a burden on society unless he gets help. This view is, however, held by very few in higher education.

Similarly, there is almost universal agreement that advanced students are a better investment than beginners, and "need" more expensive instruction. Again, some critics have suggested that if a first-rate program were developed for freshmen and sophomores, their subsequent education could be left much more to their own initiative, and graduate students could simply be turned loose in the library or laboratory. This is, however, a minority view.

The cumulative result of these prejudices has been to give universities with generally bright and advanced students far more money per student than State colleges, and State colleges more than junior colleges. As a result, the ablest faculty (who are in any case naturally drawn to institutions with large numbers of students who share their intellectual interests and gifts) find that there are practical advantages to teaching in universities. By and large, universities pay higher salaries and offer lighter teaching loads than State colleges, and State colleges have a similar advantage vis á vis junior colleges. Not all university professors are interested in teaching undergraduates, however carefully selected. Nevertheless, university students, who ought to be best able to educate themselves and least in need of gifted instructors, generally get better instruction than anyone else.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots appears to have a natural tendency to widen. The leading universities, having gotten the best students, turn out the wealthiest and most influential alumni. These men and women often give substantial amounts to their alma mater. They also use their influence to make sure that the legislature does likewise. Since the universities also have the ablest faculty, they are the most likely to get Federal and foundation research funds. The poorer colleges, on the other hand, turn out comparatively few alumni who can help them later on, and attract limited research funds. The cumulative result is familiar to students of industrial concentration. It has been aptly summed up by David Riesman in a law which states: "The more the more." Students of underdeveloped countries and domestic poverty will be familiar with the converse principle, which for lack of a better term can be called Jencks' law, namely: "The less the less."

IV: A second important kind of differentiation among public institutions with which planners must deal is geographic. Only a few public institutions have sought and obtained national constituencies, and none encourage this at the undergraduate level. A student who wants to benefit from State tax subsidies must normally attend a college within his home State. Most educators deplore this situation, arguing that it is good to mix students from all over, and often important to the individual student to get away from home. State legislatures have, however, been unwilling to subsidize native students who attend college outside the State. Even when a State scholarship program exists, grants are often available only to those who stay in the State.

Geographic differentiation takes another, more important form. Many States now rely heavily on local commuter colleges. By providing tuition subsidies to everyone, whether they need it or not, and subsistence allowances to none, whether they need it or not, planners force most middle and low income families to send their sons and daughters to a college within commuting distance. Many educators deplore this, arguing that full-time residence and independence from parents is a vital part of college.

A related problem is whether States should put most of their money into large universities and State colleges or into smaller institutions, particularly two-year

than small local colleges to create specialized programs and subcultures suited to minority tastes. Small institutions, on the other hand, can be located within commuting distance of more families. According to some observers, they encourage closer contact between students and faculty and between students and students than large institutions do. At least in the public sector, however, even small institutions have had to try to be all things to all people. As a result they have found it harder than small private institutions to serve any one group well.

EDUCATION FOR WORLD

RESPONSIBILITY

Vice Chairman: O. MEREDITH WILSON, President, University of Minnesota

Overseas Programs and Foreign Students

Consultant: WILLIAM SPENCER, Associate Dean, Graduate School of

Business, Columbia University

During the summer of each year our congressional leaders scurry about, consulting with various influential individuals and groups, before they move back to their committee meeting rooms to continue the painful appraisal-what shall be the final shape of the foreign aid appropriation bill? The New York Times reports that this year even our legislative "strongmen" show signs of fatigue and lack of enthusiasm for the perennial battle. The controversy is intense, the opinions sharply divided, the political stakes high, the responsibility enormous, the outcome uncertain.

It is opportune that educators too are meeting in Washington during this July to join in one phase of the appraisal-what shall be the shape of our overseas and foreign student programs? The answers have direct bearing on the congressional deliberations, just as the results of the legislative battles determine the mold for university programs in the year to come. But here too, among the educators, the controversy is intense, ideas and opinions dramatically differ, issues are clouded by conflicting interests, and the final resolutions are unpredictable.

This paper is written to stimulate discussion-hopefully, constructive discussion-that will produce useful and responsible decisions. It is addressed to an informed and sophisticated audience; a detailed description of programs in operation or an analysis of varying types of international efforts is therefore unnecessary. Even a simple listing of questions and issues in this complex field would require more space than can be allocated. Thus a different format is called for, one that requires a word of explanation to insure its maximum utility.

The first section, The Issues, simply presents four questions without elaboration or comment. These questions were distilled from hundreds of relevant questions and issues raised in books, articles, reports, monographs, and speeches on the subject; they were tested and refined through conferences and consultation with authorities. It is believed that the four questions encompass most others on the same subject, and simultaneously focus attention on sensitive points

The second section. The Situation, was deliberately constructed as a mosaic of opinion. The quotations, end-to-end in many cases, were chosen to sharpen the issues, not to provide answers. It is hoped that the panelists will find in these statements ideas and shadings of opinion that will enrich their discussion. It should be noted that the mosaic is in four parts, corresponding to the four issues presented in the first section.

The third section, The Case, suggests a framework for discussion that may stimulate some participants, and presents a larger number of detailed questions that illuminate the major issues. Here some readers may find what they believe to be the esssence of the problem.

Finally, the writer was asked not to draw conclusions or make recommendations. This is a difficult restriction and has surely been violated by implication, if not directly. The selection of issues and the casting of the situation involved many choices, and by choice one reveals oneself. Nevertheless, there is no formal conclusion to this paper-this and attendant recommendations must be furnished by the panelists and readers.

The Issues

I. Are study-abroad programs (U.S. students overseas; foreign students here) sufficiently productive to warrant the expenditure of money and time being allocated to these programs?

II. Faced as we are, at least for the next couple of decades, with critical manpower shortages in higher education institutions, what rationale should govern release or assignment of faculty personnel to overseas institutions and programs?

III. What factors and conditions control the effectiveness of U.S. university-tooverseas university contracts and cooperation? What guidelines lead to successful relationships and the avoidance of difficulties?

IV. National foreign policy aspirations and operations are not always consistent with academic and institutional freedom to dissent or act autonomously. What is involved in reconciling these differences?

On July 6, 1965 information was released1 indicating that "more than 91,000 foreign citizens (are) studying, teaching, or doing research at U.S. colleges and universities." The same report shows that "there were nearly 22,000 Americans abroad on educational assignment; a little more than 18,000 were students and nearly 4,000 were faculty members and administrative staff." There were nine percent more foreign students here, and seven percent more U.S. students abroad than in 1963-64. The foreign students attended 1859 U.S. institutions; American students were in 409 institutions in 68 countries. Faculty members of U.S. colleges and universities were in 108 countries.

I. These are dramatic statistics, but what is their significance? The voices differ. "In England it becomes every day more and more the custom to send young people to travel in foreign countries. . . . Our young people, it is said, generally return home much improved by their travels. A young man who goes abroad at seventeen or eighteen . . . generally acquires some knowledge of one or two foreign languages. In other respects he commonly returns home more conceited, more unprincipled, more dissipated, and more incapable of any serious applica tion either to study or to business than he could well have become in so short a time had he lived at home." The writer was Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. "Let us view the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe. To numerate them all would require a volume. . . . If he goes to England, he learns

will never be useful to him. . . . It appears to me that an American going to Europe for education loses his knowledge, his morals, his health, his habits, and his happiness." This was Thomas Jefferson's judgment of study abroad. But there are other more contemporary observers. Livingstone notes that the student abroad "may find that not only is his erstwhile image of England and Englishmen a wild distortion of things as they are, but that also the character of his own country takes on new outlines for him."2 Even more eloquent is the judgment of an Antioch College (Ohio) historian: "What is common in the experience of every one of them, however, is that he cannot go home again. He goes home, to be sure, but not to what he left. His homeland has not stood still, and he himself is no longer the same. He has 'rubbed and polished his brain,' as Montaigne said. He has come to comprehend a new culture, to gain better insight into his own society and into himself, and his understanding of the world has taken on a new dimension. He is not of the foreign culture, but neither is he entirely of his own culture any longer." "3 But not everyone sees alike. "I have suffered a double loss," said one student who had failed his examinations. "For two years I have lost my salary in India and have spent my own money here. Now I have no savings, my wife has no ornaments and I am in heavy debt. I have earned only humiliations. I do not know what I should do. Should I take a job and appear at the next examinations, in which again there is no guarantee of success? Or should I go back to India and let this failure pinch me for the rest of my life?"4

"I have come to believe, from a rather close association with a considerable number of foreign students as a university professor, that the most serious problem is within the countries from which these students come. Their services may be badly needed in their homelands, but in many instances, they have little reason to believe and much to doubt that this need is deeply felt by either their governments or their societies." ."5 Weidner takes a critical view of our institutions: "American universities have drifted on the seas of international exchange programs without rudder and direction, without compass and destination. There have been exceptions. Yet, by and large, the international exchange programs of American universities have been creatures of the moment, improvisations rather than long-range commitments. They have lacked a fundamental philosophy, a fundamental relevance to the university and its objectives." In spite of problems some suggest that a “band-wagon" psychology grips American higher education institutions in their quest to "Go International!" It reminds one of the limerick:

"An epicure dining at Crewe

Found a fat old mouse in his stew.

Said the waiter,-don't shout

And wave it about,

Or the rest will be wanting one, too!"

II. "Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders' report to the Tananarive Conference underlined the tremendous number of expatriate teachers that will be needed during the next decade for the development of the new African universities. South-East Asia and South America have also at various times complained of the shortage of good men to fill university teaching posts, but this is not a problem confined to the under-developed countries."7 "President Sterling of Stanford contends that we are spreading our available higher education resources too thin in the light of U.S. requirements."8 In 1965 one large state university reports 300