Search

The depression of the past few years led colleges and universities to seek new ways in which to assist their financially needy students. In January 1937 the Office of Education requested all colleges and universities to send it descriptions of the projects they had devised. The responses to this request indicated a very cooperative spirit on the part of the institutions, but many of the projects they described did not differ materially from those commonly employed to help needy students. A few of them, however, were of such nature as to merit publication, and from these have been selected some of the largest and most unusual for description in four parts in this bulletin: (1) Money-earning opportunities provided by the college or university identifies projects operated by higher education institutions in factories and college printing presses, various other and special projects, drives to stimulate student employment by local businesses, and student employment at Yale University; (2) Money earning opportunities devised by students that are encouraged and aided by the institutions, such as student agencies that supply services or sell commodities to other students, student-initiated projects such as setting up a beauty parlor through the student government association, and student-operated employment bureaus that reach out to local businesses to identify opportunities; (3) Projects to reduce the cost of student living, including cooperative housing projects devised by state-controlled and privately-controlled institutions, cooperative dining clubs, cooperative housing projects devised by students, and other means to reduce the cost of student living provided by the institutions; and (4) Self-help colleges that aim to be as nearly self-sustaining as possible, with descriptions of the labor programs at ten of these institutions. The conclusion contrasts current activities with the practices of earlier years, highlights recent changes at the institutional and Federal levels, and discusses the educational significance of work projects and of cooperative living arrangements for college students. (Contains 1 footnote.) [Best copy available has been provided.]

It is the purpose of this study to analyze some of the phases of accreditation of higher educational institutions, especially from the viewpoint of the responsibilities of the States. An account of the historical development of accreditation by State, regional, and Nation-wide agencies will be given. The existing practices of agencies within States accrediting teacher education and general, collegiate institutions will be described for a selected list of 30 States. In addition, there will be presented an appraisal of the issues and problems involved in the accreditation movement. Selection of the States in which the existing accrediting practices are described was made with the specific objective of showing representative variations of State accreditation. A certain number of States were selected from each of the geographical sections of the country so as to present a picture for the Nation as a whole. Among the States were those with large populations and with small populations. Furthermore the selection included States having many higher educational institutions under either public or private control and States having only a few institutions. More than 75 percent of all the institutions in the country are located in the States comprising the study. Of necessity only brief treatment has been given in the study to the relationship of State accreditation to other State regulatory or supervisory functions over higher education. Among the latter is State regulation or supervision of the chartering and establishing of new institutions, the granting of degrees or diplomas by institutions, the certification of public-school teachers, the licensing of professional practitioners, and similar activities. Accreditation also has relationships to collegiate admission practices, graduation requirements, and other phases of the internal administration of higher educational institutions. It has been possible to treat such relationships only a limited way. Individual sections contain footnotes. (Contains 11 tables.) [Best copy available has been provided.]

Education in the United States has developed from two opposite starting points. Colleges were organized to train leaders, particularly for churches and the courts. They needed schools to prepare their prospective students, and so a system of academics grew up dominated largely by colleges. Widespread public elementary schools, however, developed for a quite different purpose. The people needed education for their own personal satisfaction and for the requirements of citizenship. These schools were soon supplemented by high schools. States established State universities. Thus there came to be the unbroken chain of public education from the kindergarten through the university. Liberal arts colleges, while originating in the former movement are a very important link also in the public education chain. They are affected, therefore, by the present tendency of communities to extend the period of secondary education upward to include the thirteenth and fourteenth grades. They are also affected by the increasing distinctness with which the two functions of the college, namely, general education and specialization, are being identified, respectively, with the first 2 years and last 2 years of the curriculum. Because of the influence of these trends upon the continuity of attendance of students in the liberal arts college, it has seemed important to study, for colleges of different types, such questions as: How many years do students remain in a given liberal arts college? How many transfer from one college to another? How many drop out from year to year? It is believed that this bulletin, which has resulted from such a study, will prove helpful to those interested in the liberal arts college. A copy of the questionnaire used in this study is appended, and a bibliography is included. (Contains 9 tables.) [Best copy available has been provided.]

The Federal student aid program is the first instance in American history in which the National Government has assisted needy youth to work their way through college. Inaugurated by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (F.E.R.A.) the plan provides financial aid to qualified young men and women who lack sufficient funds to attend college. The students are required to perform actual work on a part-time basis in return for the money paid to them by the Government. The primary aim of the program is to keep up the supply of trained persons through the depression period, and to prevent these young people from suffering too heavily from idleness and deprivations. An important feature of the program was that the responsibility for its administration was vested in the individual colleges and universities through the county with a minimum of supervision from the relief authorities at the National and State capitals. Monthly allotments were made to them by F.E.R.A. The institutions were responsible for selecting the students to receive Federal aid, arranging for their part-time employment on and off the campus, assigning them suitable jobs, supervising their work, and other phases of the undertaking. All tax-exempt institutions of collegiate or university grade are entitled to participate in the program. Accordingly, a wide variety of colleges and universities are receiving Federal funds for student aid. As a result of this situation, the administration of the program is a different problem in each institution. The present study is intended to provide an analysis of the individual institutions taking part in the program and to give an account of the procedures adopted by them for its operation. The particular questions considered are: (1) Institutions participating in the program; (2) Form of organization to administer the program; (3) Assurance of need of students receiving aid; (4) Use of Federal money by students; (5) Special provisions for students to live cheaply; (6) Cost of living for students; (7) Administrative plans to provide part-time work for students; (8) Supervision of part-time work of students; (9) Intellectual ability and scholastic achievement of F.E.R.A. students; (10) Evaluation of program by individual institutions; and (11) Criticisms and suggestions for changes in the program. A copy of the Federal regulations governing the Federal student aid program is appended. (Contains 15 tables and 4 footnotes.) [Best copy available has been provided.]

The Higher Education Division of the United States Office of Education is making a series of studies on the subject of the relation of the State to higher education. The first of these studies completed "The State and Higher Education, Some Phases of Their Relationship." The second study is entitled "Supervision Exercised by States over Privately Controlled Institutions of Higher Education." The third is the present study entitled "Privately Controlled Higher Education in the United States." The Office's interest in this series of studies arises from the fact that in most of the States a dual system of control of higher education prevails. Side by side are found institution A, controlled and largely supported from public taxation, and institution B, controlled by a church or a private corporation and supported largely by student fees. Any earlier distinction between the two institutions on the basis of curricula and methods of teaching is tending to disappear. Questions of tax support and of student fees are being raised by increasing numbers of people. States find it difficult to build up a unified system of higher education. There is increasing agitation for the more critical study of the problem. To make available data bearing upon the many questions involved in this dual control is the object of these studies. This bulletin contains the following chapters: (1) The church and early educational development; (2) The church and state in the control of the colonial colleges; (3) Current status of higher education under Protestant auspices; (4) Education under the Roman Catholic Church; and (5) Higher education under private auspices. (Contains 13 tables. Individual chapters contain footnotes.) [Best copy available has been provided.]

The land-grant colleges and universities in the United States are the result of a partnership of the States and the Federal Government. They represent an effort to provide a type of higher education within the reach of, and adapted to the needs of, the agricultural and industrial people of this country. They have played a very important part in democratizing the value both to the individual and to society of a type of higher education which is of high quality, yet practical. In organization, the land-grant colleges and universities exemplify better than most other institutions the most effective relationship among research, campus instruction, and adult education. Each land-grant college or university maintains an agricultural experiment station to aid in solving the problems arising on the farms. It enriches its campus instruction in agriculture with the results of its research. It maintains an extension or adult education service to carry out to farmers and their families the latest information. This is a truly effective set-up which is reflected in the remarkable agricultural development which has occurred in the last 60 years in the United States. The Federal Security Agency through the Office of Education administers the Federal funds for campus instruction. This bulletin is one of the series issued periodically to make available texts of the laws and rulings under which the Agency operates. Section I of this document provides a definition of land-grant colleges and universities, along with background material on their origin. Section II is concerned with the procedures for administering the Federal funds for instruction in land-grant colleges and universities. Section III presents Federal laws and rulings related to Federal funds for instruction for land-grant colleges and universities. A bibliography and a list of land-grant colleges and universities (as of 1951) are included. (Contains 4 footnotes.) [Best copy available has been provided.]