,900
State hospitals 4,234
City hospitals 4,250
Practical nurses at

following hospitals

Flower Fifth $2,760
St. Luke’s 3,060
Mt. Sinai 3,120
Roosevelt 3,120
City hospitals 3,250
BUFFALO

General duty nurses at
following hospital

Mercy $3,588

ALBANY AND TROY

General duty nurses at
following hospitals

St. Peter's (Albany) $3,380
Albany (Albany) 3,780

St. Mary's (Troy) 3,900
Samaritan (Troy) 3,900

Other Women Employees

NEW YORK CITY

Persons with two to three years
training in following occupations
Bookkeeping machine

operator $4,108
Payroll clerk 4,160
Senior accounting clerk 4,576
Private secretary 4,758
Tabulating machine

operator §,044

Persons with one year training

in following occupations

Senior file clerk $3,614
Comptometer operator 3,822
Stenographer 3,874
Senior typist

(manufacturing concerns) 3,952

BUFFALO

Persons with two to three years
training in following occupations
Senior accounting clerk $4,368

Tabulating machine
operator 4,368
Private secretary 4,446
ALBANY AND TROY
Persons with two to three years
training in following occupations
Switchboard operator
(manufacturing) $4,056
Senior accounting clerk 4,238

Private secretary 4,472


H. Earned Degree and Illustrative State Aid Schedules

The earned degrees expected to be awarded in 1961-62 by private colleges
and universities in New York State eligible to receive State aid could provide
the basis for a variety of alternative schedules of State aid. Three illustrative
calculations which vary the amount per degree with the type of degree in-
volved are shown in the table that follows:

Table 20 Alternative Calculations of State Aid Based on Degrees Expected to be Awarded in 1961-62

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Number Amount Amount Amount
and Kind per Total per Total per Total
of Degree Degree Amount Degree Amount Degree Amount
940 doctors degrees
in medicine and
dentistry $2,000 $1,880,000 $1,000 $940,000 $750 $ 705,000
1,650 other doctors
degrees (including
nursing and veteri-
nary medicine) 1,000 1,650,000 850 1,402,000 500 825,000
13,000 masters
degrees and pro-
fessional degrees
other than
doctors degrees 300 3,900,000 300 3,900,000 275 3,575,000
25,000 bachelor of
arts or science
degrees (or degrees
equivalent to these) 100 2,500,000 150 3,750,000 200 5,000,000
Total $9,930,000 $9,992,000 $10,105,000

Note: The figures in this table are illustrative only.

70 Statistical Appendix


LIST OF CONSULTANTS

W. Boyp ALEexanper, Vice President and Dean of Faculty, Antioch College
Donap B. ANDERSON, Provost, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Roserr C. Anperson, Director, Southern Regional Education Board

Anna Jo W. Beurens, Assistant Director of Staff,

Committee on Higher Education
Cart F, Benrens, Staff Associate, Committee on Higher Education
Frank H. Bow es, President, College Entrance Examination Board
Marcarer Brmeman, Consultant in General Education,

National League for Nursing, Inc.

Ottver C. CarMicHAEL, Former Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
State University of New York

Wri D. Carmicnact, Jr., Vice President, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill

James M. Cass, Staff Associate, Committee on Higher Education

Henry Caavuncey, President, Educational Testing Service

Beatrice CHERTOFF, Staff Associate, Committee on Higher Education

LowE Lt T. CoccEesHat, Dean of Biological Sciences, University of Chicago

Grruarp Cot, Chief Economist, National Planning Association

Louis H. Concer, Jr., Chief; Reference, Estimates and Projections;
Educational Statistics Branch, United States Office of Education

Joun J. Corson, Partner, McKinsey and Company

Donatp K. Dav, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
The Ford Foundation

Francis A. Dawson, Purdue University

Henry S. Dyer, Vice President for College Board Programs,
Educational Testing Service

71


Harotp L. Enarson, University of New Mexico

Ratpx R. Frexps, Associate Dean, Teachers College, Columbia University
Marcia K. Freepan, Staff Associate, Committee on Higher Education
Lyte J. Freenarer, Purdue University
STEPHEN A. FREEMAN, Vice President and Director of Language Schools,
Middlebury College
Inww K. Frenca, Director of Administrative Services,
Associated Colleges of Illinois, Inc.
Wu.aM Fray, President, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Joun Getse, Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
Ext Grvzserc, Professor of Economics and Director, Conservation of
Human Resources Project, Columbia University
Harorp Gotpstew, Chief, Division of Manpower and Employment Statistics,
United States Department of Labor
Hanovp Gores, President, Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.
Samugt B, Goutp, Chancellor, Santa Barbara Campus,
University of California
Wim C. Greenoucu, President, Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America

Rosert R. Hamiton, Dean, School of Law, University of Wyoming
Caryt P. Hasxuys, President, The Carnegie Institution of Washington
Davi Henvenson, Director of Educational Planning, University of Pittsburgh
Hartow J. Heneman, Partner, Cresap, McCormick and Paget
C. Appison Hickman, Dean, School of General Studies,
North Carolina State College
Max M. Huitincer, Purdue University
C. Hucu Homan, Chairman, Department of English,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Tuan L. Huneate, Controller, Teachers College, Columbia University

BrnenIce K. Jacoss, Staff Associate, Committee on Higher Education

Joun X. Jamnaicu, Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education,
Michigan State University

J. Barry Jesmen, Rochester Bureau of Municipal Research

Roy J. Jounston, Director of Television, North Carolina State College

Mrs. Lewis W. Jones, Former member of the faculty of Bennington College

Putnam Jones, Dean of Graduate Faculties, University of Pittsburgh

Cuanrtes R. Keizer, Director, John Hay Fellows Program
Rosenrt E. Krysincer, Director, New York State Education Department's
Associate Degree Nursing Project

72 List of Consultants


Joun E. Latxas, Research Director, Inter-Institutional Television
Teaching Project, University of Oregon

Russet V. A. LEE, Director, Palo Alto Clinic

Craztes L. Livy, Purdue University

Vernon W. Lreparp, Dean, Yale University School of Medicine

Aan B. MacIntyre, Chief Engineer, WUNC-TV Channel 4,
University of North Carolina

S. V. Martorana, Chief, State and Regional Organization, Division of
Higher Education, United States Office of Education

J. Paut. Mater, President, The American College Testing Service

T. R. McConne t, Professor of Education, University of California

Eart J. McGratn, Executive Officer, Institute for Higher Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University

EucEnE P. McLoong, School Finance Section, Division of State and Local
School Systems, United States Office of Education

LELAND L. MenskeEr, Professor of Education, University of California
at Berkeley

Keres D. Merca.r, Former Director, Harvard University Library

Howarp G. Miter, Head, Department of Psychology,
North Carolina State College

Joun D. Mrtert, President, Miami University

Eptson Montcomery, Director of Institutional Planning,
University of Pittsburgh

Menes E. Mossman, Dean of the College, Woman’s College of the
University of North Carolina

Sema J. Musuxm, Economic Consultant, Division of Higher Education,
United States Office of Education

Rarmonp J. Nactz, Dean, College of Dentistry, New York University

Swney R. Pacxarp, Coordinator of Interinstitutional Activities,
Smith College
Everetr D. Patmatier, Chairman, Department of Physics,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ARNOLD Perry, Dean, School of Education, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
Wacter J. Peterson, Dean, Graduate School, North Carolina State College
Georce E. Prosst, Executive Director, Thomas Alva Edison Foundation

Rocer R. RevE.tE, Director, La Jolla Campus, University of California
Jou Ricuarns, Chancellor, Oregon State Board of Education

73


Hersert H. Rosenserc, Chief, Resources Analysis Section, Office of Program
Planning, National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health
Service

Joun Date Russet, Director of Institutional Research, New York University

ALEXANDER G, RuTHVEN, Consultant, Development Council,

University of Michigan

Georcr SHapio, Attorney at Law, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz and Mendelsohn
Epwarp F. SHEFFIELD, Research Officer, Canadian Universities Foundation
J. Caniyze Srrrerson, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ALDEN C. Smaru, Price Waterhouse and Company
Crarc Smrru, Director, Rochester Bureau of Municipal Research
Ricuarp E. Speacte, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Joun M. Sratnaxer, President, National Merit Scholarship Corporation
Gienn Sraruiy, Inter-Institutional Television Teaching Project,
University of Oregon
Biair Stewart, President, Associated Colleges of the Midwest
Rosenrt B. Stewart, Vice President, Purdue University
Dewey B. Sturr, Dean, College of Liberal Arts, State University of Iowa
Ricuarp H. Suttivan, President, Reed College

Donatp G. Tarset, Associate Professor, School of Education,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
FRepERIck E. Terman, Vice President and Provost, Stanford University
Cuarves Tosmn, Counsel, New York State Catholic Welfare Committee

Axsert C. Van Dusen, Vice Chancellor for the Professional Schools,
University of Pittsburgh

Eric A. Wacker, President, The Pennsylvania State University
Joun Watton, Chairman, Department of Education,
Johns Hopkins University
Tavine I. Waxman, Attorney at Law, formerly General Counsel,
State University of New York
Stantey J. Wensenc, Vice President and Administrative Assistant,
University of Minnesota
Seymour L. Wo.FBEW, Assistant to the United States Secretary of Labor
Earu R. Wynn, Director, Communication Center, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Joun E. Younc, Director of Television, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill

74 List of Consultants