Today "the age that is waiting before" presses harder than ever on the crust of conservatism that has always surrounded Harvard with tradition. For several years college administrators throughout the country have been looking with alarm at the problems facing them in the next decade, when the now legendary deluge of "war babies" will flood admissions offices with applications for college entrance.

The national population at college age now stands at about eight and a half million; in 1970, according to present estimates, it will be over 13.6 million. And of those 13.6 million, 4.6 million will be enrolled in college, a rise of 130 per cent over this year's total.

To increase national college facilities by more than double is undoubtedly the greatest challenge facing the country's educations today. Harvard has made its response in the "Program for Harvard College," the $82.5 million fund drive aimed at widespread improvement of the Harvard undergraduate school. In conjunction with this Program, President Pusey announced early this year that the College would expand 15 to 20 per cent during the next ten years.

This decision was not unexpected but neither was it unanimously approved. There are several ways of meeting rising applications, and several of them do not involve the expansion of colleges like Harvard. One solution is the decentralization of education--the formation of new colleges, perhaps as offshoots of already existing institutions.

Harvard, many claim, can fulfill its educational responsibility to the nation by creating a branch college outside of Cambridge. This, they say, would avoid overcrowding the University's already expanding facilities in Cambridge, and at the same time bring the benefits of a Harvard education to a larger part of the country. Talk of such a project was circulating among administration and faculty members of on a very tentative basis this fall.

Branch College Unlikely

There is little doubt that new colleges will have to be founded; clearly not all American institutions of higher education can suddenly decree a 130 per cent expansion program in order to meet the demands of increased population. But there seems little chance of Harvard's entering such a branch college operation at this time.

Another recourse would be the creation of a great many more junior colleges than now exist. President emeritus Conant has advocated this plan, claiming that a considerable number of the people that now go to college are interested in nothing more than be gotten out of a two year course. Furthermore, about half of the nation's college students, he maintains, drop out after two years of study.

Finally, there is the possibility of expanding present colleges. For state colleges this will be a necessity; they will be forced to do so by the state legislatures on which they depend for financial support. For private institutions like Harvard, there is a choice--a choice based not primarily on money but on educational ideals, which makes it all the more difficult to decide.

The people who favor Harvard's expansion center their case around a single argument: in a national educational crisis such as that presented by the imminent surge of college applicants, Harvard, as one of the country's leading private universities, cannot stand aside and simply let the other institutions cope with the problem. Harvard has a duty to make some contribution towards the national effort.

The first two solutions to the problem--the founding of new colleges or of junior colleges--are unfortunately inadequate, the expansionists claim. It would be impossible to start a college today and staff it with anything approaching the quality of faculty that Harvard now possesses. Harvard can offer a much better education than can any newborn college. Nor does an increase in junior colleges solve the problem; it is a four-year college degree that today's young men are seeking, whether or not they are interested in the course of study.

The only solution left is the expansion of existing colleges, and, the argument runs, if Harvard is to keep her place as an educational leader, this means the expansion of Harvard. Of course this could be only a token expansion. To increase Harvard's enrollment by 130 per cent is a move that has never been seriously considered. But the 20 per cent expansion predicted by President Pusey would be enough to demonstrate Harvard's willingness to carry a share of the national burden. As Pusey said in announcing the move, "The leader must make a concession."

There is a second reason for expansion, totally unrelated to any idealistic duty, which Dean Bundy hastens to point out to anyone who may consider expansion a radical or extraordinary proposition. The college, he says, has a natural tendency to grow in harmony with the constant growth in human knowledge. College faculties are continually expanding to incorporate new fields of study, and a rise in student enrollment to meet this expansion is only natural. Such a process of gradual growth has been going on at Harvard for some time and will undoubtedly proceed for many years to come.

The anti-expansion faction answers with the claim that Harvard will have to sacrifice quality if it is to increase quantity. The University admittedly has a duty to the nation, they say, but that duty is to preserve the high standards of scholarship that it now maintains. Any compromise with the quality of a Harvard education is a disastrous price to pay for an increase in admissions which can cover only a fraction of a per cent of the national total.

President Pusey would be the last to deny the legitimacy of this claim, but he challenges the statement that Harvard must lower its quality in order to expand a moderate amount. This is inded the crucial point of contention between the opposing faction: how would a 20 per cent increase in enrollment affect Harvard and the education it offers?