Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
V UTILIZATION AND THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Recent studies, notably those under the auspices of the President's Sci- ence Advisory Committee,* have given systematic attention to the edu- cation of scientists and engineers. Without going over the ground these reports have covered, and with no intention of treating education com- prehensively, this section deals with those aspects of scientific and en- gineering education which affect utilization. The growth in demand for teaching, research, and public service currently imposes a new order of responsibility upon our colleges and universities, both as users and as suppliers of scientific and engineer- ing manpower. As our education system grows, it will need for its own use a substantial fraction of the total production of persons with graduate degrees, especially doctoral degrees in science and engineering. Colleges and universities are major users of scientists and engineers, and, along with government and industry, they are under obligation to use this scarce talent well. Currently, about 175 thousand scientists and engineers are employed by colleges and universities in their educa- tional and research activities. As suppliers of scientific and engineer- ing manpower, colleges and universities have a major influence on its availability and quality. These are but a few of the reasons why any study of utilization must include consideration of education. While the Committee stresses the importance of strengthening sci- ence and engineering education, and of increasing the output of high- quality scientists and engineers, it does not believe that science and en- gineering should be, or need to be, promoted at the expense of other kinds of learning. Our society needs many kinds of skills, and the varieties of education required to produce them. * See selected bibliography. 31
THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS USERS OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING MANPOWER Colleges and universities face a number of recurring questions in the effective utilization of the scientists and engineers they employ. How can research be managed so that its proper relationship to teaching is preserved? In the effort to strengthen and expand graduate education, how can the quality of undergraduate education be maintained? How can the needs of "little science" be adequately met? How far should universities go in the performance of public service activities requiring large-scale applied research? How can salary equity and institutional loyalty be maintained when funds are provided from outside the insti- tution? How can the freedom of the universities be protected while assuring adequate accountability for public funds used by them ? These are only some of the questions that must be dealt with by the colleges and universities in their use of manpower resources. Colleges and universities engaged in scientific and engineer- ing education must accept full responsibility for maintaining a proper balance among the claims of teaching, research, and public service. They should systematically seek the cooperation of the federal government in maintaining the proper balance. Since the scholar-teacher plays an indispensable role in the cultiva- tion and development of first-rate minds, scientists and engineers who accept faculty membership should also, with few exceptions, assume an obligation to teach that is as clear and compelling as their commitment to research. We need better ways to recognize and reward distinguished teachers of science and engineering (who are not always distinguished in research). While this is a direct responsibility of the universities, professional and honorary societies, which recognize other distinctions by awards and memberships, have given far too little recognition to great teaching. These organizations, together with such national bodies as the President's Science Advisory Committee, might well suggest more effective ways of recognizing great teachers and creative contributions to the teaching process. The partnership between the federal government and the univer- sities has yielded very great benefits. It has helped universities to attract and hold first-rate scientists and engineers as members of their faculties. It has accelerated the increase of knowledge through basic 82
and applied science. It has provided both faculty and students with facilities for research that the universities and colleges could not other- wise have afforded. It has permitted the expansion and strengthening of graduate education in science and engineering. In short, federal support has greatly strengthened our universities and has helped to give America world leadership in science. However, the more than 400 per cent increase in federal funds obligated for research and development at colleges and universities, from under $200 million in 1956 to about $900 million in 1963,* has created problems that require the continuing attention of both government and universities to ensure that, in the long run, education will continue to be strengthened by the partnership. The determination of the colleges and universities to adhere to their primary missions, to be constantly vigilant in protecting their independ- ence, and to maintain their distinctive qualities as educational institu- tions is of vital importance. More specifically, universities have a responsibility to make sure that research is conducted in such a way that it complements teaching. When university research becomes dissociated from education, both re- search and education can suffer. This does not mean that all research must be student-oriented; the pursuit of new learning is valuable in it- self. It does mean that emphasis on research should not lead to neglect of the university's special missionâthe nurturing of new talent. The scholar-teacher plays an indispensable role in the cultivation and development of first-rate creative minds, and scientists and engi- neers who accept the privileges of faculty membership should also, with few exceptions, assume an obligation to teach that is as clear and com- pelling as their commitment to research. This obligation should include the teaching of undergraduates. University administrations, for their part, must undertake to provide greater rewards for devoted and dis- tinguished teaching. Occasionally, the patterns of reward for academic work tend to remove scholars from their students. Where such patterns predominate, the best minds of this generation and the best minds of the next may not meet at all. The growing scale and importance of graduate and post-doctoral study and research should not diminish the commitment of faculties to undergraduate teaching. It should be recognized that undergraduate, as well as graduate, education is enriched by research. One of the great educational opportunities now to be grasped is to make research experi- ence more readily available to qualified upperclassmen in science and engineering. Federal funds have made possible the growth of "big science," big * These totals do not include the cost of operating federal research centers such as Los Alamos or Lincoln, which are administered by universities under government contract. 33
projects, and big machines. Wisely planned and used, these great under- takings are valuable for the progress of science and engineering, but they must not lead to neglect of "little science." Universities and gov- ernment must act to protect and to enhance support of the individual scholar with his cluster of students. When federal budgets for research are curtailed, big science, with its fixed cost and its glamor, must not be allowed to pre-empt the available funds, leaving the small group and the individual investigator without adequate support. As the home of basic research, universities have been criticized for accepting funds for applied research and development. Some have said that this constitutes a malutilization of academic talent. The basic re- search end of the research-and-development spectrum must have over- riding priority in colleges and universities, but the danger of over- simplification in categorizing research must be recognized. The real test is whether the research, basic or applied, contributes to the central missions of the university. University research must be closely related to the advancement of learning, to the education of students, or to a legitimate public service. Moreover, applied research, as it contributes, for example, to engineering education, has a fundamental function in professional schools. American universities will be weakened if faculty members come increasingly to feel that their primary loyalty belongs not to the uni- versity but to some outside entity that represents their field of scholar- ship and provides it large support. Migratory research workers follow- ing available funds and having deep roots in no institution can hardly contribute to the coherence, unity, and spirit of commitment so essential to great educational institutions. They also miss the benefits that full devotion to the company of scholars in residence can provide. Devotion to a program or to a field of scholarshipâwhich is admirable, of course âneed not conflict with commitment to a university. The administrations of universities must, in turn, take care that government contracts and grants do not distort appointment and com- pensation policies. Federal funds should not be allowed to make teach- ing less attractive. In inter-institutional competition for talent, federal funds should not be used to finance salaries and benefits that are inequit- able with respect to personnel not receiving government funds. Where practices inimical to higher education occur, the universities, and not the government, should take the initiative for eradicating them. Congress, as it reassesses the federal financing of research in the universities, can help achieve effective utilization of scientific manpower if it avoids requiring the Executive Branch to impose undue restrictions on personnel policies of universities, or excessive burdens of reporting and accounting on the researchers themselves. If the university is asked to adopt personnel practices foreign to the spirit of the university, or if 84
the scientist is overburdened by fiscal procedures, malutilization occurs and creativity is reduced. Both the government and the country lose. The university must also recognize, however, that it has an obligation to provide adequate accounting for public funds. In stressing the im- portance of improving the management of federal research grants and contracts in our universities, we call attention to the recent report of the National Academy of Sciences, Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning. THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS SUPPLIERS OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING MANPOWER As the nation's economy continues to grow, a large number of scientists and engineers will be needed in order merely to maintain their propor- tionate contribution. Furthermore, as long as research and development funds continue to grow at a faster rate than the economy, the propor- tionate need for scientists and engineers will increase accordingly, other things being equal. Fortunately, the undergraduate student population from which scientists and engineers can be drawn is also increasing more rapidly than the economy. Contrary to some public statements, we run the risk of having too few, rather than too many, students elect to study science and engineer- ing. Until this year, the proportion of the total college population elect- ing engineering has been dropping for several years, and the shift into the sciences has been sufficient only to maintain the percentage of the total college population studying science and engineering. These facts are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 BACHELOR'S DEGREES' AWARDED TOTAL AND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING (IN THOUSANDS) 1950-51 TO 1961-62 ACADEMIC YEAR ALL FIELDS ENGINEERING NUMBER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING' % OF TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER 1950-51 384 42 109 27 1951-52 332 31 79 24 1952-53 305 24 67 22 1953-54 293 22 M 22 1954-55 287 28 63 22 1955-56 311 26 68 22 1956-57 340 21 78 23 1957-58 366 31 87 24 1958-59 385 35 94 24 1959-60 395 38 98 25 1960-61 402 36 97 24 1961-62 420 85 100 24 1 Includes bachelor's and first professional degrees. a Excludes social sciences. Source: "Earned Degrees Conferred: Bachelor's and Higher Degrees," U.S. Office of Education. 35
Comparison of the scientific and engineering student population of the United States with that of other advanced countries does not sup- port the contention that the United States is overemphasizing science. In their book, Education, Manpower and Economic Growth, Frederick H. Harbison and Charles A. Myers develop significant indices compar- ing the manpower resources of countries in various stages of develop- ment. One of their comparisons, based upon UNESCO data, is the dis- tribution of students between science and technology, on the one hand, and humanities, law, and the arts on the other. In percentage of stu- dents studying science and technology, the United States stands sub- stantially below the mean of sixteen advanced countries. West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Russia, among others, have a higher percentage of students studying science and technology than does the United States. As Figure IX shows, the rate of doctoral-degree production by colleges and universities in the United States has been increasing seven per cent a year. This Committee concurs in the recommendation made in 1962 by the President's Science Advisory Committee that a major effort be made to increase our national output of doctorates in science, engineering, and mathematics. It also stresses the importance of main- taining rigorously high standards for graduate degrees, even if this means that the growth in the number of degrees will not meet the goals recommended. The overriding requirement is for higher quality. The nation needs not only to further the efforts of its present centers of educational excellence in science, but also to develop new ones that are as good as the best it now has. The swift expansion of research and development and the growth in the student population in recent years have not brought a corresponding increase in the number of universities that occupy front-rank positions in science and engineering. Federal funds have been channeled mainly to those institutions, relatively few in number, that traditionally have had the most distinguished science and engineering faculties. In 1963, ten universities received 38 per cent of all federal funds for research and development at institutions of higher learning; 25 universities re- ceived 59 per cent of the total. Furthermore, the universities where the bulk of scientific research is now conducted are almost all located on the West Coast, in the Northeast, and in the Great Lakes region. If the educational system is to produce more scientists and engi- neers who have had the kind of graduate training that the leading
FIGURE IX DOCTORATE PRODUCTION, U.S. UNIVERSITIES, 1900 TO 1963 ANNUAL PRODUCTION RATE ACTUAL GROWTH CURVE REFERENCE GROWTH CURVE, 7% PER YEAR 10,000 6,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 ANNUAL PRODUCTION RATE 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1960 Based on "Doctorate Production in U.S. Universities 1900-1962," (NAS-NRC 1142) 1963. universities now offerâperhaps the finest offered anywhere in the worldâmore centers of true excellence in scientific research and educa- tion will be needed. Furthermore, centers of excellence located through- out the nation may also speed the economic development of other parts of the country. It has been suggested that the best way to build such new centers is for the federal government to award more research and development money to institutions that now get little or none. The Committee is 37
strongly opposed, however, to lowering the quality of government-spon- sored research and development by awarding funds for research projects to people and institutions whose proposals would not qualify for support if they were judged strictly on their merits. In the Committee's view, it would be better for the government to make institutional grants that are not linked to specific research projects. These grants should be given to institutions that show particularly strong promise of emerging, through their own efforts and those of their communities, as important new centers of scientific research and education. The program to assist the development of new centers of strength recently initiated by the National Science Foundation accepts these objectives, but the funds presently available are inadequate. More constituencies, communities, and states should determinedly set about strengthening their existing educational institutions and creat- ing new ones. Then the federal government can help. The central objective must be improvement of education; we need carefully to distin- guish this objective from that of promoting research and getting early research results. Programs of curriculum development and reform that in- volve outstanding scholars in the universities working jointly with pre-college teachers should be encouraged and supported with greatly enlarged funding. Major curricular changes and reforms undertaken mainly on the initiative of distinguished universities and scholars have greatly im- proved the quality of science teaching in pre-college schools. A scholar in the university, working closely with the teacher in lower schools, is finding it possible to make important contributions to the structure, the content, and the methods of pre-college science courses. He is also find- ing great satisfaction in contributing to the strengthening of teaching in the sciences. Inspired by the success of curriculum reform in the sciences, scholar-teacher groups are now beginning to develop new cur- ricula in the social sciences and other subject areas. Universities and colleges have a big stake in these reforms, since they will permitâindeed demandâreform and enrichment of curricula at the college level. Joint work on curriculum development represents a marked advance in the effective utilization of our intellectual resources. Preparation of new and more modern teaching materials, and large- scale retraining of teachers to handle new curricula and new materials, are essential parts of this process. Adoption of the "new" physics and the "new" mathematics, for example, has been slowed by the scarcity of teachers qualified to handle them effectively in the classroom. Even though approximately 90,000 of the 225,000 teachers of science and 88
mathematics have attended training institutes sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the "new" mathematics is still being taught to only about ten per cent of the total secondary school population. Universities with strength in science should accept a responsibility to provide special study and research op- portunities for faculty members of independent liberal arts colleges. Moreover, these colleges need to strengthen the quality of their science teaching through increased funds for salaries, research, and faculty leaves for professional development. Periodic opportunities for faculty members at liberal arts colleges to go on leave to engage in work and study at the frontiers of science in major centers will contribute to their professional development and to the strengthening of teaching in their institutions. This form of con- tinuing professional education is of growing importance in many fields. It may well be practical for individual universities to provide such con- tinuing educational opportunities to the faculties of one or more colleges in their communities or regions. In the past, independent liberal arts colleges have been an important source of America's most distinguished scientists. As research oppor- tunities have expanded, many scientist-teachers from the liberal arts colleges have preferred to move into research in industry, government, and the universities. This attrition has created continuing replacement problems for these institutions, and it has cut back the number of ex- ceptional graduate students receiving their undergraduate education in these institutions. At the same time, the rapid pace of science has created new prob- lems for teachers. The task of keeping up to date is serious for all teachers, but is more serious for the liberal arts college science teacher if his teaching load is heavy and he is not within easy reach of a major research center. The Committee views the problem of maintaining the quality of science teaching in both four-year and two-year independent liberal arts colleges as urgently calling for imaginative solution. The stakes are high enough to warrant a bold search for remedies. Obtaining additional funds to permit increases in salary, research opportunities, and leaves for professional development is an obvious move. Collaboration of nearby institutions in the development of graduate study, or in student exchange programs, without red tape, is another way of meeting the problem. The development and use of shared research facilities is still another. But acceptance of direct responsibility by the universities with strength in science is one of the most important aids to be sought.
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Efforts now being made to improve the professional edu- cation of engineers should be augmented and accelerated along the following lines: (a) Strengthen and expand graduate study in engineering, (b) Continue the reform of engineering undergraduate education, reducing its rigidity and enriching its scientific content, (c) Continue to modern- ize the laboratory facilities of engineering schools. The United States has schools of engineering unmatched in other parts of the world, but we need more that are as good as the top institu- tions. A variety of institutions are now attempting bold and imaginative improvements in engineering education. The number of these attempts should be multiplied in order to enable our engineering schools to pace, rather than follow, the rapid advance of technology, and to educate more engineers who are versatile, adaptable to rapid change, and capable of broad professional responsibility. By their creativity, such engineers will generate a demand for more engineers of their kind, and for many other types of skilled personnel as well. In engineering, the need for exceptional competence and for mastery of the latest technologies is greater than the need for increased numbers. Yet numbers and quality are not unrelated. Graduate schools of engi- neering are not yet producing enough engineers of the quality and points of view required to upgrade and modernize engineering education. Continuing efforts are required to strengthen graduate schools of engineering. The limiting factor here is the availability of teachers who can master the most advanced technologies and put them to use. Gradu- ate study in engineering must be conducted in intimate association with advanced engineering research that applies science to the frontiers of engineering. Some of the efforts to strengthen graduate education in engineering have been hampered by out-of-date instructional facilities. Modernization of these facilities is clearly required. Engineering schools should emphasize science fundamentals, to give their graduates the versatility to adjust to our rapidly changing tech- nology. However, engineering is not synonymous with science; the reason for including scientific fundamentals in engineering education is not to make scientists of engineers, but to enable engineers to use science effectively for engineering purposes. MEETING NEW NEEDS Universities, in close cooperation with industry and gov- ernment, should develop a concerted attack on the prob- lem of updating engineering and scientific manpower. 40
FIGURE X EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES SPONSORED BY SELECTED INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS, PERCENTAGE OF COMPANIES SPONSORING EACH ACTIVITY 90% TUITION REFUND PLAN 67% ATTENDANCE AT PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SOCIETY MEETINGS 62% TECHNICAL LECTURES (OUTSIDE PLANT) 57% IN-PLANT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COURSES 37% EDUCATIONAL LEAVE PLAN 30% RESEARCH OR TEACHING BY EMPLOYEES 6", POST-DOCTORAL TRAINING NOTE: OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING SURVEYâDATA BASED ON A SAMPLE OF 96 POSITIVE RESPONSES OUT OF 154 REPLIES TO SOLICITATIONS SENT TO 270 COMPANIES REPRESENTED AT TECHNICAL OBSOLESCENCE CONFERENCES. THESE COMPANIES MAY HAVE AN ABOVE-AVERAGE INTEREST IN TRAINING AND EDUCATION. Based on "Educational Activities Conducted by Companies for their Scientists and Engineers," W. G. Torpey, January 1964. Experienced engineers and scientists working for industry and gov- ernment and wishing to update or improve their knowledge need more and better opportunities to do so. A growing acceptance by industry of its responsibility to help employees continue and broaden their education is suggested by the results of a recent survey, shown in Figure X. Indeed, it is increasingly commonâand increasingly necessaryâ for experienced professionals of all kinds to go back to school from time to time. The University of California, for example, now has on its rollsâ as extension studentsâone out of every three lawyers in the state, and one out of every six physicians. Yet, despite the recognition by com- 41
panics of the need to support the education of scientists and engineers, the survey also indicated that, thus far, company investment in such activities has not been large. Similarly, although universities currently offer a number of first- rate programs designed to afford mature engineers, teachers, and others an opportunity to enhance their professional competence, more such pro- grams are needed. Management-development programs that provide opportunity for business executives to return to the campus for fixed periods to learn about recent developments in managerial practice pro- vide one model of a successful procedure. The new Center for Advanced Engineering Study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pro- vides another. A concerted program to meet the varied, substantial needs of scientists and engineers for updating seems to be required. While some persons view the limits of present programs as primarily fiscal in nature, the Committee's view is that, in the first instance, a concerted effort by universities, government, and industry is required to lay out high-quality programs for meeting the growing need. As this is done, industry should come to see its interests as requiring a substantial investment in the updating of its human resources. Universities should take the lead in expanding research on the educational process. Curriculum reform, improve- ment in engineering schools, expansion of teacher training, and the establishment of new centers of excellence all require a sound foundation in research. Education represents a national expenditure of about $30 billion. In contrast, the amount of research done to make education better is miniscule. Curriculum reform, improvement in engineering schools, ex- pansion of teacher training, and the establishment of new centers of excellence all require a sound foundation in research. Moreover, there is a need for universities and other institutions to sponsor more research on human-resource development and use, and specifically on all the fac- tors that significantly affect the use of professional talent, such as that of scientists and engineers. Schools of management should sponsor more systematic study of the art and science of management of research and development, and how they may be taught most effectively. Private foundations, industry, and government alike have opportunities to pro- vide more stimulus and funds for this purpose. 42
