Surging into the '60s

In the next decade, the number of Americans aged 18 to 21 will rise 57%, and almost half of them will go to college. Expanding technology will also make higher education a socioeconomic necessity. (The term "college" may be so redefined that by 1990 every student with an I.Q. above 100 will complete a two-year course with the college label.) The prediction: by 1970 college enrollment will nearly double to 6.400,000 and it may go as high as 9,000,000.

Last summer 13 experts grappled with this prospect in a two-week symposium at Amherst College's Merrill Center for Economics in Southampton, N.Y. This month McGraw-Hill Book Co., sponsor of the meeting, published the results in a 304-page report (Financing Higher Education: 1960-70). Among the conclusions: 1) U.S. colleges will need 50% more teachers (450,000); 2) a full professor's salary must be doubled to an average $17,000. Key guesstimate: while U.S. higher education now spends $3.6 billion annually, by 1970 it will need at least $9.8 billion.

Cut Classes. Finding the needed $6.2 billion might well begin with revamping antiquated college management, which Ford Foundation Economist Philip H. Coombs calls "a relatively primitive art, even in institutions that offer a Ph.D. in accounting." Waste of facilities is all too common. Coombs cites one survey of more than 100 schools: "On the basis of a 44-hour week, the institutions used their available classrooms at only 46% of capacity . . . their laboratories at only 38% of capacity." If they go on this way, the schools will need more tuition dollars for expansion, leaving less for salaries.

Another "scandal," says Harvard Economist Seymour E. Harris, is proliferation of college courses. By his count, undergraduate courses at eleven top institutions have jumped from 12,000 to 39,000 in the past 55 years. Result: too many small classes. And a "high-quality" school that maintains an extra-low teacher-student ratio may be fooling itself: when it has more teachers than it can pay adequately, their performance suffers. By increasing the ratio, says the report, "most colleges can ease their financial problems very substantially without reducing the quality of their instruction."

Keep Begging. Economies can contribute much; so can corporate and individual giving, which may double by 1970 to an astonishing $1.9 billion annually. But "substantial help" from the Federal Government is also needed, suggests President Robert D. Calkins of The Brookings Institution. The present pattern of federal aid (nearly $2 billion a year, largely through research grants) is "chaotic and disorganized." Needed: a thorough study defining the Government's responsibilities to higher education.

How much should tuition rise? While forecasting a 322% boost in student fees by 1970, the experts are disturbed that so few U.S. parents save for college education (TIME, Sept. 28). Economist Harris suggests a U.S. savings bond with a 1% to 2% annual premium if cashed for higher education. And unlike some of his colleagues, Harris urges a stiff tuition hike to yield $2.9 billion a year. He compares "the $3.000 per family indebtedness available for the purchase of homes, autos, and TV sets" with "the average of about $20 to $30 of loans outstanding per student." Harris thinks that public institutions (which will enroll 65% of students) should boost tuition about $350. One-third of the income would subsidize scholarships for able needy students. But President John D. Millett of Ohio's Miami University is opposed; he feels that higher tuition at public institutions would drive away able students. Millett pins his hopes on other money-raising methods: "It is too early for college and university pres idents to put away their begging bowls."

Marry Well. All through the report runs a persistent plea for one vital econ omy: matching applicants with colleges that really suit them. Mismatching is a big reason for the U.S. drop-out rate of 40%, and the economic cost to everyone is in calculable. Trouble is that no dependable consumer's guide exists for U.S. higher education; the college catalogue is really a form of public relations. For advice, parents must depend on high school guid ance counselors -- if one is available.

The powerful College Entrance Examination Board is trying to foster one solution : an honest sociological "profile" of the true nature of each college. It would help focus attention on many a fine small school, now overshadowed by the nation's 100 or so "name" colleges, which turn away prestige-hungry applicants by the carload. But it may be some time before C.E.E.B. persuades many colleges to reveal themselves so nakedly.

In the decade ahead, mismatching could become really serious as new kinds of "higher institutions" emerge, e.g., teachers' colleges face-lifted into "state universities." (Perhaps 50% of all colleges by 1970 will be essentially vocational schools rather than liberal-arts institutions.) The U.S. ideal will remain the four-year residential college, even if it becomes only a minority pace setter. But the new institutions, not always possessing the old virtues, will tend to claim them--and who will say them nay?

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.