Despite the haste and absence of controversy surrounding Congress' recent four-year extension of the draft, critics of the bill have wondered why there has been little pressure from college students to change a system that seems, to them, unimaginative, unfair, and somewhat hypocritical. Assuming that students constitute a group most personally interested in draft legislation, the critics wonder whether lack of information, lack of patriotism, or a sense of fatalism has caused the silent acquiescence with which colleges have greeted the extension.

The case for the present system rests on the fact that in 1948, when there was no conscription, manpower was about 600,000 short of actual needs; that the present draft not only adds men directly to the armed forces, but creates a pressure that persuades others to volunteer. Moreover, the concept of "universal service" has worked thus far in practice (nine out of ten men now twenty-six are serving their obligation) and is patriotic in theory.

But, argue its critics, the draft has caused the college man to lose all sense of public duty, the Defense Department is losing a great reservoir of brains because it has too few places to put them, and the undergraduate who does not plan to go to graduate school or become a father becomes, to all intents and purposes, a draft dodger. In the face of an increase in manpower due to population growth, the Defense Department is deferring large groups of men for poor reasons and offering a militarily unrealistic six-month program in the bargain.

One alternative to the present system, offered by the Cordiner Committee, a House subcommittee on manpower needs, proposed to create an all volunteer armed service by increasing incentives in those areas which do not attract many volunteers now. But even assuming the services could support themselves in this manner, it is unlikely that the concept of universal service would have been scrapped. The draft has proven an effective way of putting at least some bright young men in uniform, men who might not volunteer for duty.

Defenders of the draft and of Universal Military Training argue that college youth have an unrealistic conception of manpower needs. The college student thinks that the army, like society, is capable of placing him in a highly specialized role (run a computer, teach a course in electronics, etc.) and if it cannot, it should allow him to serve the country in civilian life.

The conflict appears when military needs force the intelligent man into a job he does not care for. But this intelligence is needed even in non-specialized areas and the army cannot be finicky. Universal Military Training advocates are likely to accuse college students of self-interest and "softness," arguing that military discipline is a valuable experience, even for the intellectual, and a necessary training for all military situations--whether firing a rifle or running a computer. Their proposals come closest to fulfilling the ideal of universal service.

But whether many or few are trained to serve, the House manpower subcommittee figures that only half of today's twenty-two year olds will ever have to serve. Further, as the crop of "war babies" matures, only one-third of a generation will be used militarily. You can draft some of the people for some of your needs, out not all of the people for all of your needs.

Amherst's John Estey, an assistant dean who has written in The Nation on this subject, proposes a third solution, combining the philosophy of universal service with the practical realization that intelligent people can serve in non-military ways. Estey would exempt college students who can find teaching jobs and are willing to serve in them for a period of three years or so. This plan proposes to solve both the educational shortage and manpower surplus problems of the nation, as well as making the individual aware of and at least somewhat enthusiastic about his public duty. It makes the best of a bad situation.

Conceivably, one could extend Estey's ideas into areas of social service, medical experimentation--those varieties of public service which conscientious objectors now fulfill under the label "alternative service." Our present concepts of manpower, when one considers the possible use of men now deferred, seem most unimaginative.

The draft has been extended in its present form, nonetheless. Whether or not ideas of manpower will change in the next four years remains to be seen.