(2 of 2)
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?