Their Relation to Higher Educational Finänce 
49 
Bibliolh&J 
divided between the recipient of higher education and society. There is 
no unity of thought regarding such division. It brings up not ot'.ly a qufstion, 
of accounting, but one which involves social and financial 
determine how much each should pay, it is necessary to estimate just the 
Proportion of benefit the individual and society receive when the individual 
is given a College education. We find that some believe in drawing a line 
between fixed and operating expenses. Such a division is not necessarily 
in proportion to benefits received. It is not possible to obtain equity in 
this matter with any mathematical precision. A further problem presents 
itself here. There is not only the allocation of costs between society and 
the Student body, but further adjustments must be made within the Student 
body. The ratio will not be the same for society and for the Student in 
different courses. It is evident that the ratio between society and the indi 
vidual will vary depending upon the economic value of the course the 
Student follows. This does not mean that all professions and other en- 
deavors are not necessary to our social organization, but the cash value 
of the education received varies depending on the subjects pursued. 
According to the theory of dual benefit in higher education, the next 
step is to find the ratio of benefit as between society and the individual, 
and also the difference which exists in this ratio in the various schools 
or professions. The latter should be based on the cost to the Institution 
of giving education and the cash value of that education to the recipient. 
The finding of this ratio and the allocation of educational costs accordingly, 
would seem to be the starting point for the readjustment of College and 
university finance under our present social and economic organization. 
The Problem of Cost Allocation 
The views set forth above are illustrative of the cross currents of 
thought that exist among those who direct the financial policies of higher 
education. The reasons for the divergent views are obvious. They are 
due to the failure to take a long ränge view of higher learning and the 
failure to recognize the changing aims, or purposes, which come about due 
to a changing social, political, and economic society. Notice has not been 
taken of the facts that in some fields of learning the political motive, in 
others the cultural, and in many more, the economic predominates; that in 
most fields of learning all three are present in varying degrees and costs 
should be allöcated proportionately. The financial house of higher edu 
cation needs to be constantly remodeled to meet our changing economic 
and social conditions. This readjustment should necessarily Start from 
the ratio of benefits received by the parties concerned. Just how such a 
ratio can be established and costs allöcated accordingly is the next ques- 
tion to be determined.