When Congress opens its next session it will have before it the president's bill on Universal Military Training as a long-range solution to this country's manpower problem. But this plan will probably not go through, since it cannot provide what the military now considers the minimum number of men necessary to the services. Congress will have to find another plan.

And the nation's educators as well as its generals are now arguing over what that plan should be. Basically the debate is one between proponents of programs providing deferments for some men, and those who firmly believe that all men should be drafted together, that no one should be allowed to postpone or avoid service. Two plans have so far emerged as successors to U.M.T.

On October 5, the six Scientific Advisory Committees, appointed by Major General Lewis B. Hershey to work with Selective Service, made their report. Since December, 1948, they had been considering recommendations made by General Hershey relating to a long-range manpower program. "With certain minor modifications," the Committee said, "we have unanimously reaffirmed these recommendations."

The plan involved in this report is generally referred to as the "Trytten plan," for the chairman of the Committee, M. H. Trytten.

Later this fall, a group of educators met in New York. They discussed, among other things, memoranda written by President Conant concerning the draft. Worried by the international situation and about certain aspects of the Hershey-Trytten proposals, Conant backed a plan for Universal Military Service, and the educators decided to put the proposal forward under his name. At the request of Gardner Cowles '25, editor of Look Magazine, Conant agreed to explain his position in the issue of Look which will appear December 5. President Charles Cole of Amherst will write for the opposition.

The Trytten Plan

While there are other proposals on deferment policy, none differs much in principle from the Trytten report. As originally released on October 5, it called for test of all men, probably something like the present Army Classification examination. Those receiving a score over 120 would be eligible for deferment if they were going to enter or were in college. At the end of the first year in college all men below the top 50 percent of their class would be subject to draft. In third year the student would have to stay in the top 33rd percentile; the senior must maintain a record above the 25th percentile to avoid service.

Recently, the CRIMSON has learned, there have been modifications made in this plan which will soon be announced. The Committees have recommended that a man deferred for college be made liable one year beyond the regular age limit for every year he spends in school after deferment, and that such men not be eligible for deferment on grounds of dependency. Thus, a man deferred for a four year college course would, under the present age limit rule, be subject to drafting until he reached 30, and could not avoid service by marrying.

The amended plan may actually persuade many men to take their service before college to avoid the trouble the new regulations entail. By writing in the amendments, the Committee hopes to end the objection that there will be discrimination in favor of the man with good education and background, men who can pass the test with a high score.

The Hershey Committees also considered and rejected two other proposals on the draft of college students. The first of these would have inducted no college students; the Committee termed it "unrealistic and inflexible, and therefore, impractical."

Another deferment proposal was recently put out by a committee of the American Council on Education which asked for a national test, but one with a lower "cutting" score, (110 as opposed to 120.) It also asked that men be taken on the basis of nationally determined state quotas.

Opposed completely to this, President Conant has recommended Universal Military Service. He has asked that all men be drafted at the age of 18, and spend two years in the Armed Services. There would be no deferments; even 4-F's would have to serve in some capacity. This program would take effect after all draftable 16 to 26 year olds had been taken into service.

Drop Universal Training

This plan differs from Universal Military Training, the Administration's program now being discussed in Congress, in several ways. First, U.M.T. would not be controlled by the Military alone; there would be civilians in its administration, and training would not be the same as that in the usual basic training course. After completing a basic U.M.T. course, men would go into the Army.

According to reports received by the CRIMSON, the Administration will drop U.M.T. in favor of either U.M.S. or a deferments plan like that proposed by Trytten. Both the Army and many Congressmen feel that U.M.T. will not get men for the Army fast enough, and is cumbersome in administration.