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. Condi- 
tions 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 journal- 
ism, or school of business is no longer actuated solely by the Philan 
thropie 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 esti- 
mated. 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 learn 
ing 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 num- 
ber 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