GOVERNMENT
College grant bill gets mixed reception Some voice support on bill's purpose, but others are sharply critical of formula for making grants H.R. 875, a bill to authorize $150 million a year in unfettered grants to colleges and universities to improve science education and research capability, got a mixed reception as hearings opened two weeks ago before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development. Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario (D.-Conn.) heads the committee. All of the witnesses backed the purpose of the bill but the formula for making grants came in for sharp criticism. And, even though the bill was introduced by the chairman of the parent committee, Rep. George Miller (D.-Calif.), the subcommittee and Rep. Daddario disowned it. "In order to avoid confusion concerning the bill itself," Rep. Daddario said, "it should be recognized that it was not drafted by the parent committee, the subcommittee, or members of the staff." He pointed out that the bill had been introduced in both the 89th and 90th Congresses by Rep. Miller at the request of a number of educational associations, groups, and individuals. "So far as I am aware," he said, "neither the chairman nor any member of the committee is necessarily committed in any way to the b i l l pro or con. Moreover, if there appears to be any difference between the bill and the past actions or recommendations of this subcommittee, this disclaimer should suffice to explain them." In view of this pronouncement, the bill seems unlikely to emerge from
the committee in its present form. Although he may not be dedicated to H.R. 875, Rep. Daddario is concerned about the problems the bill is designed to alleviate: maintaining and improving the quality of scientific education. "Reactive forces may be setting in," he said, "and I personally feel that the momentum we have built up in scientific and technological education must not be lost or squandered for lack of adequate support. We must maintain the excellence that has developed in the past 15 years; not only maintain it, but see that it is increased, better directed, and better managed. We must, therefore, maintain our high plateaus and elevate our lower ones." H.R. 875 would divide the grant money coming to each institution into three parts, the amount of each part to be determined by a complex formula (for details, see box). The reason for the complexity of the formula is to provide some means to channel funds to geographical areas where they are most needed, to keep large schools from getting the lion's share of the money, and to help smaller schools to expand their graduate programs. Project grants, the present system, should continue to be the major mechanism for federal support of academic science, Dr. Donald F. Hornig, director of the Office of Science and Technology, told the committee. "This system has served the country well," he
continued. "Indeed, our present world leadership in science is, in no small measure, attributable to this system of support." However, he believes that a system of general institutional grants, as proposed in the bill, is vitally needed. And these grants should be made in addition to, not as a substitute for, project grants. Project grants, if used as the only mechanisms of university support, have several disadvantages, he says. They are given for a specific line of work, proposed by the principal scientific investigator, and do not allow the recipient institution to shift resources allocated for one project to support or supplement another. Another problem is that project grants can be and are turned on and off relatively quickly by federal agencies, without any particular concern for the impact on the university as a whole. In short, the limitations of project grants have led to a loss of flexibility in utilizing federal funds for academic science. Institutional grants, Dr. Hornig says, can play an important role in attaining flexibility and stability in support programs. These grants would: • Give universities flexibility to set their own objectives, meet their commitments, and use the total resources available to them more effectively. • Permit university administrators to plan ahead with confidence. • Help assure equitable geographic distribution of federal funds.
Grants would be awarded by this formula 1. One third of the total appropriated money would go to institutions as a graduated percentage of the total sum of project awards received by them during the immediately preceding year from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Office of Education. Amounts to be paid to each school would be fixed in accordance with regulations to be issued by NSF. However, all schools would receive 100% of the first $30,000 of project grants and no school would get more than $300,000 in any one year regardless of the total number of grants it had received. 2. One third of the money would be divided among the states in proportion to the ratio of the total number of high school graduates in the state in the immediately
24 C&EN JULY 8, 1968
preceding year to the total number of high school graduates in the U.S. The state would allocate this money to schools in the state in proportion to the ratio of total undergraduate semester hours taught in physical, biological, and social sciences, engineering, and mathematics to the total number of such credit-hours taught in all institutions of higher education within the state. 3. One third of the money would be awarded to schools in proportion to the ratio of the total number of advanced degrees (including both second- and third-level degrees) awarded by the school in the previous three years in the physical, biological, and social sciences, engineering, and mathematics to the total number of such degrees awarded by alt institutions of higher education in the U.S.
DISCUSSION. Dr. Donald F. Hornig, left, and Rep. Emilio Daddario discuss H.R. 875. The bill would authorize $150 million each year in unfettered grants to colleges and universities to improve science education and research
Despite these advantages, the real problem, in Dr. Hornig's opinion, is how to provide incentives for quality and efficient operation. The danger is that schools could gear their programs to take maximum advantage of the factors in the formula rather than for maximum quality education. For example, he says, if the number of advanced degrees awarded is an important part of the formula, this might cause a proliferation of inadequate graduate programs, which, in turn, would produce poorly trained people. Of course, this problem won't arise if the money provided is merely some fraction of the cost of providing training and research for a graduate student. Based on these and other examples, Dr. Hornig says, "The nature of the formula is critically important, and needs much further study." Another advocate of the principle of institutional grants and severe critic of method in H.R. 875 is Dr. Leland Haworth, director of the National Science Foundation. "The general concept of a national institutional grants program has considerable merit," he told the committee. He pointed out that the financial problems facing colleges and universities are becoming more, rather than less, severe. He described NSF's institutional grant program to create "centers of excellence" and called the program "most successful in its small way in helping to sustain the academic science of the nation." In setting up an institutional grants program, the most important thing in Dr. Haworth's opinion is careful selection of goals and objectives. These determine the categories of target in-
stitutions and, once they are decided on, formulas can be created or adjusted so that the appropriate amount of money can be channeled to the selected categories to achieve the desired obejctives. "In my opinion," he told the committee, "H.R. 875, as now written, does not clearly set forth its specific objectives." If the primary purpose is to help institutions to maintain their efforts, he says, then a correctly devised formula approach can be effective. On the other hand, if the purpose is to support expansion or development, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to devise a formula method. The reasons are twofold. The need for and appropriateness of quantitative growth varies widely from region to region and school to school in ways that are often completely unrelated to any parameter that can be fed into any nonselective formula. If qualitative improvement is sought, Dr. Haworth says, "In my opinion, this objective must be approached in a selective fashion, since a number of considerations suggest that not all institutions can be markedly improved simultaneously." A formula program, such as that in the bill, should be aimed primarily at helping institutions to maintain adequate instructional and research programs in science, Dr. Haworth says. Some schools may be able to use the added money to improve and expand their efforts somewhat. But, in general, the amounts of money to be received by the individual schools under the bill will not be enough to permit great changes in the quality or size of their programs, he says. To highlight some of the problems inherent in the bill, Dr. Haworth
points to the two sections of the fund distribution formulas which are keyed to the present level of research performance and to the number of advanced degrees awarded. These approaches will tend to distribute the money to the larger graduate schools— those already of high quality and well developed—because these schools are very active in federally supported research and award large numbers of advanced degrees. The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges supports H.R. 875 in all particulars, Dr. John W. Oswald told the committee. Dr. Oswald, who is president of the University of Kentucky, heads the association's special committee on federal legislation. Last November, Dr. Oswald said, the association adopted a legislative position listing, as its first priority, adequate funding of established and ongoing federal programs. "If new initiatives are possible," he said, "the members of the association overwhelmingly adopted the position that first priority should be given to the necessity of general institutional support of colleges and universities." H.R. 875 is well designed, Dr. Oswald says, to meet the urgent need for a new kind of support program to provide stable and flexible sustaining funds for colleges and universities, public and private alike, on a continuing and predictable basis. Although the $150 million annual authorization is inadequate for the needs, Dr. Oswald says it marks a beginning and will provide a chance to develop experience to guide future activities. He notes that the formulas in the bill have been endorsed by his association and by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. H e believes that the formulas "attempt to provide funds to each institution in accordance to its needs" as determined by measurable, objective, quantitative indices. Pointing out that the committee will undoubtedly hear testimony that the formulas are unfair or give inadequate proportional support to some schools, he says, "We would hope that all such comments are accompanied by affirmative suggestions for improvement." Hearings are scheduled to continue weekly to the end of the month. JULY 8, 1968 C&EN
25
