The question of how Harvard is to face the problems of a vastly increased demand for higher education in the coming decades is one of increasing interest and concern. The following is the first of two statements, received by the CRIMSON from members of the Faculty, discussing the problem. This statement, reprinted in its entirety, was written by Seymour E. Harris '20, Chairman of the Department of Economics; the second, to appear tomorrow, is that of Wilbur J. Bender '27, Director of Admissions.
Professor Harris prefaces his statement as follows: "I am very glad to write a note on the problem of future enrollments at Harvard. What I write is, of course, a purely personal opinion; but I believe at this time it is helpful to throw all views into the discussion hopper." The statement follows:
The Rise of Enrollments. The problem arises, of course, because of the expected increase in the numbers of college age. All kinds of estimates are available of what future enrollment is likely to be. We do not know precisely. We know we have reached the minimum figure of numbers of college age. We know with some precision how many there will be of college age in the next 15 years. We do not know what percentage of those of college age will go to college, though we can make some incautious guesses on the basis of past experience. Suc8h factors as changing attitudes towards higher education, the pressure of numbers on the average income of a college graduate, the success with which we stimulate the 40 per cent of the able who do not graduate college to do so, the facilities made available by the colleges, the economic situation, the tax burden and its distribution, the cost of a college education--all of these and many others will affect the results.
But for purposes of argument, I assume a rise of enrollment of 100 per cent in the next 15 years, the rise to be gradual from 1954-55. This is a reasonably good, informed guess. The Ford Foundation, in a careful study, puts the enrollment by 1970 within the limits of 5-7 million as against the current level of 2 1/2 million. That means a rise of 100-180 per cent. I believe the 180 per cent figure to be a most unlikely one.
It is clear there will be pressure on the Ivy Colleges and on others. What is the appropriate policy for Harvard to pursue? Here are some relevant considerations.
Harvard in History. Harvard's influence and contribution will depend to some extent upon its contribution to the total of college graduates. In the 17th Century, beginning in 1642, Harvard's contribution was 100 per cent; Yale did not compete until 1702 and Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Princeton until the middle of the 18th Century; and the first of the great state universities until the middle of the 19th Century. But by 1870 the percentage of Harvard undergraduates to all students in American colleges had been reduced to 11.5 per cent; by 1910 to 6.4 per cent; and by 1955 to 2.2 per cent. In this sense, as might be expected, Harvard's influence has been declining. Should enrollment double and Harvard not increase its numbers, then the result would be a Harvard ratio of 1.1 per cent.
But I hasten to add that Harvard's total graduates in the 17th Century were 437; in the 18th Century, 3,084; and in the 19th Century, 10,886. (These figures include professional education.) In one year we now graduate as many as in the whole 18th Century and in a few years as many as in the 19th. Indeed, we advance even on a quantitative basis.
Numbers and Alumni Pressures. Influence is measured by numbers and in this sense Harvard would lose, should it not yield to the pressure of the "rising tide." This pressure would be increased by the alumni of the college, inclusive of Radcliffe (and possibly of other branches of the University), who might find their children excluded. In the open competition, children of alumni are often excluded. But the pressure will be greater in later years and this for various reasons. The current enrollment is about 40 per cent in excess of that of 25-30 years ago--it may be assumed that the graduates of 25-30 years ago now have children of college age. But it is assumed at this point that enrollment will not rise in the future. Hence the advantage of a rising Harvard enrollment will be available in the years to come, as it has been to alumni parents up to now; and there will be more outcries from alumni. This problem would become more serious by 1970, for present enrollment exceeds pre-war by less than 25 per cent.
In this connection, it is worth taking a look at recent history. Harvard has tended to increase its enrollment much less than the nation. The percentage decline related above for the longer span is relevant. But note the following: Note: These figures are subject to some reservations. They do not take into account the large increase in the contribution of graduate education by Harvard. But a comparison of all IHL and Harvard College enrollment is influenced relatively little by excluding graduate students from all IHL. (About 10 per cent of all students are graduate students.) Quantity vs. Quality. Why the "restrictionist" policy at Harvard? Surely one reason, and an important one, is the emphasis on quality. In this connection, the following observation is of some interest. In the thirties is used to be said that Harvard had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to admit a normal size class. Now we hear that we have several times as many good applicants as we can admit. How can we explain this? I am sure that the improvement is much greater than can be explained by the rise in numbers seeking entry to institutions of higher learning (about two-thirds since pre-war). I am indeed aware that Harvard's lag in the acceptance of students vis-a-vis the national rise is an important consideration. Any policy of the future must take account of the possibilities of improving quality through absorbing a smaller percentage of additional recruits than the nation. (It has been shown, incidentally, that despite a doubling of college enrollment in recent years the average I.Q. has not fallen). Part of the improvement must be associated with the enlightened admission and scholarship policies carried out by the Conant-Buck and the Pusey-Bundy regimes. Messrs. Bender and Monro and their staffs deserve much credit for their administration of faculty policy. The reader may by now guess that I am moving in the general direction of a restrictionist program. Rumors of a rise of tuition have been circulating. It is clear that tuition rises in the last 25 years have been substantially below the gain in real income per capita. But a rise in tuition may result in a decline of quality if not accompanied by restrictions of entry. A Limited Rise in Harvard College. For this reason and for one more important reason, I would urge the University not to increase enrollment in Harvard College by a substantial percentage. It will be recalled that there were rises of 65 and 24 per cent of enrollment in 1920-40 and 1940-1954-55. In the former period, the rise was accompanied by a corresponding increase of physical resources. The House System was inaugurated, for example, and Mallinckrodt, Fogg, Littauer, and many other units were added--this meant a great rise in physical resources per student. There were adequate classrooms and lecture rooms. But in the years 1940-55, the expansion of physical resources has not equalled, or nearly equalled, that in enrollment. (Lamont Library and the Science Building were the only substantial additions.) Indeed, there was some excess capacity which now began to be utilized. Now we are confronted with great deficiencies in lecture rooms, Seymour E. Harris more, we are certain that the NAACP, as do most thinking Americans, sympathizes with what Mr. Halberstam calls "the South's problems." But this does not mean that it must acquiesce in, and remain silent about, the South's hesitancy--and in some places (e.g., Mississippi refusal--to do something about its problems. Such would be tantamount to a denial of the very democratic principles upon which this country was founded. There are several other rather one-sided aspects of Mr. Halberstam's article on which we would like to comment. First, we would like to agree with (his) statement that there is a double standard of justice in Mississippi particularly and in the South generally. However, his implication that this double standard of justice operates to the advantage of the Negroes is quite misleading.
