Their  Relation  to  Higher  Educational  Finance

47

Our  Colleges  and  universities  have  now  multiplied  their  courses  and
in  many  cases  the  training  received  enables  the  recipient  to  command  a
higher  salary  as  well  as  to  render  a  greater  Service  to  the  public.  Conditions
  have  altered  without  shifting  the  point  of  view  of  many  who  are
responsible  for  the  financial  policies  of  education.  A  large  proportion
of  the  public  does  not  as  yet  see  the  changed  purpose  of  a  higher  education.
The  young  man  who  enters  a  law  school,  medical  school,  school  of  journalism,
  or  school  of  business  is  no  longer  actuated  solely  by  the  Philanthropie ­
  motive,  but  hopes  to  make  more  money  and  thus  to  “cash  in”  on
his  investment  in  his  education.  Those  who  hold  the  view  that  society
collectively  owes  the  coming  generations  a  higher  education  at  a  nominal
cost  are  evidently  not  aware  of  the  changed  circumstances.  They  argue
that  no  cash  value  can  be  placed  on  an  education  since  it  is  a  legacy  which
we  have  received  from  our  ancestors,  the  value  of  which  cannot  be  estimated.
  They  further  hold  that  since  we  have  received  such  a  legacy,  we
in  turn  should  pass  on  a  like  one  to  posterity.  The  trouble  here  lies  in
viewing  higher  education  as  a  whole  rather  than  examining  it  in  the  light
of  the  various  purposes  for  which  it  exists.  They  do  not  recognize  the
three  major  purposes  of  all  Colleges  and  universities.  No  institution,
faculty  of  learning  or  individual  course  has  only  one  aim  or  purpose,  but
rather  combines  all  or  part  of  them  in  varying  ratios  depending  upon  the
type  of  information  expounded.  Only  in  proportion  as  a  brauch  of  learning ­
  serves  each  purpose  does  the  present  generation  owe  this  education  to
posterity.  It  should  be  recognized  that  certain  forms  of  training  and
varying  proportions  of  other  training  are  of  primary  importance  to  society
and  that  society  should  pay  for  them.  There  is  a  failure  to  allocate  costs
in  proportion  to  benefits.  Higher  education  is  available  for  a  large  number
  of  people  with  a  variety  of  aims.  Those  who  seek  it  are  increasing
in  number  more  rapidly  than  are  the  financial  resources  of  Colleges  and
universities.  The  philanthropic  sources  are  far  from  sufficient  to  keep
pace  with  the  new  demands,  so  that  public  institutions  must  be  supported
by  taxation.  Under  this  view  the  tax  bürden  for  higher  education  will
constantly  have  to  be  increased  or  higher  education  will  go  bankrupt,
unless  endowments  can  be  raised  to  talce  care  of  the  surplus  students.
It  is  obviously  unfair  that  the  poorer  classes,  which  are  only  remotely
benefited  by  some  branches  of  higher  education,  should  bear  the  bürden
of  its  support.  If  these  institutions  can  show  that  they  are  serving  all
persons,  the  present  state  of  affairs  must  not  be  disturbed.  But  few
of  them  are  able  to  do  this  and  so  the  view  under  discussion  is  constantly
being  abandoned  by  the  more  progressive  elements  which  are  striving
to  adopt  policies  that  will  allocate  cost  in  proportion  to  benefit.  It  is  not
equitable  that  the  young  man  be  educated  at  the  expense  of  those  to  whom