Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13

Educational Leadership for a Free World: Problems Facing Higher Education

by Francis H. Horn - 1956

With the exception of the issue of academic freedom, the author believes that all problems facing higher education in the United States today and in the next two decades can be considered within the framework of what has come to be called "the impending tidal wave of students." As we face the problem of planning for future enrollments, we must find answers to certain perennial questions: Who should go to college? What should be the nature of the education provided? Who should provide the educational services needed? How shall higher education be financed?

WITH the exception of the issue of academic freedom, I believe that all problems facing higher education in the United States today and in the next two decades can be considered within the framework of what has come to be called "the impending tidal wave of students." As we face the problem of planning for future enrollments, we must find answers to certain perennial questions: Who should go to college? What should be the nature of the education provided? Who should provide the educational services needed? How shall higher education be financed?

Before considering the major question of future enrollments, I want to comment briefly upon academic freedom. Since this topic is being considered in detail by another group, I wish only to emphasize that the preservation and strengthening of academic freedom remains a critical problem facing higher education. Colleges and universities—or, more properly, the faculties of such institutions—can provide educational leadership for a free world only if they themselves operate in an atmosphere of freedom. In the years since World War II the climate of fear prevailing throughout the country has intensified the nation's ever-present anti-intellectualism, resulting in widespread distrust of college faculties and in restrictions on their traditional freedom to seek the truth and teach it as they see it. Although the worst of this hysteria seems to be over, and the nation is regaining some understanding of the necessary conditions of a free society, the threat to intellectual freedom, especially in institutions of higher education, remains.

Let me turn now to the over-riding problem facing higher education—the hordes of students who will shortly be knocking at the gates of colleges and universities. The first part of the problem concerns sheer numbers—just how big will the tidal wave of students be?

In 1954 Ronald Thompson published a pamphlet, The Impending Tidal Wave of Students. This awakened educators and laymen concerned with education to the seriousness of the enrollment problem. Dr. Thompson pointed out that even if there were no further increase in the 31 per cent of college-age youth then attending college, enrollment in 1970 would be 4,220,000, an increase of approximately 70 per cent over the 1953 enrollment, simply as a result of the increased birth rate. If the percentage of college-age youth going to college increased, as it has done ever since 1900, and leveled off at 40 per cent, the 1970 enrollment would be 5,544,000; if it increased to 50 per cent, the 1970 enrollment would be 6,668,000.

By now, except for a few wishful thinkers who see in the increased potential enrollment a chance to "raise academic standards" by restricting admissions, almost everyone has recognized that the 1970 enrollment will be about double that of 1954, or somewhere between 4,500,000 and 5,000,000. Almost no one seems to have taken seriously the possibility that Dr. Thompson's higher figures are closer to what higher education actually will face. A "facts memorandum" distributed for American Education Week (November 6 to 12, 1955) by the Council for Financial Aid to Education predicts 1970 enrollment at 4,000,000 and 1975 enrollment at 5,000,000.

It is my conviction that enrollment will hit 5,000,000 by 1965, and that by 1975 it may be 8,000,000. In fact, the figure of "at least nine and perhaps as many as twelve million" college students by 1975, predicted by Professor Peter F. Drucker of New York University in the March 1955 Harper's, may not be so fantastic as it appears on first sight.

Briefly, here are the reasons why I think college enrollment will at least triple in the next twenty years. There are three contributing factors: the increasing birth rate, the higher percentage of high school graduates going to college, and the tendency for students to remain in college longer.

The birth rate has almost doubled in the last twenty years—from 2,168,000 in 1934 to 4,100,000 in 1954. It continues to go up, and this will have a very significant effect on the enrollment growth, particularly from 1970 to 1975. Since Dr. Thompson's authoritative study forecast only to 1970, educators have generally failed to look at 1975, only twenty years away.

The second major factor in predicting future enrollment is the percentage of high school graduates who continue to college. For statistical purposes the percentage of college-age youth (eighteen to twenty-one) in college is generally used. In 1954 this figure was 31 per cent. However, these terms do not mean exactly what they say. "College enrollment" as reported by the Office of Education includes many part-time students. At least 20 per cent, possibly as many as 25 per cent of the students reported are not "in college" in the usual connotation of the term. Furthermore, there are many students under eighteen and still more twenty-one or over in college, and a small percentage (about 1 1/2 per cent) who are foreign students. It is probable that last year little more than 20 per cent of our eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds were in college full time.

I believe that the percentage of college-age youth going to college (using the terms as they are ordinarily used) will further increase as it has done consistently in the past. In 1900, the figure was 4 per cent. It doubled in the next two decades, and doubled again to 16 per cent in 1940. It doubled again in the postwar period, but this time in only ten years. Today approximately one-third of college-age youth are in college. I am convinced that in the next twenty years this percentage will increase by one half, so that by 1975 approximately one half our college-age youth will be in institutions of higher education.

A number of factors contribute toward this end. Most important is the growing recognition of the tremendous waste of human resources because one-half of the top quarter of our high school graduates do not go to college. The Commission on Financing Higher Education estimated that of the nation's half million young people of highest intellectual promise, about 100,000 never even finished high school. This waste is arousing increasing concern, since our complex society requires the maximum development of all our talented young people. Automation and other aspects of scientific advance, as well as our role of leadership in world affairs, will sharply increase the demand for mental competence. Insuring college opportunities for all our gifted young people—using the term loosely to include the top quarter in intellectual and creative ability—is one of the major problems facing higher education. Once in college, moreover, these students must be challenged to achieve their maximum performance. Colleges must find ways to accelerate such students, to break the old academic lockstep. This is difficult today; it will become more difficult as enrollments expand.

Positive efforts of major proportions are beginning to be directed toward this goal. Thus far these efforts are aimed primarily at reducing the financial barriers to college attendance. Corporate programs of scholarships are increasing and will be expanded substantially, but the problem will not be solved without scholarship programs financed by the government. Certainly, other states will in time adopt something like New York's Regents' scholarships, the number of which was doubled by the last legislature. Whether or not a federal program of scholarship should be established is a highly controversial issue. I see no likelihood of federal legislation for scholarships in the next few years, but I regard some sort of national program as eventually certain—and desirable.

In addition to the financial obstacle, young people are not going to college because of lack of motivation. Family and cultural patterns are involved, and the attitudes of both parents and children must be changed if more of our young people, especially the ablest ones, are to get to college.

A number of influences are changing these attitudes and will markedly increase the percentage of high school graduates attending college. A major influence is the growing difficulty of getting ahead in the world—an ambition natural to Americans—without a college education. A degree is now prerequisite to many positions formerly open to high school graduates. Developments in our technology, with the resulting reduction in routine work, will limit still further the job possibilities for the person with only a high school education.

Another influence motivating greater college attendance is the increasing desire of parents for college education for their children. Traditionally, Americans want for their children better opportunities than they themselves had. As the educational level of the population rises, and as the percentage of adult foreign-born decreases (it was 10 per cent in 1950, 22½ per cent in 1900), more parents expect their children to have a college education. The large numbers of veterans, many of whom enjoyed a college education under the GI Bill, will expect for their children educational opportunities equal to those they received. Finally, stronger motivation toward college grows out of the socioeconomic pattern of our middle-class society. Improving living standards and the mass media of communication combine to produce a uniform manner of living. This leveling process extends to the idea of a college education. In the past, huge segments of the population did not consider that the American dream included the opportunity for higher education; today, however, ever-increasing numbers of parents do believe that a college education is not only open to their children, but that their children have a right to it.

Several other circumstances suggest that a higher percentage of young people of college age will actually be in college. Mere proximity to an institution of higher education increases college attendance in the area. As population increases and pressures upon existing institutions rise, demands for new colleges in areas not now adequately served will mount and be met. I estimate that by 1970 at least two hundred new educational institutions will be established, a good many of them public junior colleges with low tuition fees. In addition, universities will establish new branch campuses. The many state-wide plans for expanded systems of higher education, now resting in bureau files, will be implemented. The accessibility of these new facilities will induce a greater percentage of high school graduates to go on to college. Furthermore, some junior colleges will become four-year institutions, thus making additional years of college available for larger numbers of young people.

Vocational motivation sends more and more young people to college, but there is also greater recognition that the non-vocational aspects of a college education are so important that an ever-increasing number of young people should enjoy college opportunities. Education for American democracy, the need of general education for a free society—these concepts are widely accepted and lead to increased emphasis upon college education, to expansion of educational facilities, and indirectly, if not directly, to motivating more young people to go to college. These concepts, moreover, strengthened somewhat by the desire of labor leaders to keep young people out of the labor market, have resulted in a progressive raising of the compulsory school age. In California, a boy or girl must remain in school until age eighteen. This means at least a year in college for many young people; one year leads to two and two to more. Undoubtedly, other states will follow California's example.

The influence of compulsory attendance laws on the percentage of our college-age population going to college brings me to the third major factor which should produce a tripling of college attendance in the next twenty years: the tendency for students to remain in college longer. This results from both the increased pressure for the degree and more positive action by the college to reduce student mortality. The tendency operates at both the undergraduate and the graduate level, but is more significant at the graduate level. A bachelor's degree has little more value today than a high school diploma had fifty years ago. As more and more young people have a bachelor's degree, the pressure of competition on the one hand, and the complexity of modern society requiring study beyond the undergraduate level on the other, have stepped up the demand for graduate study and graduate degrees—even for post-doctoral study. In 1952, the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Training estimated that in relation to the number of bachelor's degrees awarded annually, the number of master's degrees would increase 23 per cent from 1952 to 1970, and the number of doctor's degrees, 13 per cent. I suspect these figures will prove to be much too low.

The factors and influences I have mentioned justify the prediction that college enrollments by 1975 will reach at least 8,000,000. This does not mean "higher education for all," or anything near it. This enrollment of 8,000,000—on the same basis as last year's 2,500,000—represents probably no more than 40 per cent of America's young people of college age actually in college on a full-time basis. With the tremendous need in this nation for trained and educated manpower, how can we set our sights for the future any lower than this? This expansion of our college population is necessary and desirable. Certainly, it is possible for higher education to increase from 2,500,000 to 8,000,000 in twenty years. The high school population increased from less than a million to nearly seven million in the thirty years between 1910 and 1940; it tripled in the twenty years from 1920 to 1940. In the next twenty years college enrollment can do the same, during a period when the population is multiplying at a much faster rate than during the first third of the century.

But will enrollment actually increase as predicted? Certainly it is already increasing at a rate which will more than double the 1954 enrollment by 1961. The fall 1954 enrollment was up 11.1 per cent over the fall 1953 enrollment.

The Office of Education has not yet released statistics on this fall's enrollment. I expect the percentage of increases will exceed that of last fall. The situation in Minnesota is revealing. The total increase over last fall is 13.3 per cent. The University's enrollment this fall is 15 per cent greater than estimated in the spring of 1954. Estimates at the same time of 1970 enrollment for teachers colleges and junior colleges foresaw figures only 86 per cent larger than this fall's enrollment. This year's increase over last year for teachers colleges was 36 per cent, for junior colleges, 23 per cent. If this rate continued, teachers colleges would reach their 1970 estimated enrollment not in fifteen years, but in three; junior colleges would reach it in four years; the universities in seven years; even the four-year liberal arts colleges would reach it in twelve years.

There are, however, factors not yet strongly operative which may in time slow the rate of increase and tend to limit later enrollments to figures lower than those I have predicted. Of these, the three chief ones are: the cost, the lack of teachers, and the determined opposition of educators.

One of the critical issues facing higher education today is how to pay for it. With financing colleges and universities a major problem even now, how can the predicted increase in students possibly be financed? Financing higher education involves both the cost to the student and the cost to society. The cost of a college education to the individual has increased steadily—although it has not kept pace with increases in the cost of living—and there is some fear that it is pricing itself out of the market. One of the major challenges to higher education, as I have indicated, is to insure that all of our young people of top ability get to college. Ways must and will be found so that they will not be denied such opportunities for lack of financial means. In any case, I believe that the rise in the American standard of living, the increased and more generous scholarship assistance which is being provided, and the greater public support of education will make the financial problem of college attendance of no more significance for the larger numbers of future college students than it has been in the past.

The extent to which the public, either through tax appropriations or private benevolences, will support the expanding program of higher education is more problematical. From the standpoint of government, competition for the tax dollar will be keener, particularly because of the needs for highways, for care of the aging population, and for elementary and secondary education. The competition for contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations will likewise be keener. And the bill for the expanded facilities and services will be a big one. The American Council on Education estimated that by 1970 capital needs alone would be $12 billion.

Nevertheless, I think the American public will foot the bill. The rush of corporations to get aboard the bandwagon of support for higher education, although not impressive in terms of the needs of colleges and universities, is evidence of a new recognition of the importance of higher education and an encouraging foretaste of really substantial support in the future.

I suggest, however, that higher education cannot expect business and industry to pick up the whole check for what the colleges and universities estimate they need right now, let alone in the future. Alumni bodies will have to contribute a far heavier share of the cost of the colleges than they have in the past in all but a few institutions.

Moreover, I cannot see financial support for the greatly increased enrollments on the same basis as American higher education operates today. We will have to revise our thinking about what is needed to provide a college education. The ambition of American institutions is to be housed as well as the Ivy League and to provide all the services, educational and otherwise (including intercollegiate athletics, which is increasingly operating at a deficit), that these institutions provide.

It will be impossible to expand higher education in this country to the extent that it should expand on the basis that college opportunities everywhere must be made available in facilities equal to those at the wealthiest of our private institutions or the largest of our state institutions. If we recognize this fact, it will be possible to provide good educational opportunities for millions of additional students without increasing the cost proportionately.

At the same time colleges and universities must learn to operate more economically and efficiently than they now do. Certainly "college" cannot be carried on as it is in many institutions today if the challenge of the vastly expanded enrollments is to be met. The sanctity of the long summer vacation, of 9:00 to 12:00 classes, of no Saturday classes—at least none to interfere with the football games on Saturday afternoons—must be ended. Better use of classroom space is imperative. If attention is given to such matters, I am sure that the problem of financing higher education now and in the future—with its added millions of students—can be resolved.

The lack of capable teachers is another matter. This is indeed a serious limitation of our ability to expand without having the quality of our education deteriorate. Just how many college teachers will be needed to care for the predicted enrollments is impossible to estimate now, for such estimates are based on current practices—practices which, I am convinced, will be changed without education's suffering in the process. Faculty-student ratios of 1-12 (unreliable and meaningless as these figures often are) are out of the question for all but the wealthiest colleges, and indeed for them. Faculty teaching loads, kept low in many cases on the assumption that professors are busy at research, will have to be revised upward. With more attention to improved methods of learning—TV will be helpful, but it is not the answer to this problem—and to the most effective utilization of faculty—and this will mean cutting down the number of courses offered in most institutions—enrollments can expand without a proportionate increase in faculty.

But even if faculties are operating at maximum effectiveness, the need for additional teachers may not be met. Certainly the improved economic position of college teachers helps in recruiting more able young people for the teaching profession. But the demands of industry and government for the specialized skills possessed by college teachers may more than offset this advantage. This suggests more arrangements by which the colleges and these agencies may divide the time of such able people in short supply.

In addition to utilizing increased numbers of part-time faculty, there are a number of ways in which the potential shortage of qualified teachers can be met. Present retirement regulations should be modified. It is an anachronism in this day of greater longevity to retain sixty-five as a mandatory retirement age. Likewise, greater use of younger people offers possibilities. Not only should more graduate students be utilized, but the ablest undergraduate seniors could be used effectively, particularly under supervision.

The best way of finding the needed full-time teachers, however, is more active recruitment for the profession. Potential teachers need to be identified early, encouraged to commit themselves to teaching, and assisted financially to prepare for it. Special effort must be expended in getting able people. President Pusey rightly observed recently that "our troubles arise, not because there are too many students, but because there are too few outstanding teachers."

Less emphasis must be placed upon the research aspects of the teaching profession. As one section at the recent American Council on Education meeting concluded, "the tendency to treat the Ph.D. as a union card for college teaching calls for urgent reconsideration." Colleges must be willing to put teachers to work earlier—in some cases before their doctoral training dulls their interest in teaching. Internship programs must be expanded. Obviously the financial aspect of college teaching must be made more attractive, but I believe the importance of this in recruiting has been overemphasized. If we attract to teaching the same proportion of our college graduates as we have done in the past, but use them more effectively and supplement their services in ways such as I have suggested, we should be able to supply the teachers needed for the expanding college population of the future.

The third deterrent to expansion is the opposition of college faculties themselves. I suspect that most faculty members look upon the increased demand for a college education as the millenium they have always hoped for. Now is the time to "raise standards" by holding the line on enrollments, or giving only a little; to get rid of "the large number of young people who are in college and shouldn't be," to quote Professor Douglas Bush of Harvard; to eliminate those who have "low aptitudes, little determination, and less industry, who merely want to grow older while they acquire the social veneer provided by four (or somewhat fewer) years amid pleasant quasi-intellectual surroundings," as Dean Simeon Leland of Northwestern recently put it.

These views are typical; college professors have always held them. And believing them to be true, they see in the large numbers of students wanting to go to college the golden opportunity to mold the college closer to their hearts' desire. Temporarily, they may block normal expansion, but in the end college education will be available "to all who are willing and able to take advantage of the opportunity." This is the American tradition. Opportunities will be expanded to meet the new demands. Actually, if we succeed in getting nearly all the top quarter of our young people to college, the proportion of students from the lower three-quarters will be little different in the future from what it is at present.

Three years ago, then-President Con-ant suggested that we try to meet the increasing demand for higher education largely through local two-year terminal colleges. He urged that we try to make such a college course fashionable, to this end awarding a bachelor's degree of general studies (a proposal President Hutch-ins had made much earlier). The more able youth only—those who are potential professional men and women—would go to four-year colleges and universities, which should not be expanded in number or in size. All four-year colleges should be transformed into institutions of high academic standards, from which graduates would go on to professional or graduate training after two, three, or four years, depending upon the ability and drive of the individual.

Dr. Conant's proposal was an attempt to solve one of the most critical problems that faces higher education: how to provide general education for all future citizens and at the same time offer the maximum opportunity for the development of our more gifted youth.

The solution proposed is essentially Jeffersonian, written in terms of the new conditions of our time. It suggests a two-track system of higher education, such as is common in Europe. I do not agree with the proposal in principle, nor do I believe the American people will accept it.

There can be little question, however, of the soundness of Dr. Conant's advocacy of more two-year institutions at the local level. In meeting the vastly increased demand for a college education, such local institutions will play a big part.

There will be many new ones established—most, but not all, tax supported. They will not, however, be exclusively terminal institutions. One of the changes that may be necessary because of the increasing enrollments is the elimination of lower divisions in state universities, except, perhaps, for local students. There is a limit to the size of any one institution in one location; some state institutions are already past their optimum size. This suggests more branch campuses, more junior colleges, feeding into the upper divisions of such institutions.

This brings me to the final aspect of the quantitative problem of expanding enrollments: the role of the individual institution. The fact that total college enrollments will at least triple in the next two decades does not mean that each college and university must triple its present size. The answer that each institution gives to the problem of its own ultimate size does not, incidentally, turn upon its basis of organization. The task of meeting the increased enrollments is one for all of higher education, both tax supported and privately maintained. Undoubtedly much the larger share will fall to tax-supported institutions. Most of the new institutions will be, in this sense, public institutions. But many of the great urban institutions are privately supported, and with their tradition and commitment to serving their communities they will also absorb substantial numbers of the new students. It is significant that recently the heads of four major privately supported universities have spoken in favor of expanded enrollments in private institutions—Heald of NYU, Kirk of Columbia, Pusey of Harvard, and De Kiewit of Rochester. On the other hand, President Dodds and President Griswold have indicated that Princeton and Yale will not expand—or will expand only slightly. President Griswold told his alumni last winter that Yale "did not intend to compromise its educational standards simply to accommodate more students." This might be a motto for every institution in the coming decade. But enlarging a student body does not necessarily mean a "deteriorating educational performance," as President Dodds has implied. Yale's 7500 students make it a tremendous educational institution compared to Wesleyan or Haverford. Yale doubled its enrollment in a generation without compromising its educational product. With additional faculty, facilities, and finances it might do so again. There is not a necessary correlation between size and quality. No one I know of has yet determined the ideal size for a liberal arts college or university.

Each institution must, therefore, determine upon the limits it will place on its expansion. Some will do well not to expand at all, although I suspect that the pressures will be so great that even those liberal arts colleges most determined to remain at their present size will expand somewhat. The pressure, for example, of their own alumni, growing in numbers and with more children per family than a generation ago, will present a problem particularly difficult to cope with. In any case, with able educational leadership—and we need more than we are getting at present—the difficult problems of expanding enrollments will be met and met effectively. To do this, cooperation in state-wide and regional planning will be necessary.

There remains to be considered the most important question of all—what kind of educational opportunities shall the colleges and universities provide.

This brings me to the age-old problem of the objectives of education and the nature of the curriculum. The President's Commission on Higher Education stated nearly ten years ago that American higher education needed to be better aware of its aims. This is still true; there is more confusion today about the purposes of higher education. One of the troubles, it seems to me, is the practice of each person's defining the aims of education in terms of his own institution or predilections, as if American higher education should follow a uniform pattern. The diversity of American higher education is one of its great strengths and must be preserved. The wrangling over objectives only results in divisiveness, and this is to be avoided, especially as colleges and universities face the critical years ahead.

The conflict over objectives arises largely from attacks upon present trends in the curriculum by exponents of the liberal arts tradition. Hutchins' lament is typical when he charges that there is a "collapse of liberal education in the United States" in the face of "an infinite, incoherent proliferation of courses, largely vocational in aim." Such attacks on the current curriculum spring partly from a failure to appreciate fully the needs of a highly technological and complex society, partly from a failure to understand the history of higher education and the nature of the liberal arts. Those who see the issues more clearly must agree that both liberal and professional education are needed. The major dilemma of higher education in our time is how the colleges and universities can provide graduates prepared for the thousands of specialized tasks which must be carried on in our technological civilization and at the same time also prepared for the demanding responsibilities of intelligent and informed citizenship in our democratic society.

The way out of the dilemma is to recognize that higher education for any individual or for any institution is not an either-or proposition. The student must find the relationship between liberal and specialized education in terms of his interest, aptitudes, and the amount of time and money he can devote to his education; the institution must seek it in the terms of its charter, its objectives, the level of its program, and, perhaps, the nature of its competition. But two guiding generalizations can be made. Each student should strive to get the maximum amount of liberal arts content in his program consistent with the demands of his choice of profession. Each institution should try to insure that all its teaching, both in traditional liberal arts subjects and in more purely vocational courses, is infused with the liberal spirit.

I suggest, however, that we know too little about either the processes of learning or the nature of a liberal education to be very certain of the answers to the problem of objectives or the specific nature of the curriculum. It will be readily admitted that the world stands deeply in need of "widely diffused wisdom and reliability in society," as President Pusey puts it. But I submit that we have been searching since the time of Socrates for the ways to teach wisdom and to develop character.

No one, not even the liberal arts people, has discovered and patented such a formula. We can recognize a liberally educated person by his habits of mind, his breadth of interests, and his enlargement of spirit. I am not sure of the extent to which we can attribute these characteristics to the person's college education. We must, I suppose, take it on faith that a good college education does contribute to their development.

I would maintain, however, that a liberal education cannot be obtained in a four-year course of collegiate studies, no matter how effective. A liberal education is really the achievement of a lifetime. There is a challenge to colleges and universities, therefore, to assist adults, both college graduates and non-graduates, through providing opportunities for continuing education. There is need, of course, for adult education activities of both a liberal and a specialized nature.

At a time when higher education is facing unprecedented numbers of full-time students, it must also prepare for expanded programs of adult education. The demand for adult education will increase greatly in the years ahead. The longer life span, the increased amount of leisure, the rapid technological changes, and the growing complexities of responsible citizenship in the modern world—these factors all point toward a far greater need for adult education than colleges and universities have ever known. Not to respond fully to such need will be to fail in their responsibilities for leadership in the free world.

What do the challenges facing higher education mean for the preparation of educational leaders in a free world? I suggest just two implications. First, because of the difficult problems higher education faces in the years ahead, persons preparing to be college teachers or administrators should be made familiar with these problems and their historical and philosophical backgrounds. Through a course in the problems of higher education, through independent reading, or through some other method, those preparing to be the educational leaders of the future must know more about the whole nature of higher education than prospective college teachers and administrators have known in the past.

The second implication is that college administration has become such a complex responsibility that specialized preparation for its exercise seems increasingly desirable. I would observe, however, that every college administrator should have some classroom experience. It would be a mistake if, in getting more professional preparation into college administration, a class of administrators developed without benefit of teaching. Institutions like Teachers College, through their graduate programs in college administration have a remarkable opportunity to prepare younger college administrators for the difficult days ahead.

The problems facing higher education now are more difficult than those of the past. But they are not so difficult but that inspired cooperation, thoughtful planning, and our best efforts can solve them.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 57 Number 6, 1956, p. 360-370
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4606, Date Accessed: 5/26/2022 7:05:36 AM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue